User talk:MichaelWestbrook

Feel free to share with me your thoughts and opinions. I do not bite back.

MichaelWestbrook (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello MichaelWestbrook, and welcome to Wikipedia. I hope that you have enjoyed contributing and want to stick around. Here are some tips to help you get started:

Learn the basics by reading the introduction and taking the tutorial.
Remember to sign messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~) to automatically insert your username and the date.
Enjoy editing to improve articles, but try to leave an edit summary to explain what you are doing.
Create your first article using the Article Wizard to help avoid common mistakes, which may lead to article deletion.
Although you don't need to be familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies, try to keep to the core principles and basic guidelines.
When dealing with fellow Wikipedians, please remain polite, solve problems calmly, and remember that no-one is out to get you.
Get involved with the community by joining a WikiProject.
Make any test edits in the sandbox or click here and create a sandbox of your own.
If you are having difficulty, consider finding a mentor to give you more personal advice.
If in doubt, be bold. If you make a mistake, it can easily be reverted.

If you need any more information, plenty of help is available - check out Wikipedia:Questions; ask your question here and attract help with the code {{helpme}}; or leave me a message on my talk page explaining your problem and I will help as best as I can. Again, welcome! strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 17:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too welcome you. I'm a bit of a vet here, though I still have a lot to learn myself. I was struck by your contributions today and also your User page statement - like you, I am no teenager. If you have questions, at my User page [1]] any time. With best wishes, Jusdafax 19:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You both are so kind! I didn't anticipate such a friendly atmosphere here! Thankyou for the warm welcomes and invitations! And since I have been an information junkie for life, feel free to rely on me as well concerning every facet of these mysterious universes, including the names of the invisible aliens sitting right next to you as I type, as well as the visible ones in animal costumes you associate with unknowingly on a daily basis! haha j/k. There's no such thing as aliens. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oil spill talk page

I'm sorry you had a bad experience. I see you have been welcomed. Please stay and help us.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your kind words. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your ? on my Talk p. Paulscrawl (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice on TV. I corrected diction: it is a PR campaign, not a maneuver. Try to shorten the Obama quote to just the barest amount that hits it on the head -- last sentence, but not entire. Use all fields in refs -- look at this type ^[1]

Peek at source

^ First Last (2010-06-05). "Sentence Case". Example Weekly. Retrieved 2010-06-05.

Good work! Paulscrawl (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paulscrawl! I'm on it now... MichaelWestbrook (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Next time, and every time, add edit summary. Makes for trustworthiness. Goodnight, and carry on. Paulscrawl (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... adding edit summary now. Goodnight, and thanks for helping me with my first Wikipedia article edit! MichaelWestbrook (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to have you aboard, MW. You'll be an "oldtimer" before you know it! Speaking of which - unless you are just very youthful in appearance, I'm pretty sure I'm somewhat older than you! :) Cgingold (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this cool tool, Michael: takes just 5 seconds to copy a one-line script to a special user page for JavaScript customization of your user interface; modifies your edit box to make perfectly formatted refs super simple. Let me know if you have any questions; it will be the newly converted leading the newly gullible, but it has already expanded my ideas on what is doable in this lifetime. Big time saver! User_talk:Paulscrawl#RefToolbar_2.0 -- Paulscrawl (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paulscrawl, did I do it right? Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelWestbrook/vector.js MichaelWestbrook (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. You need to clear browser cache to see effect. Shift-Reload in Firefox. See that page for details. Note: I'm not sure if we should use expanded fields to properly format date. Default for that tool's accessdate button gives June 7, 2010. No observed consensus on article references yet re: June 7 2010, 2010-06-07 etc. Experiment, poke around, or ask -- let me know what you find out. Gotta run Paulscrawl (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelWestbrook, sorry to have offended you... seeing on your talk, and it is over my head. One can be on a completely different wavelength. I meant to re-word my tone somewhat. Hope you can ignore that, as i also have never been part of such a debate either. - Skullers (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken, my friend! Please see the oil spill talk page, I just responded to you. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing well with your recent edits, edit summaries, and reversions. Good to see you acting bold! No more whining tolerated from you: you've got what it takes! Paulscrawl (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paulscrawl! No more whining, I promise! :D MichaelWestbrook (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was fun little wiki-war! Your next assignment: try adding Category: Deepwater Horizon oil spill to Atlantis oil field and perhaps a one sentence link to it from Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion, if latter makes sense to you and article structure. Note well, when Discussing a particular Category, you need to place a ~~semi-~~colon -- : -- just after first two square brackets to make it a visible link, without actually so categorizing the Discussion page. A little trick not so easily learned. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you like digging, more details here:

Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization The basic rule is be careful and as specific as possible; higher categories subsume lower ones, so don't clutter higher catgories when lower ones are more descriptive: dig down the hierarchy to the most specific one(s). Cgingold is a categorization expert, BTW; I just thought this might be a good next step for your rapidly expanding skillset. Paulscrawl (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, Paulscrawl! Keep the information coming, my friend :D MichaelWestbrook (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your change removing irrelevant info in the Reaction to the White House section, may I ask why you thought it was all irrelevant? I agree with removing the more opinionated wording, but the fact that there was an order to halt new drilling leases, yet 27 projects have been started since that order, seems relevant to me. I was certainly glad to read it. I'm new to the Wiki editing world, so bear with me if I'm doing anything atrociously unacceptable :) Technocluse (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just read your user page, and wanted to note that I was also spurred to Wikipedia editing due to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill a few weeks ago. Cool. Technocluse (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent question, Technocluse, and here is the reason for my edit: I removed "However, since April 20, 2010, 27 new offshore drilling projects have been approved by Minerals Management Service, the agency in charge of oversight. All but one project was granted similar exemptions from environmental review as BP. Two were submitted by the UK firm, and made the same claims about oil-rig safety and the implausibility of a spill damaging the environment. According to the Centre for Biological Diversity, even after the catastrophe, the Obama administration did not tighten its oversight of offshore drilling." First of all, examine the info in this link http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/energy/dirty_energy_development/oil_and_gas/gulf_oil_spill/pdfs/MMS_Approved_Drilling_2010-05-07_v2.pdf and you'll find that since Obama reacted on April 30, only 11 were approved, not 27. But the crux of my edit is that the section deals with Obama's reaction, not what the MMS did or failed to do in the week following. Furthermore, the last sentence removed is still a matter of opinion, not yet fact, until more information is revealed about MMS and Obama's plans to deal accordingly with MMS. To summarize, the info I removed was misplaced, thus irrelevant. But since this is a current event, change is inevitable. For now, we must always guard against speculation and "spin" from all sources. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. I researched it a bit deeper as well, and there really doesn't seem to be any conclusive evidence on it, at least not as far as public knowledge goes. The sources for this information definitely took a little bit of information and stretched it a long way. I'm going to keep an eye on it to see if I can find anything. If I do, I think it would be appropriate to at least be mentioned next to the Obama administration's claim. Thanks for the detailed explanation! Technocluse (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the kind words. Couldn't have persevered without your earlier efforts. Almost felt like reverting all at one point.

IF you have more time today, I think this a priority: would you flesh out International governments with better-written summary of Russian story, and also add British reaction Beagle pointed to? I'd also like to see a non-White House source for US govt reaction: perhaps Rep Markey's reaction re: BP trustworthiness, if you can find that lost one. I'm concerned that those 2 sections with only a sentence or to won't cut it with senior editors. Thanks! Paulscrawl (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it now... MichaelWestbrook (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great -- now I can rest easy. ;> BTW, today's tip: Look up top on article's Discussion page: I added something you can put in header (so it won't get auto-archived) on any article's Discussion page, or your own Talk page, for that matter. Easy method to use page title as search string is simply {{find}}, as in

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Might want to delete that soon!

But in oil spill case, we needed extra search terms. Peek at simple source for:

More details (but not much more to it) at WP:FIND

Paulscrawl (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the article Michael! Your wisdom, honesty, and passion are are very important for this article. Without you and Paul, I think that the article would not be the fine article it is. Gandydancer (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted or Archived?

The math of less than or equal to 2/14 with a mean of 7/14 by gender and no 1/2 BP execs (LOL) is interesting. I wonder if we got deleted or archived? Bridgettttttte_babble^poop 12:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For trying to take a ~~humor break~~ in the BP spill

Bridgettttttte_babble^poop 21:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MY first barn-thingy! (((((Bridgetttttttttttttttttttttttte)))))

Yes, some editor removed our most important crucial perspective on the Oil Spill to date, certainly ever. So I am restoring your genius (and a little of mine) on our talk pages for posterity:

Some gender humor and fact in a very serious matter

I've tried to convince BP to use the same technique on the pipe leak that I used on my new husband: Put a wedding band around it and it will stop putting out! Bridgettttttte_babble^poop 17:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so humorous: Only 2 of the 14 Board Members of BP are women: [2]. Bridgettttttte_babble^poop 17:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the probability of that gender composition of the board might be calculated as 2/14 or less with a mean of 7/14. Maybe not, because you can't have (1/2)/14, i.e., a fractional person. Anyone want to do that or does that fall under NOR? Bridgettttttte_babble^poop 18:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should pose this mathematical conundrum, because I have been working on precisely the same logic problem since April 22... Here is my conclusion thus far: To show evidence of my proof, I quote CEO Tony Hayward, executive member of the BP board of directors: 1. "I think the environmental impact of this disaster is likely to have been very, very modest." 2. "We're sorry for the massive disruption it's caused to their lives," Hayward said. "There's no one who wants this thing over more than I do, I'd like my life back." 3. (regarding 7 oil spill clean up workers who were hospitalized after reporting dizziness, headaches and nausea.) "I am sure they were genuinely ill, but whether it was anything to do with dispersants and oil, whether it was food poisoning or some other reason for them being ill, you know, there's a—food poisoning is surely a big issue when you've got a concentration of this number of people in temporary camps, temporary accommodations." 4. "The oil is on the surface," Hayward said. "There aren't any plumes."

Conclusion: It turns out you can in fact have (1/2)/14. Tony Hayward is half a man. :D MichaelWestbrook (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

haha we made a funny MichaelWestbrook (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration on New Varieties of Barn Stars?

Mike - A lady once walked up to me and said, "We must be sisters by different mothers". It took me 3 days to figure out what she meant. Get it? With you, it would take the form of a guy saying to you that you were a brother by different mothers. Here on wikipedia, we are more like siblings. To avoid rivalry and edit wars, perhaps barnstar development is a good idea. Want to try to reword this "mother idea" as a new barnstar? Then we need to find some unsuspecting person for an award. As part of our general idea to take over the world, we could continue such development of new barn star themes until we end up in jail. Bridgettttttte_babble^poop 11:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Here's the start of a list, but I can't handle the graphics:
  - - "For Punning in the French Court"
    - "For Prunning an External Link Farm"
    - "For Eating Crow in an Edit War"
    - "For an Act of Nubile Bravery"
    - "For Describing a UFO Ride Passing Wikipedia:Verifiability"
    - etc., u try! Bridgettttttte_babble^poop 11:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I'm on it sister. oh and if you're my sister, and I'm madly in love/lust with you, does that make it incest? I mean, since you haven't confirmed the lust is mutual? Talk to me toots. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you like WWII stuff ...

Go here: http://www.youvan.com/audio/Reed1.htm , then http://www.youvan.com/audio/Reed2.htm ; wait a long time for the audio to start, transcribe to written English in a sandbox, try to catch the names of islands and commanders, reference them, subtract out the dental school pranks and the Youvan trivia, and contact the Ft. Scott newspaper or Kansas City Star for publication. Then we do a joint Wiki bio on Dr. Robert Reed. Bridgettttttte_babble^poop 12:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

I'm going to assume from your response to my comments that you want to end the adoption now. If I don't hear otherwise, I'll remove you from my adoption page. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 09:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I want to end the adoption now. Thankyou for your help, it was appreciated. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

I removed an edit you made to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill talk page. Injecting a bit of humour here and there is fine, but that post contained nothing useful. I have looked at your edits. Most are constructive, but some range from unconstructive to even offensive. You can become a very valuable asset here, as you seem intelligent, knowledgeable, and capable. But, please ensure that your contributions are constructive and never disruptive. I look forward to seeing many valuable and productive edits on your part. Happy editing and best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to second this point after this [3] edit. You're a useful contributor, don't go picking up bans for being an idiot. raseaC^{talk to me} 12:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I planned to let this go and just move forward, but considering that you have again posted inappropriate edits on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill talk page, I'm going to bring this up. A few days ago you posted inappropriate edits on the talk page and on my talk page, and later removed any mention of the incident from your talk page and my talk page as well. I consider my talk page My Talk Page and any edits to remove information should be done at my discretion, not another editor. They may be your words, but they are mine once they are on my talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelWestbrook has removed his comment from the article talk with an explanation (so that replied are still in context), which is fair enough. As far as I'm aware there's no policy against removing one's own comments from another's talk page, it's just discouraged. raseaC^{talk to me} 15:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia: Editing any existing comments on another editor's user talk page is absolutely inappropriate. (Even editing your own comments is normally inappropriate, unless you do it very quickly after you initially post.) Gandydancer (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To all, I am deeply sorry. I am going through terrible emotions concerning this event. I need to just go out right now with my friends, have some beers, and celebrate the holiday. I will fix my sad heart tonight in a matter of hours. My editing and contributions lately have suffered because I am taking this oil spill too seriously. It is affecting my mental health. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't beat yourself up too much. You're not a jerk...your edits were so out of character that it was hard to understand what could have possibly come over you. Maybe you need to make a rule for yourself that when you make an emotional post you save it over night before posting it. I do that sometimes, and it has saved me from embarrassment more than once. Gandydancer (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We are just trying to help. This might be a good approach: You don't know who other editors are. You might be communicating with a 72-year-old grandmother with a PhD in physics. So, no sexist comments and be very, very polite. See how other Wikipedians behave and follow their style. Happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, friends. I feel better. Just slightly hungover. :D MichaelWestbrook (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thought this would be enough; perhaps a man's perspective might be helpful to a relatively new and apparently confused editor. Michael, here is your most recent off-the-wall comment on the Talk page of Deepwater Horizon oil spill, most inappropriately addressing another editor as "Miss Aphrodesiac (:p)" (23:19, 5 July) -- stop it already. Picture this, really picture it: "You might be communicating with a 72-year-old grandmother with a PhD in physics" -- and simply assume, as a well-bred Southern gentleman instinctively does, that such banter is most certainly NOT appreciated. Think of email - such attempts at "humor" often backfire. Stop trying. Flirt, if you call it that, in RL, not on Wikipedia. Seriously. No excuses, Michael, and no response but your immediate change needed, or adequate -- simply stop this misbehavior, stop it permanently, and stop it now. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my comments are not seen as a woman getting on a feminist soapbox here, but I feel I need to say that I do feel that to suggest that men should avoid sexist remarks by imaging women to be "a 72-year-old grandmother with a PhD in physics" is not such a good idea. I would suggest, instead, to imagine a woman of any age and accomplishment with a similar degree of interest and ability as the average man that edits Wikipedia. There is certainly no need to get into what a Southern gentleman would do. Gandydancer (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I share your feminist sensibilities and agree on your former point: I was merely quoting Anna, the most recent subject of his sexist apostrophes, for re-emphasis. As to your latter point, while I don't mean to get on a Southern gentleman soapbox, but as one myself, and noticing Michael self-identifies as a Texan (an honorary Southerner in some circles), I don't share your certainty as to what is needed in order to get through to him. Obviously, what has been tried thus far -- earnest paraphrase of blandly-worded WP policy guidelines -- has not proven particularly effective: such policies speak to all, and thus to no one in particular. A call to personal honor is often all it takes in such circumstances, in my experience with some such men. Old fashioned, yes, and often surprisingly effective, too. We'll see soon what sort of man he is, by his verbal actions elsewhere, not his words here. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps... On the other hand, saying to the little boy crying, "Big boys don't cry" may work. But certainly it is not such a good idea if we are ever going to get beyond this idea that it is OK for girls to express their emotions, but not boys. Do ends justify means? Very, very, very seldom. ...and of course, I know you were quoting Anna... for "re-emphasis"....merely? Gandydancer (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of you drink beer, or whiskey? or any alcoholic beverage? I have to wonder. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point: People are people. I am a drinker. I should not drink and post. I get it already. Move on. Go focus on real idiots vandalizing Wikipedia. Give drunk asses like me who actually contribute constructively when they are sober a break. Thankyou kindly. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we need editgoggles to help prevent posting edits one may later regret! See Google's Mail Goggles. We shall dub the feature MichaelWestbrookMemorialEditGoggles. You're welcome. --Lexein (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming to my defense Paulscrawl. My username kind of invites that sort of joke. It's no biggy. The point of my grandmother comment was simply to help MichaelWestbrook understand the preferred tone for everyone here. 20-year-old users with whom I communicate are afforded equal respect. This talk page is now filled with our efforts. Our efforts are best spent building an encyclopedia. I suggest to all that we get back to work and drop this whole matter. MichaelWestbrook: Please don't drink and edit. It's about as wise as smoking-up then addressing the UN. Respectfully, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I hope I did not speak out of line here. My "feminism" comments seemed reasonable to me, but perhaps they may be taken as angry or disruptive. Perhaps a few words on a talk page were not the best place to get into such a complicated issue. I value the wisdom of both Paul and Anna, and would like to continue to feel we are on friendly terms. Gandydancer (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Paul. You're a real hero. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'm actually too fucking smart and real for anything online. This whole gig smacks of stale piss in a port-a-potty. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Just FYI it's usual to ~~strikethrough~~ (using <s> </s>) any statements you wish to retract. That preserves the sense of the rest of the conversation. But your replacement text was fine, and appropriate in the circumstances. --Lexein (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A note

When an editor asks you to get off their talk, it is a good habit to do so, especially considering the tone of your posts 1, 2. Thus please do. Materialscientist (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for trolling, disruption or harassment. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] First Last (2010-06-05). "Sentence Case". Example Weekly. Retrieved 2010-06-05.

[1]