User talk:BillJamesMN

There is a need for vocabulary to discuss energy. There are multiple articles and discussions in financial publications. All inputs have to come from somewhere. How can civilization killers of Peak Oil, Climate Change and Debt be solved if there is no vocabulary for doing so. The solutions will not be what is currently failing.

Update: It has been picked up by quite a few people. It has been peer reviewed. I will let them post the reference.


 * It is the responsibility of the editor who makes the edit to cite your sources. If you have a source, it's incumbent on you cite it.  --JJLatWiki 01:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: Kinetic energy and its reality in Start-Stop traffic is not new. The development of the terms Parasitic Mass and Parasitic Energy Consumption were developed by me. If an original author posts a mathematical function, who should they site?


 * Original research is simply not permitted. All material is required to be verifiable by reliable sources.  Usually with something like a novel mathematical formula or theory, relavent peer-reviewed journals should be used as sources.  Wikipedia editors aren't responsible for reviewing your formulas.  Someone other than you must confirm that your formula is correct and correctly applied.  I easily grasp your concept of PEC (though I disagree with the name), but if you are the only one saying it's correct and meaningful what do you think our conclusion should be when we wonder why you're the only one?  p.s. It is most typical to add new content to the bottom of the talk page.  --JJLatWiki 00:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: PEC needs to be identified as a ration based on kinetic energy being consumed at an exponential rate in Stop-Start traffic. If I hit all the lights I might make a 20 mile commute with only one Start-Stop, in which can the PEC would be pretty good. But that is not typical. You will see studies on the difference in energy used by different modes based on rolling or wind resistance. Those number can be precise but in stop and go traffic they are relatively meaningless. The energy difference is trivial compared the energy wasted starting and stopping. PEC is meaningful but not very precise.

Stop and Go is a usable noun but it is more precisely we Start-Stop. That is why I use that word.

Update: Hello Transportation Enthusiast. There were two Fox News stories, a Minneapolis Tribute story, Ottawa story, here are some links: Main Fox News story: http://blip.tv/file//

Second Fox News Story http://www.jpods.com/JPods/movies/Mpls2_GOOD/FoxNews2_GOOD.html Oil Crisis, Wrong Problem http://www.earthtoys.com/emagazine.php?issue_number=07.06.01&article=crisis Changing Life Blood of our economy from oil to ingenuity http://www.earthtoys.com/emagazine.php?issue_number=07.06.01&article=ingenuity

Here is a link to pictures from a demonstration for the National League of Cities. http://www.jpods.com/Photo_070510Bloomington.html. The page was provided so attendees could use the pictures at their home cities.

The fact the press is so absent from stories on Peak Oil and PRT is not a limitation to newsworthiness. Hell, Global Warming was hardly mentioned a year or two ago. There is ligitmate news coverage, not as much as Peak Oil and Peak Oil is significantly responsible for the tripling of oil prices between 2000 and 2006. It will cause another tripling of price between now and 2010. Yet there is little coverage.

Hello BillJamesMN. I don't believe that JPods or Personal automated mobility are worthy of Wikipedia articles. I did a Google search on "personal automated mobility" and got zero results, so this does not seem to be a common term. Also, JPods has been added and deleted at least a few times, and I can almost guarantee this latest version will get deleted too; see this note for a nice explanation of why it keeps getting deleted.

A Google search on JPods seems to return nothing meaningful except the JPods website, which contains very few details about the project. It seems to be a very immature concept at this point. But I may have missed something, so if there are reliable sources of detailed information on JPods, please point me to them. If reliable sources exist then maybe a short note on JPods could be added to the main PRT article. A Transportation Enthusiast 03:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: this innocuous little note has gotten the attention of the Minnesota anti-PRT activist. It's nice to know that I'm now famous enough that something as miniscule as this gets me blog coverage! Thanks for the plug, Ken! :-D A Transportation Enthusiast 15:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: from BillJamesMN. There will be a lot of news coming out on this in the next few months. In 1985 few people had heard of the Internet. What is about to happen will be substanitive. Here are a few quotes to consider before you delete the entree:

Barbara Johnson, President of Minneapolis City Council: "As a City Council Member of our state’s largest city, I firmly believe that strong leadership in a public/private alliance can quickly implement break through technologies such as yours. Our community can ill afford to wait for another war or another natural disaster to take action.  Minneapolis will step up as a leader and support technologies that keeps our air cleaner, our streets less cluttered and creates long-term jobs."

Mark Stenglein, Vice-Chair Hennepin County, Board of Commissioners "Intelligent Transportation's approach to the energy and transportation needs of our community is one whose time has come. Computerized networks can automate repetitive travel such as transporting children to and from school, shoppers to and from retail centers, and commuters to and from work.

I appreciate that your networks do not limit personal mobility when someone is too young, too old, too poor, or too incapacitated to operate a car. Personal mobility gives access to economic, social and educational opportunities....

...The scale of these networks indicates millions of jobs may be created, revitalizing our infrastructure while shifting trade balances."


 * Nonetheless, there is very little substantial there. The quotes you mention are endorsements of your efforts, not of any particular product. Lacking any details on the product or project itself, it's difficult to assess the validity of the JPods effort. So I anticipate it will get deleted soon, and I honestly can't say I disagree with deletion. There's just too little there for an encyclopedia. Also, Wikipedia frowns upon editors submitting information about projects with which they are personally involved, especially if there's a financial involvement. All of these factors support the decision to delete.


 * If there are published academic papers, media articles from respected outlets, or other more specific and reliable sources of information, then please present them and perhaps JPods will get a mention in the main PRT article.


 * Also, don't be offended by a deletion, should it happen. This is just the way Wikipedia works. The requirements for article inclusion are strict, for the simple reason that the existence of unverifiable or inaccurate articles dilutes the entire effort. Once the JPods effort gets more verifiable, in the form of news articles, published papers, or even publicly viewable system prototypes, then perhaps it will merit an article. A Transportation Enthusiast 19:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: from BillJamesMN. I will not be offended if it gets deleted. There will be enough news soon. It is just kind of silly that concepts that have no physical examples are listed and one that has a physical vehicle and 3 letters of intent to build networks is not. If you wish to read the letters please visit our web site (Project and Leadership list letters)

In this time of rising gas prices and high risk to energy supplies suppressing information seems unsound without reading the documents that define and authenticate a solution. The idea that if a Google spider has not read the documents they do not exist seems short sighted. If solutions to the energy and congestion crisis were known, it is likely they would be implemented. The fact that they are just becoming known does not diminish their validity or the documentation of them.


 * The letters you reference are too vague. They indicate only that you have people enthusiastic to work with you; they provide no specifics about proposed projects, costs, engineering, etc. Even if they did, it probably wouldn't be enough because there is very little in the way of third-party validation of the JPods concept or design (which doesn't seem to be documented anywhere - and I looked).


 * See the following Wikipedia policy pages for more detailed reasons why the JPods article is inappropriate: verifiability, reliable sources (especially the point about an encyclopedia being a tertiary source). Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so if there's a bunch that's going to happen soon with JPods, you're probably going to have to wait for it to happen first before you try to post it here.


 * BTW, I agree with much of what you say in the last paragraph, but the fact is, there is a big difference between something that is true or valid, and something that is encyclopedic. JPods may be real, it may be the next great thing, it may be a household word in 6 months... but there's no way to know that now, and an encyclopedia is about what is or has been, not about what will be. So unless you can provide detailed, verifiable information about what JPods is today, the article will be deleted, and soon. That's just the way it works. A Transportation Enthusiast 05:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: from BillJamesMN. Thanks for the thoughts. If necessary we can wait. Although I believe part of what makes Wikipedia as viable is that it adapts to what is knowable by a consensus of interested people. It might be good for you to consult with industry thinkers like ATRA (http://www.advancedtransit.org) and Larry Fabian who publishes a book for urban planners (lfabian21@earthlink.net).

There are a number of systems in this field. Two are listed in the PRT section. Six months ago, neither would have qualified to pass you consensus test. Unimodal should still fail. I believe that listing all systems with vehicles and all systems that are pushing the concepts of Personal Automate Mobility and Personal Rapid Transit forward should be listed. More examples of efforts expands the imagination of what is possible. Maybe none of the current ideas will be successful. The fact that they have made efforts is history. More people were involved in inventing flight than the Wright Brothers. Efforts of failures are often important to future success.

Consider studies coming out of Europe: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/extra/web/downloadfunction.cfm?docname=/20060322_114105_50368_other-modes_D2D_2-5_issue1-0_.pdf&apptype=application/pdf And out of Princeton University: http://www.princeton.edu/~alaink/Orf467F04/NJ%20PRT%20Final%20Small.pdf

Wikipedia requires consensus. Before editing out content, please consider getting a consensus of others who are experts in the PRT/PAM field.

I am curious, you have a clear and viable logic in your approach. What is your background and interest in PRT/PAM? What is your interest in transportation?


 * Bill, let me clarify a bit. I like PRT. I think it has potential. I'm looking forward to ULTra getting built to see how well it works (I might even find an excuse to fly to Heathrow to see it up close). And I wish you success with JPods. See my early battles with a certain Minneapolis anti-PRT activist if you think I'm hostile to your position.


 * But the line has to be drawn somewhere. Unimodal was deleted, then added again, then nearly deleted again, then vastly truncated. Unimodal was a borderline case and only survived because it's been around a while and has gotten some mainstream press coverage. Still the Unimodal article is very short and filled with disclaimers about it being little more than a concept, because there is not a lot verifiable about Unimodal.


 * For JPods, there is much less than even Unimodal: no design documentation, no mainstream press coverage (unless you can point me to examples of either specifically mentioning JPods). And Wikipedia is not about reaching consensus among experts -- it's about reporting the results of experts who have published their ideas somewhere else. As an encyclopedia it is not a primary source and does not publish original research. When you see debates about content, they're usually about how to present material from reliable sources (especially when the topics are inherently contentious). We are editors, not authors.


 * So again, please don't take this the wrong way. This is just the way things work here. The best thing you can do is either wait for JPods to develop and mature, or point us to academic papers, detailed documentation, and/or press coverage on the JPods concept. Perhaps it will merit a mention in the main PRT article, but I doubt it will merit a separate article unless there's a ton of verifiable information on JPods that we've missed. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: from BillJamesMN. Thanks. I am content to know the rules. We can wait. It will not take long. You are more than welcome to come to Minneapolis and ride in our JPod. We will have it in Santa Cruz in November. You can ride it there. Where are you located?


 * Bill: Thanks for the offer. I live in western New York State, and I don't anticipate being in Minneapolis or Santa Cruz any time soon. But if I do get to either of those places I'll be sure to look you up. It sounds like you have some interesting stuff going on there.


 * And, by all means, if there is anything you can publish, i.e. pics, videos, design specs, project details, etc, please do. It's probably not enough to get JPods an article (that would require some extensive independent sources) but it would certainly increase your credibility. And it would satisfy my curiosity. :-)


 * Good luck in your efforts. A Transportation Enthusiast 05:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: from BillJamesMN. I enjoy both your discipline and intellect. It will be great to keep you informed. Please visit our website regularly. We are much better inventors than PR people.

Update: from BillJamesMN. I have a point of curiosity: the US Patent and international patent authorities have issued documentation of uniqueness of a documented idea. Would that not satisfy the third party perspective?
 * Personally, I don't think so. Patent offices don't comment on practicality or feasibility.  A patent basically says that they've paid the fee and there doesn't seem to be any other patents for the exact same thing.  --JJLatWiki 21:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Bill, I'm not an expert on patents and I can't speak to the applicability of this document of uniqueness you speak of. If you can, maybe you can post specific details here and we can get the opinion of those more versed in patents and their applicability as a Wikipedia source. However, in my limited experience, it would seem that a single patent might not stand up well enough on its own, without supporting documentation from either trusted media or peer-reviewed sources. As JJLatWiki says, the existence of a patent doesn't say anything about feasibility. The best you can do, I think, is continue to develop your prototype and get some media coverage. Also, it wouldn't hurt to put some more information up on your web site (e.g. system design specifications, details on ongoing projects). That alone would likely still fail to meet the strict Wikipedia standard for acceptance, but it might spur others to evaluate and comment on your design. A Transportation Enthusiast 18:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: from BillJamesMN. Thanks again for your thoughfulness and interest in helping. We will be expanding out our technical documentation.

Larry Fabian may come in and put in some information. He is a publisher of the Automated People Mover Guide and other documentation in this segment of the industry. Here are some links to third party publishing on Jpods: Third party educational site: http://faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans/prtquick.htm

Third party industry background site: http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/TPPRT.html

Third party web site: http://higherway.us/higherway/links.html

LucaGasparini Descrizione e potenzialità dei Sistemi di Trasporto ... http://xoomer.virgilio.it/flyingdepot/Pdf/Prt.pdf

Blogs (even hostile articles) http://dumpmarkolson.blogspot.com/2006/07/more-personal-rapid-transit-wackiness.html


 * Oh BillJamesMN. I hope the Jpods website is going to do a better job of informing us than you.  Of the 5 links you provided, the ONLY one that actually talked about Jpods was the anti-PRT blog.  Three links contained only a single simple hyperlink back to the Jpods website, and the Italian PDF simply lists, "JPods (Minneapolis)".  So I hope you were joking when you called these "links to third party PUBLISHINGS ON Jpods".  So far, you've provided us with nothing of substance.  Be advised, there are some hard-core anti-PRT people out there who will see your links as a disinformation attempt and use it to tar and feather you.  --JJLatWiki 16:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Bill, I'm afraid I agree with JJLatWiki here. The existence of a link back to your website doesn't prove anything other than the fact that someone has come across your site and found it interesting. There's still no specs or prototype or third-party validation that can be used as justification for a mention in the articles.


 * Look at Taxi 2000 for comparison. This system doesn't even have an article, despite the fact that they have a fully functioning prototype vehicle (with a small section of track, though not a complete loop) and detailed engineering specs. JE Anderson has published much of the engineering that went into Taxi 2000, in peer-reviewed journals and text books. If you look hard enough you can find almost everything you want to know about that system, from control algorithms, to switching and propulsion design, to safety engineering and fault tolerance, to guideway stress analyses. In contrast, we have almost nothing for JPods, other than a few pictures of a prototype vehicle which may or may not be functional. Anything we could add about JPods would be almost pure speculation.


 * Again, I wish you well and I hope to hear news of progress soon, but for now there's nothing on which to base even a mention of JPods in the articles. A Transportation Enthusiast 01:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: from BillJamesMN. That is all fair. We will have to publish more of the specs but even when we do, since they will come from us it is difficult to see how that will qualify to be listed. I think our best action is to have commercial success and let information flow from that. Please contact me anytime. You both seem thoughtful and interesting. Bill


 * Bill, any documentation, even if it's just posted on your website, would be a good first step; and the more detail, the better. Even better would be a conference or journal article describing your design. Many of Anderson's work is in Journal of Advanced Transportation. Journal articles are generally preferred because they are usually peer reviewed. A Transportation Enthusiast 14:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite right Bill. The absolute best is to acheive commercial success.  Nothing would change the debate more.  The worst, I think, is what Jpods has now, which is a lot of photographs of a handmade mockup on casters that is zip-tied to some kind of support beam mockup, and a lot computer drawn still images that have no resemblance to the physical mockup.  Detailed specs and computer simulation (not animation) are good fodder for engineering debates.  Prototype tests, with at least limited functionality of the major subsystems, are better still.  But independent, peer-reviewed research is highly valued as a source of written information.  I wish you the best of luck.  PRT may have some insurmountable obstacles, especially in the U.S., so I don't envy you.  --JJLatWiki 21:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: from BillJamesMN. JJLatWiki, please look at the Edina Jun 06 images to see a working model set up at Edina City Hall. It is suspended from the rail and computer controlled.

I do disagree with your thought PRT has some insurmountable obstacles. Here are my thoughts:
 * Personal mobility accounts for 97% of trips in the US (80% in Europe). That is cars.
 * The most successful form of public transportation based on riders per day is the elevator. Again the mode is on-demand, personal mobility.
 * A network of ultra-light horizontal elevators can move people without congestion.
 * There is no problem with technology. The mechanics are essentially roller coasters.  The network is essentially a Physical-Internet (my patent is on distributed collaborative networks moving physical packets, switch to data packets an you have something few people knew of in 1980, the Internet).

I think the key is to "solve someone's problem". Not to try to solve the worlds problems. We are doing this with specific installations. You can review our letters of interest to see how we are progressing. Once networks begin to solve problems they propagate at amazing rates.

We will see what happens. I am betting that congestion is not decreasing and gas prices will increase.


 * Bill, I believe the "insurmountable obstacles" JJLatWiki refers to are mainly political, especially here in the US where certain elements have had some success convincing the public that "pro-PRT" == "anti-transit". Public transit is so politicized in this country that without mainstream political support PRT doesn't have a chance of getting a public installation.


 * I agree in principle with your approach to scale it down and solve smaller problems. In many ways I believe people like JE Anderson have aimed too high, going after cities first with a state-of-the-art system. The market has rejected this as too risky. Now, in your case with JPods, and with ULTra at Heathrow, the approach has been different: solve a smaller problem with (perhaps) a simpler design. The benefit of this approach is systems have a better chance of getting built. But there is one significant drawback: it feeds into the fallacy that PRT is incapable of larger installations. I'm sure once ULTra gets built (and maybe JPods) and is shown to be a success, we will hear from skeptics who say "Sure, it works in an airport, but it'll never scale up to a city-wide installation." Even though many of the people that make these claims don't know the first thing about PRT technology, research, or systems (i.e. Vuchic, Setty, Demery, et. al.) they are considered "transportation experts" and therefore their words are taken as fact. So even if ULTra and perhaps JPods are successful with smaller installations, the leap to large networks is not necessarily a given, at least not in this country. A Transportation Enthusiast 14:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, ATE is correct that I feel the potentially insurmountables are mainly political. No one in America is allowed to simply "solve someone's problem", as you put it.  Your solution will have to comply with a myriad of government regulations that efficiently and effectively prevent many perfect solutions from seeing the light of day.  For example, now that obesity is a "disease", you'll have to consider rider loads of 3 morbidly obese passengers and at least one in a wheelchair and another with a guide dog.  Not to mention tons of noise regulations and complaints and protection against washers, rubber shavings, and lubricant falling from the track and cars.


 * As far as the pictures from the Edina parking lot are concerned, I was hoping you would not mention them as "working". The frame looks like approximate 1" O.D. steel tubing and using maybe 5/32" bolts.  I guarantee 2 high school football players feeling a little destructive could rip the bolts out of the tubing with just a little rocking.  And what does the belt drive do?  Hopefully not the main drive.  As for "computer controlled"... since there seems to be no switch sections on the "demo" rail, what is being controlled by the computer?  Just the starting and stopping of the main drive motor?  What about coordinating multiple cars and merging cars into traffic?  What about the apparent lack of a door?  And back to government regulations, the working model seems to have very little room for a wheelchair to turn around inside or even face forward.  All that the carpeted seats shows too little refinement.


 * If only getting PRT going was as simple as comparing internet network protocols to the physical world. I think the literal implementation will be extraordinarily more difficult though.  And TCP/IP doesn't have competition or spoilers who think it's better to take your 3 packets to a central station and make them wait with hundreds of other packets for the next scheduled packet train to take them to one stop at a time to another station somewhat closer to your ultimate destination.  --JJLatWiki 01:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: from BillJamesMN. JJLatWiki, the regulations that apply are those for Automated People Movers and Roller Coasters. They are well documented.

As for the frame, drive, etc... they are a proof of concept so people can ride in it. The regular rail is much heavier but still ultra-light compared to any other rail system. Keep watching, I think you will be surprised by the speed this industry and our technology evolves and is deployed.


 * BillJamesMN, you didn't mention the ADA as one of the regulations, but maybe you consider them to be just some trivial part of the regulations regarding APM's and roller coasters. When it comes time to build a public system, I think ADA and the battery of similar state and local regulations will be among the least trivial with which Jpods will have to deal.  ADA killed a great solution to public toilets in NYC.  ADA and local disability regulations kill or wildly increase the cost of many improvements to private businesses and even private residences around the country.  Don't sell it short.


 * I can't help but be sarcastic about the "proof of concept" you're talking about. I'm sorry.  It could move only about 4 feet in either direction, it had no track switching mechanism, the only apparent position sensor is the proximity targets spring-clamped to the back side of the rail.  What part of the design did it prove?  It still seems to be a far cry from a "proof of concept" or an actual "working model".  It's a simple "mockup".


 * Now please don't confuse my pessimistic sarcasm for opposition or doubt of the PRT concept in any way. I've been familiar with PRT for over 10 years now, and I would love to be surprised by a deployment.  Likewise, I really hope it goes as smoothly as you hope.  --JJLatWiki 15:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * BillJamesMN, Key is to keep scopes achievable. ADA must be accommodated.  We will do that with specialty vehicles.  Not every car is equipped to manage wheel chairs, you cannot roll wheel chairs in airplanes.

There will be many specialy vehicles; TrashPods, GurneyPods, CargoPods, JPods, etc....  The Wright Brother's aiplane did not look like a 747. Beginning the process is critical to refining the process.

License tagging for Image:SolarCarsHilton.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SolarCarsHilton.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 22:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Jpods
I have added a "" template to the article Jpods, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info 22:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. IrishGuy talk 22:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Friendly reminder regarding your user page
Hello again BillJamesMN, I just wanted to remind you of the policies and guidelines regarding your user page: WP:User_page and WP:NOT. Currently, your user page seems to be an advertisement for JPODS, and I would guess is a mirror image of the JPODS article you recently reinserted and that was quickly deleted. Using your user page in such a way will draw fire. You're hurting your credibility as an editor on Wikipedia and mostly for naught. PRT related articles are well patrolled so your repeated attempts are doing nothing for you. --JJLatWiki 19:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Citing yourself
BillJamesMN, it appears to me that your recent edits to Personal Rapid Transit are mostly original research which is a violation of the No Original Research policy and to support your edits you've cited yourself which is a violation of the Verifiabiliy policy. I'm not going to revert your edits again because I am not one to engage in a revert war and I don't get the sense that you finally accept my position. Since you don't often leave explanations of your edits in the edit summary, perhaps did not notice that one of my edit summaries asked other editors to discuss your PEC edits in the discussion page. I hope that you will engage in that discussion. In assuming good faith, I must also assume that you are unaware of the Wikipedia policies regarding original research and verifiability. I'm just another editor, I have no more ability than you to affect the contents of Wikipedia, so all I can do is ask you to please follow the links and try to respect these and all the other policies and guidelines. --JJLatWiki 15:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:070515SolarTrussTree610s.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:070515SolarTrussTree610s.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 06:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

PB-244854
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article PB-244854, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of PB-244854. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 13:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of PB-244854
An article that you have been involved in editing, PB-244854, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/PB-244854. Thank you. --JJLatWiki (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:JPodsSanJoseMap 080211.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:JPodsSanJoseMap 080211.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of JPods
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article JPods, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? JJLatWiki (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:FuelConsumptionHSTrains.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:FuelConsumptionHSTrains.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Disposable Energy 2012.png
Thanks for uploading File:Disposable Energy 2012.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Original Research
Please stop deleting the tag on your article on Disposable Energy. Wikipedia prohibits original research. If this article is to remain, it must have citations to appropriate sources that prove that this is not your own research. When you disagree with an edit or a tag, please learn to resolve the issue on the Talk pages of the article. Rlsheehan (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Economic flywheel for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Economic flywheel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Economic flywheel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mesoderm (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

File:EconomicFlywheel.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:EconomicFlywheel.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Graphic nominated for deletion
Hi there. Just a heads-up that I've nominated your illustration "Economic Flywheel" for deletion at Files for Deletion. The link is here: Files_for_deletion/2012_July_23. Best regards, —Tim. //// Carrite (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Good article reassessment
Peak oil, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Beagel (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

February 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to States' rights, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

File:IEA 2010UnknownSources2.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IEA 2010UnknownSources2.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 18:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Divided Sovereignty for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Divided Sovereignty is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Divided Sovereignty until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 18:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Disposable energy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Disposable energy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Disposable energy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 18:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit war warning
In this diff you restored largely the same material that another editor had rejected after your first attempt. When that happens, it is the opening salvo of an edit war, even if it is only a single revert. The reason it is the start of edit war is because after you get reverted you have to seek WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page. Read more at WP:BRD. Continuing to edit war can get you blocked. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Unacceptable changes to Peak Oil page
Recently, you made a number of changes to the Peak Oil page. Whilst I approve of the spirit of your changes, they are unacceptable for a Wikipedia page for a number of reasons. Firstly, the changes were not discussed on the Talk page. Secondly, the images don't appear to be from a reliable source and actually appear to be your own research. Some are marked "Jpod.com" which is a webpage of a personal pod transport company. I would appreciate if you could remove the changes within a day. If you wish to make changes to the page, these need to be discussed with other editors first on the Talk page of the article. Thanks. Blandx (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As stated in the previous message, your edits are not of an acceptable standard for Wikipedia. Please respect the opinion of myself and other editors and remove the material. Blandx (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This is in response to your message on my personal Talk page. Firstly, I have not removed your edits. I requested other editors to review them and remove them if that was appropriate. If they were removed, I can only suggest it was for the reasons I indicated above. I suggest discussing your intended edits with myself and other editors on the article Talk page as I requested previously. Please follow these Wikipedia guidelines: WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:DUE. Finally, in future please do not edit my personal Talk page under an out-of-date section. Please make a new section and start the discussion there. Blandx (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

File:US Oil Production, Imports, and Debt .png
Hi Bill James,

I would like to create a similar graph in German. May you be so kind to send me the data behind your graph?--Kopiersperre (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Growth Comparison of Oil Supply, GDP and Disposable Income.png


The file File:Growth Comparison of Oil Supply, GDP and Disposable Income.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "orphaned image, dated information, no information on source of data"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of JPods


The article JPods has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable product concept. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jfire (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of JPods for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article JPods is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/JPods until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Jfire (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)