User talk:Kgrr/Archive

Cindy Sheehan
Haha, thanks for the compliment but any good wikipedia user will try to help others. Helping users that try to do good for wikipedia is easy... the hard part is dealing with the ones whose aims you doubt. From what I've seen with my dealings (mostly watching actually) with the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake article most any verifiable information can go as an event is breaking news. Over time the article will become formed and more encyclopedic but it's expected that while an event is occurring, or at least at its climax, that there will be a great deal of interest in it and unfortunately a fair amount of unwanted attention. Now, I am not familiar with the article so I am not advising you on content... because, honestly I've only seen the news clips about her nothing remotely in depth... but, if you view the page's history and then click on the version you think is correct then click edit and then save it that will revert it to the version you chose. When doing that make sure other editors haven't added useful material in the meantime that you inadvertently delete. Typically if an editor is anonymous and just makes an completely out of the ordinary change you can revert it with few problems... however, if the editor is established it is best to use the talk page and work out how you are going to do things with them. On my look at that page's history I didn't see the material that was removed... so, if you want to show me the difference (do you know how to look at differences between two versions using the page history?) then I can make a better judgment... but for now I hope that has helped... which, I'm not sure it has. Feel free to ask if you need anything else. gren グレン 20:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This article is currently being vandalized. Also please be more careful when attributing inappropriate editing behavior; as you will note from the article history I've been trying to stop the vandalism on this article for several days.--CSTAR 21:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well OK, I think the vandals got tired. At least for now.--CSTAR 05:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted.--CSTAR 13:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * May I also suggest you format the chronology as a table such as the one in the article Tsunami (just to pick a random example).--CSTAR 13:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Decision to leave Crawford
Amazing editing on the Sheehan article. Re: Bush's decision to leave, make sure you make a distinction (doesn't exist with your newest edit) between Bush's *decision* to leave Crawford and his *leaving* Crawford. Badagnani 02:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, I hadn't read he went straight to D.C. Didn't he do a flyover of New Orleans today? I just read that somewhere. Badagnani 05:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

That's right!! It WAS supposed to be a 5-week vacation. Starting on August 4, that would mean the last day of the vacation would be Sept. 7. Why on earth is ALL of the press reporting that he cut his vacation short by 2 days? That should be easily checked, and why is it that a WP editor is more factually accurate than the major media? Funny, White House staff are now claiming Bush has only been on vacation for the past week, and that for the previous three weeks he was really working, that he had to leave the White House due to a renovation of the White House. I wonder why this was only reported on the last day of his vacation. I guess people will believe anything, according to the principle of wishful thinking, especially when a tragedy has just occured and people want to think the best of people. Badagnani 06:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The Dallas Morning News says Bush's "five-week vacation" was cut short by 2 days -- http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/12527455.htm That doesn't make any sense. I agree with you about the "beginning of the end," as I understand all too well being based at a university called Kent State. With Rove in hot water and disasters on three fronts (Iraq, Crawford, and now the Southeast), I really do wonder why Rove et al. haven't cooked up a new crisis to prop up the prez's ratings. I think Bush really thought Iraq would be a "cakewalk" and ever since he realized it wasn't he has been improvising, often in a not very clever way. The most likely scenario would be a new war but that doesn't seem politically expedient now, with the forces stretched so thin. Badagnani 07:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, who IS writing this script? :) When you posted the chronology entry about the Jamboree, the first thing that came to mind was his not wanting to stop the elementary school book reading in 2001.  Maybe I shouldn't wait for the pundits to point out this new example of misplaced priorities, as they may have been more likely during the previous president's tenure.  Then again, maybe there wasn't even anyplace to land down there due to the flooding, and the area couldn't be made secure...although I suppose he could have met with the governors of the affected states in some other area on higher ground.

Watch out, though, the inclusion of the Jamboree reference in the Sheehan article may be labeled POV as it is tangential to Sheehan's story. Badagnani 08:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice comment. Glad to be of help. Eleemosynary 05:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Good work
Good work on keeping the Cindy Sheehan article in decent shape (although eventually, at some future date, it will have to be cut down with a compendium of the chronology). In a similar vein, you might also want to keep an eye on Ronnie Earle.

Keep up the good work. Thanks. --CSTAR 04:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Shout out
I'd gotta give you some props on the work you've been doing on the wiki. The cindy sheehan and constance articles are really sticking to the right-wing nutz that spread their Bush propaganda everywhere. Keep up the good work. Reparaizins 06:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The film Identity
Hi Kgrr, you added this film to the DID page. There's a separate page for DID in the media (comics, novels, films, etc.). I forget the name of the page, but it's linked to the main DID article.

I looked at the IMDB listing for the movie and it seemed to be a slasher film. Is it really DID related? That's why I didn't immediately move it to the other page; I wasn't quite sure why you'd added it. Zora 19:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

External links not used as reference material
Hey Konrad. I have a discussion going over at Talk:Dave Reichert you might be interested in contributing to. BTW, I'm a big Darcy Burner fan. Thx for creating that article. Velvetsmog 19:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

POV pushing
Hi. . .I noticed your edits to the Sam Graves article. Then I noticed you had made edits to a dozen or so articles adding links to a POV site about Tom Delay. It really looks like POV pushing when you have edit summaries like "another recipient of Tom delay's dirty money." TMS63112 20:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You have a nice start on the ARMPAC article, which is certainly a newsworthy topic. I think Wikepiedia strives to present the relevant facts in a balanced, neutral way.  I assume in good faith that is what both of us are trying to do.  I suggest that we continue our conversation at the Sam Graves article so that other editors who are interested in that article might be able to join us more easily.  TMS63112 20:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Randy Gordon
Yes, it's true. He dropped out yesterday. Chadlupkes 23:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

nice illustration on Dipole antenna
I think your drawing of a dipole antenna is great! I don't suppose I could get you to look at the hand drawings that are there now and replace those too? --ssd 06:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good start on the rewrites! Not what I had in mind, but I like it.  Some of the pictures are too small to read now, though.  I still think redrawing them would fix that.  I put the balun article reference there because the book has a (conceptually) better illustration of the common mode radiation picture. --ssd 04:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan image
On Image_talk:Sheehan.jpg you write, that you will try to ask Jeff Patterson about the copyright. Did you have any success so far? Please explain, that we'd need an image with one of those licences. Raphael1 12:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sheehan Picture
No one has contacted me with this problem until today. I only posted photos that were released into the (pd) public domain, or that are (cc) Creative Commons. I'm glad you found a picture that is suitable. Konrad
 * No problem, I thought I might be able to get one, and I found it pretty easily :D Anyway, the creative commons one I think is better anyway :) - cohesion t 04:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Second Wave Wikipedians
Thank you for the clear explaination. Another user identified himself as such and I wasn't sure what it meant...being a writer, rather than an EE or whatever.--Beth Wellington 05:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:20050926 Sheehan Arrested 7 1.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:20050926 Sheehan Arrested 7 1.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there 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. Thuresson 15:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Thuresson 15:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Radiation pattern of the half wave dipole.
You have published in wikipedia "dipole antenna" a radiation pattern that I found "very strange". As far as I know, the radiation pattern of a short doublet is a circular section torus. The radiation pattern of a half wave dipole is a flattened torus. The diagram you published is that of a lengthened (in the axial direction) torus. Would you please tell me where this diagram comes from? Thanks. LPFR 11:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: I drew the diagram, generalizing a typical dipole e and h plane diagram such as this one, since I cannot copy copyrighted materials: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/wireless/ps469/prod_installation_guide09186a00806ad867.html So in short, my diagram came from empirical experience, not theory.

Having read through the text that has been added above, I will redraw it as a slightly flattened taurus. Thanks. Konrad


 * You wrote:


 * I drew the diagram, generalizing a typical dipole e and h plane diagram such as this one, since I cannot copy copyrighted materials:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/wireless/ps469/prod_installation_guide09186a00806ad867.html


 * So in short, my diagram came from empirical experience, not theory.


 * Having read through the text that has been added above, I will redraw it as a slightly flattened taurus.  Thanks.  Konrad

Hi, Konrad, After looking at the CISCO site, I think I understood what the problem is. The CISCO radiation patterns are not linear polar patterns, that is: polar patterns where de radius r is proportional to the electrical field or to the gain (not in dB). The CISCO diagrams are polar patterns where the radius is proportional to the gain in dB. May be this is a good representation when you are interested only in what happens near the maxima of the radiation lobes. However, you cannot represent a zero, which gives a minus infinity for r. You have to make a choice as where the zero for r (something like -30 dBi or-50 dBi) and accept to ignore lower values of gain.

A Wikipedia must be didactic; I think that the best thing you can do is to show the same radiation pattern in the two kinds of diagrams. First in linear form (easier to understand for nonprofessionals) then in logarithmic form with a caption like "The same radiation pattern draw in logarithmic (dB) scale. Note that the overall shape changes and that zeros cannot be represented".

Cordialement. LPFR 07:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your images
I've looked at the images you've made and they look like they were made in some kind of vector drawing program, but you've uploaded them as bitmaps. Would it be possible for you to upload them in vector format (i.e. SVG) instead? // Liftarn
 * As far as concerned, I had not done anything with that image, after you tag it the image in public domain. You can discuss with Liftarn about the issue. There is nothing wrong with that copyright, but it would be better if you upload the image in SVG fomrat instead of png. Regards, Shyam  ( T / C ) 03:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Technical communicator vocation?
I noticed your name on the list; I've asked some vocational questions at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians/Technical Communicators. Any input you may have would be very much appreciated! --J. J. 15:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Yes, I know several EE's that can write. One even helped found an alternative newspaper in Blacksburg, VA and now works full time writing for the United Paperworkers, after coming to the union's attention for his coverage of the Pittston Coal strike :)--Beth Wellington 20:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:20050924 Operation cease fire.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:20050924 Operation cease fire.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there 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. — Nv8200p talk 03:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not delete this image? It is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. Please link the image from a relevant article or move the image to the Commons if you would like to keep it. -Regards Nv8200p talk 03:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Commondreams
FYI: Talk:Common_Dreams_NewsCenter Travb (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Civility
Please be WP:CIVIL. This isn't William M. Connolley 22:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ref thanks
Thanks for fixing that ref mess. I'm not allowed to. (SEWilco 23:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

user images
Instead of uploading the same image of yourself on many projects, have you considered uploading it to so you can use it on your userpage on all projects? If you do, please make sure to put it in. Happy editing. Bawolff 23:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

framing merger proposal
Please see Talk:Framing (sociology). - Grumpyyoungman01 14:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

per changes to Global dimming
that's fine - I didn't know where to put it in. I'll see if I can find the Nasa study....--Smkolins 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh
Gah, sorry, I always forget to sign ^_* Elfin341 02:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeremiah Borst
I have added a "" template to the article Jeremiah Borst, 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.  Te ll y a ddi ct  17:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it does say in the tag if you can reference it and copyedit etc it can be removed and because you have added much more information and refs its much better now, but before it was very limited information. Te ll y a ddi ct  11:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Big Horn, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- casmith_789 (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for your edits to Big Horn. Please (in future) create a page with information in that is more than just some transcluded templates. Thanks! -- casmith_789 (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Big Horn Transformers
Thank you for the consideration. Really appreciate it. However, I must confess that I really don't know that much about the character. I have watched BW2, but it was so long ago that I can really only remeber general details on the likes of LioConvoy and Galvatron. You may want to try the talk pages of Mathewignash or the Matrix Prime, as they know far more about Beast Wars characters in general than I do. Best Regards.SMegatron 19:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Environment assessment
Thanks for helping the project on assessing global dimming. OhanaUnited  17:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pan evaporation article looks great! It got a good picture, links, and best of all references. I would suggest you to expand the article to have broader context, a global perspective. In the sub-section "Decreasing Trend of Pan Evaporation", you can throw out some stats if possible. As for "Relationship to Hydrological Cycle" sub-section, best to summeralize rather than having a long quoation. But a really good start for an article that is created just over a month.  OhanaUnited   03:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Voter suppression
I replaced all the dead links in the article, and formatted all the citations. I also reread the two sources you alerted me to, and rewrote that section. Added a source or two along the way. - Crockspot 00:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Colony Collapse Disorder
The article Colony Collapse Disorder you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:Colony Collapse Disorder for eventual comments about the article. Well done!

• The Giant Puffin • 09:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Categories on user pages
You may desire to surround the category over on User:Kgrr/Sandbox/Election_Fraud_Controversy with the    tags so as to not have your work in progress appear in the public listing of articles. (I think it's probably a policy to keep categories out of user space.) Another method is to do this: Category:Category name which gives you the link without putting the page onto the list of all pages having the category. Naturally when a page like that goes live, you need to check your categories to put them in proper public format. -- Cheers. -- Yellowdesk 15:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So far...I use "noinclude" tags for templates, which put the template in the category, but do not cause the category to be displayed when the template is...included...in other articles. -- Yellowdesk 19:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

...and on the topic of your work in progress, there are a few bibliographies in formation that have a slight relation.
 * Talk:Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy timeline
 * Talk:Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy
 * Talk:Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy
 * Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy hearings
 * Regards -- Yellowdesk 19:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mark F. "Thor" Hearne
Mark F. "Thor" Hearne. The history is still there, available to be incorporated into American Voting Rights Center, as appropriate. I speculate that this article, explains what has been going on:

See also: Talk:American_Center_for_Voting_Rights
 * -- Regards, Yellowdesk 00:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Peak oil
Thanks for your contribution re-structuring the Peak oil article. It's starting to take better shape now. However, the whole section dealing with "Unconventional" petroleum reserves which includes Heavy oils, tar sands, and oil shale seems to have been dropped. The naysayers to peak oil contend that there is a 400 year supply of oil left. I feel that removing that section may have removed some of the balancing information in the article. Somehow the article still needs to convey that although there are a lot of heavy oils, tar sands, and oil shale, these sources will never deliver the needed rate of oil production. I fully understand the problem is not a supply problem, but a rate problem.

I will spend some time to fill-in the last stub section on industrialization this morning. Kgrr 13:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem - and thanks for the message! Just wanted to polish it a little before including it on the energy portal. As for the unconventional reserves, they may have an important role to play in mitigation, but since the article claims to be discussing "the date when the peak of the world's conventional petroleum (crude oil) production rate is reached" (to quote from the introduction), I moved unconventional sources to their own section in the mitigation article. Gralo 13:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oil field's infobox
Hi Konrad. You have made some great contribution to the articles about oil fields. Maybe you are interested to use an oil field infobox created by Philbentley? You could find the infobox at his userpage, or e.g. at the page of Bonga Field. regards, Beagel 15:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems good and easy to fill. The only thing is that we need to put units for oil and gas reserves and production. There are different ways for presenting these figures (barrels/tons per day/year; bcm/tcf etc) and without units there will be a big mess.Beagel 05:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Konrad, the template looks great, have to say never had to build one before so glad you had a crack at it. As for units personally i've always used oilfield units i.e. bbls, scf, psi etc when describing them. cheers Philbentley 08:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:71507.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:71507.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 04:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:71507.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:71507.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * please remove, wrong image Kgrr 03:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Konrad, thanks for the barnstar - and congratulations on the GA status for peak oil ! Gralo 15:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

802.11 stuff
Hi Konrad,

I've been thinking that the 802.11 page needs to have more pages like your IEEE 802.11y (among other) pages. I've opened up a Talk:IEEE 802.11. Your technical expertise would be appreciated in this matter -- KelleyCook 17:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for the E-plane/H-plane drawings. These will be very useful for me. -- Maxson 15:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oil shale
Hi Konrad. I wonder if you could be interested to help developing Oil shale and its spin-off articles. I listed Oil shale for the new peer review and related spin-off articles (Oil shale extraction, Oil shale geology, Oil shale industry, History of the oil shale industry, Oil shale reserves, Oil shale economics, and Environmental effects of oil shale industry) for the peer review. Your comments and edits will be most welcome. The intention is to have these articles ready for the GA and FA nominations.Beagel 17:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Agricultural_and_Forest_Meteorology.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Agricultural_and_Forest_Meteorology.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ~  Wi ki  her mit  02:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to explain if it's replaceable, ect. Add and fill in Template:Non-free use rationale. That will bring it "up to code". ~   Wi ki  her mit  14:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:ACVR Logo.gif
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:ACVR Logo.gif. 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.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

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 11:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 11:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what do you mean, You must add the source ;). Thanks-- 13:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The source is there.Kgrr 16:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Water SA.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Water SA.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:MAAREC logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:MAAREC logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Whidbey News Times Logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Whidbey News Times Logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi. Thanks very much for the message (with Web URL) about crude oil demand/usage and new-petroleum discovery. I appreciate that you took the time. Joel Russ 21:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Randy Gordon Upclose Wiki.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Randy Gordon Upclose Wiki.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image 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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 64.178.96.168 22:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Randy Gordon KarateKid Wiki.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Randy Gordon KarateKid Wiki.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image 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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 64.178.96.168 22:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Randy Gordon Park Wiki.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Randy Gordon Park Wiki.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image 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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 64.178.96.168 22:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Randy Gordon wiki capitol.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Randy Gordon wiki capitol.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image 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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 64.178.96.168 22:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Earthstory.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Earthstory.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Peak oil
Thanks for your note. I have added ACID tag due to following reasons.

1) Article is well cited and you have made excellent contributions to the article. But there is a scope for improving article flow. I get the feeling that it switches topics suddenly. It has lot of information which could be arranged in proper sequence and some of them could be moved to daughter articles. 2) With oil approaching $100 limit and some economists predicting oil driven recession, i thought this will be one of the most referenced articles in near future.

I used to wonder, how this issue has not reached common man in other countries. For example, I have not seen many articles about this subject in developing countries newspapers whereas subjects like Global warming draws wide attention even in developing countries. I don't see much actions like Inter-Governmental workgroup for this subject like Global warming. Even Britanicca and Encarta online editions does not have articles in this name.--Indianstar 15:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Flag_of_China.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Flag_of_China.gif, has been listed at Images and media 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. OsamaK 18:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Paradisedreamed.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Paradisedreamed.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

New sections of the Energy Portal
Hi and a Happy New Year! I created new sections of the Energy Portal for new articles (found by bot) and for announcements (nominations for good and featured articles, peer and expert reviews, deletion and merging discussions etc). You are welcome to add your announcements there and also share your thoughts how to improve and further update this portal. Beagel (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Autoren32.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Autoren32.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Peak oil graph
I have the time and inclination to re-do this graph in gnuplot, giving a nice SVG plot. Is there some site where all the data is gathered together? --Slashme (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR
Please read WP:3RR. If your revert more than 3 times in 24 hours you may be reported and blocked. Ultramarine (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * you are doing the reverting. I'm counting.Kgrr (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of my comments on discussion page
Deleting my signed unabusive comments from the discussion page of Nuclear Power (which you did in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nuclear_power&oldid=188392538 at 15:45, 1 February 2008) is an attempt to slight the discussion in favor of your minority view on the topic. This is an unacceptable and unethical act in wikipedia. If you continue to push this issue (in unethical ways) in regard to the nuclear power page, I will involve administrators and/or go to arbitration. Best regards. Lwnf360 (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not removed anything from your comments. If I accidentally deleted your comments somehow, feel free to put them back.  I apologize for whatever it is you think I did.  But be aware of one thing - an anti-nuclear stance is anything but a minority viewpoint.  And, be please be aware that balanced articles are required by Wikipedia. Kgrr (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Peak uranium
Hello ,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the  template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

You can view the full list of stub types at WP:STUBS.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! PamD (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I added some comments to the Peak uranium article talk page. Beagel (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear power
Hi, Konrad. Thank you for your note. Actually, one could say that probably I am also quite pro-nuclear, although I try to have a NPOV while editing. I am not sure if am able to assist solving this POV issue. However, I think this article needs some clean-up, and I will try to assist with this. I recommend ask User:Johnfos to take a look as he has knowledge about the topic and has experiences creating good articles. Beagel (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OLAP cube
Hi there. Thanks for your message about this article: don't worry, it's in no danger of being deleted. I can see that you've improved it greatly since I last saw it, and it now has all the references it needs. Good work! Terraxos (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

dPacket.org
Please read "About us" and "Intro to DPI" on https://www.dpacket.org. dPacket.org is a neutral user-driven community filing for 501(c)(3) status, and NOT a PRO NET NEUTRALITY blog. The site was created to fulfill the need for a central resource and collaboration point for deep packet inspection related topics and the comprehensive set of challenges it presents-- technical, operational, ethical, and legal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.129.13.2 (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, I removed the following link from the see also section in Deep packet inspection:
 * dPacket.org - A nonprofit user-driven community for deep packet inspection and processing topics (dPacket.org)
 * The See also section is for internal links inside Wikipedia only. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, it's an encyclopedia.  If it's important information, feel free to add it to the article and properly reference it.  However, as such, dpacket.org is a blog site and not what would qualify as a credible source.  The bylines don't have real names, there are no dates on the articles and furthermore, the site is not published.  Please read WP:REF.  Kgrr (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

dPacket.org is a relevant website focused on the topic and not SPAM. According to my understanding, it would be appropriate to link to the site, but under a newly created section at the end called "external links". Does this sound fair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.59.154 (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * from External references "Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified. The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources. If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it. Guidelines for sourcing, which includes external links used as citations, are discussed at Reliable sources and Citing sources." According to this, a link to dPacket.org is not justified.  However, if dPacket.org properly published an article, it could be linked to as a reference.

Kgrr (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Deep packet capture
Hi again. I took a look at the article and the sources listed, but I don't feel qualified to say whether this article meets Wikipedia guidelines or not - I don't know enough about the subject to say whether this is a reliable source. I suggest you ask for help at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Terraxos (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Peak oil
Hi, you've made some good contributions to the article and discussion at Peak oil, so I was wondering if you would mind having a look at and commenting on what's going on here. Thanks, NJGW (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, didn't realize this: (74.61.37.1) was you. WP:OR says simple calculations (dividing production by population) isn't OR.  At least I remembered it that way... I'm looking it up right now to see exactly where that idea came to me from.  NJGW (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Found it: These_are_not_original_research NJGW (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not realize I was not logged-in. Yes, simple calculations are not OR.  But you can't claim the % growth came from those tables.  So you have to quote the figures the simple calculations came from.  e.g.  (Pop 2005 - pop 2000) / pop 2000 is the simple calculation, but you have to quote the pop 2000 and the pop 2005.Kgrr (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Deep Packet Capture
Another editor has added the  template to the article Deep Packet Capture, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Global dimming GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed Global dimming and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and a related WikiProject to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a resolution for all of your issues except for expanding the lede.Kgrr (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen
Hi Kgrr, I updated the SvL article to describe his contribution to the ORG paper better - actually the description in the article as I found it was wrong anyway so my earlier update (the straw man) was misguided. No-one seriously interested in the subject claims that there are no other energy inputs to nuclear power, which in todays society means that it carries a greenhouse gas emission on its lifecycle; the discussion is about how much that is (which is why attacking "zero emissions" would be a straw man argument). The SvL/S analysis is an extreme (high) outlier in that estimation. In the ORG paper itself, SvL's claim that in thirty or fifty years the greenhouse burden for nuclear will suddenly sky-rocket assumes no new uranium discoveries and ignores ISL methods, both of which are too important to overlook.

I should add that I don't care whether Storm van Leeuwen is alive or not (yes I know he is); I am addressing the arguments, not the man.

Regards, Joffan (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough.Kgrr (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Large masses
They're working. The new codes are: The kilotonne code is just a filler whilst  is being swapped over. I except it'll be deleted in time. J IM ptalk·cont 19:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Kgrr/Peak uranium
I've added the "nowiki" tags around the categories on the page, as the page was being indexed with regular articles. We don't want non-editor users to run across the messy back-end bits of Wikipedia. :) ~Kylu ( u | t )  01:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

North German lowlands
You would be correct. Ich editierte einige Seiten für ganz eine Weile heute, so könnte ich einige Wörter besonders in diesem Artikel verpasst haben. That was the last one I did. Also, as I was translating it, I noticed that when translated it just did not make any sense what so ever in some places. So those particular paragraphs were left out. If I remember right it was one in the North German Lowlands article. Whoever made the article and how it was maintained on the German site was questionable at best. I did clean it up quite a bit as I went. I am going to look for websites and articles today. Thank you again for correcting my dumb mistake. That one was an obvious one I shouldn't have over looked =). Also, if you have any particular German articles that you would like to see translated, please tell me as I am kinda just sifting through them right now and translating the ones that don't have an English translation.  Also, I am fairly new to wikipedia and have a heavy interest in translating articles.  While I have found some very useful information.  I still have a few questions.  Why do my templates that I insert into the pages I create show as a link instead of the pretty table that I attempted to make?  You answered my research question w/o knowing it =). Thank you. But I still have a few minor questions that would help being answered so I can improve my quality of contributions. Thank you again!! Cbreseman (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Peak oil again
There's talk of revamping the Peak oil lead, and I thought you might be interested in commenting. NJGW (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Kgrr, I noticed your edit added language=English to some cites. That's normally assumed as an implicit default on the English-language wikis to avoid clutter.  Thanks for editing.  LeadSongDog (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for causing "clutter". I am using the English markers to mark which references I have visited, verified, corrected, etc.   If you would like to help, I could certainly use your assistance.  Kgrr (talk) 05:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

100+ Waterfalls???
Hello, I saw your name on the list of participants for the wikiproject waterfalls. Currently I am working on an article here at wikipedia.org titled, "List of Waterfalls in Hamilton, Ontario" and we have at least 100 here in town where I'm from. I would like to know if there are any other cities or towns from around the world that you know of that have more than 100 waterfalls like we have here in Hamilton? Thanks! Nhl4hamilton | Chit-Chat 19:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:I-wireless-logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:I-wireless-logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Officer-Hayes Hypothesis
Konrad,

I'm writing in regards to the Officer-Hayes Hypothesis entry. While I do concede that the TIME Magazine article never officially labels the hypothesis presented in the article as the "Officer-Hayes Hypothesis," the article is, unarguably, a hypothesis. It asks a question, provides insight, and at the end explains how it can be proven correct. There is not a more accurate word than hypothesis to describe the TIME article other than calling it "the TIME article." This is evident upon inspection of the article.

It seems as though the discussion on this entry is based around how we label the hypothesis presented by Officer and Hayes. People on blogs appear to be adopting the phrase "officer-hayes hypothesis" as a way to reference the hypothesis in the article. While I do concede that blog postings are by no means reliable sources for substantial information, I would argue that blog postings could be viewed as a reliable indicator of how the everyday person chooses to refer to a topic. After all, we want the everyday internet user to find an entry on Wikipedia if it exists, therefore logical labels are good. For example, "Oil Price Increases since 2003" could be labeled "Increases in Oil Prices Since 2003" and be technically correct. However the former is more eloquent and is more likely to be found in an internet search. Analogously, "Officer-Hayes Hypothesis" is an eloquent, reasonable, and correct way of referring to the hypothesis presented by Officer and Hayes, and is likely to be found in an internet search - especially since some internet users have already started to refer to Officer and Hayes' hypothesis as "Officer-Hayes Hypothesis."

If "Officer-Hayes Hypothesis" is too much of a coined phrase to be merely a neutral, grammatical description of a hypothesis presented by a notable source (TIME Mag, authors from Stanford) by Officer and Hayes, then what title would you suggest? I've thought of: "Officer and Hayes' Hypothesis." Perhaps we could simply reference the TIME article itself, although the focus of that entry wouldn't be the same as an entry specifically targeting the message in article. Writing a Wikipedia entry for the whole TIME article seems awkward and bulky compared to a specific, succinct summary of the article's message.

I strongly believe that the hypothesis presented in the TIME article deserves to have a wikipedia page due to its novelty, controversial nature, plausibility, and its relevancy to the current crisis in the world. I would hate to see Officer and Hayes' ideas (hypothesis) get lost.

Respectfully, Chris ChrisJ6 (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oil shale economics
Hi, Konrad. You have done a great work with peak oil and peak uranium articles. I wonder if you may be also interested to edit the Oil shale economics. Oil shale economics is an one of the oil shale series articles. The purpose is to bring all this series articles to the FA level (currently only the main article Oil shale has FA status and the Oil shale extraction is under FAC review). As you see, the Oil shale economics is still far away from the FA and even GA status. I think that the first target should be the GA status and the FA after that. Unfortunately I am myself a quite "wikitired" at the moment and not very creative for editing this series articles. I also feel that "fresh" editors with fresh look and ideas could be great help for developing this article, so your input is appreciated. Same applies to the Oil shale reserves article. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Beagel, I was thinking that we need to finish bringing Peak oil back to GA status. I think that Peak uranium is stable and should be ready for GA.  I certainly can help with the Oil shale economics article.  I will give you all a hand.  Kgrr (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In case you'd like even more on your plate, there's an editor at Talk:Peak gas‎ who is severely confused over the difference between Hubbert peak theory and the event Peak gas. Sorry to call on you so much, but I'm getting tired of repeating that the article is not about how predictive Hubbert's 56 estimate was.  NJGW (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If I want more on my plate? Uh-oh.  I have barely stabilized peak oil.  I will take a look.Kgrr (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

IP Rob
I remember calling an someone Rob recently, but I don't think it was the IP you mentioned. I don't remember where it was (and now I can't find it), but it was some POV or Fringe pusher or something who had edited the sand box with something to the effect of "My name is Rob". I like to let the vandals and pushers know they're not invisible. NJGW (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Pickens Plan
We have already had to tag the article for neutral, as people had more negative thing listed, even though the vast majority of people are in favor of the plan. From a technical point of view, the endorsements section should be larger than the criticism section ANYWAY. I you can find a proper source and add, fine, but the article will have to be tagged as having a nonneutral point of view again, as the plan is strongly favored, and the article would look like it isn't. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 16:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Pickens Plan
It would be much easier if you participated in the talk page. P HARMBOY ( TALK ) 22:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do ... and you ignore it completely and have been waging a revert war. i tried telling you how to structure the major criticisms of Pickens' Plan.  I'm trying to help you organize the balance in the article.Kgrr (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

now, I didn't revert war anything, I reorganized the subtopics. You just reverted, not me. Having subtopics with titles like that appear to be not neutral by themselves, giving an opinion before you give a fact, on an already controversial subject matter. That is exactly why I chose neutral topic lines. P HARMBOY ( TALK ) 22:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * to be specific, where you say I deleted three points of view.  I only changed subtopic names.  If changing the subtopic name changes the points of view, then the subtopic isn't neutral to begin with.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 22:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please look at the history again. You lost three subsections with your change.Kgrr (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Institute for Energy Research
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Institute for Energy Research, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/about-us. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

uranium
Yo! Nergaal (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Article where you might can help
I stumbled across Energy security, which is a very valid concept, but the current article is tagged for being essay like (it is) and it needs some help. It looks like something where your edits could make a difference. Thought I would pass it along in case you were looking for a new, short project. P HARMBOY ( TALK ) 16:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Peak uranium/GA1
? Nergaal (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Palm candy cig cover.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Palm candy cig cover.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Citations for Pickens Plan, etc.
I just wanted to talk a bit in detail about the citations I made and were modified. The data itself should be clear from the info I said in the edit summary. Please double check carefully, I did say "tables 1 and 2." Oh, and we need to include that info in the changed reference format. It is important information and got lost in the translation.

I am sorry about not using inline citations, but I'm not very familiar with them. I kind of just let people who like them change my references to them. I personally don't like them because they make the source code harder to read and therefore article harder to edit, esp. for less experienced editors. But they do make the article tidier, and I have noticed how messy and disorganized references can look without them.

Lastly I wanted to apologise for not reponding to your request for comment back in October after you tried to address my concerns about the format of some now obsolete criticisms. It was rude of me, but an accident. Somehow your comment slipped by my notice on my watchlist. I just wasn't aware of your comment until long after. I don't mean in any way to ignore the opinions of other editors. --Diderot&#39;s dreams (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize for losing some of your reference to the tables in the translation of your references. I have not come back to look at the templates as to how to incorporate the tables you are referring to within the document.  I will come back and fix it.


 * I'll be the first to admit that references are tricky. The citation format for an article is the choice of the initial writer and the consensus of writers working on the article if they want to change it.  The system used by the majority of articles I work on is detailed in WP:CITET, the 'cite xxx' style.  The citation templates help you get all the necessary information and formatting which is often left out with the more open style of doing references.  They are so much easier to use once you know the field headings.  But it's not only the templates your references needed help with.  If you don't use the marks, then the reference in the reference section does not come out properly.  It somehow leaves these squirrely [1], [2], [3] etc. marks and the style is not exactly correct.  IMHO, I just don't think your reference style works properly.  The proper form is not that hard to learn.


 * It's not the first time my opinions have been ignored. Don't worry about it.Kgrr (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Radiation and Public Health Project
Hi Kgrr, and Happy New Year. I'm about to turn in for the night, so I won't bother you any more on Radiation and Public Health Project tonight. But please remember to assume good faith. I'm doing my best to write neutrally and assume in good faith you are as well. We may have differing opinions on this topic and others, but I think constructive collaboration can make a better article. Cheers, Jfire (talk) 07:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy new year to you too. I fully agree.  I was fully going to use the New York Times article to maintain balance.  It's hard to maintain NPOV on subjects like nuclear power where there is a lot of polarization.  Unfortunately, a lot of the Wikipedia articles read like they are straight out of NEI literature rather than being balanced.Kgrr (talk) 07:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A note from the GACC

 * Notice delivery by xenobot  13:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello
I saw that you've been working hard on the 802.22 article. Just wanted to say thanks! I stopped by ur user page and discovered that we're neighbors (kinda). I'm from Portland, Oregon. Then I noticed that ur also an amateur radio operator. I'm Eric (KI6MU). Are there any IRLP nodes in your area?

One thing I wanted to pass along was that I have looked at some of the amateur radio articles and quite a few are in need. I'm not asking that you do this, just passing along what I've noticed. I have gone through the entire Wireless Networking category and am just now starting to look at some of the ham stuff.

Nice to have you here! E_dog95'  Hi ' 03:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Eric, Sure. There is the N7BCP node #3359 here in North Bend, WA.  I use Echolink on my laptop.
 * I might consider contributing to a ham radio article sometime in the future.

kgrr talk 13:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Trillion instead og Billion
Hi,

i believe that in the graph http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Natural_gas_consumption.png The unit in the Y axis should be trillion instead of Million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.119.51.22 (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The graph came from BP Statistical Review of World Energy for natural gas. The unit of the table is clearly in Billions of cubic meters. (A Billion is 1,000,000,000 or a thousand million, similar to Milliard in French.)  In 2007, the US used 652.9 BCM and the bottom of the graph in blue is the US.  It appears to read around 650 BCM according to the vertical axis on the left.  Please help me see the problem.Kgrr (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

pic
what a dorky picture dude!

~guess who?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.188.141 (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Peak water failed GA
I've gone into detail as to why on the review page. That article needs a lot of work. Daniel Case (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. That was hardly the only issue I had. Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me put this bluntly. Your review style needs major improvement.  It feels like a personal attack. "Ohhhh my God."  The "F" comment at the end was not necessary and I don't feel it's even justified.  I can point to plenty of Wikipedia articles that deserve outright deletion.


 * Instead, it would really help if you would evaluate the article against each of the six Good article criteria. Also, it would really be helpful if you lead by example.  It's not hard to mark places in the article where you believe it needs more support with a  tag.  Take the worst paragraph and re-write it.  And, acknowledge what parts have been done well. You have the Master's degree in English; I don't.  Share your skills and knowledge.Kgrr (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:NovaM RADIO logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:NovaM RADIO logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Bear Market of 2009
Hi. When I created Bear Market of 2009, the title of the article was "Obama Bear Market," because the sources that I cited were talking about how it fell 20% since his inauguration, and this is noteworthy as being the biggest such fall after a newly inaugurated President in at least 90 years. The definition of the term bear market is not exact - it is open to interpreation. Also, one bear market can be followed by another bear market. If you want to start an article on the bear market of 2008, please do so. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as the "Bear Market of 2009". Would you please quit pushing your far reich POV.Kgrr (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I had originally called the article "Obama Bear Market," but someone didn't like that name, so I changed it. I did cite multiple sources that called this a seperate bear market from last year. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a POV fork. It is not a separate bear market and you know it.  Quit pushing your POV.Kgrr (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I added multiple sources, including a financial expert who says that investors are using the phrase "Obama bear market." The phrase "Obama bear market" also has 12,000 hits at google. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And you are still pushing POV.Kgrr (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I really like the job that you have done with the merged article. It looks great, and takes all of the relevant info into account. Good job! Grundle2600 (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I merely restored a lot of information you deleted and added a table. You are welcome.Kgrr (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The information that I erased was not relevant to the old article. It was relevant to the merged article. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Peak uranium
Hi.

Your comment on the talk page for Peak uranium is a very justifiable explanation for why you erased the stuff that I added.

However, the only reason that I added that stuff was to clarity a different statement that was already there.

That other statement that was already there said, "Some proponents of nuclear power believe that building more nuclear power plants can reduce greenhouse emissions.[26][27]"

But a statement such as "some people believe" is an opinion, not a fact.

So I added the actual real world numbers.

Please explain to me why you think it's OK for an article to say "some people believe," but it's not OK for the article to have actual facts on the very same subject.

Thank you.

Grundle2600 (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Grundle2600,
 * What is/was there is a result of a months long insert battle by people that love to insert their opinion into the article wherever they please. This is called POV pushing.  Again, in this section, I am trying to prove simply that it is expected for uranium demand to go up.  The fact that nuclear power is low in CO2 or CO2 free is completely irrelevant to that argument.  Adding your study will simply invite someone else coming back with three or more studies showing something else.  The article never said "Some people believe".  It says "Some proponents believe".  It is a fact that nuclear proponents believe this.  This had one reference and now two.  What more do you want?  I left your changes.  However, if they start another revert war, the whole section is going out.Kgrr (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The statement "some proponents believe" is weak, so I added numbers to back up it. If you want to erase that statement and my statement, I won't object. My objection was you you left that statement there while you erased mine, which made it look weak. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I'm tired of constantly having to fight your POV insertions.Kgrr (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group
Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page. Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Article
Not sure if your interested in this Kgrr... but you seem to be interested in energy and King Hubbert Peak. I resurrected an article Technocracy Study Course that is now, I hope been made more interesting with sources/ref/notes... etc as to notability. Some interesting history to it... and currently information surrounding it is pretty topical. Take a look at it, if you care to... and see if the addition of your thoughts/pov. could be added. skip sievert (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Skip, yes, I'm interested in energy, peak theory ... etc. I skimmed the article briefly.  I also skimmed the 305 page Technocracy study course.  I agree the article is a bit dry in the area of subject notability.  I will read the paper through and then come back and clean-up the article.   kgrr  talk 20:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I found this http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&BBID=9255388&v3=1 from the library of Congress and added it for the information aspect in e.l.-. I have seen it also mentioned in several university courses related to economics/history/social movements and energy and also ecology. Thanks skip sievert (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes... it is pretty amazing. Interesting that Hubbert references have not included all that, in recent history, as the charts you quoted were so far ahead of what other people were thinking at the time period. From the T.S.C. Hubbert took that information crunched, and wrote another paper..http://www.technocracy.org/man%20hours%20and%20distribution.htm. that is well known also, and written under the auspice of TechInc. That file could probably also be on the T.S.C. page. The Study Course has been unavailable in its entirety until just recently... there was an older version but it chopped off the back of the book and was generally hacked up and a closed file which made it pretty useless.. it did not include all the Appendix area stats and sourcing info.... (this one now on the page is complete and open)... which contained some of the most interesting info. - The Technate design is the last two chapters of the book... based on, as you know, energy economics.


 * Another very interesting aspect of all this is Frederick Soddy. One of his books is a ref. in the T.S.C. and this book was also so far ahead of its time... according to the thought of the time.. that it is just again being rediscovered.. Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt Combine that also with one of the most interesting of American economists Thorstein Veblen, a member of the Technical Alliance, along with a host of other notables in particular Charles P. Steinmetz... and it would seem that the information gets more interesting as it goes along. skip sievert (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, if I remember right Soddy was warning people about the finite nature of oil in the very early 1900's. It's interesting to see how some people were way ahead of their time. kgrr  talk 06:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hubbert clip
You may have seen this already... but if not, here it is:

1976 Hubbert Clip

A clip from the mid 70's with Hubbert explaining peak. It is short and he gets a lot of information across. Wonder if it makes it as a source? I am guessing it would. If so, maybe it could be an article ref/citation add? Thanks for doing all the tedious but basic work on the refs from T.S.C. - skip sievert (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a good movie clip, but it probably does not fall into the scholarly references category. This is the kinds of things that External References were intended for. kgrr  talk 15:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for tagging WP:Energy categories
Hi, Konrad. As a participant of the WP:Energy, I would like to ask you to comment the request for tagging WP:Energy articles by bot. The list of potential categories for tagging is located here and the discussion about which categories should be excluded from this list, is going on at the WP:Energy talkpage here. Your comments are welcome. Beagel (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2009 (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. If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Request to participate in University of Washington survey based on ideas gathered during the Wikipedia focus group you attended
Hello again! As we mentioned when you attended our focus group back in April, our goal was to use your feedback to help design an embedded application that could quickly communicate useful information about other Wikipedians. We have now created a few images that we feel represent some of what you thought was important. We would appreciate it if you took a few minutes of your time to complete an online survey that investigates whether or not these images would be useful to you.

To take the survey, click this link.

Please feel free to share the link with other Wikipedians. The more feedback, the better! The survey is completely anonymous and takes less than 10 minutes to complete. All data is used for university research purposes only.

Even if you are unable or unwilling to take this survey, we want to thank you for attending our focus group. Your generous contribution of your time and ideas was greatly appreciated! Commprac01 (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Constance Berry Newman 2004.jpg
This is a copyrighted picture, I nominated it for deletion, will replace it. Hekerui (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Peak oil GA Sweeps: On Hold
I have reviewed Peak oil for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Oilfield infoboxes
Hi, Konrad. I just proposed to merge Template:Oilfield and Template:Infobox Oil field. Your comments are welcomed here. Beagel (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Hot stain
I have nominated Hot stain, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Hot stain&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Gigs (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Article you edited
Is up for deletion. Check it out if you care to comment... Articles for deletion/Technocracy Study Course (2nd nomination) skip sievert (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note Kgrr... I stumbled on an interesting article, that was a couple of days from getting 86'd, and pretty much got rid of a lot of what was there and built it into a kind of cool thing. Take a look at it prior to my first edit... whew. It is connected to Frederick Soddy, and his early attempt of reconciling energy and economics. Here it is Ergosophy. If your in the mood and feel like dabbling, this might be a fun one to improve. I pretty much took what was there this morning... (not much and bad)... and now it is a start on an interesting article. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

New one
I am trying to create something here that will point out differences... just tossed it together. Feel free to dig into this. I think it has potential. Oddly within two minutes of creating it, even before any content was put into it.. it was proposed to be merged out! Ha. Very different, in my opinion as to scope and content from the other article currently. Here it is, and if you have time it could use some expansion/improvement... Economics and energy. It seems like there is a major gap in the articles about this subject. Maybe this will help. skip sievert (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Mosque
Hi, I deleted your request from WP:VPP as it doesn't belong there. You want WP:RFPP. I would have moved it there, but there's no way the request is going to be granted - this is a content dispute, and needs to be solved via talk page discussion and if necessary dispute resolution, eg WP:NPOVN or WP:RFC. (And in any case several people disagreeing with you wouldn't be affected by semi-protection.) Rd232 talk 19:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that semi-protection would not help this. I guess I will have to escalate to WP:NPOVN.  Thanks.   kgrr  talk 19:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Building Industry Association of Washington


The article Building Industry Association of Washington has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No indication of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shadowjams (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I explained to you in the talk page for the article as to why I thought that the BIAW is notable. I removed the tag because the article meets all the notability requirements. kgrr  talk 02:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have adjusted some wording. There is some more to go--the article was a combination of a panegyric in the first half, and an attack piece in the second--that is not the way we achieve balance.    DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK ... help me out. Edit the article so that it is more "balanced".  As far as I'm concerned may the facts speak for themselves.  The BIAW is very open about it's attack position.  Read this: http://www.biaw.com/   kgrr  talk 03:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Frank Chopp
I have requested POV assistance on the Frank Chopp article due to your repeated insistence on vandalizing his article with extreme POV statements, untruths, and half truths. Please do not edit this article if you are unable to refrain from POV. No, I am not Frank Chopp. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 21:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not vandalized the article. You must have me confused with someone else.  I made a total of four contributions to the article and none of them were vandalism.  All I have done is to add a wikilink at 03:07, 8 December 2009 and at 12:07, 16:48, and 16:57 16 November 2009, I added a wikilink, added a reference and added the references section.  How can I help you improve the article?  I can help you with POV on the article if you need.  kgrr  talk 04:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My bad. I did indeed confuse you with another editor. I misread the history page. Sorry. The other editor is User:Wallingford43, who continually reverts my (admittedly weak) attempts to inject balance, and has even gone so far as to accuse me IN THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE of being Frank Chopp myself. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 07:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tell me what you think. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 11:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree with all of your points. The pot thing could probably be dropped; it's not a major position, I don't think. Maybe it is. The other stuff is just what I found with some superficial digging. I yanked the campaign quotes, because I don't think there's anything there; much better to focus on actual legislation or proposals. On the viaduct, it's important I think to work in how his elevated proposal came out of the blue and doesn't even match up with previous elevated proposals (my own preference is shoring it up and leaving it, but I'm not going to breathe a word of it here!) \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 20:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. I have responded to your statement at Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard -- the BIAW is radically pro-development and pro-construction-industry but not "right wing" by any stretch of that contentious phrase.
 * This is simply your POV. Any article that says that the BIAW is just pro-development and pro-construction-industry is soft pedaling the group to the point of contention.  The group is about as right wing it gets before labels like far right and neo-nazi apply.  kgrr  talk 04:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous, and a Godwin besides. Their agenda is 100% pro-development. It just is. It's not contentious. They support both Democrats and Republicans; that's not right-wing. They have no position on abortion rights; that's not right-wing. They have no position on same-sex marriage; that's not right-wing. They have no position on "the war on Christmas"; that's not right-wing. They have no position on welfare rights or a host of other divisive political issues; that's just simply not right-wing. If you're saying that half of the Democratic Party in the state of Washington is "right-wing", you're simply not paying attention to what IS right-wing, and you're using the phrase "right wing" in a way that renders it devoid of meaning. Anti-environmentalist, sure. Right wing? Sorry, no.
 * Steve get a grip on reality. They do support both Democrats and Republicans?  Well, they support many Republicans like Dino Rossi, Rob McKenna, etc. to the tune of **millions of dollars** and support a few Democrats with **token donations**.  This IS right-wing.  They have no position on the wedge issues.  Anti-environmentalist = definitely right wing.  Anti-union = definitely right wing.   For property rights/ against land use regulations = right wing.  Anti-regulation, free market, freedom of enterprise, laissez-faire ...etc = right wing.  Want smaller government = right wing.  Want less taxes = right wing... etc. etc. Read their blog [The Hammer] = Right wing.  kgrr  talk 05:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I gotta say, saying "get a grip on reality" is a hell of a lot more "contentious" and POV than anything I've written. It's a characterization that only makes sense in the context of the very liberal 43rd District. "Extreme right wing" is not an accurate description, and more importantly it's not a DESCRIPTIVE description. It's just fighting words. It's appropriate in a political forum but not on Wikipedia. More to the point, it doesn't have fuck-all to do with Frank Chopp, who is not by any stretch of the imagination "extreme right wing". He's spent 35 years working for an anti-poverty organization, for cryin' out loud.\ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 09:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, the BIAW has no trouble describing itself as a *conservative* trade group and have been widely described as such, .  The point is they are very much partisan and they definitely lean to the right.  And, I never said they are "extreme right wing"; That they are not.
 * I agree, it has nothing to do with Frank Chopp. And just like I wrote in the article, he's devoted his life to social causes.  kgrr  talk 20:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Back on topic: our vandal is back at it, from yet another IP. I think it's the same guy, since he repeatedly puts in the same stuff over and over again.
 * The vandal was visiting an Apple store in Portland, OR. He's been at other Apple IPs, and he uses the Wikipedia login Wallingford43. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 09:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's certainly what whois on his IP address.

Welcome!
Hello, Kgrr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * If you haven't already, drop by the new user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages with  so others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Our policies, guidelines, and simplified ruleset
 * How to edit a page and write a great article
 * The Wikipedia tutorial and picture tutorial
 * The handy Manual of Style
 * And finally, remember to be bold in updating pages!

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango  123  00:54, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Nothing works using your dog

Proposed deletion of Dean Willard


The article Dean Willard has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO, online news coverage only extends to brief coverage in local press, candidacy for Congress doesn't of itself make someone notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MuffledThud (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Dean Willard
I have nominated Dean Willard, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Dean Willard. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. MuffledThud (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you let me write the article already? How can you conclude all of this? kgrr talk 19:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Please note I'm also nominating Gregory Hoover and David Spring in the same AFD discussion. If I've nominated them in error, please let me know: I've been wrong about this before. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Jayjg (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Hot stain
I have nominated Hot stain, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Hot stain&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Gigs (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________ On Transformative Teacher Education Edits —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mo2718 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Hi, Konrad,

I love the wikipedia.....the whole concept represents such a democratization of knowledge sharing.

I know quite a bit about the topic of transformative teacher education, and I think this is quite a good article. I appreciate your fixing my edits to make the whole thing more consistent.

Take care....mo2718 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mo2718 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

thank you...
thank you for your words of encouragement...people can be so mean...i know i am new to wikipedia for contributing to discussions or to anything major in an article (i have made a few edits on a few pages previosly as an unsigned used at various times in the past) but that doesn't mean anything...

anyway...they are going to have to get used to seeing my tag...i am here to stay...and plan on working on other articles and being an active part of other discussions...

have a great weekend —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katt in FL (talk • contribs) 06:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

TTE AfD
Based on the continued comments that basically assume bad faith on my part, I really don't see why I would be inclined to do research on your behalf, especially to save an article that I don't feel is worthy of inclusion of Wikipedia. I have not been uncivil, nor have I assumed bad faith on their part - they are newbies, and I assume that they are trying to post their article in good faith but that they just don't know the policies. Despite my clarifying that, you choose to reiterate a warning for arbitration - which is not conducive to maintaining a civil discourse. Regards, (GregJackP (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

Articles for deletion nomination of Dean Willard
I have nominated Dean Willard, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Dean Willard&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. GregJackP (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:AFDNote
I noticed you a signature to AFDNote. Unfortunately it came out as your signature. Usually you add four tildes after using a template like that, so the template itself doesn't need to output a signature. It is possible to make the template output a signature, but it is not normally done that way. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I reverted it. Thanks,  N Y  Kevin  @977, i.e. 22:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:911 09 James Pavitt.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:911 09 James Pavitt.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The image has the statement "Used in James Pavitt. A low-res photograph of historical significance, not available otherwise." Perhaps you did not see it.   kgrr  talk 14:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:911 09 James Pavitt.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:911 09 James Pavitt.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Digital Living Network Alliance
Your 12:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC) comment on the Talk:Digital Living Network Alliance page appears to be slightly incorrect: The DRM (Digital Transmission Content Protection over IP) happens at the link layer, not over HTTP as you claim. From reading (http://www.dlna.org/about_us/roadmap/DLNA_Whitepaper.pdf page 4, table 1), I gather that even the IP layer (IPv4) runs on top of this. 208.99.137.71 (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Found your edit on the talk page. You can deleted this if you wish. 208.99.137.71 (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tony Trupiano


The article Tony Trupiano has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:POLITICIAN "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen


The article Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * non-notable person

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

weight loss
your heart beckons for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.84.61 (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

== RFC on the inclusion of a table comparing SI units and Binary prefixes ==

Notice: An RFC is being conducted here at Talk:Hard diskdrive#RFC on the use of the IEC prefixes. The debate concerns this table which includes columns comparing SI and Binary prefixes to describe storage capacity. We welcome your input

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Computing --RaptorHunter (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:American Center for Voting Rights
Template:American Center for Voting Rights has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Robofish (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Robin DeJarnette for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robin DeJarnette 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/Robin DeJarnette 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 good 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. Robofish (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for help concerning energy...
Hi,

I noticed you listed yourself as a participant of the Energy WikiProject.

There are 2 new outlines in this area that attempt to consolidate Wikipedia's coverage of their respective subjects, gathering and organizing the articles about them into one place and including descriptions for convenience. The purposes of these outlines are to make it easier for readers to survey or review a whole subject, and to choose from Wikipedia's many articles about it.

The new energy outlines are:


 * Outline of solar energy
 * Outline of wind energy

Please take a look at them, and....


 * if you spot missing topics, add them in.


 * if you can, improve the descriptions.


 * add missing descriptions.


 * show parent-offspring relationships (with indents).


 * fix errors.

For more information about the format and functions of outlines, see Outlines.

Building outlines of existing material (such as Wikipedia) is called "reverse outlining". Reverse outlines are useful as a revision tool, for identifying gaps in coverage and for spotting poor structuring.

Revising a work with multiple articles (such as Wikipedia) is a little different than revising a paper. But the general principles are the same...

As you develop these outlines, you may notice things about the articles they organize. Like what topics are not adequately covered, better ways to structure and present the material, awkward titles, articles that need splitting, article sections lacking Main links, etc.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines.

Thank you. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 00:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC) P.S.: see also Outline of energy

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) 18:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Washington Policy Center
Greetings from the 3rd coast. Thank you for your interest in the Washington Policy Center. I agree the article is grossly non-neutral with respect to reliable sources. Here in the fly-over zone I recently put considerable effort into rehabilitating the article of a sister organization, the Illinois Policy Institute. I hope you have time and interest to look at that article to see what is possible with one of these state-level think tanks. I am sure you will find WPC involvment in many important issues in your home state. There seems to be an ongoing effort to "clean up" the articles on the members of the State Policy Network and the American Legislative Exchange Council, a sort of "less is more" campaign which unfortunately shows little respect for a healthy reluctance to delete sources. I hope some of the references in the SPN article may also prove useful for the WPC. I am at your service should hopefully you find time to improve coverage of WPC. Hugh (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Artificial cloud
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Artificial cloud &mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pierre cb (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DimmingTheSun.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:DimmingTheSun.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Paradisedreamed.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Paradisedreamed.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nambé


A tag has been placed on Nambé, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Light2021 (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Spectrum left.gif listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Spectrum left.gif, has been listed at Files for discussion. 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. Also:
 * File:Spectrum right.jpg

ATTENTION : This is an automated, bot-generated message. 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) 23:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * : kgrr  talk

to
 * : kgrr  talk

—Anomalocaris (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for updating your signature, but I made a small mistake. I forgot to escape the ampersand of &amp;nbsp; so the nonbreaking space was converted to a regular space, and this affects the appearance of your signature. Your signature is now


 * : kgrr  talk

If you want the original appearance, here is the markup I should have given you before:


 * : kgrr  talk

— Anomalocaris (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2018‎ (UTC)

Overspecification of coordinates
In your recent edits to Barzah scientific research centre you specified the coordinates to 4 decimal places, which is literally down to the centimeter. Please read WP:OPCOORD. Abductive (reasoning) 00:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you kgrr  talk 05:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Scowcroft Group


The article The Scowcroft Group has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No evidence of notability, this is basically an unsourced company directory."

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. Marquardtika (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of The Scowcroft Group for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Scowcroft Group 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/The Scowcroft Group 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. Sheldybett (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Nambe logo.jpg


The file File:Nambe logo.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope."

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. Willy1018 (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)