Hi, NJGW. There is an attempt to give a boost to the Oil shale economics article. Considering your expertise in the field of petroleum, you may be interested to participate. The discussion is going on here. Thank you. Beagel ( talk) 14:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you and good work. I will give it a serious thought and try to merge them together. I am a newcomer, as you can see. I would propose to merge them together under a title of "Oil Dependency of North America". Obviously I don't know how to merge articles and I need your help.
Regards, Dreamliner888 ( talk) 07:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Replied. Thanks for your comment. Tony (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Saw your hidden connent in the Peak gas article, wondering if gas production rose in the late 1970s due to Alaskan gas production. Good guess, but off the mark, because there are still (2008) no gas pipelines connecting Alaska to the lower 48. Some gas is produced around the Cook inlet for the Anchorage market, but whatever gas deposits there are on the North Slope remain untapped. More likely explanations for increased US gas are technology and price rises. Regards. Plazak ( talk) 14:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
What is your basis for adding this? Bstone ( talk) 15:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I got a bit overhasty, when I saw you'd trimmed some useful links (that I probably put there -- I live in the area). Full agreement on the spammy stuff, which is an ongoing problem. Cheers, Pete Tillman ( talk) 17:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
" Has there been any consensus on whether any dates should be linked? "
Sorry for the delay in replying. Single-year links have been on the nose for quite a while, although people are a little more accepting when they're in ancient times. But honestly, I can't see any advantage. Those who write the year articles will complain that they'll eventually be "orphaned"; but my response is "make them a lot lot better and we can find ways of promoting them". Tony (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I was neglectful. I was hurrying down a list (for other purposes) and saw two articles that apparently didn't know the other existed, and threw in Merge notices thinking they were obvious. The two articles really do need to wikilink to each other, and not just through the Sustainable Techniologies category. And the Renewable fuel redirect needs to be fixed or disambig'd. I'm rushed right now, and haven't yet looked to see what to do about the overlapping articles in the Renewable Energy portal. Simesa ( talk) 08:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I have started a new thread at Talk:Economic_crisis_of_2008#Meltdown_Monday, of which you may be interested. Bearian ( talk) 19:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
You have entered an big unspecified claim on the article Drug policy of Sweden. Several sources are official government documents about the present drug policy, the latest is from September 2008, others represent different critical views on the Swedish drug policy. So can you please explain what is unsourced etc in the article. Dala11a ( talk) 19:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi NJGW. I just wanted to let you know that I declined your speedy tagging of Catch 22 (band). Since the band has apparently released multiple albums on a notable label, there is a suggestion of notability under the WP:MUSIC criteria, so it does not meet criteria for speedy deletion. If you believe this merits a community discussion, feel free to nominate it as an AfD. Thanks, Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I have unhidden the paragraph headings. Also I have added a half of a dozen diagrams and a small amount of supporting text. Could you perhaps give me a hand to fill-in the needed paragraphs in the next few weeks? Konrad Kgrr ( talk) 17:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any opinions NJGW?
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yasis#More_on_USA.27s_orchestration_of_1973_oil_shock
218.186.69.253 ( talk) 06:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
"Oppose or support what?" Supporting the new section on possible USA orchestrating the 1973 oil shock to support their hidden agenda. You don't seem to like the idea.
Thanks. 218.186.69.253 ( talk) 07:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Sheikh Zaki Yamani, former Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia
That does not fit in with definition of sock puppet, NJGW. You should know that. 218.186.68.211 ( talk) 02:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean Bwilkins? Can you elaborate on that point. If I make edits without logging in, that is considered a sockpuppet? Thanks. By the way I am Yasis. Currently blocked. 218.186.65.198 ( talk) 04:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about date formatting. Schmiteye ( talk) 19:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I have set up a fresh discussion thread on my talk page. Feel free to comment. Jehochman Talk 04:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi NJGW,
Please have a look at my opinion here. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me again. Thanks. fayssal - Wiki me up® 02:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
For this edit [1], can you get a non-yahoo source, as those don't tend to stay up long.
Also, wouldn't it be better off the lead. Unless we put a 'current' price tag. Lihaas ( talk) 12:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe there's a way for some citation templates, but not all; something to do with separating the month and the year access fields (I'm a computer dummy). This situation will inevitably change when the community becomes more used to seeing normal dates and demands greater flexibility in their citation templates. Um ... I suggest you ask the extremely clever User:Gimmetrow.
But more broadly, no one should be forcing dates to be autoformatted in a citation template where it's possible to render them plain. You might consider reporting this at MOSNUM talk if there's still trouble. If it's unresolved, please link me to the relevant article. Tony (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I see you returned the quotes to the article. They seem to be translations by someone called F. Scalenghe. I have no idea who F. Scalenghe is, and a web search came up with pretty much nothing. That is why I removed them, but if you can find something to justify using them let me know. Otherwise I think they will have to go. (I will add more to the article, but do not have time today.) Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I see no legal problems with my last edit on Drug policy of Sweden. The Swedish text on the web site state that the text is free if one mention the source. "Citera oss gärna, men ange källan!" Dala11a ( talk) 23:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice, I am new and still learning, please feel free to point out my mistakes. Arilang1234 ( talk) 04:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi its me. Thanks for tidying up the article, I know I can be messy at times. What do you think about the development of this saga? It looks more and more like a script coming from a hollywood block buster movie. 124.182.241.87 ( talk) 21:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales had a meeting with Cai Mingzhao, Vice Director of China's State Council Information Office" http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2008/10/jimmy-wales-mee.html#comments the comments made by Statue of Liberty is very interesting. What yo think? Arilang1234 ( talk) 09:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Glad to have improved the article. Thanks for the nudges to edit instead of just delete. MKil ( talk) 19:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)MKil
Calamitybrook ( talk) 20:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi NJGW, you have just reverted my move of of melamine cyanurate to melamine-cyanuric acid complex, stating Google statistics as the reason. The title melamine cyanurate implies a salt complex. However, the scientific consensus is that the compound is NOT a salt complex but a hydrogen bond complex. Per the Wikiproject Chemistry naming conventions, the title should be melamine-cyanuric acid complex. I will revert to the more correct title if you do not object (e.g. on the talk page). Thanks, Cacycle ( talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I am working often when I am writing and have many browsers open at once. Sometimes I'll edit on a browser I don't realize I am not signed in and have been taken to task so I got into the habit of manually signing my name just in case. Most of the time I do both. But that's just me right? thanos5150
Uh, apparently I don't know. I have been putting the Thanos5150 ( talk) 03:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC) in the wrong spot for years and never noticed. Shhhh Thanos5150 ( talk) 03:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Can I add this [2] back in, now that the day is done? Bearian ( talk) 21:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
"You might want to read wp:TALK, particularly the part that says it's OK to "Delete material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)." The section I deleted did not reference Melamine, and has been removed several times after the same editor inserted it. It is wp:OR with no refs, and off topic. NJGW ( talk) 05:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
":Also, I just realized you posted that message to my user page, not my talk page. It's important you know the difference... it's discussed both at wp:TALK and wp:USER. NJGW ( talk) 05:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi NJGW. FYI, I've posted a note for you over at Talk: Titanic alternative theories. Thanks. Mgy401 1912 ( talk) 15:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in several times... It gets very interesting when trying to nominate the article for GA. These strange people come out of the woodwork.
BTW, Do you know 65.161.188.11? You called him Rob. I did an IP lookup. Interesting to say the least. Kgrr ( talk) 17:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC) 63.239.69.1 ncmd.nsa.gov (Md Procurement Office) Gambrills,MD Kgrr ( talk) 13:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the notice. Igloo321 ( talk) 07:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I have worked on the article and restructured it so that I could bring an end to the NPOV edit war. Take a look and make a few suggestions if you have them.
I will take a look at the Oil shale economics article in more detail. At the moment, I still need to familiarize myself with the issues.
Konrad Kgrr ( talk) 15:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
As you might recall, we overlapped in reverting fringe stuff from Petroleum a few months back. I can't even remember why I was watching the article, because I'm more interested in biomedical than geological articles. Anyways, I always forget that the fringe theory pushers are in all science articles not just medical articles that I watch and now, I see you're crossing swords with some of the people I have to deal with. I wish you luck. :) Since I stretched my limits with biogenic oil, I was wondering if you could give an outside view on Psychic. I don't know about you, but when it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, it must be pseudoscience. If you have the time and energy, I was wondering if you could weigh in. BTW, there's an IP fringe-theory pusher at Talk:Petroleum. You may want to assist. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Unblock request on hold. I have suspended this unblock request, pending NJGW's consideration of my offer below. ("NJGW agreeing to use a little more caution when pushing the revert button on a Wikipedia article in the future." Reverting four times in 24 hours on an article is rarely, if ever, a sensible course of action.) Anthøny ✉ 21:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC) {{
unblock|Please have a closer look at those difs. In one I was reverting an editor who reverted 24 edits, in another I was reverting a second editor who placed a fact tag in an incorrect place (this editor is at odds with the first editor by the way), in the third I was reverting a completely different edit by a THIRD editor, and in the last I was reverting the first editor for the second time. The editors are not related (unless numbers one and three are socks), and while the edits are to the same section, they are all for different reasons (notice that editor #2 actually wants Chiropractic listed, while the other two don't). This has had not reached an edit war and was being peacefully discussed on the talk and user talk pages.}} |
Here is my report of edit warring that got ME blocked. Here's the block log of the other user who I was involved with... looks like he got himself unblocked. Gotta run for now, but I may be back later. NJGW ( talk) 20:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. I am hereby making you aware, if you aren't already, that this is a contentious area on Wikipedia and administrators are granted broad discretionary powers to impose sanctions on those who are viewed as disrupting. I honestly haven't looked into your editing deeply enough to know whether or not that is the case with you. But you should know about that if you are going to edit in this area. Mango juice talk 06:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I re-inserted that link in Energy crisis because it appeared to have been reverted as part of removing another obvious vandalism. Thanks for pointing out its inappropriateness via Wikipedia:RS. I think it would be useful for people reading about alternative energies to have a link to information about the costs. The link I inserted has a discussion with several third-party sources. Any suggestions of how to tie this in would be appreciated.
On a different topic, as a newbie I obviously haven't learned the protocols yet. When somebody leaves me a note on my talk page (as you did), is it best to respond on your talk page (as I am doing)? I see that your page has several dialogues, but I don't understand how that all ends up on your page -- if you respond to something on your own page, how does the originator know you have responded? Thanks. Robsavoie ( talk) 18:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Some advice to NJGW. You are one of the good guys around here keeping the POV pushers from taking over articles. However, just because they're wrong, there should never be a reason for you to get a 3RR violation. EdJohnston is one of the good admins around here, but there others that have no tolerance for edit-warring, sometimes without even examining the merits of your edits. So, if you run into a POV-pusher, it's best to ask for assistance. Get to know the fair admins, who might be able to chill things out. Call in other NPOV editors to help out. You're not alone. But you don't need these blocks. They help the POV-pushers get what they want. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
moved to Category talk:Lists of things considered unusual
Thanks, I was trying to make sense out of this sentence in the COI page, but I couldn't get it. Now it reads smoothly. Maniadis ( talk) 06:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, next time I leave a message here, I will put a header like "Hide, the end of the universe is coming" :) Maniadis ( talk) 08:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Please stop interfering with the fishing navigation template on algaculture. -- Geronimo20 ( talk) 10:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
NJGW:
Thank you for watching the contentious "ethnicity table" on the Latin America article. The table's consistency has been holding pretty well since you first lay the gauntlet down. An Argentine friend of ours still insists on using a "meet-you-halfway" figure between the World Statesmen data and the CIA "fact"book data. I'm trying to discourage him because, though the difference is small (and he may be right, who knows?), his use of WP:OR numbers may provoke others into doing the same, which would be a shame.
This is such an ugly subject south of the border (and, indeed, here) that I only wish there could be a set of estimates everyone could agree on (if grudgingly). The less adrenalin that table provokes, the better.
Until then, thanks again and good luck.
76.174.124.198 ( talk) 11:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
No worries about reverting my revert, as I'm not offended. I initially reverted the anon user because it looked as if he deleted the entire World's Statesman reference as well, and I didn't know it was above. As far as the sources go, there was an anon IP editor last month who unilaterally changed all the numbers from the long-standing source of the CIA Factbook stating in the edit summary that the Cuban government and the Factbook can't be trusted. I know you put something on the talk page on 22 September, but I just haven't had the time to put much thought into it (I try to be thoughtful in my responses). I'll post something there on the talk page, but just so you know some of what I'm thinking, I think the Factbook is very helpful and accurate in certain areas. The problem with the ethnic groups is that it can be outdated a lot of the times, but I'm not sure that I trust the Statesmen source either because it looks like it's something that was just started up as someone's personal project. I have no idea where the stats are coming from (and it doesn't give the sources), but the 90% whites in Argentina stat came from neither the Factbook or the Statesman source. There's another source the I've seen popping up called the Joshua Project. Anyway, I'll try to put something together, but there really was no consensus to stop using the Factbook and start using Statesmen source, so I'll try to get more editors involved on the talk page. Thanks. Kman543210 ( talk) 11:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I just saw that you erased out the links to the articles on TARP in the Economic crisis of 2008 article on October 11th. You wrote: "The following links might be useful as sources, but violate wp:ELNO #1: links to websites which could be used as sources should be used as sources rather than external links" ... Hmm. An article on TARP in The Economist, which was put in "Further reading" originally and not in "External links" (someone moved it) is not pertinent to the article ? Amazing.
--- (Bob) Wikiklrsc ( talk) 19:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear NJGW,
There seems to be a problem with the source. It states 86.4% white, mestizo 6.5%, Amerindian 3.4%, and Arab 3.3%. Now the source states 3.4% amerindian, when according to INDEC states 1% INDEC: Encuesta Complementaria de Pueblos Indígenas (ECPI) 2004 - 2005. And arabs according to the U.S. Census Bureau are classified as whites (check Arab American). That is why the percentage of whites is around 90%.
Regards, -- Fercho85 ( talk) 04:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I have been involved in this kind of discussions so many times that I already know the sources to back up my statements..:) Anyway I think the main problem is which source should be added.. :) You can't state in articles estimations vary from "X % to X %". That is why a round number would be 90..The same case happens with Australia..one article states 85%, another 90%..
Cheers,
-- Fercho85 ( talk) 07:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid I disagree. The content is academic research from professors at NYU's Finance Department and several in the Economics Department. How can you say that there is zero content? Academic research is being posted on the blog. If you click through the blog, the finance department faculty is posting on that site academic articles, so there isnt undue emphasis on one faculty member. If you look on this wikipedia page there are nyu stern student clubs posted on this page, based on all this I believe the blog should be incorporated into this website. Therefore, I request that you not delete my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ej463 ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The complete website is sternfinance.blogspot.com. I cannot add it for some reason.. That page is not empty, if you click on the main link it will send you to the actual blog, it is just an entry page. If you can somehow replace the webpage I added with sternfinance.blogspot.com I would appreciate it. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ej463 (
talk •
contribs)
21:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise don't worry about it, the research can be accessed by clicking view blog on the main page. The page is relevant to NYU Stern and the Current Financial Crisis ("...-October 2008), so I undid your changes. I do agree that it does not belong in Finance or Financial Economics since the scope is too narrow. However, it is very relevant to NYU stern and the Current Financial Crisis page, since its one of the few blogs with academic researchers discussing it.
Thank you very much for your help, its is extremely appreciated ! Ej463 ( talk) 21:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any idea why my 24hr block got reviewed by the arbitration committee? I was going to ask Mathsci, if he/she understood what is going on, but there seems to be an unpleasant discussion with another member of the arbitration committee over there.
I still find the entire thing puzzling. I don't recall seeing blocks occur without some warning to desist...it is, after all, easy to loose track of reverts when involved in a number of tasks at once. I had only edited that article that one day, in response to a mention of it on the fringe theories noticeboard; and the editor that Elonka was protecting from my, so called, edit warring was soon after sent into wiki-exile [10], and he said some pretty nasty stuff while being escorted to the door.) Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 12:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to bother you. You seem to be cutting out some relevant and well-cited material along with cruft and original research. Can you use a scalpel, please? Bearian ( talk) 21:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
HI NJGW.
I would avoid making allegations that Mac's ignoring you unless you're also going to provide some diffs as evidence. Otherwise it ends up simply as one person's word against another, and distracts from the main issue. I left a comment on Mac's talk page addressing the main issue, if you're interested. -- HughCharlesParker ( talk - contribs) 13:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
←Re the NPA warning you left on Mac's talk page: on the one hand, clearly you're right. On the other hand, with your name appearing on Mac's talk page all the time, you risk him thinking you're pursuing a vendetta. Clearly you're not, but I still hold out hope that he'll see sense eventually, and I think that's more likely to happen if you leave someone else to make that point. That way Mac gets to see that it's more than just you and me who respect wikipedia's modus operandi.
I also wouldn't have pointed out on WP:AFD/List of... that Mac created most of those articles. Frustrating though it undoubtedly is, dealing with a disruptive editor, it's important we don't lose sight of WP:NPA ourselves - it doesn't matter who created the articles, the issue is whether they should now be there. I fell into that trap myself a few days back - I nominated Dyesol for deletion, having made an assumption and not done my homework properly. The fact is that some of Mac's work is useful - that's why it's worth the effort to try to get him to stop the crap, rather than just getting him banned for disruption. -- HughCharlesParker ( talk - contribs) 15:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello NJGW -
I have the LBH page watchlisted (because I've done a lot of work on it) and always appreciate your efforts to keep the page respectable and within Wiki guidelines.
That's why I'm a little puzzled by part of your last edit. I recognize that several of the links you 'suspended' are simply extensions from existing links, but the two that I don't quite see as violating wp:ELNO #1 are the Rootsweb roster of the 7th Cav. company rolls and the University of Wisconsin's complete transcript of the Reno Court of Inquiry. The former is a generally accepted source and the information potentially of interest and value to an LBH researcher, and having the entire Court of Inquiry transcript a click away is indispensable for students of the battle like myself. I may be missing something about why those links don't belong with the article and would appreciate any insight you can give me when you have a moment. Thanks - Sensei48 ( talk) 03:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you please help me complete this form and submit? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aoso0ck Thanks. Is there anything else I can do to help? Jwri7474 ( talk) 06:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
How ridiculous is it that admins need sleep? Gosh, you're right. :P Just teasing, no worries. Keep up the good work, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 06:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed a statement by SA, my request to withdraw, and your comment beneath. I hope you have no objection. cygnis insignis 07:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
If you wish I can semi protect your userpage. That way only experienced contributors will be able to edit it. Just give me the go on my talk page :) -- lucasbfr talk 13:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the discussions at WP:FTN, I'd really like to see if everyone could do what they can to de-escalate the dispute. What would be really helpful is if you could review your commentary and remove anything that was negative commentary about an editor, as opposed to constructive commentary about content. I can't force you to do this, but I do think it would help. Keeping discussions focused on content instead of contributors is usually the best course of action to de-escalate things. -- El on ka 18:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
This has become a mess. Tightening should live. Squeeze should die (re-direct to either crunch or tightening). I put in contraction by mistake. What has to happen: Delete contraction. Keep tightening. Kill off a separate squeeze and merge it into crunch (or my preference, tightening). I'm over this, I hope someone can clean this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Paul...Ron Paul... ( talk • contribs) 07:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've removed the material on SV40 from the lead. I am puzzled by your edit relating to the SV40 material at 03:25, 9 November with the summ.of (using wikipedia as a ref is not appropriate). Please supply a reference to the appropriate WP policy. Maybe such policy exists but I have never seen it and most articles do reference WP. Replying here would be easiest. thanks. 124.169.185.133 ( talk) 02:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Your interpretation is interesting. And the scientific publication that details OPV AIDS hypothesis is .....? 124.169.185.133 ( talk) 06:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Please do not remove references that are not duplicated. [12] Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi NJGW. Your view that User:Linegen might actually be User:Mac is plausible. I notice you've previously submitted cases over at WP:SSP. How would you feel about opening a new report, something like Mac (3rd)? If you do so, leave him a {{subst:uw-socksuspect|1=Mac}} notice on his Talk page. I'm thinking that, when that is done, a checkuser request should be considered (hoping that the checkusers may be willing to block the underlying IP). EdJohnston ( talk) 15:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting and warning the IP address 86.121.195.144 on 10 Nov. This editor has been vandalising HIV/AIDS-related articles for several weeks, and despite multiple warnings. As Plwha, the editor was banned, but s/he has also edited anonymously from 86.121.195.144 (as you know), 86.121.193.29, 86.121.193.176, and 86.121.193.7.
I quite frankly am unsure what if anything to do about this disruptive editing, which has extended to deleting legitimate material in the past, as in examples I gave here. It seems that a different IP address is used in every bout of vandalism, and since the user account has been banned, I can't well file a sock report. Any suggestions would be much appreciated. Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 18:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, that EL in the IRENA article should have been a ref. I was being lazy. Thanks for keeping a weather eye on things... Johnfos ( talk) 04:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, NJGW. There is an attempt to give a boost to the Oil shale economics article. Considering your expertise in the field of petroleum, you may be interested to participate. The discussion is going on here. Thank you. Beagel ( talk) 14:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you and good work. I will give it a serious thought and try to merge them together. I am a newcomer, as you can see. I would propose to merge them together under a title of "Oil Dependency of North America". Obviously I don't know how to merge articles and I need your help.
Regards, Dreamliner888 ( talk) 07:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Replied. Thanks for your comment. Tony (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Saw your hidden connent in the Peak gas article, wondering if gas production rose in the late 1970s due to Alaskan gas production. Good guess, but off the mark, because there are still (2008) no gas pipelines connecting Alaska to the lower 48. Some gas is produced around the Cook inlet for the Anchorage market, but whatever gas deposits there are on the North Slope remain untapped. More likely explanations for increased US gas are technology and price rises. Regards. Plazak ( talk) 14:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
What is your basis for adding this? Bstone ( talk) 15:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I got a bit overhasty, when I saw you'd trimmed some useful links (that I probably put there -- I live in the area). Full agreement on the spammy stuff, which is an ongoing problem. Cheers, Pete Tillman ( talk) 17:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
" Has there been any consensus on whether any dates should be linked? "
Sorry for the delay in replying. Single-year links have been on the nose for quite a while, although people are a little more accepting when they're in ancient times. But honestly, I can't see any advantage. Those who write the year articles will complain that they'll eventually be "orphaned"; but my response is "make them a lot lot better and we can find ways of promoting them". Tony (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I was neglectful. I was hurrying down a list (for other purposes) and saw two articles that apparently didn't know the other existed, and threw in Merge notices thinking they were obvious. The two articles really do need to wikilink to each other, and not just through the Sustainable Techniologies category. And the Renewable fuel redirect needs to be fixed or disambig'd. I'm rushed right now, and haven't yet looked to see what to do about the overlapping articles in the Renewable Energy portal. Simesa ( talk) 08:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I have started a new thread at Talk:Economic_crisis_of_2008#Meltdown_Monday, of which you may be interested. Bearian ( talk) 19:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
You have entered an big unspecified claim on the article Drug policy of Sweden. Several sources are official government documents about the present drug policy, the latest is from September 2008, others represent different critical views on the Swedish drug policy. So can you please explain what is unsourced etc in the article. Dala11a ( talk) 19:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi NJGW. I just wanted to let you know that I declined your speedy tagging of Catch 22 (band). Since the band has apparently released multiple albums on a notable label, there is a suggestion of notability under the WP:MUSIC criteria, so it does not meet criteria for speedy deletion. If you believe this merits a community discussion, feel free to nominate it as an AfD. Thanks, Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I have unhidden the paragraph headings. Also I have added a half of a dozen diagrams and a small amount of supporting text. Could you perhaps give me a hand to fill-in the needed paragraphs in the next few weeks? Konrad Kgrr ( talk) 17:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any opinions NJGW?
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yasis#More_on_USA.27s_orchestration_of_1973_oil_shock
218.186.69.253 ( talk) 06:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
"Oppose or support what?" Supporting the new section on possible USA orchestrating the 1973 oil shock to support their hidden agenda. You don't seem to like the idea.
Thanks. 218.186.69.253 ( talk) 07:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Sheikh Zaki Yamani, former Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia
That does not fit in with definition of sock puppet, NJGW. You should know that. 218.186.68.211 ( talk) 02:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean Bwilkins? Can you elaborate on that point. If I make edits without logging in, that is considered a sockpuppet? Thanks. By the way I am Yasis. Currently blocked. 218.186.65.198 ( talk) 04:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about date formatting. Schmiteye ( talk) 19:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I have set up a fresh discussion thread on my talk page. Feel free to comment. Jehochman Talk 04:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi NJGW,
Please have a look at my opinion here. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me again. Thanks. fayssal - Wiki me up® 02:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
For this edit [1], can you get a non-yahoo source, as those don't tend to stay up long.
Also, wouldn't it be better off the lead. Unless we put a 'current' price tag. Lihaas ( talk) 12:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe there's a way for some citation templates, but not all; something to do with separating the month and the year access fields (I'm a computer dummy). This situation will inevitably change when the community becomes more used to seeing normal dates and demands greater flexibility in their citation templates. Um ... I suggest you ask the extremely clever User:Gimmetrow.
But more broadly, no one should be forcing dates to be autoformatted in a citation template where it's possible to render them plain. You might consider reporting this at MOSNUM talk if there's still trouble. If it's unresolved, please link me to the relevant article. Tony (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I see you returned the quotes to the article. They seem to be translations by someone called F. Scalenghe. I have no idea who F. Scalenghe is, and a web search came up with pretty much nothing. That is why I removed them, but if you can find something to justify using them let me know. Otherwise I think they will have to go. (I will add more to the article, but do not have time today.) Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I see no legal problems with my last edit on Drug policy of Sweden. The Swedish text on the web site state that the text is free if one mention the source. "Citera oss gärna, men ange källan!" Dala11a ( talk) 23:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice, I am new and still learning, please feel free to point out my mistakes. Arilang1234 ( talk) 04:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi its me. Thanks for tidying up the article, I know I can be messy at times. What do you think about the development of this saga? It looks more and more like a script coming from a hollywood block buster movie. 124.182.241.87 ( talk) 21:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales had a meeting with Cai Mingzhao, Vice Director of China's State Council Information Office" http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2008/10/jimmy-wales-mee.html#comments the comments made by Statue of Liberty is very interesting. What yo think? Arilang1234 ( talk) 09:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Glad to have improved the article. Thanks for the nudges to edit instead of just delete. MKil ( talk) 19:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)MKil
Calamitybrook ( talk) 20:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi NJGW, you have just reverted my move of of melamine cyanurate to melamine-cyanuric acid complex, stating Google statistics as the reason. The title melamine cyanurate implies a salt complex. However, the scientific consensus is that the compound is NOT a salt complex but a hydrogen bond complex. Per the Wikiproject Chemistry naming conventions, the title should be melamine-cyanuric acid complex. I will revert to the more correct title if you do not object (e.g. on the talk page). Thanks, Cacycle ( talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I am working often when I am writing and have many browsers open at once. Sometimes I'll edit on a browser I don't realize I am not signed in and have been taken to task so I got into the habit of manually signing my name just in case. Most of the time I do both. But that's just me right? thanos5150
Uh, apparently I don't know. I have been putting the Thanos5150 ( talk) 03:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC) in the wrong spot for years and never noticed. Shhhh Thanos5150 ( talk) 03:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Can I add this [2] back in, now that the day is done? Bearian ( talk) 21:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
"You might want to read wp:TALK, particularly the part that says it's OK to "Delete material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)." The section I deleted did not reference Melamine, and has been removed several times after the same editor inserted it. It is wp:OR with no refs, and off topic. NJGW ( talk) 05:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
":Also, I just realized you posted that message to my user page, not my talk page. It's important you know the difference... it's discussed both at wp:TALK and wp:USER. NJGW ( talk) 05:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi NJGW. FYI, I've posted a note for you over at Talk: Titanic alternative theories. Thanks. Mgy401 1912 ( talk) 15:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in several times... It gets very interesting when trying to nominate the article for GA. These strange people come out of the woodwork.
BTW, Do you know 65.161.188.11? You called him Rob. I did an IP lookup. Interesting to say the least. Kgrr ( talk) 17:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC) 63.239.69.1 ncmd.nsa.gov (Md Procurement Office) Gambrills,MD Kgrr ( talk) 13:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the notice. Igloo321 ( talk) 07:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I have worked on the article and restructured it so that I could bring an end to the NPOV edit war. Take a look and make a few suggestions if you have them.
I will take a look at the Oil shale economics article in more detail. At the moment, I still need to familiarize myself with the issues.
Konrad Kgrr ( talk) 15:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
As you might recall, we overlapped in reverting fringe stuff from Petroleum a few months back. I can't even remember why I was watching the article, because I'm more interested in biomedical than geological articles. Anyways, I always forget that the fringe theory pushers are in all science articles not just medical articles that I watch and now, I see you're crossing swords with some of the people I have to deal with. I wish you luck. :) Since I stretched my limits with biogenic oil, I was wondering if you could give an outside view on Psychic. I don't know about you, but when it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, it must be pseudoscience. If you have the time and energy, I was wondering if you could weigh in. BTW, there's an IP fringe-theory pusher at Talk:Petroleum. You may want to assist. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Unblock request on hold. I have suspended this unblock request, pending NJGW's consideration of my offer below. ("NJGW agreeing to use a little more caution when pushing the revert button on a Wikipedia article in the future." Reverting four times in 24 hours on an article is rarely, if ever, a sensible course of action.) Anthøny ✉ 21:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC) {{
unblock|Please have a closer look at those difs. In one I was reverting an editor who reverted 24 edits, in another I was reverting a second editor who placed a fact tag in an incorrect place (this editor is at odds with the first editor by the way), in the third I was reverting a completely different edit by a THIRD editor, and in the last I was reverting the first editor for the second time. The editors are not related (unless numbers one and three are socks), and while the edits are to the same section, they are all for different reasons (notice that editor #2 actually wants Chiropractic listed, while the other two don't). This has had not reached an edit war and was being peacefully discussed on the talk and user talk pages.}} |
Here is my report of edit warring that got ME blocked. Here's the block log of the other user who I was involved with... looks like he got himself unblocked. Gotta run for now, but I may be back later. NJGW ( talk) 20:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. I am hereby making you aware, if you aren't already, that this is a contentious area on Wikipedia and administrators are granted broad discretionary powers to impose sanctions on those who are viewed as disrupting. I honestly haven't looked into your editing deeply enough to know whether or not that is the case with you. But you should know about that if you are going to edit in this area. Mango juice talk 06:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I re-inserted that link in Energy crisis because it appeared to have been reverted as part of removing another obvious vandalism. Thanks for pointing out its inappropriateness via Wikipedia:RS. I think it would be useful for people reading about alternative energies to have a link to information about the costs. The link I inserted has a discussion with several third-party sources. Any suggestions of how to tie this in would be appreciated.
On a different topic, as a newbie I obviously haven't learned the protocols yet. When somebody leaves me a note on my talk page (as you did), is it best to respond on your talk page (as I am doing)? I see that your page has several dialogues, but I don't understand how that all ends up on your page -- if you respond to something on your own page, how does the originator know you have responded? Thanks. Robsavoie ( talk) 18:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Some advice to NJGW. You are one of the good guys around here keeping the POV pushers from taking over articles. However, just because they're wrong, there should never be a reason for you to get a 3RR violation. EdJohnston is one of the good admins around here, but there others that have no tolerance for edit-warring, sometimes without even examining the merits of your edits. So, if you run into a POV-pusher, it's best to ask for assistance. Get to know the fair admins, who might be able to chill things out. Call in other NPOV editors to help out. You're not alone. But you don't need these blocks. They help the POV-pushers get what they want. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
moved to Category talk:Lists of things considered unusual
Thanks, I was trying to make sense out of this sentence in the COI page, but I couldn't get it. Now it reads smoothly. Maniadis ( talk) 06:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, next time I leave a message here, I will put a header like "Hide, the end of the universe is coming" :) Maniadis ( talk) 08:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Please stop interfering with the fishing navigation template on algaculture. -- Geronimo20 ( talk) 10:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
NJGW:
Thank you for watching the contentious "ethnicity table" on the Latin America article. The table's consistency has been holding pretty well since you first lay the gauntlet down. An Argentine friend of ours still insists on using a "meet-you-halfway" figure between the World Statesmen data and the CIA "fact"book data. I'm trying to discourage him because, though the difference is small (and he may be right, who knows?), his use of WP:OR numbers may provoke others into doing the same, which would be a shame.
This is such an ugly subject south of the border (and, indeed, here) that I only wish there could be a set of estimates everyone could agree on (if grudgingly). The less adrenalin that table provokes, the better.
Until then, thanks again and good luck.
76.174.124.198 ( talk) 11:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
No worries about reverting my revert, as I'm not offended. I initially reverted the anon user because it looked as if he deleted the entire World's Statesman reference as well, and I didn't know it was above. As far as the sources go, there was an anon IP editor last month who unilaterally changed all the numbers from the long-standing source of the CIA Factbook stating in the edit summary that the Cuban government and the Factbook can't be trusted. I know you put something on the talk page on 22 September, but I just haven't had the time to put much thought into it (I try to be thoughtful in my responses). I'll post something there on the talk page, but just so you know some of what I'm thinking, I think the Factbook is very helpful and accurate in certain areas. The problem with the ethnic groups is that it can be outdated a lot of the times, but I'm not sure that I trust the Statesmen source either because it looks like it's something that was just started up as someone's personal project. I have no idea where the stats are coming from (and it doesn't give the sources), but the 90% whites in Argentina stat came from neither the Factbook or the Statesman source. There's another source the I've seen popping up called the Joshua Project. Anyway, I'll try to put something together, but there really was no consensus to stop using the Factbook and start using Statesmen source, so I'll try to get more editors involved on the talk page. Thanks. Kman543210 ( talk) 11:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I just saw that you erased out the links to the articles on TARP in the Economic crisis of 2008 article on October 11th. You wrote: "The following links might be useful as sources, but violate wp:ELNO #1: links to websites which could be used as sources should be used as sources rather than external links" ... Hmm. An article on TARP in The Economist, which was put in "Further reading" originally and not in "External links" (someone moved it) is not pertinent to the article ? Amazing.
--- (Bob) Wikiklrsc ( talk) 19:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear NJGW,
There seems to be a problem with the source. It states 86.4% white, mestizo 6.5%, Amerindian 3.4%, and Arab 3.3%. Now the source states 3.4% amerindian, when according to INDEC states 1% INDEC: Encuesta Complementaria de Pueblos Indígenas (ECPI) 2004 - 2005. And arabs according to the U.S. Census Bureau are classified as whites (check Arab American). That is why the percentage of whites is around 90%.
Regards, -- Fercho85 ( talk) 04:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I have been involved in this kind of discussions so many times that I already know the sources to back up my statements..:) Anyway I think the main problem is which source should be added.. :) You can't state in articles estimations vary from "X % to X %". That is why a round number would be 90..The same case happens with Australia..one article states 85%, another 90%..
Cheers,
-- Fercho85 ( talk) 07:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid I disagree. The content is academic research from professors at NYU's Finance Department and several in the Economics Department. How can you say that there is zero content? Academic research is being posted on the blog. If you click through the blog, the finance department faculty is posting on that site academic articles, so there isnt undue emphasis on one faculty member. If you look on this wikipedia page there are nyu stern student clubs posted on this page, based on all this I believe the blog should be incorporated into this website. Therefore, I request that you not delete my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ej463 ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The complete website is sternfinance.blogspot.com. I cannot add it for some reason.. That page is not empty, if you click on the main link it will send you to the actual blog, it is just an entry page. If you can somehow replace the webpage I added with sternfinance.blogspot.com I would appreciate it. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ej463 (
talk •
contribs)
21:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise don't worry about it, the research can be accessed by clicking view blog on the main page. The page is relevant to NYU Stern and the Current Financial Crisis ("...-October 2008), so I undid your changes. I do agree that it does not belong in Finance or Financial Economics since the scope is too narrow. However, it is very relevant to NYU stern and the Current Financial Crisis page, since its one of the few blogs with academic researchers discussing it.
Thank you very much for your help, its is extremely appreciated ! Ej463 ( talk) 21:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any idea why my 24hr block got reviewed by the arbitration committee? I was going to ask Mathsci, if he/she understood what is going on, but there seems to be an unpleasant discussion with another member of the arbitration committee over there.
I still find the entire thing puzzling. I don't recall seeing blocks occur without some warning to desist...it is, after all, easy to loose track of reverts when involved in a number of tasks at once. I had only edited that article that one day, in response to a mention of it on the fringe theories noticeboard; and the editor that Elonka was protecting from my, so called, edit warring was soon after sent into wiki-exile [10], and he said some pretty nasty stuff while being escorted to the door.) Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 12:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to bother you. You seem to be cutting out some relevant and well-cited material along with cruft and original research. Can you use a scalpel, please? Bearian ( talk) 21:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
HI NJGW.
I would avoid making allegations that Mac's ignoring you unless you're also going to provide some diffs as evidence. Otherwise it ends up simply as one person's word against another, and distracts from the main issue. I left a comment on Mac's talk page addressing the main issue, if you're interested. -- HughCharlesParker ( talk - contribs) 13:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
←Re the NPA warning you left on Mac's talk page: on the one hand, clearly you're right. On the other hand, with your name appearing on Mac's talk page all the time, you risk him thinking you're pursuing a vendetta. Clearly you're not, but I still hold out hope that he'll see sense eventually, and I think that's more likely to happen if you leave someone else to make that point. That way Mac gets to see that it's more than just you and me who respect wikipedia's modus operandi.
I also wouldn't have pointed out on WP:AFD/List of... that Mac created most of those articles. Frustrating though it undoubtedly is, dealing with a disruptive editor, it's important we don't lose sight of WP:NPA ourselves - it doesn't matter who created the articles, the issue is whether they should now be there. I fell into that trap myself a few days back - I nominated Dyesol for deletion, having made an assumption and not done my homework properly. The fact is that some of Mac's work is useful - that's why it's worth the effort to try to get him to stop the crap, rather than just getting him banned for disruption. -- HughCharlesParker ( talk - contribs) 15:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello NJGW -
I have the LBH page watchlisted (because I've done a lot of work on it) and always appreciate your efforts to keep the page respectable and within Wiki guidelines.
That's why I'm a little puzzled by part of your last edit. I recognize that several of the links you 'suspended' are simply extensions from existing links, but the two that I don't quite see as violating wp:ELNO #1 are the Rootsweb roster of the 7th Cav. company rolls and the University of Wisconsin's complete transcript of the Reno Court of Inquiry. The former is a generally accepted source and the information potentially of interest and value to an LBH researcher, and having the entire Court of Inquiry transcript a click away is indispensable for students of the battle like myself. I may be missing something about why those links don't belong with the article and would appreciate any insight you can give me when you have a moment. Thanks - Sensei48 ( talk) 03:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you please help me complete this form and submit? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aoso0ck Thanks. Is there anything else I can do to help? Jwri7474 ( talk) 06:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
How ridiculous is it that admins need sleep? Gosh, you're right. :P Just teasing, no worries. Keep up the good work, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 06:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed a statement by SA, my request to withdraw, and your comment beneath. I hope you have no objection. cygnis insignis 07:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
If you wish I can semi protect your userpage. That way only experienced contributors will be able to edit it. Just give me the go on my talk page :) -- lucasbfr talk 13:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the discussions at WP:FTN, I'd really like to see if everyone could do what they can to de-escalate the dispute. What would be really helpful is if you could review your commentary and remove anything that was negative commentary about an editor, as opposed to constructive commentary about content. I can't force you to do this, but I do think it would help. Keeping discussions focused on content instead of contributors is usually the best course of action to de-escalate things. -- El on ka 18:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
This has become a mess. Tightening should live. Squeeze should die (re-direct to either crunch or tightening). I put in contraction by mistake. What has to happen: Delete contraction. Keep tightening. Kill off a separate squeeze and merge it into crunch (or my preference, tightening). I'm over this, I hope someone can clean this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Paul...Ron Paul... ( talk • contribs) 07:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've removed the material on SV40 from the lead. I am puzzled by your edit relating to the SV40 material at 03:25, 9 November with the summ.of (using wikipedia as a ref is not appropriate). Please supply a reference to the appropriate WP policy. Maybe such policy exists but I have never seen it and most articles do reference WP. Replying here would be easiest. thanks. 124.169.185.133 ( talk) 02:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Your interpretation is interesting. And the scientific publication that details OPV AIDS hypothesis is .....? 124.169.185.133 ( talk) 06:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Please do not remove references that are not duplicated. [12] Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi NJGW. Your view that User:Linegen might actually be User:Mac is plausible. I notice you've previously submitted cases over at WP:SSP. How would you feel about opening a new report, something like Mac (3rd)? If you do so, leave him a {{subst:uw-socksuspect|1=Mac}} notice on his Talk page. I'm thinking that, when that is done, a checkuser request should be considered (hoping that the checkusers may be willing to block the underlying IP). EdJohnston ( talk) 15:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting and warning the IP address 86.121.195.144 on 10 Nov. This editor has been vandalising HIV/AIDS-related articles for several weeks, and despite multiple warnings. As Plwha, the editor was banned, but s/he has also edited anonymously from 86.121.195.144 (as you know), 86.121.193.29, 86.121.193.176, and 86.121.193.7.
I quite frankly am unsure what if anything to do about this disruptive editing, which has extended to deleting legitimate material in the past, as in examples I gave here. It seems that a different IP address is used in every bout of vandalism, and since the user account has been banned, I can't well file a sock report. Any suggestions would be much appreciated. Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 18:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, that EL in the IRENA article should have been a ref. I was being lazy. Thanks for keeping a weather eye on things... Johnfos ( talk) 04:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)