User talk:Nagle/Archive 2006-06-30

Amokolia

Don't worry, I haven't forgotten. I'm ready to block if the user does anything out of line, but there's no urgency. It's clearly the same person, but who knows, they might do something useful. They just made a not unreasonable article edit.[1] -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your call. I'm glad to let someone else watch it. I just saw "Amokolia" go by and thought "That's back?" --John Nagle 03:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At it again, is he? I am checking in on him occasionally. I don't think it's Jimpartame. Jimpartame only got mixed up with "Amokolia" because of a message Cartman4000 left on Jimbo's talk page as an anon avoiding a block, and.... say, User:Amokolia is a confessed sockpuppet of User:Cartman4000. Ok, now he's blocked indefinitely. Thanks for being alert. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's deleted and salted now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RESS

I noticed you marked the Rechargeable energy storage system page for deletion (although this was reverted by someone else soon after). It seems however to keep this page as this is an official term used in the standards and which is thus likely to show up often in EV-related literature. Thanks however for your speedy follow-up of new articles! LHOON 18:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Fox

Hey John. I decided to ask for your opinion about this article since you were the one who cleaned it up about a month ago. The British football player listed on there has been deleted via prod as non-notable. So, now that he's gone, there doesn't really seem to be a place to point anyone to, so I'm thinking perhaps the page should just be deleted. However, I didn't know if you perhaps had any other ideas on what we should do with it. I look forward to your thoughts and opinions. Thanks! E WS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put up a housekeeping delete on the disambiguation page, which should resolve the problem. --John Nagle 18:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

...re the bogus micronation. Likewise if you could keep an eye on List of micronations it would be appreciated. Someone keeps trying to add a bogus entry called "Satoricity" there too. Zero relevant Google results for that one too. --Centauri 03:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've blocked the pest for a week to start with. jimfbleak 12:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jazza

Hi, I just wanted you to know that I appreciate your attempt to clean up the article... but I had to remove most of the material there, since it either wasn't from WP:RS reliable sources, or (in the case of the reviews) wasn't really suitable. If you could find some biographical information about him that comes from reliable sources, that would be great. Thanks. - Motor (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. I could have lived with deletion. --John Nagle 16:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hubbert peak theory

Hi, I get the impression you're a proponent of the peak oil theory, whoever it's attributed to, with more than a bit of mathematical and physical background. Since I'm trying to chase down questionable claims in the article, and am, at best, sceptical that Hubbert made any convincing argument we're going to see a symmetric, single-pronounced-peak, smooth oil production curve. It's not that I disagree with him saying that: as far as I can tell, he never did.

So, since (I believe) we have opposing viewpoints on this, I'd thought I'd ask you to please watch my edits; if there's anything you wish to discuss, go ahead, and if there's anything that seems totally unacceptable to you, go ahead and fix or revert it. I understand discussing everything in great detail might be something you're too busy for, but even a short comment would at least draw my attention to the fact that there's a problem with my edit.

RandomP 08:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Actually, I think that Hubbert's symmetry claim was not that the curve is symmetric, but that the area under the curve on each side of the peak is equal. That is, peak production occurs when half the resource has been exhausted. I'm not entirely happy with Hubbert's math either, but the line through the points in Deffeyes does match reasonably well. --John Nagle 16:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The curve isn't symetric. The curve describes the rate of production the peak of which just happens to be close to the mid point of total production. The production rate was zero befor the 19th century and will most likely never fall to zero in the future. The rate of production is crucial however because our consumption can not exceed the rate of production (excluding storage depletion) and our demand just keeps going up. Carbonate 15:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Direct logic

Hello John. As far as I am aware these two papers by Hewitt are conference papers which have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. (I assume he would have mentioned that if they were, but also see the "Acknowledgements" in [2]). Cheers, —Ruud 04:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

churches and atlases (refactored from WP:VPM)

I'd prefer to leave that to church enthusiasts. Actually, I'm thinking that we need "Wikipedia Atlas", a map-based system that can handle a very large number of location-based items, like all those "State Route 123"-type items. Space is what keeps everything from being in the same place. A text-based system isn't the right tool for that job. I've proposed elsewhere that a standard "location" template with lat/long info be added to all place-related items, so that at some future time, they can be tied to a map system. --John Nagle 05:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We seemed to be getting off topic, so I figured I'd take the liberty of moving this to keep that page short. I'd always wondered what the heck long/lat coordinates were doing in articles. That sounds like a great idea. What's kept it from happening? I suppose an atlas would require a lot of new code.--Kchase02 T 06:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Avenue

The Swiss Avenue article isn't an attempt at selling real estate.. not sure how to explain to you the importance of the street. It is the most recognizable residential street name in the city.. the only other non-residential street that might have more importance is Main or Preston or something. Its one of the few places in the city that has true, well-crafted mansions .. that aren't McMansions from the 1990s and 2000s. Influential businessmen, city leaders, etc have lived there, many of the homes are designed by notable American architects, and many are on, at least, the Dallas register of historic places. The street has been widened into a boulevard of sorts (well, just divided) by the city of Dallas and has been really worked up.. — more than it being a street, its a historic district, which is why it should be considered important. Unfortunately I do not know, right now, where to get information (like history) of encyclopedic value. I've added the {{expert}} tag. drumguy 8800 - speak 19:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The aerial view sort of gives you an idea... drumguy 8800 - speak 19:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the right link... drumguy 8800 - speak 19:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That site seems to claim that some buildings there are in the National Register of Historic Places, but I can't find them there. You might try to find them, especially because that may lead to a public domain image you can put on Wikipedia. Thanks. --John Nagle 19:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hubbert's peak chart

I saw your chart on Hubbert's peak, looks good, I hadn't seen that presented that way before. However, you should include what the vertical scale is measuring (doing some research, it's obviously mbd). Nerfer 04:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)nerfer[reply]

You mean the one captioned "World oil supply, Mbbl/day"? --John Nagle 05:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I didn't see that on the main page (looking at chart only I guess), and when I opened it up on a separate page for a closer view, that isn't present. I don't know how I missed that, I looked a couple times at it yesterday. 12.1.187.193 15:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC) nerfer[reply]

Amokolia

Amokolia is back bringing justice to micronations on wikipedia

hubert theory

Hi najel.If you rely care for the article quality.defended,your self.Random can sake it as he pleases,it's your problem now.--Ruber chiken 20:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering a revert to pre RandomP. This will likely be contested but Random has been removing a lot of content. Carbonate 15:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood undead

Just a note - 3rd time speedy was removed by DogPHman... Lsjzl 05:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of mathematics

Are you interested in the Philosophy of mathematics? (you can reply here I'll watchlist you) Ideogram 11:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW you should probably archive some of your talk page)

I tend to view mathematics as more of a tool than a philosophical system, and am more interested in applied mathematics. I took AI courses at Stanford back in the mid 1980s, when logic-based AI was still taken seriously, and I've heard rather too much of that stuff. I once had an exam question "Does a rock have intensions"? Getting into philosophy of mathematics on Wikipedia would probably mean long, unproductive discussions punctuated by edit wars. But thanks for asking. --John Nagle 16:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC's

Could you please vote your opinion in the RFC section? Also, there are open RFC's concerning RandomP's contributions on other articles. I would value your opinion on them as well even if they are not of personal interest to you.

Carbonate 22:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bull....?

Thanks for looking in on the, um, "webmistress" site and your pithy comments on the relevant talk page...isn't there a rule that you aren't supposed to be advertising your own stuff on wikipedia? I mean, it's OK to be a fan, but when it appears you are pushing your own thing too blatently, isn't there a limit...? Does her User Page push that limit? Hmmm. Anyway, glad you stepped in, but now you may want to sit back and watch the fireworks after your remarks! Better you than me, that's all I can say! You hit that hornet's nest, you can revert the vandalism...<grin> Montanabw 07:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know that is not true or someone mislead you ?

read the original caption for the photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_apartheid&diff=60185089&oldid=60162179. Zeq 15:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit by banned user ignored. Ref: Talk:Israeli apartheid --John Nagle 16:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are now aware that your edit included false data. If you do not remove it yourself you will have to answer for it since it clearly violates wikipedia policy. Zeq 16:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit by banned user ignored. Ref: Talk:Israeli apartheid --John Nagle 16:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have failed to understand how wikipedia works by consensus and dialogue. You are not supposed to ignore when people communicate with you or to strike out on user under probation. Zeq 16:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit by banned user ignored. Ref: Talk:Israeli apartheid --John Nagle 16:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your new photo is as irelevent as the previous one since it is on the old Israel-Jordan border. Zeq 17:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit by banned user ignored. Ref: Talk:Israeli apartheid --John Nagle 17:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Apartheid article

It might make more sense to clean up the Israel section of the Apartheid outside of South Africa article, since this is where all of these Apartheid accusations against various countries are going. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus for a merger, so it seems unlikely to happen soon. We may as well clean up what we've got. I think we're making some progress. Sure, it's a perjorative term, but that's politics. See Death tax and pro-life. --John Nagle 17:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

An RFA involving you has been filed here : Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#user:Nagle Zeq 18:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

long talk page

You should really archive the older entries. Ideogram 17:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation help

I would appreciate it if you could look in on 2006-06-16 ELROB 2006 and give your input. Ideogram 17:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"truth"

John,

I realize there is no one unique undeniable "truth". I also not a fan of the settlments and well aware of the damages the closures, checkpoints, road limitations etc.. take on palestinian people and on the palestinian economy.

But all this does not mean that wikipedia is a free license to spread wrong information and propeganda. I suggest you get good WP:RS sources on any issue you want to write about. Thre are no "Israeli only" roads as Palestinian public and comercial trafic is allowed everywhere on the west bank. (except inside settlements) Zeq 17:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wrong beleifs in US left

" For Israel, good PR is a survival issue. If the US ever stops supporting Israel, the country will go broke ."

You may be listening to KPFA too much. They don't relaize that US finencial help to israel is now a mere fraction of what it was (in terms of GDP) from the 70s. I am afraid if you jsut listen to Dennis you will never know what really takes place in this world. Israel has become very sound financialy in the last 10 years (more firms on Nasdaq than any other non US country (including canada and UK))

Iam just a big fan of NPOV and accuracy. I have done my share (on wikipedia and outside wikipedia) of publishing info that is damaging to israel but only info that is 100% accurate. BTW, you should really practice WP:AGF and also edit with GF. Zeq 18:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple merge proposals

I see you have removed the multiple merge proposals from Israeli Apartheid. Do you plan to do the same to Apartheid outside of South Africa? If we are just examining two proposals, that's fine. If not, please ensure all possibilities are in both. Thanks Jayjg ^(talk) 20:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a mess. I'm not going to touch it for a while; some people are getting carried away. --John Nagle 20:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please touch both or neither; either we're planning to split up these articles all over Wikipedia, or we're simply discussing whether or not the two should be merged. I'm easy either way, but it really needs to be one or the other. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving

I think that the move will not get passed, as the current count is 5 against 5, which is not consensus. It should get to roughly 70-80% of the editors. I personally find the repeated deletion proposals and the continued name change discussion distractive. I think that solving the broad line is where it starts, then content and from that, the names follow by itself. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By going through a formal Requested Move vote, we get an enforceable decision and some stability. The endless arguments over article naming weren't leading to convergence, and the merge tag revert war got out of hand. Now we're headed for a decision, one way or the other. Once we get this issue nailed down, some of the others will be easier. One step at a time. --John Nagle 03:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. That is why I created the single all page merge tag... :-) -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specific properties

Hi; I was looking at that contributor's work, and I saw your tag. Did you have anything in particular you were dubious about? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on you reported to WP:AN

Hi. This is to let you know that I just reverted/refactored some childish attacks on you at Nagle's algorithm and Talk:Nagle's algorithm, and reported the incident. Cheers, CWC(talk) 23:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]