User talk:NJGW/4

Edmund Ironside
I responded to you on my talk page to avoid a fragmented discussion. Did you want to leave it there or move the discussion to the Edmund Ironside talk page?--JeffJ (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just about to add the assassination to Edmund II's article when I realized that the reference in the History of the Anglo Saxons is to the assassination of Edmund I (Edmund the Elder). So we are back to where we started... just "died" or "probably"...--JeffJ (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Mac
What other sock accounts do you suspect Mac of using? Mrshaba (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I've been dealing with an IP who has started up several named identities. Perchance, do you know where Mac is located? Mrshaba (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you or NJGW specially interested about me ?. Why?. --Mac (talk) 05:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you know how to find the first suspected sock puppet page filed on Mac? Mrshaba (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Two other sock accounts have come to my attention that use bad English and edit in unique circles. I asked at the help desk about the first sock page but the fellow there thinks you created the page as a second nomination accidentally. I don't know how that could happen though. I'll follow up with your RFC suggestion. Mrshaba (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I asked at the help desk about this 2nd nom confusion and here was the response: If you create the page manually then you can call it anything and I don't think there is an automatic protocol. But it appears from the edit summary of NJGW that the page was created with Twinkle. I don't have Twinkle and don't know how it selects the page name. This is pure speculation but maybe NJGW chose a wrong Twinkle function which creates the page with "(2nd nomination)" without checking whether a 1st nomination exists - or maybe there was a Twinkle error. If you create a new page then I suggest calling it "(3rd)" (omitting "nomination" is recommended), and explaining on the page that there probably is no 1st. PrimeHunter


 * I can't figure it but oh well. Mrshaba (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:nopetro and User talk:Nukeless are the suspects. Mac originally split off a section in the solar energy article into a poorly named article here. The fact that he named the article unconventionally leads me to believe he's not familiar with the subject. The information was restored to the SE page because it's significant to the subject. Yesterday Nopetro again removed the info from the SE page with a crude chop. In the course of following Nopetro's history I came across Nukeless and I think these are both socks of Mac. I've only noticed this since yesterday so investigation is continuing. This is a real pain and I appreciate your involvement. Mrshaba (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nopetro english: Talk page,, ,
 * Nukeless english:, ,


 * Nopetro, Nukeless and Mac all edit linux and/or router type pages such as Huawei E220, Ubuntu, Deb (file format) and Wireless local loop as well as electric car pages Plug-in hybrid and Electric vehicle. There is very little content creation but mostly redirect and external link activity. From what I can tell they also all appear to be anti-nuclear. What do you think of the coincidence? Mrshaba (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh and another thing... Why hasn't there been any movement on the Suspected sockpuppet case you filed two weeks ago? Mrshaba (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Petroleum
You are clearly not a neutral judge. I correctly edited the abiogenic theory section and removed the biased and repititive factual errors..Wikkidd (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're around, your assistance is clearly needed here. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 22:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 06:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already read and debunked the FTW post by the chemistry professor who is trying playing dumb and ignore the fact that he should understand Enthalpy. I won't edit this again though, you obviously have a vested interest in this. I just hope you do a bit more research and act on the improvements I've tried to make. Signed, a Scientist (not a Geologist though, thankfully). 202.89.188.44 (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what chemistry you're referring to... the article I pointed you to simply states that no physical evidence exists of abiotic oil produced from drilling wells, including those in Vietnam. Your summary for deletion of sourced material suggested you believed otherwise, and I pointed you to information that may clear up any confusion you have on the subject.  If you have usable sources for these articles, please feel free to mention them.  So far I have seen no sources that contradict the statement that the biological origin of petroleum is a scientific consensus, and that is all Wikipedia allows us to go by.  (FYI, I got into editing Wikipedia while looking up abiotic oil after seeing a Stanley Monteith video... and was a little surprised at how shaky was the ground on which he places the entire weight of his theories.  I'm a cynic and a skeptic of all sides of every debate, but no fool.)  NJGW (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from, and its really hard for the general public to understand this, but "consensus science" is quite a farce. That's not the way we teach hard sciences. The person who wrote the article you quoted me is a Professor of chemistry. Look up Enthalpy, and check out a comparison of Carbohydrates and Hydrocarbons, for your own interest. There are papers (from Russian sources, in English) I can quote, but its best to see it for yourself. Science has to be quantitative and unfortunately the softer sciences don't fit well. 202.89.188.44 (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're presenting facts I'm already aware of which made me think a bit more since I entered this skeptical of both sides as well. My background is in Physics, not Chemistry but we use what they use but in a less practical abstract form. I was so intrigued that I went backed to my statistical mechanics books and tried to understand how chemists dealt with it. Even the biotic guys acknowledged that abiotic oil production is (or was at one point in time) possible through the thoroughly tested Fischer-Tropsch process. Then they came out with the "Oil window" and discovered these "biological markers" you've referenced. Much like the markers for coal (which everyone can see) most people would conclude from these markers that the case is closed. Unfortunately for them science is not that kind. It doesn't actually disprove the abiotic theory at all, since it doesn't discount the possibility under the abiotic scenario of debris being caught up as hydrocarbons rise from fissures. So with this information you can conclude that the case is not closed. I'm not going to advocate for the abiotic theory, because it should be self-evident when you look at the Science. To me, it doesn't matter if you hit the wrong conclusion as long as you do it the right way. That way, you can find the error that lead you to the conclusion and correct yourself later. But if all you do is read what other people wrote and use it to reinforce a wanted belief, then you're doing yourself a disservice. Sorry about the length of this (and the lack of paragraphing, not sure how it works here), but you seem really interested in this which is great. 202.89.188.44 (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Peak oil
I will take a look and lend a hand. Look for my comments in the talk section of the article. Kgrr (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Till
"Till" and "until" are synonymous; "till" is an older form of the word. ("Until" is an old prefix "und-", as in "unto", added to the existing word "till".) "Till" also means to cultivate soil, but that is irrelevant. Please consult a dictionary before you make spurious changes on the basis of what you suppose a word means. The Wednesday Island (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, tone it down a bit. This isn't a contest to see who knows the language better.  But if it were, I would win:
 * V. Summary and Conclusions


 * TILL and UNTIL are not synonyms.
 * UNTIL is marked for the distinctive feature RESULT which makes it suitable to represent time from the point of view of KAIROS: "a point in time filled with a significance, charged with a meaning derived from its relation to the end."
 * TILL is unmarked for PROCESS/RESULT which makes it suitable to represent time both as CHRONOS: "passing of time" or "waiting time" or KAIROS.
 * This semantic distinction is what motivates their non-random distribution in both spoken and written discourse on the micro- and the macro-levels.
 * The theoretical and methodological motto of this paper is therefore:

MEANING MOTIVATES DISTRIBUTION!
 * Even though the semantic distinction between TILL/UNTIL is subtle, in the words of Dwight Bolinger (1971:17): ... who says semantic distinctions have to be gross?

-NJGW (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But a) assuming this paper is correct, we learn that "till" can handle both KAIROS and CHRONOS; thus "till" is appropriate for all situations in which "until" is appropriate, plus some more. So "till" was a perfectly fine word in the original, and "until" might not even have been appropriate, depending on whether "the late 19th century" can be considered a point in time.  b) your original edit summary claimed that you were making the replacement because "till" meant "to cultivate soil", which is now clearly an inappropriate reason.  c) you are correct, this is not a contest to see who knows the language better.  I think we should stop, really.  The Wednesday Island (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Bioasphalt
Good work. I like the final look of the article. And the best: we have an interesting article about an alternative to petroleum that is usefull for a lot of people in this field. Regards. --Mac (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspected_sock_puppets/Yasis
Good hello, I've added 8 more IP addresses to the report. These users have been adding the same links (to the Progressive Labor Party, the Communist Party of Australia, and a couple of different home-brew conspiracy websites) to multiple articles. All of these IPs display the same grammar and usage errors when they edit, they all assert the exact same claims using the same wording, and they all have an eerily similar tone. As for discussion and consensus, when I try to explain the problems I have with his/their sources, he/they just get pedantic and keep posting the same block of text over and over again. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, regarding the link to the conspiracy website at 1973 oil crisis, I was under the impression that the "deep oil" theory that Engdahl espouses ranks alongside Lysenkoism as another discredited Soviet pseudoscience. Is that accurate or am I completely off base here? Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool read, thanks for the links. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked Yasis and the suspected sock IP that is currently active, but unfortunately you have also edited warred, and I felt that I had to block you to be even handed. I understand the frustration of dealing with somebody who uses socks, but this was not pure vandalism, so edit warring to deal with somebody who is edit warring cannot be justified. You really should have just reported them. Sorry. TigerShark (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You might want to read WP:3RR again -- the limit is the total number of reverts per page per day, irregardless of what or who you are reverting. Mango juice talk 20:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Similarly, editors who may have technically violated the 3RR may not be blocked, depending on circumstances... discuss the matter with others..." I believe given the circumstances I was dealing with a disruptive editor (please see his/her sockpuppet allegation page).  I also would like to point out that the editor was obviously not interested in discussing the matter, given their actions on other pages and their edit summaries.  NJGW (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I must chime in in defense of NJGW. He has been trying to stem the tide of reverts from User:Yasis and at least 8 of his sockpuppets.  This seems like a perfect case of WP:IAR.  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember that no decision has been taken on what is the "right" version, only that Yasis was edit warring. NJGW was doing exactly the same thing, so IAR is inappropriate. TigerShark (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes the other user was been disruptive and almost certainly was using socks, but that doesn't mean that you can deal with it by edit warring. Just because they may have reverted more than you and used multiple accounts doesn't mean that you can edit war in response (which obviously is ineffective, and just makes the situation worse). It is about achieving consensus, not about getting the "right" version through force. You need to report them for edit warring and for sockpuppetry and leave it at that. TigerShark (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with you?
You removed my political opinion on a talk page. When I removed the lengthy polemic my statement was in response to you restored it and issued more threats. Do not vandalise talk pages. If you find something "uncivil" file an RFC. Repeatedly vandalising talk pages may cause YOU to be blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.206.168 (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction in Oil depletion
Regarding this recent edit: "Oil well production curves typically end in an exponential decline.[6] At natural rates, oil well production curves appear similar to a bell curve..." This is a contradiction. Is the timeline curve exponential or bell? As a layman, I can relate to drinking from a straw and trying to get the last slurps from the bottom. Timhowardriley (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The overall shape is a bell curve, the decline is exponential (gradual at first followed by a steeper and steeper decline). NJGW (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of what I've been reading is the production curve is bell shaped and the depletion curve is exponentally declining. The paragraph in question now seems to have both subjects: 1) the remaining oil in the well over time and 2) the amount of oil extracted over time. The remaining oil refers to depletion decline, and the amount extracted refers to production increase followed by production decrease. Maybe the confusion is the paragraph's heading, "Oil well production decline". The paragraph's heading should be, "Oil well depletion decline". After all, the article's title is, "Oil depletion". Then all of the paragraphs in the article should support the article's title: oil depletion. It seems like the exponentially declining depletion curve supports the article's title. It also seems like the bell shaped production curve is only tangently related.
 * The paragraph originally supported the article's title. However, it was worded awkwardly. So I changed its wording to not be awkward, but I didn't change its content: the remaining oil in the well over time. But your change seems to have changed the paragraph's content by adding the new subject: the amount of oil extracted over time. Therefore, I recommend reverting back to my edit. Timhowardriley (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oil depletion isn't about how much is left in the ground, but how much more we will be able to extract at a favorable profit/energy margin, and the fact that at some point there's not enough to go around. The Hubbert curve (not bell curve) is integral to the article because the decline is actually the tail end of the Hubbert curve.  There is a lot of poorly phrased content in the article, including misconceptions, OR, and extra information.  I've worked over the lead, but the body needs more.  Also, it is production that is declining, not depletion.  Decline and deplete are synonyms in this instance.  NJGW (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. It seems like you have everything under control. Keep working the article so that someone like me can understand it. However, I thought I was starting to understand it until your last few edits. For example, doesn't oil depletion occur after the next barrel is extracted? The introduction now says that depletion doesn't occur until after the peak of the production curve. (Doesn't Pepsi depletion occur after the next sip?) Anyway, good luck. Timhowardriley (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sock users
blah! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.216.226 (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Biofuels
Thanks for that - I usually do add at the bottom, but at a quick scan of Talk:Biofuel I saw the first two in reverse order and suffered a mental lapse. No reply required. TrulyBlue (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfounded Vandalism accusation
It's fine with me if you want to edit an article after I edit it, but don't accuse me of vandalizing something just to justify reverting it. That's total idiocy and it's not friendly behavior. I suggest reading Assume_good_faith and WP:V and attempting to absorb its contents. Please fight the urge to discriminate against IP address editors just because you have some elitist preconception that they aren't "real" wikipedia users.

Here is the page as I edited it:


 * The nationalization of oil occurs as countries begin to deprivatize oil production and with-hold exports. Kate Dourian, Platts' Middle East editor, points out that while estimates of oil reserves may vary, politics have now entered the equation of oil supply.  "Some countries are becoming off limits. Major oil companies operating in Venezuela find themselves in a difficult position because of the growning nationalization of that resource. These countries are now reluctant to share their reserves."

Find the vandalism! I'm such a vandal by wikilinking stuff for additional information! Maybe you could have waited a few minutes for me to fix the red links instead of assuming and making an ass of me. 70.102.63.186 (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC) (Otherwise known as (Dragonnas talk)


 * Wikilinking to "editor", "politics", "off limits", and "share", two links to the same article in one sentence, and two redlinks, all in the lead, seemed unconstructive to me. Please sign in when you edit.  NJGW (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not vandalism ("a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia"), it's overlinking. Mporter (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Anytime I see an IP doing very strange things which make an article worse with no explanation or history of editing the article, my ability to AGF slips. All I posted on this guy's talk page was a note that their edit "seemed unconstructive", and I guess they flipped out.  NJGW (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

150.101.105.201
Part of the reason I didn't block was that there was no vandalism after the latest warning—i.e., they stopped vandalizing. Since the warning seems to have deterred the vandalism, a block is unnecessary. However, if they start again, the static IP note means that there's less need to reset the warning count. —C.Fred (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Harrassment
(remove warn4 posted to 70.102.63.186 (talk) for vandalizing my talk page; no need to tell me what I posted at your page)
 * that was posted on my talk page after I asked you to stop deleting other people's arguments. If you cannot edit wikipedia positively and neutrally, I will be forced to report you to the administrators. Stop harrassing me on my talk page and stop deleting my edits. It's childish. Just learn to live and let live or at least leave me alone. this is a formal C&D (Cease and Desist) request. I will have no further contact with you unless you initiate that contact, and I will be forced to report it as harrassment. Keep your lies to yourself. 70.102.63.186 (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What happened to Hubbert Math?
I prepared a page Hubbert math which was supposedly moved to Hubbert Curve, but it isn't there. I'm a newbee. Would someone please tell me where the old copy is so I can back it up? Jclaer (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * reply on your talk page. NJGW (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that I'm a textbook writer, not an encyclopedia writer. I would like to move my creation Hubbert math to a wiki at my institution but I can't find it. Would you please give me a link so I can get it back? Jclaer (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'm out of here -- for now at least. No action items follow -- just some reflections. I've written 5 textbooks, all available free on the internet. The first three have ISBN numbers and are old. The last two are new, presently in use in classes at Stanford University where I teach. These new ones have never been submitted to a printer though I've had many offers. It's ironic, is it not, that Wikipedia seems to prefer references to Britanica type literature than to Wikipedia type?

When you deleted my page I had misunderstood you to mean you would be merging it with the other page. I think I see what your goal is. Maybe I'll get around to it. Hubbert can be defined by any one of four equations. That you need. Any one of these equations is logically equivalent to the remaining three. Understanding the equivalence is a nontrivial exercise in first semester calculus. You don't want the steps of that exercise laid out. Jclaer (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. I understand you. "An encyclopedia is not a text book". That's why I'm out of here for a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclaer (talk • contribs) 17:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thameshead - DEKB
Sorry for the mistakes I have made I am new and still trying to learn the wikipedia ways. I entered our link in the decentralised energypart because we are a useful resource but this was removed, I do not understand why. Regards Thameshead —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thameshead (talk • contribs) 14:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Licensure
I agree with your edits and the current 'edit war' has now been reported to an admin; the rules are clear & need to be adhered to, cheers Peter morrell 18:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Olmec
No, it is not original research, it is common sense. At the time of the Olmec, Europeans had yet to introduce enslaved Africans to the Americas. So any appearance of "Africanesque" features on the continent would not be related to this, and must therefore rely on another possibility, such as Africans of some sort making the journey on their own before that. The argument against THAT possibility, as in the article, is that MODERN Amerindians have Africanesque features, under the assumption that they've always had them. But the counter to that is that modern incarnations of African features could have come from the introduction of enslaved Africans to the continent in the 15th and 16th centuries. Therefore, just modern people in the area having African features is in no way a case against African migration in the distant past. It's plainly a weak argument. I'm putting the comments back in.Godheval (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Before you revert, try reading what I wrote, and discussing it on the talk page, where I posted our conversation under "Further debate on AFrican Migration Theory" Regardless of whether or not the Bering Strait Hypothesis is mainstream, it is not the ONLY hypothesis. My comments refer to things mentioned earlier in this article itself about theories of African migration, and saying that the one argument AGAINST that theory simply does not work, for the reasons stated. Godheval (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In reference to the "personal attacks", I'd rather not remove them, because I don't seem them as attacks. If you do, then you have thin skin. Being slow on the uptake could be attributable to any number of the things, none of which necessarily have to do with anything inherent. Maybe you didn't get enough sleep? Who knows, and who cares. The statement remains true all the same. Godheval (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)