User talk:DodgeTheBullet

SqueakBox 02:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Portal
Hey, I think a careers portal would be a good idea. If you're still interested, let me know, would be glad to help out.  Joe  I  07:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, ok, first we need to find exactly what the portal should encompass. I'm assuming Category:Employment and Category:Occupations(which is a subcat of employment). But you also mentioned vocational education, so would you like to include Category:Vocational education as well? While I can see the correlation of the career and education, I'm afraid including it would open a whole new can of worms. Such as why not include all education as they will lead to a job, and what not. Also, Portal:Education should cover vocational education to whatever extent possible, and minimizing the overlap of portals would be best. After that, deciding the main name of the portal, either Portal:Employment, Portal:Careers, or Portal:Occupations. I like occupations just cause it's simple I think, but if there is to include things like job fairs, government workforce agencies, career management and such, going with Portal:Employment would be best as this is the top tier category. Just let me know on these two things, and I'll get started. If there is any category I didn't mention you think should be included, please let me know. Thanks.   Joe   I  06:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the main use case I was considering: Some young person - still far from entering the work force wants to learn more about the possibilities. I like Portal:Occupations because I think most of the input would be people describing their fields and what their jobs consist of day to day.  I don't know where these kinds of articles would stand with the no original research dictum.  For instance, I, a software engineer, would write or add to an article - hopefully from a template describing what a typical software engineer does and what the profession in general is like.  I don't think it is vocational education because for instance, I wouldn't go into detail about a specific programming language.DodgeTheBullet 21:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * All info would come from articles already written, just summarized up. I think I'm still wanting Portal:Employment simply cause of the broader article base, but we can do it with tabbed sections such as Portal:European Union. With that, one whole tab can be utilized for occupations, so really it would be like it's own portal. If that all sounds ok, lemme know, I'll get started, if not lemme know, we'll get something going.   Joe   I  09:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Go ahead with Portal:Employment - you are right that occupations can always be a tab of the broader portal.DodgeTheBullet 21:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I know it's been a long time coming, but I finally started Portal:Employment. Please keep an eye on it and let me know what you think is needed and not.  Joe  I  04:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Ccst20090608.png
Hi, your image File:Ccst20090608.png has some issues that need to be addressed before it can be used in an article. It is poorly sourced (no way to verify the data set), poorly named (we should know exactly what the image is of just from the title) and too big (it should be possible to get the general idea from the 200px thumbnail). Can you fix these issues before using the image in articles? NJGW (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately pointing to another place on the internet that the image is being used doesn't solve the issues with the image. There is still no way to verify the raw data, the file name is still in violation of MOS (it should state very clearly what the image is of), the image being replaced is a different (and better) visualization of the data, and 800px is not acceptable for an image in an article.  Have a look at WP:IUP and wp:IMAGE for more info.  NJGW (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the difference between mine and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crude_NGPL_IEAtotal_1960-2004.png? If you want to clean up all pictures to meet such high standards go ahead - it applies to the overwhelmingly biased in favor of no peak images already in place in this article also.  And while you are at it do you mind helping fix an article that makes it seem like peak oil could not possibly be now when half the world's experts are saying it may have already happened?


 * Differences between Ccst20090608.png and File:Crude_NGPL_IEAtotal_1960-2004.png:
 * One is the subject of this discussion, the other is not
 * One has a title that allows a person to quickly discern the content, the other does not
 * One gives a direct link to the original data set, the other does not
 * One is easy to read in thumbnail form, the other is not, even at 500px
 * They cover very different information
 * Please read the links I posted above, and don't reinsert the image saying that things with the image have been "fixed" when the image is 100% the same. NJGW (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Question of consistency
 * I can certainly rename it Crude_Condensate_total_20090608.png
 * I can link the same EIA data that File:Crude_NGPL_IEAtotal_1960-2004.png does. The rest of Crude_NGPL_IEAtotal says it comes from "Other tables" which would not be findable from that link by anyone but the author.
 * I don't find the Crude_NGPL_IEAtotal easy to read and it is 5 years out of date.
 * They cover exactly the same information - it's just unrecognizable in Crude_NGPL_IEAtotal's out of date tiny thumbnail form.
 * Would renaming and linking to EIA data be sufficient? I have read the links you provided and hope that the 300px limit was not meant to prevent an article from conveying accurate information.  I don't know how to delete the old file but I have added http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crude_Condensate_Total20090608.png which links to the IEA data.

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Ccst20090608.png
A tag has been placed on File:Ccst20090608.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. NJGW (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)