User talk:NJGW/9

On vacation, responses may be slow
Hi Yasis.

In case JCDenton keeps at it, see. NJGW (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Jive or Jibe?
Statements which do not jibe (agree) with the source are jive (BS). JRSpriggs (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I have emailed you 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 email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Peak oil image
I have responded on my talk page. Thank you DodgeTheBullet (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Synthetic fuel
Hi, NJGW. There is a plan to improve the Synthetic fuel article to the GA level. In this process, there are still several issues, which should be done before renominating this article for GAN. As you have contributed to the article and/or discussion, you may be interested to participate in the discussion about the article improvement. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Link for you
Irrespective of our ongoing debate on the Green Energy article, I thought you may find this article interesting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/feb/20/george-monbiot-nuclear-climate

It's by a well known UK Environmentalist called George Monbiot.

Stop Reverting Green Energy
I am trying to improve the quality of the Green Energy article and your constant reverting is stopping me from doing this. Unless you want to refute my argument by properly studying the source in question and discussing on the discussion page for my edit please stop it. Remember 3RR.

Also: "Reversion exists to undo in full an edit that has no merit whatsoever, not to refute an editor with whom one happens to disagree.".

Thanks.

--86.143.98.152 (talk) 03:19, 9 July 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)

Cheeseburger
The section you keep adding is original research, period. It is unreferenced synthesis of material, mainly nutritional fact labels. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, so unless you can find a reliable source that explicitly says the numbers listed, do not post that there again, or I will be reporting you for a WP:SYN violation.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  19:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  19:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also no longer watching this page, so if you respond, I won't know.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  19:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted my own edits to CB. Surely that is enough to figure out, I'm busy irl, so I'm not going to be able to explain further, you should be able to figure it out for yourself.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  19:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Use of refs
>Please don't use insert unrelated refs into articles. NJGW (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear NJGW,

I used related refs into this article. I can send you a pdf of the publication of Scott & Connor (1997).

Best regards,

Bringing 13 July 2009

Cannabis
Alright, I'll just leave it be I suppose and work on other stuff. In any case, however, you guys are too picky. Far too much for my liking. Rocknroll714 (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Cannabis
I noticed you keep a close eye on (at least a couple of) the cannabis articles, so thank you for that and keep up the great work! If you have an interest in cannabis and would like to assist with working on articles related to the subject, feel free to join. Thanks again! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Race and crime
seems to be be back from the dead. Verbal chat  09:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Blecch
You want these oversighted or something? --Closedmouth (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to delete them, as they do seem to muck up the article histories. I've gotten used to it though.  Just some Singaporean kid that's upset that we won't let their undocumented conspiracy theories stay in Wikipedia.  If it doesn't wear off as they grow up, then the real people that need to worry are the folks around this person in real life.  NJGW (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Listen You
Man, don't make me talk to you on here. Instant messaging is much more efficient and we can reach a conclusion and agreement far easier that way. You don't have AIM, MSN, Yahoo, Google Talk, IRC, etc? Nothing that you're willing to give out?

Anyway, I really don't appreciate you telling me I ought to "not edit Wikipedia", especially with the credentials I have on here already. Have you seen my user page? I almost have 10,000 contributions and you're treating me like I'm some inferior noob or wreckless vandalist editor of sorts and to be honest your ass is pissin' me off big time.

Also, I feel that you're being a total nazi control freak when it comes to the Cannabis article. Apparently everything has to be your way.. the street/slang names, terminology, etc. I've seen you screwing with other people's edits as well besides just mine and I don't appreciate that either. The terminology section that somebody introduced was a great idea for example, but you just had to go and revert it so the page could be nice and shiny to your liking. Additionally, regarding the whole Cannabis names thing, having those alternate terms ("weed", "pot", "bud", etc) at the very bottom of the page in the references section is useless.

If you and me can't come to an appropriate resolution here together I'd like a moderator or admin to step in and call the shots between both of us. I'm sure he'd reverse your reversion of my changes right off the bat. I'm going to link to this on the Cannabis talk page so we can get some more feedback and community involvement over this stupid and pointless dispute and apparent little war we've got going here. Rocknroll714 (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S., nevermind about the instant messaging, letting others see our chat is better this way.


 * Update - See here:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cannabis_(drug)#Problems_With_User_NJGW


 * Also, regarding this - BRD: I'm requesting that you read the summary of my changes I put in the talk page under the immediate above link, reviewing the changes, and undoing your revert as suggested by BRD, so that I don't have to and it doesn't turn into a revert war like it already somewhat has. Again, my changes are perfectly valid and useful with some good information additions in them. You have absolutely no right lazily reverting all of it apparently simply because it was just from me. Do something about it now please before this escalates unnecessarily into a bigger issue. Rocknroll714 (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)