User:Glen Dillon/Archive 1

Hi. Don't need any help right now, but I couldn't see how to edit your talk page so this appears to be the only way to respond to you - perhaps I do need help after all! Thanks for the message. The 'how-to' links will be very useful. I'm yet to start any new articles myself but will get to that soon. Want to get more proficient at editing existing articles first.

If I understand your question correctly - do I subscribe to the 'peak oil' theory? The answer is yes and no! In broad terms, 'Peak Oil' as a 'theory' is useful in explaining aggregated long-term behaviour of oil supply - and I mean actual physical supply or extraction from reservoirs/fields. There is nothing really unique or new about it from that point of view - it is grounded in basic geology/geophysics/reservoir engineering principles. So the theory holds up. Where it becomes less useful is in regard to gas as opposed to oil - particularly giant fields containing mostly gas. The theory still holds of course, but there continue to be new and very large discoveries of gas - WA's North-West shelf, Timor Sea are prime examples - which have the effect of pushing the 'peak' further out in time. Also - drilling and production technology keeps getting better - making ultra-deep (say 1500+metres water depth) fields easier to bring to the market.

Sorry about this explanation - it went longer than it needed - but thought I should give you a considered response rather than a one-sentence answer.

Regards, Petroeconomist


 * It's because you're a new user, and SatuSuro's talk page is protected to stop vandalism - I'll post a note to them pointing here. Hope this helps,  Alex Muller  08:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll ask one of my admn friends to unprotect it - I had asked cos I used to work as a bootom of the food chain coder in the seismic processing fields in the early 80's and I have 3 brothers in laws who are in the oil production side of things - interested in the whole lack of adequate coverage of Australian oil industry history or even scope in Australia - on the WP Australia project - thanks for your answer - cheers SatuSuro 09:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to SatuSuro
you write: "interested in the whole lack of adequate coverage of Australian oil industry history or even scope in Australia.." you mean on Wikipedia? I agree and I intend to contribute usefully with new articles regarding petroleum in Australia - including exploration, production, gas transmission pipelines etc - contemporary situation as well as history - mostly West Aust and Northern Territory. I have a lot of material already - including a lot of useful graphics which I've developed myself over the years. I just need to give a bit of thought to structure and organisation.

Perhaps a starting point is an article on Australian petroleum - and branch off from there. Just in the last few minutes I thought I'd do a quick scan of what exists - from the top down - looked at article on the Australian economy - expecting there to be maybe 5000 words - turns out there's about 600 words and no reference to petroleum whatsoever. Well - I guess there's a fair bit of work to be done. I've got a bit to learn - I think I'll be okay with writing good content, organising a hierarchy for the subject etc. I need to understand the Wiki protocols for referencing and dealing with the copyright aspects of photos & graphics etc. Fortunately I've got plenty of petroleum-related photos I've taken myself.

Anyway - I won't take up more of your time, but will welcome any criticism/suggestions of my work once I get going.

Can I ask you one 'newbie' type question? Re: using real names as a Wikipedia user. Frankly -I'd be comfortable using my real name in this type of environment rather than a 'nickname'. In a practical sense - are there any issues I need to be aware of before I ditch 'Petroeconomist' and revert to a real name?

Cheers. Petroconomist 11:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Have a close look at WP:COI before you do - there might be arts/material you have produced that might cuse you or others to have issue SatuSuro 11:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * thank-you for the very helpful warning. I think I need to read and absorb a fair bit more about Wiki protocols and procedures, Neutral POV etc before I jump in and make a mess of things. --Petroconomist 13:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! SatuSuro 08:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thinking
Out of curiosity, are you a 'peak' or other? SatuSuro 14:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Btw
Talk items are added underneath each time - it goes down - there are indeed some aspects of wikipedia that run counter to logic from other methods of computer and net usage :) SatuSuro 10:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Cripes
Attrition, bit like doing seismic processing in the old days - awe for those of us silly enough to stay around too long is a little like praising those shell officer seismic lines i processed on the timaps in 1980 (they must b so crude to what can be done today with 3d etc) - perhaps a little misplaced - (where did all this come from? I read your user page) - cheers SatuSuro 11:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * yeah saw where you'd done something like 40,000 edits and I find it truly impressive and not just the quantity but the spirit of contribution, the 'community-mindedness' the global vibe of selflessness lurking in the background, the willingness to negotiate and co-operate etc...which seems to be characteristic of those of you with the most runs on the board. I'm not worthy!! and I'm going to remove the list of contributions on my page as a small mark of respect to those like yourself who seek no glory Glen Dillon (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:)
Good work on the election article. BTW which claims in your view remain to be cited? Second the welcomes above - always good to have useful Western Australian editors - there's a small community of us who you'll no doubt get to know very shortly. Orderinchaos 11:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * thanks. In answer to your question and having looked at the article again there's actually nothing significant that I can point to that needs citations! I should have chosen my words (ie in my edit notes) more carefully. I probably came across as unduly critical, and I'm going to post a quick comment on the article's talk page to explain myself in case editors before me are offended. The big section on electoral changes is actually very well documented (and well-written too). So my initial edit summary bit about citations I think came from the lack of citations in the 'Electoral system' section - esp. Leg. Assembly - but its no big deal - more a technicality I guess. Anyway - there's no NPOV issues or anything like that. Finally- I'm only new to Wiki and I've developed a bad habit of putting too much stuff in the edit summary box each time I edit. I need to curb that! Cheers.--Glen Dillon (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, we're all new once! :) Your edit summary was fine. Most of the work was mine, but it was not my finest - I was in a rush to get it out before a range of time-consuming real life distractions were to intrude. Barnett wasn't the only one caught on the hop by the early announcement - I'd set up a whole work plan to get WA politics as a category done, and was barely 17 days into it when the election was called. Most of the stuff I've been able to add to Wikipedia on the topic was relating to stuff over a century ago and indeed I've been working offline on a probable future featured article on the 1911 election, which has all sorts of fascinating bylines (and is somewhat more interesting than the present one). Orderinchaos 12:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a minor point btw, you don't need to put br/ after paragraphs... just leave one blank line between them and the Wiki parser sorts it out. Orderinchaos 14:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * tks for the helpful tip--Glen Dillon (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. You're doing better than I was as a newbie, I didn't know about the ref tags until a few months in. :P Orderinchaos 16:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :)
Yeah, I saw that our stuff was in a parlous state and needed fixing badly. A lot still does. The handy thing is in all the research I'm doing to fix it, I'm learning a lot which may be useful later if I want to do honours or higher. Orderinchaos 12:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Trioli2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Trioli2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Trioli.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Trioli.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Stifle (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that fair use/non-free images of people who are still alive are strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)