User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 2010

Talkback nsaa
Nsaa (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply
I have a dispute with Lar lost somewhere in the bowels of WP:AUSC, and I was a bit hesitant to even comment on something he said, but I couldn't resist there. I think he seems to be doing good policing work but I'm still ticked off at him about our dispute.

I've noticed that you've been a constructive voice over at the CRU controversy article, and I also noticed your name popping up on Connecticut articles on my watchlist & I appreciate your contributions. I became more hopeful about the CRU controversy article after I saw admins take an interest in policing that area (when Scjessey attacked me on that page I decided it was the last straw, and I was losing patience with a few other editors there, anyway, so I left). After seeing GoRight's edits recently (I haven't checked today), I decided to hold off on any more involvement with that area. GoRight seems to have made himself the issue rather than the problems with the articles -- totally counterproductive, it just sets everything back. I expect several editors to get blocked and/or topic banned in the next week or two, probably first a couple on the skeptics side and then maybe a couple on the other side, and then -- just maybe -- the discussions might be less difficult. The deeper problem is editors who won't get blocked for simple incivility and simple edit warring because they're sophisticated enough to avoid that but still not interested in anything beyond partisanship. It takes a lot of patience to put up with that, and also some hope that you'll succeed in the end, and I'm not sure I have either. I keep on expecting that doing the work to find the sources, understand the policies and state an argument well will win in the end, and I keep getting outraged when all that is ignored -- not misunderstood, just ignored. I waste a lot of time on Wikipedia, but I'd rather waste it on something I can leave behind. The year-in-poetry pages, local Connecticut stuff and a few other things are good for that.

Working with pictures is more fun. I'm hoping to do a little regional traveling this year and take a lot more. Thanks for the note. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My fear is that some of those trying to improve the article - GoRight, and you, and others will get blocked. Then, attempts to make even reasonable improvements will just get stonewalled. I was hopeful about the involvement of some outside admins, but it isn't going well (as sorry to say GoRight isn't helping his case.)


 * Re CT, I decided to add geocoordinates to a few pages, started with Tanzania, then CT, and a few Switzerland. It's relatively easy to add a few of the places - I haven't yet figure out what to do with regions or rivers, but I'll look for a geocoding project and figure it out.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't care enough about it to stick around if I get angry enough to do something blockable, and I seldom revert more than once anyway. When I choose something to try to achieve in these situations, I try to be a bit modest and pick something that might actually succeed. And I'm at an advantage here because I'm pretty much in the middle, pretty much undecided and flexible about the overall issue. Once a few low-hanging fruit are blocked from the articles, the more sophisticated stonewallers will remain. At that point, some canvassing would work if the issue being debated is interesting enough to attract outsiders. The current admin invovlement might also create some minor pressure on people to be flexible (but I doubt it). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: RfA proposal
Hey, nice to meet you Sphilbrick. In answer to your question, no - the phrase term limit did not and does not mean that an admin serves for a set period of time and then never again. It means that an admin would serve a set number of years and be re-confirmed via the RfA process to continue serving. This would allow the community to confirm that: 1) the admin is doing a great job, 2) that there are problems that need addressing in the future, or 3) that there is sufficient reason that the admin should not be reconfirmed. In the worst case, they would lose the mop and have to re-apply at some future point. On the off-chance that others might have thought the same way you did, I'll post a clarification. Thanks again for writing to let me know. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As am I. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to thank you for taking the time to describe my (albeit minor) edit. I'm sorry that was even brought to the talkpage at all. --Heyitspeter (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Your original edit was the inspiration for the edit I just made. While my edit covered a different point, it arose when looking into why your edit was challenged. Keep up the good work.-- SPhilbrick  T  23:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit hacking incident
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. --TS 14:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Train still on tracks
Thank you for considering the possible derailment and posting to my talk page - good idea. Unfortunately, I am quite strongly in favor of retaining the language that refers to the threats and I will need some convincing. I am not opposed to continued debate on this particular sentence, but not as part of the existing discussion about the other sentence. Perhaps it would be a good idea to begin a new thread (free of the animosity present in the old) immediately after the resolution of the current discussion? One thing at a time - I've learned complex adjustments are virtually impossible to get agreement on. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Coord
Hi - just wondering, why? Privacy concern? Thanks. 7 03:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure I understand your question.


 * I decided to add coordinate information to some pages. I found the pages by looking for the coord missing template. When I could find coordinate, I would replace the template with the coordinates, so it would no longer be identified as a page with missing coordinates.


 * However, when I got to this page, it looks like someone already found and added the coordinates, but they didn’t remove the coord missing template.


 * I don’t really follow your question about privacy, so I’m wondering if you misunderstoodwhat I was trying to do. SPhilbrick  T  18:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

LexisNexis: "Climategate"
How many results does "Climategate" produce before November 2009? The anti-AGW website CLIMATEGATE.COM was established in January of 2008. I'm pretty sure this is not the first occasion sceptics have applied this label. Wikispan (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to your question, I have no idea. May I inquire why you are asking? While I've followed some of the climate pages with interest, I'm drawing a blank as to what I might have said to precipitate your question.-- SPhilbrick  T  19:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "I've noticed a number of reporters starting to use the term "climategate" in a sense far broader than simply the CRU incident." diff Wikispan (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, I remember that post, but didn't connect it to your question.-- SPhilbrick  T  22:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Teaching Writing in the United States
This was meant for you, misposted on my talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the feedback. I'll work on the changes you suggested -encyclopedia writing is new for me! Diana Leddy (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it goes in the section titled "Comments by others about the request concerning Marknutley"
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No big deal. Perhaps you should apply for the mop. --BozMo talk 19:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To AQFK, done. To BozMo, maybe someday, not yet ready today. (Ironically, I visted ANI today, and that didn't encourage me to want the mop.)-- SPhilbrick  T  20:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Bayes
Didn't realize you were a Bayes guy. I have entered into some pretty good discussion with collegues that don't believe you can you use a prior event to help predict a future event within a random process. Arzel (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand why some reject the use of a prior distribution, it sounds so unscientific, and sounds suspiciously like it could be used to generate a predetermined result (and yes, to some extent, it can be abused that way), but there's no getting around it in some situations.-- SPhilbrick  T  22:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You collapsed too much
See my fix here. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 23:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Community de-adminship
You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

NCAA Women of the Year
I happened to check my talk page today, and found your query. The edit immediately preceding my removal of the prior recipients was a test edit; Huggle must have included all the previous edits by the same user in its reversion. So no, I have no objection to your addition; thanks for pointing it out! Gail (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)