User talk:Sphilbrick

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Sphilbrick, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Hi. An IP posted to your userpage the following text: fggfgd. Another user assumed that this was some kind of test, unrelaetd to anything so it seemed as a courtesy to delete it. I hope it caused no problems. Greetings. --Tone 19:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The Robert Conley fix you did looks great

Many thanks, Sphilbrick, on the cleanup on the Robert Conley page. The page looks great.

Thank you for your input

Thank you very much for your input. I was trying to write an Article about a surgery and I needed a link to different types of bone grafts. Thanks again. Your pal - BennyK95 - Talk 20:12, October 7 2009(UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax 02:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

A weird revision

Sphilbrick, I want to draw your attention to this edit [1] which apparently was made by me. The explanation was "(Reverted 1 edit by Sphilbrick identified as vandalism to last revision by Dhatfield. (TW))". I never intended to revert your edit. I honestly don't know what happened. At 5:30 Christmas eve, I was eating dinner with my family. I know I checked the discussion that evening with my iPhone. I don't know if I accidentally clicked on Undo, but I don't even use WP:T. It's either that, or my account has been compromised, but this seems unlikely. Anyway, I never intended to revert your edit or accuse you of vandalism. You have my sincere apologies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, I think you cleared up a mystery for me. I saw Tony note of the omission of a paper; I added it, but I didn't want someone seeing it on my page and wondering why Tony said it was missing, so I tried editing my comment to include the mention - but when I tried to edit, my comment wasn't there. I couldn't figure out why, and didn't think to check the edit history. We had 25 for dinner who were just showing up, so I wasn't able to look into it, and just didn't worry about it. Later , I made my edit, but didn't have time to track down why my post was temporarily missing. Thanks again for explaining, yet another good example why AGF is a good policy:)--SPhilbrickT 15:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy Johnson

I think you were misreading the references at Andy Johnson (basketball). The claim you removed was not being supported by the linked New York Times article, but by a review in the magazine SLAM. It's a print source, but you can probably find a copy of the issue in your local bookstore right now, if you want to check it out for yourself. There's also a site for the book here, which gives you some idea what the author of the book is trying to argue. Zagalejo^^^ 21:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I clicked on wrong link. Sorry. I even reread it twice to see if I missed someone, but missed that I had wrong ref.--SPhilbrickT 21:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

user name

Upon reflection, I would be willing to accept the user name D8.99.D6.59, which according to this, is a section by section conversion of 216.153.214.89 from decimal to hexidecimal. If you think I can have this user name, I will apply for it. Let me know. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback nsaa

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Nsaa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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.--SPhilbrickT 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 ([2]). 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.--SPhilbrickT 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, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --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.SPhilbrickT 18:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider signing this proposal

Hi SPhilbrick, a number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and they are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. I've reviewed their proposal and have decided to lend my support and signed my signature. Can you please review their proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

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.--SPhilbrickT 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.--SPhilbrickT 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.)--SPhilbrickT 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.--SPhilbrickT 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

Economics of global warming

Hello,

I obviously disagree with the recent changes you have made to the article economics of global warming, where you have deleted some of my edits. I have responded to your criticisms of my edit on the article's talk page. Since you might not be in agreement with the arguments that I have made, I have put a "dubious" in-line tag after sentence (3):

(3) Population and economic growth are the most significant drivers of food demand.

In view of your complaint that I had not given a more precise citation for sentence (3), I have put in a reference that takes you directly to the html version of the Fisher et al source:

Fisher, B.S.; et al. (2007). ""3.2.1.6 Land-use change and land-use management." In [book chapter]: "Issues related to mitigation in the long term context." In [book]: "Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz et al. Eds.]"". Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. This version: IPCC website. Retrieved 2010-03-18. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)

In my opinion, this link is unnecessary given the reference that I have already provided in the article. But of course, it does no harm adding in the new reference. Enescot (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the link. Obviously, I view it differently. What might be acceptable sourcing for an academic paper is not, IMO, adequate here. When it is reasonably easy to bring someone right to the document, as opposed to a page where one can find it with a little careful digging, I think we owe it to our readers to make it easy.

As to the style, I find the outline style not in keeping with the style of the encyclopedia. My focus the next three weeks will be on basketball, so I won't much time to discuss until April, but at that time, I'll see if I can get other to weigh in on the style. While you may have added some good material and removed some questionable material, my impression is that the overall article has taken a step backward. I'd like to see the best of both, but I don't want to work on improving the article until there's a broader consensus about style. The article gets very little traffic, so I may have to poke a few of the usual suspects to get them to weigh in. I want to be careful to do it without running afoul of canvassing, and I think an RfC is overkill, so I want to wait until I can put together a plan before proceeding.

You obviously have knowledge and interest in the area, so I hope you will join me in improving the article.--SPhilbrickT 00:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Feedback forum

Thanks for the heads up. Basketball is not my thing, but the shoe will be on the other foot when the World Cup kicks off in the summer (depending on how much coverage it gets on the US networks)! – ukexpat (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand. While I have not become a soccer fan, my boss still plays and is a serious fan. He is worried how he will get his work done once world cup starts. The place where I sit when I am in my office is in the middle of our Latin America unit - during World Cup, the conference rooms (with TVs) get booked and the offices are close to vacant. One of my colleagues is as serious about soccer as I am about basketball and probably will be going.--SPhilbrickT 19:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW thanks for the other comment on my talk page, much appreciated. – ukexpat (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just being selfish. If you were to get disillusioned and stop helping at RFF, I don't think I could keep up :)--SPhilbrickT 19:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

2009–10 Connecticut Huskies women's basketball team

Just wanted to say that you did some outstanding work on this article. Well done Maple Leaf (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not done, but ironically, not able to catchup because I'm out of town - went to Final Four, and now visiting relatives. Will finish some of the loose ends when I get home. You've domne some nice work on many other teams, now just hope that some fans stumble across them and fill them out.--SPhilbrickT 15:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting to go to the Final Four. What a great experience that must have been. No rush on the WNBA draft picks, but if you can do the UConn page, that would be appreciated. Hope you have a great weekend! Maple Leaf (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't quite sure how to fill out the table, but I looked at another one and figured it out, so I got it done. Thanks for the congrats, it has been a fun week.--SPhilbrickT 16:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Stuart G. Bugg and the debating.net ref

Hi,

I am questioning the ref for the debating win, I have been unsure about debating.net for some time and back in Feb 2010 took it to the Reliable sources Noticeboard (see here) unfortunately I did not get much help, only one comment from a non-involved editor which questioned its editorial policy.

I don't think it is appropriate for me to remove the cite during the AfD, but if the result is keep then I would change it back to {{citation Neeeded}} unless you wish to go back to the Reliable sources Noticeboard, in which case would leave it in till a consensus comes back from there.

Ta

Codf1977 (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I added a note to the Stuart G. Bugg talk page - I think it helps clarify the issue, but I'm not saying it ultimately resolves it - if the article survives, we have more to do. Thanks for pointing me to the discussion.--SPhilbrickT 11:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks that's fine, I agree pointless to look now. For the record it was me who tagged it {{citation Neeeded}} Codf1977 (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Lexington Illinois

Yes I have made several very small edits. So so, I spent several hours on extensive edits of several paragraphs, lots of footnotes, etc. However, when I pushed save page rather than appearing as usual. A sign poped up that said something like user unknown , unable to contact site. They are not in any of mu list of edits. I can reconstruct the paragraphs but am afraid they will again vanish. Elkmilok (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

External links within userboxes

I have begun a discussion of the use of external links in userboxes at Wikipedia talk:Userboxes#External links within userboxes. In that discussion I quote your comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LightSpectra/Userboxes/CM, and include a link to your user page purely in order to identify you. I hope you don't object, and further hope that you will contribute to the discussion. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I wasn't entirely happy with the link in that user box, but it occurs to me that there may be valid reasons for external links from a user box, so we shouldn't simply declare that they are forbidden. I think getting community input is the right step.--SPhilbrickT 16:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Finister2.
Message added 15:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 15:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No, not argumentative at all—just plain wrong ;) No prob! ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 15:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Adminship question...

Have you ever considered going through the gauntlet that is RfA? If not, is there a specific reason? I have seen you about, and have generally been impressed with what I've seen!

If you would be interested, let me know - I'd then look in more detail through your contribs and see where we go from there!

If you would not be interested, then just let me know (it would be interesting in that case to see your reasons, but not necessary!)

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Kelly Faris

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Enough is enough

Give me one good reason why I shouldn't grant you rollback. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha, happy to be able to fail that request. I don't seek out vandal fighting (think flagged revisions will be effective) so haven't asked. But I do run into some vandalism in the course of monitoring my watchlist, so sure. (Thanks)--SPhilbrickT 09:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Just as I suspected! Watchlist vandal-fighting is the way to go. Much more relaxing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Ukexpat's talk page.
Message added 17:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ukexpat (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

User:VerballyInsane/TB VerballyInsane 04:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)