User talk:NJGW/5

Oil shale economics

Hi, NJGW. There is an attempt to give a boost to the Oil shale economics article. Considering your expertise in the field of petroleum, you may be interested to participate. The discussion is going on here. Thank you.Beagel (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

US oil dependence

Thank you and good work. I will give it a serious thought and try to merge them together. I am a newcomer, as you can see. I would propose to merge them together under a title of "Oil Dependency of North America". Obviously I don't know how to merge articles and I need your help.

Regards, Dreamliner888 (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

tortoise

Replied. Thanks for your comment. Tony (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaskan gas production

Saw your hidden connent in the Peak gas article, wondering if gas production rose in the late 1970s due to Alaskan gas production. Good guess, but off the mark, because there are still (2008) no gas pipelines connecting Alaska to the lower 48. Some gas is produced around the Cook inlet for the Anchorage market, but whatever gas deposits there are on the North Slope remain untapped. More likely explanations for increased US gas are technology and price rises. Regards. Plazak (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I cited the great difference between Hubbert's projected figure (from his 1956 figure 22) and actual production to illustrate how far off these sorts of projections can be if based on erroneous inputs, even if based on the best data available from someone as highly regarded as Wallace Pratt. Hubbert made a valid contribution, but neither he nor his theory are God, and the mathematical fatalism implied by his curves is subject to modification by technology and economics. I have not studied Pratt's methodolgy, but I do know that since 1956 there have been great fluctuations in natural gas prices, great advances in seismic exploration technology, great improvements in horizontal drilling and massive hydraulic fracturing (needed for tight sands and shale gas), and the startling realization that some coal beds that had been drilled through thousands of times would produce immense amounts of gas if properly handled. Just in 2008, there is a terrific excitement over what some companies say is a huge new gas field in NW Louisiana's Haynesville shale - a formation that had been drilled though hundreds of times. Undoubtably we will run out of gas someday: Hubbert was certainly right (though not original) on that point. But gas production peaked in 1971, again in 1979, 1997, 2001, and now the 2007 data point to a still higher peak. After each of these "peaks" people said, with some justification, that gas had "peaked" ala Hubbert, and we had nothing but shortages ahead; someday they will be right, but it's difficult to say when. The Wikipedia articles on peak theory are full of statements that "X commodity has peaked" in this or that country, with the implication that there is only one peak. To be accurate, the wiki articles should include the fact that for some commodities and regions there have been multiple peaks (Hubbert himself pointed this out), and a "peak" does not always mean irreversable decline from then on. Sorry for being so long-winded. Plazak (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As Hubbert pointed out, local peaks are global peaks in microcosm. He used observations for individual states to justify his projections for the US as a whole, and data from the US to to forecast the world as a whole; if his theory succeeds or fails in individual regions, that has serious implications for the accuracy of the theory in global projections. Also, US consumers depend largely on US-produced gas, so peak US gas would have an important effect on the US economy. If it is valid (as I certainly believe that it is) to point out how accurate Hubbert was in his US oil projection, why would it not be equally valid to point out how inaccurate he was in his US gas projection? It would be extreme POV to emphasize the hits and gloss over the misses. As for his using "outdated" gas reserve figures, believe me, all reserve figures are subject to becoming outdated the day after they are calculated. Now matter how modern the statistical methods used, the best present-day reserve calculations are still subject to the same problems faced by Pratt: it is almost impossible to forecast technology or economics. Also, the earth is full of surprises, both good and bad. Plazak (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have to eat my words (see above) on Alaskan gas production. Looking closer at the USEIA data, it turns out that a great amount of gas is being co-produced with the oil on the North Slope, and being reported in the Gross Production totals, even though the gas is being reinjected to maintain reservoir pressure. Plazak (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• "He used observations for individual states to justify his projections for the US as a whole" I was under the impression that he used past discoveries to justify his predictions.

see pages 11-13 of his 1956 paper. He used the examples of Ohio and Illinois to justify the shape of his curve.

• "if his theory succeeds or fails in individual regions, that has serious implications for the accuracy of the theory in global projections" I'd have to see a source which a) says the theory itself has failed anywhere (barring changes in the data) and b) that this has serious implications for the global application.

The utility of any such equation is to make predictions about the future. The whole boldness of Hubbert's work is that he dared to make detailed predictions about future. Anyone can jigger a curve to fit past data. If the timing and rate of peak gas is known only in hindsight, it loses its utility. If the EUR is not accurately known, as it turns out it was not in 1956 and 1971, then the Hubbert equation will give erroneous predictions, as it did.

• "why would it not be equally valid to point out how inaccurate he was in his US gas projection?" I don't believe we've seen anything which indicates that he was inaccurate, only that Pratt was inaccurate.

Hubbert adopted Pratt's numbers as the very best available at the time. So even using the best information then available, the Hubbert curve was a poor predictor in this case. Anyway, Hubbert used his own numbers in 1971, and was again wrong. Again, the point is that even the most knowledgeable workers in the field (Hubbert himself) can be wrong if they have to rely on poorly known inputs.

• "It would be extreme POV to emphasize the hits and gloss over the misses." Again, Pratt's miss, but see the text before you say I've glossed anything over.

Agreed. It is not glossed over as presently written.

• "all reserve figures are subject to becoming outdated the day after they are calculated." Pratts predictions held for 20 years, and given the advances in technology and statistics, I expect today's predictions will last much longer. NJGW (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Increased gas was largely due to new technology (unconventional gas and deep water drilling), driven by higher prices. What modern technology and statistics are there that can predict future technological advances? Your faith in today's peak gas predictions is not justified by past experience. Plazak (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

What is your basis for adding this? Bstone (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: AZ links

Sorry, I got a bit overhasty, when I saw you'd trimmed some useful links (that I probably put there -- I live in the area). Full agreement on the spammy stuff, which is an ongoing problem. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

year links from ancient times

" Has there been any consensus on whether any dates should be linked? "

Sorry for the delay in replying. Single-year links have been on the nose for quite a while, although people are a little more accepting when they're in ancient times. But honestly, I can't see any advantage. Those who write the year articles will complain that they'll eventually be "orphaned"; but my response is "make them a lot lot better and we can find ways of promoting them". Tony (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger of Renewable Fuels and Renewable Energy

You're right, I was neglectful. I was hurrying down a list (for other purposes) and saw two articles that apparently didn't know the other existed, and threw in Merge notices thinking they were obvious. The two articles really do need to wikilink to each other, and not just through the Sustainable Techniologies category. And the Renewable fuel redirect needs to be fixed or disambig'd. I'm rushed right now, and haven't yet looked to see what to do about the overlapping articles in the Renewable Energy portal. Simesa (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Economic_crisis_of_2008

I have started a new thread at Talk:Economic_crisis_of_2008#Meltdown_Monday, of which you may be interested. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified claim

You have entered an big unspecified claim on the article Drug policy of Sweden. Several sources are official government documents about the present drug policy, the latest is from September 2008, others represent different critical views on the Swedish drug policy. So can you please explain what is unsourced etc in the article.Dala11a (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do that as soon as you show me where I said something was unsourced. The key here is that you are too involved to be able to accurately decide when the tags have been fulfilled. This has been proven by you time after time. NJGW (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not involved at all i any governmental or anti-drug organization or any pro- or anti-drug organization of any kind. If you don't have any claims on the sources, what is then not in line with Wikipedeia policy in the article?Dala11a (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Your actions on this article and others show that you have an emotional involvement with the topic of illegal drugs. Your misconstrual of sources in the past and other issues show that you are not the proper judge for when the tags should be removed. NJGW (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You have still not mentioned one single error in the articleDala11a (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A question for you: Where the tags valid when they were placed? NJGW (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw in May 2008 (and I have not change my mind) the general tags on top of the article as a misuse of tags. The user who had critical comments should have specified what parts of the article which he considered to be inadequate. I have improved the article since May 2008, but the general view is the same, the Swedish drug policy was well known to me in May from many different sources in Swedish. The latest update is a speech in September 2008 about the Swedish Drug policy, in your recommendation, from the governments official web site, Maria Larssons speech.Dala11a (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If you saw the tags as incorrect to begin with then you obviously are not partial enough to decide when they have been taken care of. The tags were discussed, and a third party was even brought in and agreed that there were issues with the article. The issues stem from your COI. The tags are a signal to some editor with the time to deal with you that they should go through all of your edits and make sure they sources say what you claim them to say... often they don't (and not just on this article). As for the speech, quoting a politician is not a great source as we have seen many politicians say many untrue things in this world... better to use some impartial third party analysis, or at the very least the actual policy in question. I don't remember recomending that you find a speech. NJGW (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy declined

Hi NJGW. I just wanted to let you know that I declined your speedy tagging of Catch 22 (band). Since the band has apparently released multiple albums on a notable label, there is a suggestion of notability under the WP:MUSIC criteria, so it does not meet criteria for speedy deletion. If you believe this merits a community discussion, feel free to nominate it as an AfD. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Also this Google News search suggests that there are many references out there that could be added to the article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I just came to the article randomly and saw it had only one non RS looking ref, and news.googleing "catch-22 ska" didn't look promising. Looks like they just need to use some of those refs you found though. NJGW (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Peak gas

I have unhidden the paragraph headings. Also I have added a half of a dozen diagrams and a small amount of supporting text. Could you perhaps give me a hand to fill-in the needed paragraphs in the next few weeks? Konrad Kgrr (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

So what are your views NJGW on USA orchestrating 1973 oil shock?

Do you have any opinions NJGW?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yasis#More_on_USA.27s_orchestration_of_1973_oil_shock

218.186.69.253 (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean what is my opinion? This is not a discussion forum, and I have not written any wp:RS sources we can use in the article, so it really doesn't matter what I think. Please log in (yes Yasis, you need to log in), and suggest the changes you would like to make, as well as the sources you would use, at that article's talk page. NJGW (talk) 06:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking of writing a new section on this issue at the 1973 oil crisis page, so I need your opinion.

Thanks. 218.186.69.253 (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Put it here and I'll have a look at it: User_talk:Yasis/1973_sandbox NJGW (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't have the time now. But I will write up a new section and put it on the 1973 oil crisis page. The current version seems like a fraud.

So are you going to oppose or support?

Thanks. 218.186.69.253 (talk) 06:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose or support what? Put it in the sand box and only then I can answer. If you don't have time to build consensus, you don't have time to edit Wikipedia. NJGW (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Oppose or support what?" Supporting the new section on possible USA orchestrating the 1973 oil shock to support their hidden agenda. You don't seem to like the idea.

Thanks. 218.186.69.253 (talk) 07:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're going to write, so I don't know if I'll support it. That's why I suggested that you use the sandbox. As for the Shiek, from what I've read "He is best known for his role during the 1973 oil embargo, when he spurred OPEC to quadruple the price of crude oil." NJGW (talk) 07:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Look Yasis, your editing history is not very credible. You should really take things easy and play by the rules... make sure your sources are wp:RS, make sure your wording is wp:NPOV, and make sure that your text reflects consensus. You also need to log in. NJGW (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"As for the Shiek, from what I've read "He is best known for his role during the 1973 oil embargo, when he spurred OPEC to quadruple the price of crude oil."" That is probably not the full story or some sort of cover story or USA false propaganda, like the Iraq war deception on WMDs.

It's still something you're going to have to reconcile somehow

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2001/jan/14/globalrecession.oilandpetrol

This is the only accurate account I have seen of what really happened with the price of oil in 1973. I strongly recommend reading it.

How do you know this is the only accurate account?

Sheikh Zaki Yamani, former Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia

http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Zeitfragen/Century_of_War/century_of_war.html#WorldOrder218.186.69.253 (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Look Yasis, your editing history is not very credible." What do you mean by that? My editing history not credible???? 218.186.69.253 (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for starters there this: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Yasis#User:Yasis and this; and then there's your total refusal to understand other certain editing policies (besides sock puppets and edit warring there are: reliable sources, formatting your posts, logging in, concensus building on talk pages [for example on Carroll Quigley]). NJGW (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

NJGW, I think you got things wrong. I was never involved in any sockpuppet activities. Check your facts. That is an unfair allegation against me. 218.186.68.211 (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see... you were blocked for edit warring, and then used at least 11 different IPs to continue the edit war (skipping from one to another as they were blocked) until the whole range had to be blocked. How is this an unfair characterization? NJGW (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That does not fit in with definition of sock puppet, NJGW. You should know that. 218.186.68.211 (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does, you would be trying to avoid blocks. BMW(drive) 15:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean Bwilkins? Can you elaborate on that point. If I make edits without logging in, that is considered a sockpuppet? Thanks. By the way I am Yasis. Currently blocked.218.186.65.198 (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• If you are editing disruptively with 1 IP and it gets blocked, so you immediately disconnect and get a new IP and come back, that's evading blocks and falls under sockpuppetry. If your userid gets blocked, and you come back anonymously right away, you are evading blocks. That's all socks. BMW(drive) 14:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I will be back later NJGW, not now. You don't have to worry about me. Yasis (talk) 03:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

Thanks for letting me know about date formatting. Schmiteye (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss

I have set up a fresh discussion thread on my talk page. Feel free to comment. Jehochman ^Talk 04:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A note

Hi NJGW,

Please have a look at my opinion here. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me again. Thanks. fayssal - Wiki me up^® 02:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to deal with this FayssalF. I'll let you know if anything comes up. NJGW (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

2003 to 2008 world oil market chronology

For this edit[1], can you get a non-yahoo source, as those don't tend to stay up long.

Also, wouldn't it be better off the lead. Unless we put a 'current' price tag. Lihaas (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I figured people would come running this morning to edit (as has happened in the past) so it would be a place holder. Once the situation develops a bit more I'll get a better source with a fuller story. NJGW (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

citation templates

I believe there's a way for some citation templates, but not all; something to do with separating the month and the year access fields (I'm a computer dummy). This situation will inevitably change when the community becomes more used to seeing normal dates and demands greater flexibility in their citation templates. Um ... I suggest you ask the extremely clever User:Gimmetrow.

But more broadly, no one should be forcing dates to be autoformatted in a citation template where it's possible to render them plain. You might consider reporting this at MOSNUM talk if there's still trouble. If it's unresolved, please link me to the relevant article. Tony (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Prohairesis

I see you returned the quotes to the article. They seem to be translations by someone called F. Scalenghe. I have no idea who F. Scalenghe is, and a web search came up with pretty much nothing. That is why I removed them, but if you can find something to justify using them let me know. Otherwise I think they will have to go. (I will add more to the article, but do not have time today.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly didn't add the quotes, I just highlighted what was already there. I thought you were planning on doing something with them, otherwise I would have removed them myself. By all means, feel free to remove them. NJGW (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted text

I see no legal problems with my last edit on Drug policy of Sweden. The Swedish text on the web site state that the text is free if one mention the source. "Citera oss gärna, men ange källan!" Dala11a (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Arilang1234

Thanks for your advice, I am new and still learning, please feel free to point out my mistakes.Arilang1234 (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi its me. Thanks for tidying up the article, I know I can be messy at times. What do you think about the development of this saga? It looks more and more like a script coming from a hollywood block buster movie.124.182.241.87 (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, have you read this article?

"Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales had a meeting with Cai Mingzhao, Vice Director of China's State Council Information Office" http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2008/10/jimmy-wales-mee.html#comments the comments made by Statue of Liberty is very interesting. What yo think?Arilang1234 (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Shock Doctrine

Glad to have improved the article. Thanks for the nudges to edit instead of just delete.MKil (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)MKil

It seems we have a difference of opinion again. I'm not sure why you are removing that information, especially after chiding me for removing information a few days ago. The quote is directly from the article. I fail to see why you say it's "hearsay." The reporter talked to the guy an got the quote and published it. That's not hearsay at all. It's a direct quote.MKil (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)MKil

I didn't think your alterations quite captured the NY Times article, so I just quoted it and let the text speak for itself.MKil (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)MKil

I'm not sure why you are so opposed to this. Since the person being quoted was directly involved with some of the issues described by Klein I think his opinion is pretty relevant. I also fail to see how you can reconcile your actions against including this sourced quote from a very relevant source when you chastised me for removing a poorly-written unsourced insertion a few days ago. It seems that you don't have a very consistent standard here.

Also, nowhere in the article does it say that Aslund has not read the book. The quote from the article gives a very accurate description of what Aslund said and in response to what. Trying to infer would be a mistake.MKil (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)MKil

Wilderness merge

Thanks for your thoughtful comment! For several weeks I tried to make nice.... but lost my cool.

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Melamine-cyanuric acid complex

Hi NJGW, you have just reverted my move of of melamine cyanurate to melamine-cyanuric acid complex, stating Google statistics as the reason. The title melamine cyanurate implies a salt complex. However, the scientific consensus is that the compound is NOT a salt complex but a hydrogen bond complex. Per the Wikiproject Chemistry naming conventions, the title should be melamine-cyanuric acid complex. I will revert to the more correct title if you do not object (e.g. on the talk page). Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know I need to do Thanos5150 (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am working often when I am writing and have many browsers open at once. Sometimes I'll edit on a browser I don't realize I am not signed in and have been taken to task so I got into the habit of manually signing my name just in case. Most of the time I do both. But that's just me right?thanos5150

Uh, apparently I don't know. I have been putting the Thanos5150 (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC) in the wrong spot for years and never noticed. ShhhhThanos5150 (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

9-29

Can I add this [2] back in, now that the day is done? Bearian (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

wp:TALK/Melamine Remedy Talk Edits

"You might want to read wp:TALK, particularly the part that says it's OK to "Delete material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)." The section I deleted did not reference Melamine, and has been removed several times after the same editor inserted it. It is wp:OR with no refs, and off topic. NJGW (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

":Also, I just realized you posted that message to my user page, not my talk page. It's important you know the difference... it's discussed both at wp:TALK and wp:USER. NJGW (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern and my apologies for accidentally adding that warning to your USER page. I am making these edits based upon this line from the wp:OR page, specifically 'Citing Oneself'..."'It should be noted, however, that editing articles related to or about yourself, by you or those closely related to you, is strongly discouraged and you are instead encouraged to discuss potential edits to such articles in the relevant talk page.'" I have not posted these edits on the Melamine page because I am aware of WP's position on original research. Therefore I feel I am within the guidelines here. Please feel free to discuss this with me. I have moved this discussion to your page so that you will receive alerts and thereby give it attention. Thank you. --Gustable (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I don't mean to sound pompous, however I am a Public Health professional and while I do have only Primary Information to discuss, I also believe that this "edit" is valid based upon the following clause from the same page "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia." --Gustable (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Titanic alternative theories

Hi NJGW. FYI, I've posted a note for you over at Talk: Titanic alternative theories. Thanks. Mgy401 1912 (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Peak uranium

Thanks for weighing in several times... It gets very interesting when trying to nominate the article for GA. These strange people come out of the woodwork.

BTW, Do you know 65.161.188.11? You called him Rob. I did an IP lookup. Interesting to say the least.Kgrr (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC) 63.239.69.1 ncmd.nsa.gov (Md Procurement Office) Gambrills,MD Kgrr (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the notice. Igloo321 (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Pickens Plan

I have worked on the article and restructured it so that I could bring an end to the NPOV edit war. Take a look and make a few suggestions if you have them.

I will take a look at the Oil shale economics article in more detail. At the moment, I still need to familiarize myself with the issues.

Konrad Kgrr (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and such

As you might recall, we overlapped in reverting fringe stuff from Petroleum a few months back. I can't even remember why I was watching the article, because I'm more interested in biomedical than geological articles. Anyways, I always forget that the fringe theory pushers are in all science articles not just medical articles that I watch and now, I see you're crossing swords with some of the people I have to deal with. I wish you luck.  :) Since I stretched my limits with biogenic oil, I was wondering if you could give an outside view on Psychic. I don't know about you, but when it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, it must be pseudoscience. If you have the time and energy, I was wondering if you could weigh in. BTW, there's an IP fringe-theory pusher at Talk:Petroleum. You may want to assist. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Pseudoscience.[3][4][5][6] Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Elonka 19:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request on hold. I have suspended this unblock request, pending NJGW's consideration of my offer below. ("NJGW agreeing to use a little more caution when pushing the revert button on a Wikipedia article in the future." Reverting four times in 24 hours on an article is rarely, if ever, a sensible course of action.) Anthøny ✉ 21:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC) {{unblock|Please have a closer look at those difs. In one I was reverting an editor who reverted 24 edits, in another I was reverting a second editor who placed a fact tag in an incorrect place (this editor is at odds with the first editor by the way), in the third I was reverting a completely different edit by a THIRD editor, and in the last I was reverting the first editor for the second time. The editors are not related (unless numbers one and three are socks), and while the edits are to the same section, they are all for different reasons (notice that editor #2 actually wants Chiropractic listed, while the other two don't). This has had not reached an edit war and was being peacefully discussed on the talk and user talk pages.}}

Elonka, this was inappropriate and ill-founded. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR is not about making reverts to the same version, it's about repeatedly using revert to undo other editors' changes. It's frequently a bad idea to revert established editors even once, because this can be seen as a violation of WP:AGF. Reverting four times within 24 hours on the same article, is too much. Especially as you've been cautioned about edit-warring in the past. So please, you have to get away from using "revert" as an editing tool. Instead, try to propose compromises, or to engage in discussion at the talkpage. --Elonka 19:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be problem editing in any way. Each of those diffs is quite different and was in the course of healthy development of the page. Going straight to a block seems a bit harsh. The removal of the fact tag is trivial, and I was about to remove the reference as unneeded until I saw this. Verbal chat 19:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been warned about edit warring for reverting a two POV pushing vandals and a sock user that were later indef banned! There was no edit war here so this block is unnecessary. NJGW (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I reported this horrible block here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any warning for 3RR and the removal of the fact tag was trivial. QuackGuru 20:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it significant that someone I was "warring" with is here to defend me? NJGW (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) NJGW has been warned for 3RR in the past,[7] and also blocked for edit-warring.[8] It is not necessary to issue new warnings each time. --Elonka 20:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the first was later indef banned, and the second was reverting the use of multiple socks of Yasis (talk · contribs). Great, now if you can show us the edit war today... NJGW (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a couple of diffs for your points? I need them. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is my report of edit warring that got ME blocked. Here's the block log of the other user who I was involved with... looks like he got himself unblocked. Gotta run for now, but I may be back later. NJGW (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

NJGW, if I unblock, are you willing to avoid the Pseudoscience article for the next 24 hours? --Elonka 20:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, it was not my intention to disrupt the article, and I will avoid it altogether for the next 24 hours. The only reason it's on my watch list is to prevent disruption, so I'm pretty embarrassed about this whole situation. I thought the reverts had to be of the same editor or the same edit, not two different editors with different intentions. NJGW (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've lifted the block. There may still be a lingering autoblock on your IP, so if you still get a block message, copy/paste the info here and I'll fix it. --Elonka 23:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good compromise, but I think he's gone (to bed? I know I'm about too). Good night all. Verbal chat 20:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Remark. I can understand Elonka's block here—it would be reasonable to say that her block was made in order to prevent NJGW disrupting the article through the furthering of a revert war—although I think an unblock would also be a sensible idea, conditional upon NJGW agreeing to use a little more caution when pushing the revert button on a Wikipedia article in the future. Until he agrees to that effect, however, I don't think the block should be lifted. Anthøny ✉ 21:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I agree. I was in the middle of writing a decline unblock request when you put it on hold, so I got an EC, but here's what it said:

The three revert rule is pretty broad in scope; i.e. "whether or not the edits involve the same material", which in this case the reverts/edits do not. The fact is that I see four edits of yours on Pseudoscience within a 24 hour period that start with "Reverted" or "restore[d]", and none of them seem to qualify for the exceptions listed on WP:3RR. I'll admit that I agree with some of the edits that you made, but that's unimportant here; in hotly contested areas such as Pseudoscience administrators sometimes have to resort to enforcing the rules by the letter to try to make things run more smoothly.

Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Elonka, as a goodwill gesture can you please unblock, and obviously if there is any disruptive return to that article within 24 hours that can be taken up as a reasonable reason for a reblock. Looking at Chiropractic, there seems to be no evidence that NGJW was involved there recently, and the discussion on User talk:Levine2112 looks very reasonable. So, rather than getting into tedious detail an early unblock would resolve issues. . . `dave souza, talk 21:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Er, Elonka has already offered a less restrictive condition on her unblocking above - although I should think this little affair has taught NJGW a lesson about reverts, 3RR, PS, etc. To be honest, an unblock with the simple request that he not edit pseudoscience should be ok. But now I leave also. Verbal chat 21:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions in Pseudoscience articles

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. I am hereby making you aware, if you aren't already, that this is a contentious area on Wikipedia and administrators are granted broad discretionary powers to impose sanctions on those who are viewed as disrupting. I honestly haven't looked into your editing deeply enough to know whether or not that is the case with you. But you should know about that if you are going to edit in this area. Mangojuice^talk 06:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I re-inserted that link in Energy crisis because it appeared to have been reverted as part of removing another obvious vandalism. Thanks for pointing out its inappropriateness via Wikipedia:RS. I think it would be useful for people reading about alternative energies to have a link to information about the costs. The link I inserted has a discussion with several third-party sources. Any suggestions of how to tie this in would be appreciated.

On a different topic, as a newbie I obviously haven't learned the protocols yet. When somebody leaves me a note on my talk page (as you did), is it best to respond on your talk page (as I am doing)? I see that your page has several dialogues, but I don't understand how that all ends up on your page -- if you respond to something on your own page, how does the originator know you have responded? Thanks. Robsavoie (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Free energy

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Free energy. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is the evidence? QuackGuru 21:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence since there is no violation, but NJGW must be used to this treatment by now. HiDrNick! 00:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked since the first 16:48 edit at [9] may not have been a revert. Since the status of this edit is uncertain it would be unfair to have you blocked any longer. While with this edit you are still questioning Reddi's statement it might be the first time a {{cn}} was applied to it so it it not certain this is a revert. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts

Some advice to NJGW. You are one of the good guys around here keeping the POV pushers from taking over articles. However, just because they're wrong, there should never be a reason for you to get a 3RR violation. EdJohnston is one of the good admins around here, but there others that have no tolerance for edit-warring, sometimes without even examining the merits of your edits. So, if you run into a POV-pusher, it's best to ask for assistance. Get to know the fair admins, who might be able to chill things out. Call in other NPOV editors to help out. You're not alone. But you don't need these blocks. They help the POV-pushers get what they want. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The weird part is that nobody's actually complaining about my editing... not to me and not on talk pages. NJGW (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What's happening here is that since Elonka blocked you, unfairly I might add, the next admin isn't going to look past your block log and just assume you're a bad person. Now, you really need to count your edits. And if you're going to be doing a lot of edits that appear to be a revert, make sure you're putting something very clear in the edit summary. For example, once I went to 4RR, but I was reverting myself, and made it clear in the edit summary. There are a lot of individuals who will help you out, even from the medical side. Look at me, I don't know anything about petroleum, but I got interested in it through my interest in abiogenesis (the biological start of life, not the oil thing). Anyways, we've got your back, but ask others for help. And get to know a couple of good admins that can give you advice and assistance. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Unfortunately it's been my experience that too many admins are either already heavily involved in articles I edit, a bit out of step with the meaning of the project as a whole, or a little paranoid about getting involved in the dicey waters of content (often times because they've been pounced on by other admins for questionable reasons). The project (and the world) is filled with really big sensitive toes. I won't sweat my block log as my record speaks for itself (and now it's starting to make look like a tough guy ;) and the reason I'm here is to keep the knowledge real (not whimper about having too many red marks). I just wish there was a version of wp:BOLD which allowed admins to understand the spirit behind wp:IAR. NJGW (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"Unusual lists"

moved to Category talk:Lists of things considered unusual

Maniadis' edit at wp:COI

Thanks, I was trying to make sense out of this sentence in the COI page, but I couldn't get it. Now it reads smoothly.Maniadis (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I think there's been a lot of confusion over that policy in the past, so the wording has been kind of in transition. NJGW (talk) 07:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw this title on my watchlist and thought you might be leaving! I'm glad you're not :) Verbal chat 07:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm too stubborn (and addicted) to leave. Honestly the junk up above is mostly funny to me. NJGW (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, next time I leave a message here, I will put a header like "Hide, the end of the universe is coming" :) Maniadis (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Algaculture

Please stop interfering with the fishing navigation template on algaculture. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, your edits keep inserting large amounts of whitespace into an article algae so that a fishing navigation template can have a prominent position. That's a strange trade off. I think it would be better to have a picture of an algae farm at the top of the article, as that's what the article is about (with the added bonus of a better layout). NJGW (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the TOC not displaying in parallel with the template on your browser? You mentioned earlier that you use firefox. I also use firefox, on Mac OSX, but there is no white space problem there. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

When the algae farm picture is below the navbox, whitespace appears after the navbox. With the algae farm picture on top, the navbox gets pushed down and fills this whitespace. That's purely asthetic... I think it's more important to have a representative picture at the top of the article. It's like having a solarsystem navbox at the top of an article for one of the planets, pushing a picture of that planet out of the lead. The picture used in the fishary navbox isn't really valuable to the algaculture article, and it doesn't hurt the functionality of the navbox to have it 150px further down the page. NJGW (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well over 900 fishing articles have been templated that way now for some time, and you are the first to come up with that one. It arises occasionally on articles with a short lead and a long TOC. The best way to fix that, if you find it untidy, would be to write a longer lead (which an article with a long TOC should have anyway). But if you misalign the template the way you did, then the template loses its easy navigation utility across articles - which has resulted in a huge traffic increase across fishing articles. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

First off, I'm not really sure how algaculture got mixed up with fisheries... and secondly, I looked over some of the articles in the navbox and noticed that you've pushed a lot of images to the left side of the article. This is highly advised against in the MOS, and extremely unusual in the lead (as far as I can tell). I'm also not sure why we need both the 'fiseries' navbox and the 'fishing and fisheries' template... seems like overkill.

Have a look at Agriculture, and the navbox there. As you travel through the articles, when there is a representative picture it is placed on top of the navbox, and there are never pictures on the left side of the lead. This is standard practice. NJGW (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I didn't answer your latest concerns because you seemed to be shifting ground and raising other issues instead of trying to resolve the initial issue. But if you have a considered position that certain articles don't belong here, and that a better job can be done with the templates, then I'm definitely interested. It would be good if you would raise these issues at WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, so other people interested in this area could have input. --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

NJGW:

Thank you for watching the contentious "ethnicity table" on the Latin America article. The table's consistency has been holding pretty well since you first lay the gauntlet down. An Argentine friend of ours still insists on using a "meet-you-halfway" figure between the World Statesmen data and the CIA "fact"book data. I'm trying to discourage him because, though the difference is small (and he may be right, who knows?), his use of WP:OR numbers may provoke others into doing the same, which would be a shame.

This is such an ugly subject south of the border (and, indeed, here) that I only wish there could be a set of estimates everyone could agree on (if grudgingly). The less adrenalin that table provokes, the better.

Until then, thanks again and good luck.

76.174.124.198 (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

CIA and Latin America

No worries about reverting my revert, as I'm not offended. I initially reverted the anon user because it looked as if he deleted the entire World's Statesman reference as well, and I didn't know it was above. As far as the sources go, there was an anon IP editor last month who unilaterally changed all the numbers from the long-standing source of the CIA Factbook stating in the edit summary that the Cuban government and the Factbook can't be trusted. I know you put something on the talk page on 22 September, but I just haven't had the time to put much thought into it (I try to be thoughtful in my responses). I'll post something there on the talk page, but just so you know some of what I'm thinking, I think the Factbook is very helpful and accurate in certain areas. The problem with the ethnic groups is that it can be outdated a lot of the times, but I'm not sure that I trust the Statesmen source either because it looks like it's something that was just started up as someone's personal project. I have no idea where the stats are coming from (and it doesn't give the sources), but the 90% whites in Argentina stat came from neither the Factbook or the Statesman source. There's another source the I've seen popping up called the Joshua Project. Anyway, I'll try to put something together, but there really was no consensus to stop using the Factbook and start using Statesmen source, so I'll try to get more editors involved on the talk page. Thanks. Kman543210 (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the 97% seems unlikely with all the migration to Argentina from surrounding countries, but I'd be willing to bet that those numbers were accurate at one point. Also the census data is based on self-identified responses in many cases, and some people's definition of white is different (I personally don't believe in the antequated one-drop rule); also some people even assume that someone who has Mediterrenean features isn't white (that's another discussion though).

I also agree that the official census numbers should be used in place of any third party source; that's why I used the Belize census stats rather than any of the third-party stats. We also can't discredit a country's census just because we don't trust the government such as with Cuba (that's what the user who changed it on 22 Sept stated). The Cuban stats from worldstatesmen.org are from 1994, so I bet those are out of date as well. Anyway, I guess now I'll have to be a little more thoughtful in responding on the talk page. I just disagreed with the changing of all the stats without a consensus first, which is what happened. Gracias. Kman543210 (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Economic crisis of 2008 deletions

Hello. I just saw that you erased out the links to the articles on TARP in the Economic crisis of 2008 article on October 11th. You wrote: "The following links might be useful as sources, but violate wp:ELNO #1: links to websites which could be used as sources should be used as sources rather than external links" ... Hmm. An article on TARP in The Economist, which was put in "Further reading" originally and not in "External links" (someone moved it) is not pertinent to the article ? Amazing.

• "Financial crisis : Carping about the TARP : Congress wrangles over how best to avoid financial Armageddon", The Economist, September 23rd 2008

--- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a short on-line op-ed from Sept. 23. There are millions of those, and this one is nothing special. I stand by my edit summary. Also, from wp:Further reading: "This section does not include publications that were used as reliable sources in writing this article; these should be cited as references. Websites and online publications are normally listed in the "External links" section instead of in this section, although editors occasionally prefer to merge very short lists of publications and external links into this section." If there's something useful in those few words, I can be used as a source, but otherwise it's an op-ed from an online publication (note:"Economist.com" rather than the print version). NJGW (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll take your points. Bests.--- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. The important thing is to make sure we don't have everybody putting their pet article or corporate link there, which would make the section bloated and useless. NJGW (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Your Recient Edit

Dear NJGW,

There seems to be a problem with the source. It states 86.4% white, mestizo 6.5%, Amerindian 3.4%, and Arab 3.3%. Now the source states 3.4% amerindian, when according to INDEC states 1% INDEC: Encuesta Complementaria de Pueblos Indígenas (ECPI) 2004 - 2005. And arabs according to the U.S. Census Bureau are classified as whites (check Arab American). That is why the percentage of whites is around 90%.

Regards, --Fercho85 (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow... that's some wp:SYSthesis you've got going on. Well, when ever they get around to allowing that sort of extrapolation in articles, I'll be sure to let you know you can stick that information right in. Till then.... NJGW (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been involved in this kind of discussions so many times that I already know the sources to back up my statements..:) Anyway I think the main problem is which source should be added.. :) You can't state in articles estimations vary from "X % to X %". That is why a round number would be 90..The same case happens with Australia..one article states 85%, another 90%..

Cheers,

--Fercho85 (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, once Wikipedia starts allowing the type of interpretation you're making, we'll be glad to let you insert your edits. 'til then, byeeeee. NJGW (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Stern on Finance Page

I am afraid I disagree. The content is academic research from professors at NYU's Finance Department and several in the Economics Department. How can you say that there is zero content? Academic research is being posted on the blog. If you click through the blog, the finance department faculty is posting on that site academic articles, so there isnt undue emphasis on one faculty member. If you look on this wikipedia page there are nyu stern student clubs posted on this page, based on all this I believe the blog should be incorporated into this website. Therefore, I request that you not delete my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ej463 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The complete website is sternfinance.blogspot.com. I cannot add it for some reason.. That page is not empty, if you click on the main link it will send you to the actual blog, it is just an entry page. If you can somehow replace the webpage I added with sternfinance.blogspot.com I would appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ej463 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise don't worry about it, the research can be accessed by clicking view blog on the main page. The page is relevant to NYU Stern and the Current Financial Crisis ("...-October 2008), so I undid your changes. I do agree that it does not belong in Finance or Financial Economics since the scope is too narrow. However, it is very relevant to NYU stern and the Current Financial Crisis page, since its one of the few blogs with academic researchers discussing it.

Thank you very much for your help, its is extremely appreciated ! Ej463 (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested to review?

Do you have any idea why my 24hr block got reviewed by the arbitration committee? I was going to ask Mathsci, if he/she understood what is going on, but there seems to be an unpleasant discussion with another member of the arbitration committee over there.

I still find the entire thing puzzling. I don't recall seeing blocks occur without some warning to desist...it is, after all, easy to loose track of reverts when involved in a number of tasks at once. I had only edited that article that one day, in response to a mention of it on the fringe theories noticeboard; and the editor that Elonka was protecting from my, so called, edit warring was soon after sent into wiki-exile [10], and he said some pretty nasty stuff while being escorted to the door.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea about the review, I only heard about it from the noticeboard like you did. My experience with the article is basically the same. Seems she doesn't want any fresh voices intruding on her stomping ground. NJGW (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just curious, what makes you think that the block was reviewed by the arbitration committee? --Elonka 17:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This. NJGW (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have requested an explanation from F2 [11]; but, so far the only reply was somewhat less than satisfying. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Okay, just to be clear, that's not an official review by the Arbitration Committee, that's just a review by FT2 (talk · contribs), one of the Wikipedia editors who is on the Committee. All of the arbitrators are also normal editors, so they work on articles, get involved in discussions on talkpages and noticeboards, and everything else that regular Wikipedians do. Informally, arbitrators do indeed tend to have a bit more respect given to their comments, since they are regarded sort of as senior Wikipedians who have the trust of the community. Arbs have to go through an extensive vetting process, the community has to vote on whether or not they would think someone should be an arbitrator, and even after the votes are done on a couple dozen candidates, the final decision still rests with Jimbo Wales, who handpicks the new arbs each year. But still arbs are also regular editors, so when one of them speaks, it shouldn't necessarily be regarded as an official view "from the Committee". Those are usually done through a formal process at the Requests for arbitration page. And to my knowledge, your block was not in any way subject to ArbCom review. It's just FT2, who happens to also be an arbitrator, commenting at a noticeboard, because someone asked him to offer an opinion. Does that help explain? --Elonka 16:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Economic crisis of 2008

Hi, sorry to bother you. You seem to be cutting out some relevant and well-cited material along with cruft and original research. Can you use a scalpel, please? Bearian (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the stuff I took out. I started with a scalple, and then saw that there was no well cited material. It is obviously copied from some other source (notice the href tags) and is an essay/op-ed. The only RS sources were two gov sites for two technichal points (FDIC regulations and number of loans to speculators in 2005). The rest is all OR. NJGW (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

O.K. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Technically, it's WP:SYNTH. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: your recent edit summary, there is no need to hit people with a stick. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the connection. NJGW (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Mac

HI NJGW.

I would avoid making allegations that Mac's ignoring you unless you're also going to provide some diffs as evidence. Otherwise it ends up simply as one person's word against another, and distracts from the main issue. I left a comment on Mac's talk page addressing the main issue, if you're interested. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I listed a ton of links of myself and other editors telling Mac about issues with redirects, copyright vio's, spam, and other issues on his talk page. NJGW (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw, good work. Were he to continue his mistaken editing, your comment and mine would be very useful to some future administrator. That won't happen, of course - I'm sure now that he understands his error that the silliness will stop. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

←Re the NPA warning you left on Mac's talk page: on the one hand, clearly you're right. On the other hand, with your name appearing on Mac's talk page all the time, you risk him thinking you're pursuing a vendetta. Clearly you're not, but I still hold out hope that he'll see sense eventually, and I think that's more likely to happen if you leave someone else to make that point. That way Mac gets to see that it's more than just you and me who respect wikipedia's modus operandi.

I also wouldn't have pointed out on WP:AFD/List of... that Mac created most of those articles. Frustrating though it undoubtedly is, dealing with a disruptive editor, it's important we don't lose sight of WP:NPA ourselves - it doesn't matter who created the articles, the issue is whether they should now be there. I fell into that trap myself a few days back - I nominated Dyesol for deletion, having made an assumption and not done my homework properly. The fact is that some of Mac's work is useful - that's why it's worth the effort to try to get him to stop the crap, rather than just getting him banned for disruption. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

LBH Edit

Hello NJGW -

I have the LBH page watchlisted (because I've done a lot of work on it) and always appreciate your efforts to keep the page respectable and within Wiki guidelines.

That's why I'm a little puzzled by part of your last edit. I recognize that several of the links you 'suspended' are simply extensions from existing links, but the two that I don't quite see as violating wp:ELNO #1 are the Rootsweb roster of the 7th Cav. company rolls and the University of Wisconsin's complete transcript of the Reno Court of Inquiry. The former is a generally accepted source and the information potentially of interest and value to an LBH researcher, and having the entire Court of Inquiry transcript a click away is indispensable for students of the battle like myself. I may be missing something about why those links don't belong with the article and would appreciate any insight you can give me when you have a moment. Thanks - Sensei48 (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, and excellent job organizing the links. Sensei48 (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Aoso0ck

Can you please help me complete this form and submit? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aoso0ck Thanks. Is there anything else I can do to help? Jwri7474 (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree

How ridiculous is it that admins need sleep? Gosh, you're right. :P Just teasing, no worries. Keep up the good work, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 06:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Lord knows I don't sleep! I don't know how you guys get away with it ;) NJGW (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That's why we're admins; people fear us and therefore don't call us on our need for rest. :D Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 06:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

refactor

I removed a statement by SA, my request to withdraw, and your comment beneath. I hope you have no objection. cygnis insignis 07:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:NJGW

If you wish I can semi protect your userpage. That way only experienced contributors will be able to edit it. Just give me the go on my talk page :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Request

Regarding the discussions at WP:FTN, I'd really like to see if everyone could do what they can to de-escalate the dispute. What would be really helpful is if you could review your commentary and remove anything that was negative commentary about an editor, as opposed to constructive commentary about content. I can't force you to do this, but I do think it would help. Keeping discussions focused on content instead of contributors is usually the best course of action to de-escalate things. --Elonka 18:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see how pointing out that several of the other editors who are opposing SA have come up on the board before is a negative comment. This is meant to characterize the issue in very real, concrete terms related directly to edits and not my perceptions of other editors. It is also relevant to the context of the situation, don't you think? NJGW (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's very subjective. I mean, turn it around and look at it from the other point of view, if someone tried to say that your views were not relevant because you were under ArbCom sanctions and had been blocked multiple times for edit-warring. It's the kind of comment that tends to do little but escalate a dispute, and really isn't very productive in terms of de-escalating things and trying to find a consensus. Especially in the pseudoscience topic area, there is often an "us and them" mentality, with different editors pointing fingers at each other and making accusations of POV-pushing. I also see unfortunate situations where once an editor is labeled as "disruptive" or "POV pusher" or "fringe theorist" or "conspiracy theorist", that then everything they say is discounted, regardless of whether or not they are saying something reasonable! So it's really much better to get away from this type of personality judging, and just get back to discussing the article content. See also WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. For best results, we want to assume good faith, that everyone is here with good motives, and genuinely desires to help the project and not to hurt it. Because people are here because they want to help, it's best to treat them with respect, rather than trying to marginalize their opinions. Thanks, --Elonka 18:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

How is that turning it around? I never said anyone's views weren't relevant. Actually, I did notice a large number of people at SA's latest round at ANI say that, a good many of them being long time admins... but I never said that. I stated something factual (though I could have said it in a different way and I have refactored). NJGW (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I missed your change, looks like we were posting around the same time. Thank you for refactoring!  :) --Elonka 18:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Crunch, squeeze, contraction, tightening

This has become a mess. Tightening should live. Squeeze should die (re-direct to either crunch or tightening). I put in contraction by mistake. What has to happen: Delete contraction. Keep tightening. Kill off a separate squeeze and merge it into crunch (or my preference, tightening). I'm over this, I hope someone can clean this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Paul...Ron Paul... (talk • contribs) 07:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

OPV AIDS - cite pls for " wikipedia as a ref is not appropriate"

Hi, I've removed the material on SV40 from the lead. I am puzzled by your edit relating to the SV40 material at 03:25, 9 November with the summ.of (using wikipedia as a ref is not appropriate). Please supply a reference to the appropriate WP policy. Maybe such policy exists but I have never seen it and most articles do reference WP. Replying here would be easiest. thanks. 124.169.185.133 (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know off the top of my head exactly where it says that, but at wp:RS you'll see that scholarly material is "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses." This obviously precludes Wikipedia as a source. Also, because Wikipedia is very dynamic, it is not appropriate to use as a source under any circumstances (ie in an outside article or essay) except when a specific version of the article is cited. NJGW (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I also point out that WP:parity that you recently quoted on OPV AIDS discussion reads in part, "Likewise, the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science because their works lack peer review." So this guideline seems to be promoting the use of Hoopers self-published web-site not preventing it. 124.169.185.133 (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You're misreading the guideline. It says that when a notable subject like creation science lacks a peer reviewed source to explain what creation science is, then a non-peer reviewed source can be used to describe it. However, when discussing the details and scientific consensus, all sources must be on par (parity) with the highest quality available (ie peer reviewed). NJGW (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation is interesting. And the scientific publication that details OPV AIDS hypothesis is .....? 124.169.185.133 (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want such a publication? NJGW (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Dysgenics

Please do not remove references that are not duplicated.[12] Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Uncommunicative editor may be evading his block

Hi NJGW. Your view that User:Linegen might actually be User:Mac is plausible. I notice you've previously submitted cases over at WP:SSP. How would you feel about opening a new report, something like Mac (3rd)? If you do so, leave him a {{subst:uw-socksuspect|1=Mac}} notice on his Talk page. I'm thinking that, when that is done, a checkuser request should be considered (hoping that the checkusers may be willing to block the underlying IP). EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

IP socks/vandals of HIV/AIDS articles

Thank you for reverting and warning the IP address 86.121.195.144 on 10 Nov. This editor has been vandalising HIV/AIDS-related articles for several weeks, and despite multiple warnings. As Plwha, the editor was banned, but s/he has also edited anonymously from 86.121.195.144 (as you know), 86.121.193.29, 86.121.193.176, and 86.121.193.7.

I quite frankly am unsure what if anything to do about this disruptive editing, which has extended to deleting legitimate material in the past, as in examples I gave here. It seems that a different IP address is used in every bout of vandalism, and since the user account has been banned, I can't well file a sock report. Any suggestions would be much appreciated. Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, NJGW. I presented the website for addition to the spam blacklist here. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Yes, you're right, that EL in the IRENA article should have been a ref. I was being lazy. Thanks for keeping a weather eye on things... Johnfos (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I do what I can. Thanks for finding some sources saying it was more than pie-in-the-sky. NJGW (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)