User talk:NJGW/3

Re: Opec
Hello. Thankyou for your comment and explanation regarding my edit on the Opec entry. I felt that the paragraph I removed misled the reader and gave unfair weight to an individuals own research. It also could mislead the the reader into the thinking that Opec themselves have proposed that they base their quotas on CO2 emissions, or that an authority whether or not associated with Opec has made this proposal. So in all, I feel this sentence gives a misleading sense of authority and validity to the reader. I believe the paragraph in question goes against Wikipedia's guidelines on Weasel Words and original research and could have been included in the article by the author of the source cited to further validate and publicise his own opinion. However, when I read the source citied, I read about proposals for controlling greenhouse gas emissions, but I could not find any proposal suggesting OPEC base their quotas on world carbon carrying capacity as the article states. This was my rationale for deleting the text.

In hindsight I should have added a section to the talk page which would have clarified things. I do believe the paragraph in question is invalid, but I will await your comments/advice before making any further edits to this part of the article. JosephLondon (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My Talk Page
Thanks, didn't know about archiving, just reading the Wikipedia page right now. :-) JosephLondon (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

reply
Yes, not adding summary is a bit slack I know - my brain is often ahead of my fingers. I'll try and make a habit of doing this from now on :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DOHill (talk • contribs) 18:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you check the history here... (I should get out more?) DOHill (talk —Preceding comment was added at 18:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Peak oil
I got your message and have to run off to work now. I will keep an eye on the situation. The article has been reviewed by several professionals on both sides of the isle. There's been consensus on this article for a very long time now. Since the article has met GA, there is no reason to have massive edits going on.Kgrr (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to being warned
yh wotever brav shut up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soleja k (talk • contribs) 20:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Economy of Dominica
Please see Diff, let me know if I am missing something. Jeepday (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Same thing here Economy of Saint Kitts and Nevis the link you give is not to the specific page, but to the whole web site. I was not able to confirm or find a copyvio, so remvoed the tag. Jeepday (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Did not find a copyvio source for Economy of the Dominican Republic, if you can find the source please repost the copypaste with specific page. Jeepday (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Doomer
Can you format the references?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I self-reverted. But you need to justify the reference.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why you are using a blog as reference? See WP:RS. Also a reference you used referenced from wikipedia. How you are considering RS?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you answer one thing. What is the most accepted year of peak oil?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will like to know one more thing. Approximately how many years will take for the aviation industry and other petroleum-dependent industries to collapse or at least to diminish from the year when oil peaks. For example if peak oil happens in 2010, then what will be the year fot the industry to collapse or diminish, 2110 or more? Let aside the other developments like biofuel etc.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bouyer Page
Hi NJGW! Thanks so much for your heads up on the Mitch Bouyer page. I thought that I had had most of the LBH pages covered on my watchlist sort of to police them for just such non-historical intrusions as you noted. I made about the only two edits that I thought I could make without a complete reversion - getting at POV language, removing even the hint that Curley was anywhere near the battle when it was joined, and calling for specific citations at a half dozen points where some editor or other has weaseled through using passive voice (it is reported) to cover exactly the point that the comments are not sourced in the article. I think I'll let those citation needed tags lie there for a while, and if the posting editor does not respond, I'll go into the article myself to do some sourced clean up. Thanks again! Sensei48 (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Original Barnstar
Noticed your contribution in several energy related articles. You have done very good job in them and your effort is helping to build good articles in this field.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hey. I saw you listed Articles for deletion/Peaknik (2nd nomination) for a third opinion. Your problem with the way the AfD was closed is best suited for Deletion review, located at WP:DELREV. You can register you complaint there. Hope this helps. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

changes
Appreciate your comments. I wrote the Cdn petroleum history series, and I'm always fiddling with them. Just looking at the review page is not very helpful for me, but I will nonetheless keep your thoughts in mind. Best regards. 16:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Catch 22
I see your point, however the section explaining the logic feels like a list or a recipe and doesn't feel it belongs in an encyclopedia, so I think it should be written as prose. Furthermore, I read it through and it actually confused me, whereas the formal logic statement seems crystal clear to me (of course that just might reflect my educational background with a focus in mathematics and I agree it might be different for other people). Nonetheless, I agree that the explanation should be made clearer. I only disagree with the style in which it is presented, and feel there should also be a section with the formalization, for the mathematically inclined audiences ;) I didn't rewrite the section as I don't have too much time, but I can do it eventually if you agree. nehalem (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

1980s oil glut Image
Thanks for updating the page. I sure I got it from site listed on Wikimedia Commons description page http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/OPEC_Revenues/OPEC.html, which looks like it is not there. graphic is Imported Crude Oil Refiner Acquisition Costs. Annual Energy Review (AER)s has that information. The 2006 chart using (2000) dollars, is at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec5_50.pdf. It looks like the data for 2007 will be posted in June 2008 according to http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/contents.html (Halgin (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)).

Uranium depletion
I am getting tired of this constant POV insertion battle with ultramarine. He refuses to understand a few key points (or drop a bunch of myths) no matter how long I repeat the same thing over-and-over-and-over-and-over again. 1) Peak uranium is not about running out of uranium. 2) Uranium is a finite source of energy  3) Peak uranium is a rate problem, not a quantity problem.  4) Every sentence does not need a reference, only things that are not obvious. Also, he has a very weird idea as to what NPOV is or how to balance an article with all views.

Now that the battle has kept me from getting GA on the article, I will divide Peak uranium in half and will pretty much delete anything that has to do with uranium depletion. I don't want to discuss when uranium will run out, but only when the production *rate* of uranium is expected to peak. I put enough of the material into uranium depletion to make it meaningful, but I don't plan on maintaining it. I would like to concentrate on the Peak uranium article and go for GA again.Kgrr (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User:150.101.105.201
If you have no objection, I am going to rearrange the warning boxes on User talk:150.101.105.201 to reflect the chronological order of that user's edits. Thus, I shall downgrade some of your warnings, but replace ClueBot's warning with a level-3 or level-4 warning. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)