User talk:Jpat34721

CRU notification

The reference came from RealClimate itself, making it a primary source. If it had come from a secondary source, I would've kept the existing language. I wanted to make sure that it was clear that what we had was only RealClimate's word for something that RealClimate did. Just being overly cautious. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A word to the wise

Please don't take this the wrong way, I do mean this as just a friendly warning. But you need to be careful about editing the CRU article - this edit, for example, is a revert, since you removed the tag. When there's a 1RR limit on an article, it's easy to step over it inadvertently. Guettarda (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked

I've reviewed the situation following a post to the Functionaries mailing list and have determined that I made an error here. Jpat34721 is not a sockpuppet of Scibaby (talk · contribs) and I made a mistake here. I'm really sorry about that. Lifting the block now - Alison ^❤ 07:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add that we're sorry for any inconvenience that the block has caused. Thank you for taking the time to email the mailing list regarding the block. —Dark 08:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Although I do understand how hard it is to identify sock-puppeteers, I think WP needs to work a bit on the process. The rush to judgment in this case was astounding. Jpat34721 (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Civility

Even though you are not Scibaby, you must remain civil. Do not accuse others of rushing to judgement when they were misled by a checkuser. Do not state that others are using a checkusers confirmation that you were Scibaby as an "excuse to reinsert [their] POV." Further, since Guettarda already self reverted here, you certainly owe them an apology. Hipocrite (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

User:CrisO was not mislead by checkuser. He made the accusation against me that caused CU to be run by another admin (see above). The "evidence" he presented was laughably flimsy.

Multiple experienced editors believed it was possible you were a sockpuppet. I am one of them. The amount of time that sockpuppets waste on the Global Warming article is outrageous, and you coming back from a three year hiatus was just too convient. Could you please just come clean about whatever your other accounts were, at this point? Hipocrite (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Un-f'n-believable. You lecture me about civility and then come here and make another false accusation against me? For the record, I have had exactly one account on WP, and you are way out of line to suggest otherwise. Jpat34721 (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to be assured of that, Hipocrite's question was badly phrased and should not have read like an accusation. Trust all round will cooperate in future. . . dave souza, talk 17:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the ratio of sockpuppetry on Global Warming articles is directly related to the fanantical approach that AGW proponents have towards blocking any opposing views. Sockpuppets are the result of an underlying problem, not the cause of existing problems. Arzel (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This comment attacks other editors, and fails to assume good faith as required by policy. I suggest that you take no notice of it. Thanks, dave souza, talk 17:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, as a survivor of the SciBaby hysteria myself, I feel your pain. A number of people have complained about the ease with which people are accused and checkusered as SciBaby sock or meat puppets. You may want to be aware of a page that is being started to capture the stories of those who have been impacted by this effort here. If you are so inclined you might want to contact the author of that article and share your story. --GoRight (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hypocrite, you are out of line. Checkuser has confirmed that Jpat is not Scibaby, continued accusations to the contrary is not at all helpful. I suggest you take a deep breath and come back with an apology. The lack of good faith is astounding. —Dark 23:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I can also state here that Jpat34721 isn't socking at all right now, Scibaby or otherwise - Alison ^❤ 23:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement request

Given that you have continued to edit after the above notifications, I have requested enforcement against you at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Request_concerning_Jpat34721. Hipocrite (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the fact that I took your advice and self-reverted the edit you claimed was a revert JPatterson (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Except you didn't. Hipocrite (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears that because someone reverted my edit before I saw your comments here, my self-rv didn't show up in the history. JPatterson (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Following Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Request concerning Jpat34721, you are banned from the pages Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident until 2010-02-13. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Revert Question

I have run afoul of rules on reverts (1RR, 3RR) which I can't make hide nor hair of. The only reference I've found is [WP:Revert] which states "Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors.".

To me "undoing the effect" and "reversing the actions" and "restoring to [an older version]" implies a rather large change. In the context of an article on probation though it appears this doesn't apply. In the action that resulted in my banning, it seems to be interpreted as any change to another editors work. Try as I might, I can't figure out where this interpretation comes from. Any help? JPatterson (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:3RR, "[A] revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part" (emphasis added). This includes any case where the reverted portion is substantial enough to be a potential object of editorial controversy (depending on the context). Hth, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I had missed that. It does seem to be in conflict with WP:Revert quoted above. I would suggest that the warning template at the top of the article edit page (which speaks only of 1RR (not 3RR) be linked to the definition you provided. WP:1RR (which I finally found, it's not linked on the template) ironically enough advises users to "See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle." That didn't work out so well for me. :>)

I would like to make these suggestions, do you know what the proper forum would be. Thanks JPatterson (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

For TPWs: discussion at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Proposed Change to the Article Probation Warning. JPatterson - I added the in whole or in part language you suggested to WP:Reverting. I still encourage you to become involved in other areas of the encyclopedia, but this particular discussion is probably a mitigating factor if you should choose to appeal the above article ban. The probation itself is barely older than your return to Wikipedia, so there are probably still some kinks to work out. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I need a WP break anyway- I think I'll sit out for a week before addressing an appeal. Thanks for your efforts here. I think the changes you made will make the restrictions easier to understand for all involved. JPatterson (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I tried out the new process and there's still a problem. On the edit notice we link to Help:Reverting which contains yet another, even more benign definition of revert, and not Wikipedia:Reverting which contains the new language. I suggest we change the link or (add the plain text). Helping edititors to revert is probably not what was intended in this context :>) JPatterson (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Jehocham, I found this from you on WP:AN "It was very clear that Jpat34721 disliked his article-ban, and sought out the "leader" of those he perceived in opposition, and went head hunting.". Can you accept this statement as my offense in a nutshell, in lieu of the statement I asked you for above? If so, I can accept that. As I've stated elsewhere, given the timing my COI action was ill-conceived and gave the appearance of retaliation. I apologize for the disruption my bad judgment has caused. JPatterson (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not necessary for you to apologize or admit any sort of "guilt". We don't have that concept here. I accept your statement and I hope you'll get involved in editing other articles. Editors with relatively few edits are often best to start editing less contentious subjects and learn the ropes so they don't accidentally get into trouble. You've only got a few hours left on the block. Let's let that time pass, and then you can go on your way. The discussion is winding down. Others may ask you (formally or informally) to steer clear of WMC. That's probably a good idea in any event. Best regards, Jehochman ^Brrr 16:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

True 'dat. No hard feelings JPatterson (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jpat, sorry for the slow response. No problem, and thanks for staying cool. Sometimes the tides at Wikipedia sweep up editors like little pebbles... I think that's about what happened here. Best of luck in the future, Mackan79 (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrospective

I want to jot down some thoughts on the hornets nest I seem to have stepped in.

Let me say that I love the idea behind WP. I think what it has accomplished is phenomenal. There is no doubt however, that its image for objectivity has been tarnished of late, especially among the plurality of Americans who self-identify as conservative. I am afraid it won't be long before Wikipedia is seen with the same derision in these circles as Fox now is with progressives. This is not due, as some allege, to some systemic bias. The articles that have reached stability are for the most part virtuous in their objectivity. Rather, in my view, it's mainly due to the poor quality of "in the news" hot-topic articles. Wikipedia is built on consensus and consensus takes time. In the meantime, the work product looks like a cafeteria after a food fight because, well, because that's what it is.

My first contribution to WP was on another raging controversy, the NSA warrantless surveillance food fight. During that experience, I was told by many that I had a knack for writing objective prose. I think I was a positive force in forging consensus there and my efforts helped to get the POV tags removed. Recently my son showed me the Climategate (sorry Hipocrite, your title is too long to remember) article. I was appalled at the one-sided view of the controversy it presented and at the all-out war raging on the talk page. Given my prior experience, I thought I could help. But it now seems that newcomers are viewed with suspicion by the pack around here, especially if they dare venture into controversial topics. I wasn't here more than a few hours before I was accused and then banned as a sockpuppet. After that got cleared up, I was re-accused an hour later, coincidentally I'm sure, by the same user who brought the recent sanction proceedings against me. During the past two weeks, my three year absence and single article focus have been brought up over and over again in various forums to cast aspersions on my motives for participating here. Wow, things have sure changed around here while I was gone. WP:AGF seems to have fallen by the wayside.

The article probation concept, I fear, has only exacerbated the problem. The 1RR rule is death by a thousand cuts, drawn out and painful. While it may tamp down the edit wars and provide a veneer of comity, the war rages on below the surface. Strategy becomes more important than quality. Cabals form, tag teams keep a watchful eye, allies heat up the admin boards with their spirited defenses of cohorts who have fallen into enemy hands (not that I'm complaining on that account). Probation also sets many traps for the newcomer (want to see my scars?) who are probably over-represented in articles that are in the news, and puts many more clubs into the hands of the experienced editors who know the ropes. Besides making for a lousy editing experience, all of this slows down the consensus process and results in an incohesive article cobbled together from "compromises", which in practice simply means each side gets to add equally to the bloat.

What to do? One possibility would be to create a new class of article dealing with "in the news" controversies with an assigned referee. Blasphemy I know. But a referee (think Editor at a newspaper or hardbound encyclopedia), could weigh in with an eye toward objectivity and cohesiveness, mediate disputes, help newcomers avoid the snares, keep an eye out for gatekeeping etc. The referee would move on after google news hits on the subject dropped below a predetermined threshold. Seems like a good idea to me. Anything would be an improvement on the current process. JPatterson (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For the apology which was not necessary, but was nonetheless very welcome. I appreciate editing can get frustrating at times and that the rules on reverts are complicated (which is why I often ask someone else to check them). --BozMo talk 22:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Golly

You mus be one a dem librals, usin' big ol' scahhntific wurds laaahk "fallacy" an' "ergo".  ;-) ATren (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, but I play one on TV :>)JPatterson (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Unbanned from Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Following discussion at User talk:2over0#procedural Question, Jpat34721 is unbanned from Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're treading on very dangerous ground with your latest thread on that talk page. I suggest you reconsider and move on to more productive topics. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Help me understand your objection. There's an on going discussion about the use of Climategate in the lead. The argument has been made that no RS uses the term. I made a post that refutes that argument. Isn't that the way this is supposed to work?? JPatterson (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's already been resolved and a consensus has been obtained. You're trying to reopen a resolved issue. People are not going to take that well, and indeed are already not taking it well. You are only going to end up generating (more) bad feeling against yourself, which I think is very unwise in the current circumstances. Leave the issue alone and move on, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, in my absence I must have missed the place where consensus was reached (could you kindly point me to it?). I only saw the open discussion in the section "Lead sentence" where it seemed like the majority favored using Climategate in the lead. In any case I have no intention of belaboring the point. There's really nothing left to say. JPatterson (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Trenberth

Just noticed your question about the Yale Forum article about Trenberth, it's well written and informative, but don't think it meets the policy requirement. There's a disclaimer that "The views expressed in these articles are those of the individual authors." The piece was written by someone whose profile states "Zeke Hausfather is a regular contributor to the Yale Forum" and gives a list of articles in the Forum, but no qualifications. A pity, but don't think it can be used. . . dave souza, talk 16:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I was afraid of that. Too bad, a very NPOV except could have been written from that one. That's the real catch 22 with a complex controversy like this. The MSM coverage is horribly shallow while the really thoughtful and balanced analysis aren't picked up by RS's because they are over the head of most readers/viewers or don't fit into the food fight meme they love so much. Thanks for taking a look. JPatterson (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

HTTP hyperlinks...

You do realize that you only need one set of brackets for hyperlinks, right? Some of your recent comments had multiple brackets, and the extra ones show up in the text. Only Wiki-links use double brackets. If that was your intent (to show those brackets) then feel free to ignore and remove this. :-) ATren (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Arguing in circles

I know that discussion is mostly just going in circles, but can you please keep an rein on comments like this? Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 02:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. In light of the thinly veiled aspersions on my intelligence and abilities I thought I had shown remarkable restraint but I'll redouble my efforts to do better. JPatterson (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU renaming proposal

I have been starting to work with ChrisO and Hipocrite on a proposal related to renaming the CRU hacking incident article. Based on your comments at the RfC it seems that you might be willing to sign on to this proposal. We are intending to approach people on their user pages to try and build some momentum and for this proposal and hopefully build a growing set of editors who are willing to accept this as a reasonable compromise and then stand together to defend it. Please stop by and weigh-in with your opinion and feel free to sign on if you are willing to help push this and defend it. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Michael Behe appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

AAGF

This is really reaching. Unfortunately, one of the ways that the climate change topic area tends towards dysfunctionality is in frivolously complaining about each other (Exhibit A: User talk:2over0). I did not read the rest of that discussion for context, but it looks like you are off base on this one. If you were to accrue a reputation for being hypersensitive to minor issues of interaction open to interpretation, it would dilute the weight other people would give to your voice when discussing similar major issues. In any case, being the first to quietly raise the level of discourse has many advantages. You might also wish to consider the essay Wikipedia:Do not template the regulars. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 21:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree. This is twice now that you've admonished me for interactions where SA was clearly out of line. I do not take kindly to condescension, attacks on my professional abilities and unwarranted accusations of acting in bad faith. I've asked for community input here. I don't consider you uninvolved but feel free to chime in there anyway. JPatterson (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Attempting to resolve the issue on SA's talk page is a good idea. Raising the issue at WQA is a good idea. Dropping the template -- well, actually probably okay, depending on who you listen but some folks think it's a bad idea. -- definitely uncool. Gerardw (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What template are you and 2over0 talking about?? The only template I dropped were those I was instructed to on the various incident reporting pages. If following instructions ensnares an editor in traps, the instructions need to be changed. JPatterson (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

2/0 provided the link -- which incident reporting page are you referring to? Gerardw (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm royally confused. The link 2/0 provide does not go to a template but to my comment section under discussion here. The template I used was the notice I was told to provide on the WQA page. Perhaps 2/0 meant to target the BLP template below which again, I was instructed to do in following the guidelines on reporting BLP incidents. JPatterson (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Me too. This here This takes me to a Behe BLP warning template on SA's talk page. Are we taking about the same thing? Gerardw (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at the target of the link. It's #Please_AGF which is not a template. It didn't make sense to me when 2/0 put in on my page so I ignored it. After you brought it up again, I tried to figure out what you guys are talking about and so surmised that what 2/0 meant to link to was the BLP warning, which again, in trying to navigate the BLP reporting instructions I was somewhere instructed to notify the user with. It took me to a page of templates of various severity. I tried to pick the one I thought least antagonistic (one threatened a block as I recall). In any case, I find the expectation that editors should know to ignore instructions based on an essay of which they are likely unaware (I was) quite bizarre.

My bad, you're right, it was the wrong diff: here [[1]]. Please post a link to the page you found that said to the template, okay? Gerardw (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this was it but my recollection is fuzzy. I get lost sometimes trying to navigation through the various procedures around here. I would suggest some sort of warning be placed in that section with perhaps a link to the essay 2/0 supplied. Was the WQF template bad form as well? JPatterson (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

After further review I'd say it's fine -- there's also the essay WP:TTR -- but I guess I've found personally it's not worth the aggravation, so I usually just write a little note on the page saying the same thing as the template. Matter of taste. Gerardw (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice to know. Thanks. Thanks also for the strike. JPatterson (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

2/0 - since you dropped the wrong link above, I thought you were referring to my AWG comment to SA. So if my reply seemed odd, that is why. If you'd like to start over I'm happy to engage but I think Gerardw and I got to the bottom of it.

Er, no, that was the edit I intended, I just forgot to strip the section anchor. I was at ScienceApologist's talkpage for unrelated reasons, and decided that taking a look at your post would be worthwhile. I have absolutely no interest in getting involved at Michael Behe wearing either my administrator or my editor hat. That post was intended solely and entirely as a friendly heads up that the particular issues you raised did not, to my eye, appear worth pursuing. Similarly with linking that essay, which for the sake of clarity I should have done in a new paragraph. Some people do not like it being notified with a template they have read many times; I honestly neither know nor care if ScienceApologist is one of them, I was just trying to bring a social convention to your attention. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 04:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Another perspective here User_talk:ScienceApologist#Architect. Hope it helps. Gerardw (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Article at DYK

Hello! Your submission of Numerically-controlled oscillator at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mikenorton (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to re-submitif you can meet any concerns raised then that will be fine, although you may want to propose an alternative hook as ALT1 . The 5x expansion rule is generally applied fairly strictly unless the original version had sections that were clear copyright violations. There is often a lot of discussion about the 5x rule but not much leeway is generally given, see A5 here Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules. I think that everyone involved in DYK knows that the rule is sometimes unfair - it's just it makes the job of reviewers much more difficult if it needs more than just a check on article length before and after expansion, sorry if that's disappointing. Mikenorton (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No the expansion looks fine now, somebody (not me I don't actually do the approving bit myself, I leave that to others) will get round to it, check the sources etc. but it could take a while (one of mine took nine days before anybody even looked at it), so try to be patient. Mikenorton (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit documents

I've taken the liberty of removing a brief unproductive exchange between you and another editor concerning a third editor [2] from this talk page. I know it's difficult to keep a cool head in this discussion, believe me, so I can understand the occasional lapse. I hope you'll understand that this kind of sniping doesn't help the encyclopedia in any way and doesn't belong here. --TS 15:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Your implication that I am somehow not keeping a cool head is misguided and unappreciated. My comment was a short and polite way of saying "we've been through all this before, let's move on", which IMO is very productive advice. Please revert. If you want to remove AQFK comment which I found unhelpful I would not object. JPatterson (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't revert your comment in its current state because it appears to be a sarcastic aside to User:A Quest For Knowledge, and indeed he seems to have interpreted it in that light and continued in similar vein. Please do try to rephrase it if it's addressed to William M. Connolley and contains a substantial request. Try to make your meaning plain. Avoid the use of "smilies". --TS 16:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I am wondering if you read the remark before you deleted it because I do not see how one could reasonable come to the conclusion you drew if you had. Per standard WP indenting convention my remark was clearly in response to WMC and would not have in any way made sense as a reply to AQFK. While were on the subject, I object to this edit as well. My initial remarks were not "tangential to the subject" but rather directly on point. Please stop the bull in a china shop routine. You're not helping. JPatterson (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU talk page press coverage poll

I was surprised at your comment in Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident#Press_coverage. In particular, your reference to Wikipedia:BLP#External_links made me wonder if you thought the issue was whether to include the Solomon link in the article. Unless I'm mistaken (which happens often), the question is whether it should be in a list of press coverage on the talk page. SPhilbrickT 17:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to all pages, talk included. Both articles contain information that is demonstrably wrong, and every editor knows they're wrong. (e.g. the edit count being used to imply WMC has written 5k+ articles). WP needs to clean up its act re BLP's whose current state IMO, threaten the viability of the project. I am no fan of WMC's high handedness but a strict interpretation of WP:BLP should be embraced by all editors. JPatterson (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:GAN m-derived filter

Please take into account that the nominator has not edited since 7 january, which is unusual for him (I've had quite some interaction with that administrator last year). PS Upon a second thought, I'll try to fix obvious problems (MOS, prose, etc.) but can't promise to cover all aspects. Materialscientist (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've also started a review (and tweak) of the distributed element filter article which appears to be in better shape sourcewise but needs a bit of work. JPatterson (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Another thought: (i) there will likely be a point in those reviews of either fix the article yourself or fail it (ii) the author is a professional in that area, thus I won't expect major problems with the physics (though he often doesn't explain his point well enough for the average reader). Materialscientist (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

His equations look fine, although I found some accuracy problems in the introduction. The article is a good contribution to the encyclopedia but I agree it needs some word smithing before I'd pass it. JPatterson (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll check distributed element filter and try to address your comments on m-derived filter. Thanks. One complication is that the author usually uses his own library of books and patents rather than web sources. Materialscientist (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I noticed :>) My plan was to leave it on hold for a week and then fail it if the sourcing issues weren't addressed. Thanks for checking out the other one.

Hm .. the author is British, but you've already changed some text into US spelling. If you don't mind, I'll put it back into UK spelling later, when I go through the rest of the text (I myself write in US spelling and don't mind either way, as long as it is consistent). BTW, impedence is not British :-) Materialscientist (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. He had it as impedence which my spell checker flagged. I just assumed he knew :>) JPatterson (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Many native speakers don't use spellcheckers. That was a typo :-) Materialscientist (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have slightly adjusted the GA note so that it points to the review page and article topic - this is not a big deal because someone else will change it again soon ("implement the article history", whatever it means ..). Thanks a lot for a thorough review. I'll move on to m-derived filter when time permits. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I give up m-derived filter - it should be fixed by a specialist, preferably by the author himself. My attempts would be a poor patch. One week is usually a short holding time for GA (typically 2-4) but as the author is still off wiki, it might be unimportant. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for unexpectedly going on a wiki-break and thanks for your work in getting distributed element filter through GA. I do not currently have the time or energy to improve m-derived filter so please withdraw the GA nomination. Sorry if that has wasted your time, but I will come back to this some time in the future and address your comments then. Just wanted to add that I do not believe there is anything in the lede of that article that is OR, it all comes from the sources. As I say, I am not able to do the work of fully referencing it right now, but if there is something in particular that is concerning you, let me know and I will find a reference for that specific fact. By the way, just to confirm, "impedence" is my typo, not a British spelling. SpinningSpark 20:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem and congrats on a fine article. My review is here if you are interested. JPatterson (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU article name

Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Essay

Since you expressed interest on Mackan79's talk page, I thought you might like to have a look at User:Equazcion/Editing controversial subjects. It's very preliminary and not at all polished or organized, but I'd be interested in any feedback you might have. Thanks :) Equazcion ^(talk) 03:54, 17 Feb 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Boof.png

Thanks for uploading File:Boof.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Numerically-controlled oscillator

On February 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Numerically-controlled oscillator, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The current name discredits Wikipedia

Jpat34721 - well said. The current title was clearly a POV push when the UEA were still spreading this PR, now that they've stopped suggesting a hack, it really makes Wikipedia look like it is run by those green-thugs with nazi-haircuts who try to bomb animal scientists for investigating cures to parkinson's disease. Still, on the positive side, it is better to have a POV title on a POV article, than to lull the reader into a false perception of neutrality! 88.110.2.122 (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not much into conspiracy theories. The temptation to use WP as a propaganda tool pulls equally on both sides near as I can tell. True enough that one side has more power right now but I am unconvinced that the encyclopedia would be any better if the show were on the other foot. JPatterson (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Short shrift given to view of reputable scientists...

Franamax has asked me to come up with a list of POV issues. [3][4] I'm using the list you came up with the other day for my list as the basis for my list. Can you help me with this one?

Short shrift given to view of reputable scientists who see serious implications for the integrity of the science in the methods and processes revealed in the emails.

OK, this is what I came up with...

Comments from mainstream scientists about scientific integrity

...but I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you talking about:

1. Whether this has affected the reputation of science overall?
2. Whether source code should be open for other researchers to check?
3. Allegations of tribalism?
4. Something else?

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What I was getting at are the concerns expressed by reputable scientists (skeptics and non-skeptics alike) and science journalists about the processes in place at the CRU, IPCC and climate science in general. People like Pat Michaels, Richard S. Lindzen, John Tierney and Judith Curry have all expressed the view that rigorous process control is as important to the integrity of scientific findings as the underlying data and analysis. Absent the rigors that define "good science", the conclusions will always be called into question. A corollary to this view is that the public trust necessary to turn research findings into policy objectives is damaged when the process is corrupted.

Our article doesn't even touch on this "middle view" which in a nutshell states that the most significant fallout of this scandal is not that it proves AGW is a hoax but rather that the emails reveal a sloppiness and tribalism that calls the conclusions into question and has eroded public confidence. JPatterson (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

M-derived filter

Hi, I have finally come back to Wikipedia and got around to addressing you comments at the GA review for m-derived filter. Not sure if you are still interested in being the reviewer for this article, but if you are, I would appreciate you having another look. By the way, do you think that distributed element filter would make a good FA candidate? SpinningSpark 16:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

FAC nomination

Distributed element filter has been nominated as a Featured article candidate. You are welcome to leave comments on its nomination page. This message is being sent to all those who have edited or reviewed the article. SpinningSpark 08:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for Campus Ambassadors in Houston

Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you are listed as a Wikipedian connected with Rice University. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at another Houston school, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

If you live in Houston and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from the area who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Heathkit vfo.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Heathkit vfo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join WikiProject Stanford University!

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

--ralphamale (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you consider modifying your graphic slightly?

. The in-phase component should be the cos() PAC and the quadrature component should be the sin() PAC. 70.109.178.133 (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Electrical engineering

Hi fellow editor, You are invited to join the WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of electrical engineering. If you'd like to join, add also your name to the member list. Thanks for reading! SchreyP (messages) 19:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)