User talk:Phillowry

Your recent edit to Grand Canyon
My issue is less about what you applied about the weather, as the park has an interest in how that information is presented to hikers. However, true or not, your comment implies that the park service deliberately provides false and misleading information to the public, and if you want to make that kind of comment it should have a source other than yourself, see WP:OR. I will give you a day to apply a source to your comment that is verifieable (see WP:CITE) or I will revert it again. I am trying to assume good faith here, but I am not seeing how your comment enhances the articles encyclopedic qualities, nor furthers the goal for the article to be accurately informative for others who may not know as much about the canyon as we do.

I am also adding some comments to the article's talk page shortly about this. Again, if you cannot find a proper citation for your information, I will revert it per WP:OR. Notary137 00:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, let me backtrack a little here. Your statement makes a really good point about trip planning.  Although I might use a less accusatory word than 'purport' (my personal preference, as they are trying to be safety conscious).  Otherwise, I have no problem with the addition.  Let me think about it some more, and let you know if I can think of a good word before I edit your statement.  I'll leave my above comment as it is inappropriate for me to remove it, but I no longer support that position.  Notary137 00:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately there comes a point when no authority is greater than one's own observations and experience; these acquire the force of persuasion (hence the posting of my pedigree in the last edit). I suppose a case study would be appropriate.  After my numerous comments to NPS it seems that this is the only thing that might get its attention (I have been ignored).  I am an avalanche observer for NWS/forest service, and we find ourselves often having to restrain the chicken little syndrome to keep everyone out of the mountains.  If we always said it was a red day, for a week no one would go into the mountains, and then they would ignore us--forever.  The professional disconnect between the folks I work for and NPS is staggering.  The backcountry priorities in Grand Canyon are water line maintenance, punching backcountry permits, and wildlife field work.  Since weather in itself is not a focus of study or part of NPS's inherent mission, I do find it to be cavalier about weather, and often wildly off (temps at Phantom 5-7 degrees warmer than NWS obs or model predictions).  I have observed this half a dozen times in the last four years.  So I have no citation except my own credibility and experience.  I should call my brother, a meteorologist for FS and an NAU grad, and see if someone in Flag is looking for a master's thesis.  Or maybe someone in a public admin program somewhere. Cheers.  Phillowry 03:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with that as much as a layman can, certainly regarding administration and policy at Grand Canyon. I have walked a few miles out there over the last two years and it gets easier to apply (or discount) what I see with what I hear from others. My hiking buddies keep telling me that I'm young and idealistic, and maybe I hold onto the image of the ranger-as-hero to further romanticize my canyon exploits (BTW, I'm currently reading The Last Season, about an idealistic NPS ranger who [died accidentally while on patrol] at Kings Canyon N.P.). In my own trip planning I do talk to backcountry rangers the day before I hike in, but I do use my own judgement as well as a wealth of other sources. I realize my own experience, and knowledge which I gain through communicating with fellow hikers more experienced than I am is invaluable and the most accurate sources of information. You are certainly right about the NPS, specifically at Grand Canyon. Priorities seem to be skewed towards the commercial interests in the park, both frontcountry and backcountry, which is why independant sources of information are good. However, as I have seen around here, personal experience and even expertise often does not fly far here. The tidbits I have submitted in articles here does comprise much of what I have learned on trail myself (original research), but I try to identify that which I know and pair it with things that I have read elsewhere. My original revert was such since the wording of the statement implied that the NPS deliberately misleads (scares) hikers, which (if true) would likely never be proven or published except maybe in commentary. If I had not removed it I'm certain that some other editor would have. Your second addition is better, a lot better, for use in an encyclopedic article. I am (now) fairly satisfied regarding it, especially since the line places the emphasis that hikers should be responsible for researching things for themselves prior to heading in to the backcountry. It certainly is an ethos that I have adhered to for years. I'd like to see that the best information possible goes here into Wikipedia, and if that means it is unsourced, then so be it. I count myself as an eventualist, which means I see value in things yet to be finished (e.g. it has potential). It may yet be sourced, or even replaced with something else by some editor more experienced than ourselves. I still enjoy my time out there at the canyon, and venture farther away from the tourist trap of the frontcountry and the corridor with each trip. My first hike at the canyon (or anywhere, for that matter) changed my life, as it showed me there was a lot more of the world to see and gave me a way to make my life better. In short, it was cathartic, purging a lot of fear and regret I had been storing. I respect the rangers and what they do, and envy them in a way since hiking out there is what they get to do for a living. I will still ask them questions, but I am responsible for my own health and safety, which means I look at many other sources of information as well. Notary137 05:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am a new Wikizen, hence the mode of information-sharing (not advocacy) is a bit new to me. I am sorry you have had to be a teething ring, but I do appreciate it.  I am going to attempt a quad in November--I will let you know how it goes (there, I'm out of the closet.  Now I really have to do it). Phillowry 14:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Good luck to you. To quote Muir, "I only went out for a walk and finally concluded to stay out till sundown, for going out, I found, was really going in." Always have fun "going in." Notary137 06:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Runner records discussion
I wanted you to be aware of the discussion going on here on the Grand Canyon talk page. If you have verifiable sources for this information, we'd love to see it. Thanks. TK421 18:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Bear 2005 photo rsz.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)