User talk:Spiffy sperry

Archives

Welcome

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! KHM03 12:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, Spiffy sperry. Thanks for the edit! ;-) Nhprman 06:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, Nhprman. (This was about the The 30x11 Calendar, which I got to while reading about he recent Leap second.) --Spiffy sperry 14:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headings and TOC edit

On January 28, 2006, I noted on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (headings) that your edit seemed to conflict with other guidance. I was waiting for a response before just reverting. Could you let me know your view? Thanks. --TreyHarris 10:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered[1]. Thanks for your input. Feel free to tone down the "Avoid" statement, but please don't revert the whole thing. --Spiffy sperry 14:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Thanks for getting rid of those spamversisements! Pseudomonas 15:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I must give credit to Marcika, who did the first rv on the Global Warming page, giving me the idea to rv the rest. I didn't rv the ones that already had comments. (The 25 offending links came from 58.7.114.188). --Spiffy sperry

It wasn't spam. It was a net.kook trap. More research, people.

Check the list against this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues and think about it a bit more.

Call it what you want, anon (see Spamvertising). It remains that the links added to the talk pages were to outdated mirrors (with horrible formatting) of the main article, as if this were something new to talk about. They didn't add to the discussion and were unnecessary. Your link to WP:LCI does not provide any insight. --Spiffy sperry 19:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's no big deal, and it was a unspectacularly unsuccessful experiment (I am really crap at this), but ask yourself who runs that site? And wouldn't you rather have troublesome personalities on that site, rather than this one? And what sort of articles do troublesome personalites hang out on?

Realclimate

You're on realclimate too? LOL! How many ppl at realclimate are on wikipedia? __earth ^(Talk) 17:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The notable ones I've recognized (and remember) include Dr. Connolley, Dragons flight, Hans Erren, John A, Tim Lambert, and Lumidek. --Spiffy sperry 18:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Earth Day! __earth ^(Talk) 16:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saints Wikiproject

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page.

This user is a member of the Saints WikiProject.

I also invite you to join the discussion on prayers and infoboxes here: Prayers_are_NPOV.

Thanks! --evrik 19:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Zinn page

You moved material out of the article on Howard Zinn yet left no links to where readers can find these quotes. Given that a lot of people worked on this article over a long period, these edits were destructive. Would you please provide the links to where you moved the material. Thank you. Skywriter 09:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were not destructive; the link you want was already on the page. At the bottom of the page, in the External Links section, there's a box that says "Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Howard Zinn". When I made my last changse to the Quotations section, there was also a box for Wikiquote at the top, basically requesting that the quotes be moved there. If the remaining quotations are going to stay in the Zinn article, then maybe the Wikiquote box in External Links section can be moved to the Quotations section. --Spiffy sperry 14:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When people comment my edits to an obscure (to me) article, I like to record what brought me there. In this case, my father-in-law was borrowing a car which had a Howard Zinn bumber sticker, along with other bumper items that were not in line with his views. The idea of a preacher driving a car with a "Darwin fish" to church was amusing to me. --Spiffy sperry 22:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major hurricanes in 2005

I have been reading the discussion in the 2005 Hurricane Season and I see you're a big contributor to the arguments. Can I have your take on this? Copy and pasted from my comment.

I haven't read through all that much, but in talks with a professor at Dalhousie University, it seems we are both under the impression that the number of Major Storms this year was 8. Now, I have done some research, and have found in the NHC's archives that they clearly state that Hurricane Beta is the 8th MAJOR STORM of the season.

The link can be found at

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al262005.discus.014.shtml?

and I would appreciate for someone to fix it.

Can you please take a quick look and see if I have any merit in pursuing this? Please comment on my talk page if possible.Sod Aries

(repeated at your talk page) I'm not sure why the above link says eighth. This official report from the end of the season says Beta is the seventh major storm. Indeed, I only count 7: Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Maria, Rita, Wilma, and Beta. --Spiffy sperry 13:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They've killed the List of famous failures in science and engineering! You Bastards!!

Mmx1 is taking the fight that I have over the F-14 and F-111 to the failure page, and he has nominated them for deletion. The wiki-thugs are all voting to delete the page. Mmx1 has reversed the F-14 page to state that it is not, and has never been designed as a maneuverable air superiority fighter, and is not accepting any contrary citations up to and including a F-14 test pilot, Janes Defence, and Aviation Week. He is apparently taking revenge against other pages. Please go to the deletion page and tell the administrators what is going on. Look at the patterns of MMx. He regular accuses others of gross misinformation and summarily reverts most edits as a self-appointed judge of all truth, but in fact should not be allowed this leeway. --matador300 11:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Illinois?

I see that you listed your self in the Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Illinois category. Did you mean to put yourself in the Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign category? - Just checking.

— Mobius 02:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That explains why I was the only one in the category! I've moved myself to UIUC. I didn't find the UIUC category back in December 2005, because I was looking through the "alma mater: US" categroy, where it didn't appear until March 15. --Spiffy sperry 14:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, it was until just a bit ago listed under under W in the category list. Now it's under I, where it should be — Mobius 15:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wegman

Thanks for at least correcting the description. I won't revert it out again, but I'll explain why I don't think it should be there: the problem is the bloat in the ext links section. Why should wegman be there but the far better NC report not? As a rough guideline, I suggest that if you want to add a new link, as you've done, you should remove an old one. William M. Connolley 16:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After further review, I thought of moving the link for the Wegman report to Temperature record of the past 1000 years, and found it was already there, so I reverted it myself. --Spiffy sperry 17:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes :( ~ extra

Article Removal - + unsigned template, perhaps Sln3412 used an extra ~) Yeah, I must have. I try and sign everything. It looks like the date went in. I fixed it. Thanks!!! Sln3412 20:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signing vandal warnings

Hello! Please don't forget to sign your vandal warnings. This really helps when looking at their contributions compared to the time of the warnings. It is really easy to see when they have gone past a final warning when it has been signed, otherwise we have to go in to the history of the Talk page and it becomes quite a pain when there is a backlog on WP:AIV. Well done on catching them and keeping everyone informed, your efforts are much appreciated. Regards, (aeropagitica) 21:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing user boxes

Thanks for fixing that user box on my page. :)

You're welcome, User:Will Pittenger, and thanks for hosting the St. Louis Cardinals userbox. --Spiffy sperry 12:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for fixing my userbox. I wouldn't have known otherwise.--Macca7174 14:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Sierra Leone and Lebanon ratifying Kyoto?

Re [2]: after a quick look at news.google, [3], [4], and [5] I can't find a source. Please add one at List of Kyoto Protocol signatories until kpstats.pdf is updated. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-09t12:51z

Sorry about the confusion. Sometimes, I use the link on List of Kyoto Protocol signatories (kpstats.pdf), sometimes I go directly to this UNFCCC site (2316.php) from my IE favorites folder. The latter has a link to this pdf that includes SL and Leb. I hadn't noticed it was different than kpstats.pdf (the format is identical, but the filename and location are different). I've included a link to 2316.php after kpstats.pdf. --Spiffy sperry 17:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-13t20:41z

Wet scrubber article

The wet scrubber page is ready. Feel free to have a look at it. I don't know who included heat exchangers in the air pollution control technologies category? It should be removed. What do you think? The Vindictive 15:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WS looks very good. There's rarely a new article that is as polished on it's first day. The "heat exchanger" is actually a piped link for "condenser", which is often used for VOC control. (I'll move it to that category in the list.) Sometimes the distinction between pollution control and product recovery is hard to make for these devices. Do you think we need a separate article for condenser, or even a new section within the heat exchanger article? --Spiffy sperry 16:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Air pollutant plan??

Hi, I was wondering about your plan as to which cmpds qualify as air pollutants in your categorization efforts. In principle, thousands of volatile organic compound could be listed. But maybe you have a plan in mind? Or would care to share your ideas with the WE-chem group (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry) so that a group could discuss? Cheers and best wishes.--Smokefoot 20:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Category:Hazardous air pollutants, I'm just focussing on the "hazardous" chemicals listed by the U.S. EPA - see the list at NESHAP. (And more importantly, those also listed here as the top emissions.) The idea is similar in to the Category:Persistent organic pollutants, although with ~180 pages & subcategories instead of just 16. --Spiffy sperry 21:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page move debate opinions needed

Hi, user DIV (a chemical engineer), i.e. User talk:128.250.204.118, and myself (a chemical engineer) have been debating over the name of the Gibbs free energy article for seven months now. DIV is demanding that both the Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy articles be moved to “Gibbs energy” and “Helmholtz energy” per IUPAC definitions, and is continuously rewriting all the related articles in Wikipedia on this view. According to my opinion, as well as others, e.g. 2002 encyclopedia Britannica, 2006 encyclopedia Encarta, 2004 Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry, 2005 Barnes & Noble’s The Essential Dictionary of Science, the 2004 McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Chemistry, Eric Weissteins World of Physics: Gibbs Free Energy, etc., Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy are the most common usages. If you have an opinion on this issue could you please comment here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 20:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyoto protocol

OK, my entry needed editing, and you did it well, thank you :) but my entry was flippant, yes, also disrepectful, i agree, but POV? how is pointing the reader to misuse of statistics POV, and what about the offending work I was replying to which says "but the American "market-based approach" is gaining increased attention as a potentially promising response to global warming" based on unreferenced statements which contradict the references I gave, that sounds more like POV to me. regards sbandrews 00:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't give any indication of why misuse of statistics is relevant. Which editor was misusing statistics, and how? From what's written in the new section, in 2004, US emissions were up and EU emissions were down from the chosen base year (immediately prior to this), while in 2007, the US trend was downard and the EU trend was upward. Both seem to be important points to me, to understand the big picture (e.g., where both will be by 2012). I didn't do anything about the market-based approach comment because the section was already tagged as lacking references. --Spiffy sperry 15:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The misuse of statistics is exactly what you have just repeated, using the figures from just one year (2007) as evidence of trend. The statistical significance of a sample of one point will be highly inaccurate and misleading compared to a change taken over 14 years, as a look at the year by year data will show. Further, the statistic of interest is how things have changed since Kyoto, not how things have changed in the last few years (i.e. since Katrina). However, I do agree that it is unfortunate that 1990 coincides with other large changes taking place in Europe, however on balance I would think that that is more than compensated by the increases in productivity since the former communist states embraced capitalism and democracy, although perhaps you have a reference that shows otherwise? sbandrews 16:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's a longer trend from one of your references:

"Greenhouse gases emissions in the EU‑15 have risen since 1999 and emission levels in 2004 were the highest since 1996." (Greenhouse gas emission trends and projections in Europe 2006, pg. 17)

How does that square with the the statistics you put in the article? --Spiffy sperry 17:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well that's a good point, it pains me that even with all the talk and effort we have put into reductions we have achieved so little. Put the EU-15 number in the article. Regards sbandrews 18:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small scientists

Good catch [6]. It reminds me of the Bushism: "I understand small business growth. I was one." (He obviously meant to say that he understand small businessmen. A small businessman is a businessman who runs a business employing less than 100 people.) --Uncle Ed 21:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Arritt made the blunder here. I'm not sure he meant it, but I don't think he would have objected to his Freudian slip. --Spiffy sperry 22:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis Cardinals project

Please accept this invite to join WikiProject St. Louis Cardinals, a project dedicated to improving the quality of St. Louis Cardinals related articles. Simply click here to accept!

Illinois Townships

I see you have found Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois/Townships. Thanks for the assistance as you are going through the townships and getting that info fixed. A couple months back, City-data did not have info on any of them. I had to write them an e-mail with that list and tell them, they have since revamped their entire township area. If you have any questions, let me know. As far as what you have added to the Rockford Township, you will need to add a citation for that, I would just add city-data, or find it on the census website.--Kranar drogin 22:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. My new job deals heavily with townships, legal descriptions of land, and the like. I was having trouble making sense of some things, trying to cross-reference various maps, until I found the Illinois State Archives, with its maps that include township names AND township/range numbers. About the Rockford fact, I admit it was original research when I added it (the township's website isn't as bold as it could be), but I found a citation today. --Spiffy sperry 16:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I have fixed up the Rockford township page some. I think that this being the largest township in the state of Illinois, that it needs a bigger article. I will post that to one of the other Illinois people, and we can try and go for a DYK. There is going to have to be extensive change to the article. Might have to try and get some pics.--Kranar drogin 01:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guy, are you going through all the townships in Illinois? If you are, could you start converting all the info boxes in there to the geobox as in this example Marion Township, Ogle County, Illinois. Let me know if that is what you are doing.--Kranar drogin 23:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I'm just using this at work to make a database of township information, only updating obvious errors as I come across them. If I update the infoboxes, I'll have to do it on my own time at home (which I don't get much of anymore). --Spiffy sperry 19:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you edited Salisbury Township, Sangamon County, Illinois as being defunct? I wonder how that got by the state of Illinois! Also, since you are working on the townships, does that mean you are doing precints too? I haven't gotten very far in their creation yet.--Kranar drogin 05:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do what I can, but I'm not sure where to find the necessary data, like I've found for townships. Don't wait on me, though. --Spiffy sperry 04:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Illinois 2007 Census

The WikiProject Illinois 2007 membership census has concluded. If you did not add your name during the last week, you were declared "inactive" in the project, your name is still listed at The Participants Page. You can change your status by replacing {{member inactive}} with {{active}} in the table. Any members should also feel free to fill in any missing details on the list below.

IvoShandor 11:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed & Propaganda Categorization

Greetings Spiffy Sperry (& fellow UIUC alum),

I restored the propaganda category to this article. I tried sifting through the arguments being made, and found it very difficult. I went back to the category page, and saw its definition. I entered a new section on the article talk page. explaining what I saw. I wanted to come over and leave a note, rather than do so without comment. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I responded at the article talk page. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Representatives from Ohio

Thanks for your work on List of United States Representatives from Ohio! —Markles 21:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm using this to work on List of former members of the United States House of Representatives, Ohio being one of the states that wasn't complete. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brownsville, Illinois, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you, User:Spiffy sperry, for finding the break between main 2014 Olympic page and 2014 Olympic Medals Table page. Thank you, User:Chrishmt0423, for stopping what was going to be a long edit check before I even got started. You are both excellent teamworkers!! Jmg38 (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois US Census link

Hi. I noticed that there are a number of Illinois locations with a "US Censu" link, and it seems to be due to a tool-assisted change you made in 2012 (example - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Point_Precinct%2C_Calhoun_County%2C_Illinois&diff=498178016&oldid=445238142 )

Is it OK to change these to "US Census"? Even better, do you have a tool that could make the changes painlessly? It's OK to reply here to keep the discussion on one page - Ttwaring (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. I'm running the correction program right now. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 05:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Spiffy sperry (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thank you very much! - Ttwaring (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Off topic discussion with user that was blocked on 2016 April 18

Hello Spiffy. I would like to be friends with you? Are you a woman? I think you are but I can't tell. Will you like to be friends? Lolitician (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond. Lolitician (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just let this speak for itself. WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm just being friendly. Do you detest me or something? Why don't you wanna respond? Come on, I don't have any friends. Lolitician (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works." --Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you making fun of me? Lolitician (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors are here so they can work on building a reliable, detailed online encyclopedia. While I appreciate your efforts to make friends, that is not really the site's true purpose. Sorry. However, if you are interested in helping improve content, you may make friends along the way. GAB^Hello! 23:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easy for you to say, you've never been alone in your life. Lol what is your "Sorry" going to help me with? Nothing. Lolitician (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Presidential election state polling map

Hello. I'm not sure that this is the best way to make this known, but I wanted to let you know that the Texas and Connecticut polls listed on the Wikipedia page for 2016 statewide polling show clear leads for Trump and Clinton, respectively, in each of those two states. The lead difference is outside the margin of error. It's not surprising, because Texas is a solid Republican state and Connecticut is a solid Democratic state. However, in the map, both states are covered by dashed lines. Could this be changed, seeing as Commons states that you are the owner of the map? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A poll for Connecticut showing a clear lead for Clinton was added to the article today, and the map has been updated accordingly. The latest poll for Texas (Aug. 14) does not show a clear lead for Trump. His lead is 6%, and the margin of error is 3.2%. Using the proper treatment for margin of error, the lead would need to be greater than 6.4% to show a clear lead. Or conversely, the margin of error would need to be less than 3% to show a clear lead. This is because the margin of error is applied to each candidate's percentage. I'm eagerly awaiting the next Texas poll. Also, while I started the map and continue to update it, others are free to update it as well. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will take note of this. Display name 99 (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

virginia and wisconsin

virginia http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_COMIVA_110416.pdf,http://www.roanoke.edu/about/news/rc_poll_nov_2016_politics

wisconsin http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/304336-poll-clinton-leading-in-five-battleground-states

Alhanuty (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 2

Thanks for cleaning up my messy work on Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries :). SCC California (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome! --Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issues re libel case

Hi, in this edit you undid improper removal of Talk page comments, which is fair enough as the removal wasn't properly explained. I've removed the comments as violating WP:BLPSPS – while aware of statements that the libel case has apparently been dismissed, subject to appeal, the circumstances are very different from what these blogs claim, and we need a very good source for any coverage of these developments. As the article itself notes, the data being demanded has long been publicly available. . . dave souza, talk 17:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2001 NL central

Hey I got a question. How come last year the Cubs and Brewers had to have a tiebreaker game to determine the Division winner? They both had the same records and the Cubs won the season series. Shouldn't they both be co-champions then since the Astros and Cardinals did that year? Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The MLB tiebreaking rules changed in 2012 when a second wild card team was added for each league. In 2001, since St. Louis and Houston were better than all other non-division winners, a tiebreak game was not necessary per the rules at that time. Hypothetically, a tiebreak game that year could have affected which opponent each team faced (Atlanta or Arizona), but each team went into a best-of-5 series. In 2018, the tiebreak game between the Cubs and Brewers determined which team had to face Colorado in the wild card game. The fact that the Cubs won the 2018 season series only meant that this tiebreak game was played in Chicago. This extra game is counted in the regular season standings, making Milwaukee the division winner. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't really get it though. Like the Cubs and Brewers season records were 95-97. Why didn't they just put the Brewers in the WC game vs the Rockies since the Cubs won the season series? Even with that format shouldn't they done that?

The 162 games records:

NL Central: Cubs 95-67, Brewers 95-67

NL East: Braves 90-72

NL West: Dodgers 92-71

NL WC: Rockies 91-72

Top Full standings without game 163

Cubs: 95-67

Brewers: 95-67

Dodgers: 92-71

Braves: 90-72

Rockies: 91-72

Cardinals: 88-74

Pirates: 82-79

Diamondbacks: 82-80

Nationals: 82-80 Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shameful

	Shameful
	They deleted the page. There is supposed to be a consensus to delete a page, and the votes (by my count) were 35 delete, 19 keep. Less than 2 to 1 is hardly a consensus. Should you share this with your friends at Climate Audit? Would they post the article? Kolg8 (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is shameful. I haven't kept track of Climate Audit for many years. I suppose they would post something if they were made aware, but I'm not sure I'm the right person to take it to them. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. FYI, there is the beginning of a movement to reestablish the page. I didn't start it, but I certainly support it. Any interest in participating?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming#Restore_Article

Kolg8 (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20 MN DFL pres primary

you understand that all 15 names are still on ballot even if they candidate drop out prior to Jan 17? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.54.238 (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. My point is that Delaney was still in the race while voting was underway. His case is fundamentally different from the rest. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for helping me with my edit on the 2020 presidential election page. Pentock (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Pentock. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Presidential election

Why did you revert my edit? Joe Biden is in the lead according to Opinion Polling, so why shouldn’t he be first on the infobox? Ciaran.london (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaran.london, my edit summary explained why. The controlling factor is the result of the previous election, not opinion polling. See the top of the talk page, particularly the section titled "Consensus on the order of candidates in the infobox". --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 15:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful about sources

When you made this edit you implied the source includes all the examples. I fixed it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about First Lady and Second Gentleman-designate titles in infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff

Please join a discussion here regarding whether the terms "First Lady of the United States Designate" and "Second Gentleman of the United States Designate" should be in the infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff, spouses of the president-elect and vice president-elect, respectively. We need to come to a consensus. Thank you for your participation. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wanda TCR

I wanted to apologize. I did the math originally without adding in the best track data, and got the 5.67. After going back in and doing the best track data, I added in an incorrect value. My apologies. I also called out the vandalism, because when the edit was reverted, it was tagged as vandalism. Thank you for fixing my over correctness! :) Gum balls 678 talk 01:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gumballs678:, no problem. When I undid your edit, I didn't intend for it to look like it had anything to do with vandalism. Perhaps it would have been better if I had manually changed it rather than using the 'undo' link. I appreciate all of your work on this page. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Routine alert renewal for recent American politics

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 15:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit at 2020 United States Presidential Election

I think you mistaken the claim of Harris County voting to the right of Bexar, Dallas, Travis, and El Paso, as original research. According to Wikipedia:Original research it is stated in it,

"For example, the statement "the capital of France is Paris" does not require a source to be cited, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and it is easily verifiable; therefore, no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is verifiable, even if not verified."

The data I used to place the statement of Harris County is theoretically verifiable, even if not verified, by the presidential results of 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020, where it voted to the right of the counties as stated above. Your claim that this is not true is also easily provably wrong.

In 2008 according to https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/ :

Harris County had voted for Obama with lower percentage in county wide vote compared to Dallas, Bexar, Travis, and El Paso.

The same trend of voting right of those 4 counties while still voting for the Democrat candidate is seen in 2012 https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/texas

The same trend is seen in 2016 https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/texas

Bexar 54.2% and Harris is 54.0%

The same trend is seen in 2020 https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/results/president

Can you explain if I am missing a point you are trying to make. If you seem to see this deletion as a mistake can you please inform me via my talk page or pinging me here so I can go ahead and revert the deletion of those lines. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: The edit summary in my reversion was 'remove original research (also, it is possibly incorrect without the modifier "in a row"'. You missed the point about "in a row", since the same occurred in the three presidential elections from 1992 to 2000. (And this is not "easily verifiable"; it took quite a bit of work on my part.) Even if the statement is modified to include the additional data, it is still original research. This does not mean that it is incorrect, but simply that it is not supported by reliable, published sources. A fact could be correct but not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia because it's just not that notable or important (see the policies on due and undue weight and how verifiability does not guarantee inclusion). In other words, if it really matters how many times Harris County voted to the right of another group of counties, if it's more than just trivia, then you should be able to provide a reliable source to demonstrate this as a pertinent fact. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2024 United States presidential election

You reverted my edit to the article 2024 United States presidential election, saying that a link to the Dobbs decision by the Supreme court in "see also" was unnecessary due to it being the first link in the section anyway.

Is there any policy or MOS guideline that says this, because I see the same in the COVID-19 section of the same article. COVID-19 pandemic in the United States is both in "see also" and the first link in the section.

Thanks. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 05:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was not using of a policy or MOS guideline. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why do you keep changing my edits? I feel that you are targeting me A1350934 (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, your edits to Jim Harbaugh appeared to be vandalism. I see now that Jim Harbaugh is in the news today regarding a 4-game suspension. While this information does belong in the Jim Harbaugh article, it requires a proper citation from a reliable source and probably does not need to be introduced in the first sentence of the lead section. Second, when I see an editor make the sort of edit you made, I sometimes check to see if they have made similar questionable edits recently. In your case, I found one and partially undid it. I'm not targeting you, but ensuring that articles adhere to Wikipedia policies. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given your recent thanks

Would you take a look at the topic in question? Springee (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: while I support your recent edits at PragerU and your position on the Talk page, I unfortunately don't have the patience to argue with the others on this topic, particularly with those who throw around the "denialist" and "rube" pejoratives. I prefer removing the sentence in question entirely, but recognize that that option would go nowhere. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pac-12 Conference

Spiffy sperry I know you're doing the best you can on your edits but In 2024, the Pac-12 will most likely be defunct is there because there can't be 2 teams in 1 conference except for the independents. Spiffy sperry if you keep doing it you may get blocked from editing. 97.114.180.38 (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is nonsense. I will not be blocked from editing for applying Wikipedia's editing guidelines. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 GOP primaries & caucuses calendar

Howdy. Are you sure which primary & caucuses follows which? See the Republican 2024 calendar. Which is what I was going by. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the table in that article is mostly correct, although some dates are still preliminary and subject to change. If my records are correct, the table generally agrees with the dates in each state/territory article, except for American Samoa. According to its article, the AS Democratic caucus is on Super Tuesday, but the AS Republican caucus appears to be on March 20. The source for this claim is not conclusive though. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 American Samoa presidential caucuses

- LordBirdWord (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC) You deleted Jason Palmer from the American Sonia presidential Caucus Wikipedia Page from the InfoBox. He is the only candidate that visited the island(s). Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordBirdWord (talk • contribs) 23:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because infoboxes are for summarizing key points of the article, and despite his travels, there is no evidence that he is currently major candidate in this caucus. Can you cite a reliable source, such as polling or media coverage, saying otherwise? --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, discussion like this should go on the Talk page for the article instead of here. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!❤️

You resolved an edit war I had, and quite frankly I did not want to be in. On the page for the 2024 Idaho caucuses, I reverted a good faith but not good edit by an IP editor. Soon, that guy whose name I cannot remember reverted MY edit and replaced that failed edit with one that just felt, wrong and I tried reverting it, telling him you can't use TWITTER to cite a source, considering no other news outlet claimed Governor Little had endorsed Trump. Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks for being on my side! Petjayso (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

	Political award
	Thanks for helping with enlarging Biden's image size in the 2024 Georgia Democratic Primary article! It looks better on mobile now. Daniel (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References and transclusions question

Hi,

I'm just trying to wrap my head around the references on the Third-party and independent candidates for the 2024 United States presidential election article. If a reference is transcluded, but that ref is not the complete ref, it won't work on the transcluded page?

Thanks for any info. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In that article, there is a named reference that was repeated in four different sections (Kennedy, Oliver, Stein, and West). Each of those sections has a ballot access table that is transcluded into the campaign article for each candidate. If the reference name is defined in Section A, and repeated without definition in Sections B through D, then Campaign Article A sees the definition, but Campaign Articles B through D don't see the definition. This results in a citation error in Campaign Articles B through D, easily seen by the big red "invoked but never defined" error message in the References section. The tools that automatically combine identical references (like reFill) do not know when these types of errors are created, since there's no indication that the content is used elsewhere, so they need to be manually corrected when they occur. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David O. Johnson: forgot to ping you above. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

Is there a reason you reverted my edit on the page about Am I Racist? 2603:9001:300:81A:35EC:C86C:2E94:DB2A (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. My edit summary said "Unsourced", which refers to the lack of sourcing required by the policy on verifiability. Also, sources should be sufficiently reliable. Spiffy sperry (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Show Me Series Cardinals–Royals rivalry

When I reviewed the score on MLB.com/Cardinals or Royals I was trying to fix it on the score results summary edit that's all. 2600:4808:4890:1D00:2890:42A1:A676:8DC0 (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to the 2024 season were fine (switching the columns for scores at each location). Thanks for that. I reverted/fixed your edits to the overall total rows. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marlins–Rays rivalry

This page is already done and fixed this is it. 2600:4808:4890:1D00:2890:42A1:A676:8DC0 (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

There is a merger discussion at Talk:The_Daily_Wire#Proposed_merge_of_Mr._Birchum_into_The_Daily_Wire, suggesting a merge of Mr. Birchum to The Daily Wire. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]