User talk:NJGW/2

Replied

Hello. I replied here (my talk page) AND here (article talk page). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Globalize tags at oil price

Hi, you've come upon an issue that is in the middle of being addressed. Could you give your view at the talk page on what could be done to make the article more globally applicable. What my impression of the hurdles to this are:

1. Oil is traded world wide in dollars... no way around that one.
2. The absolute purchasing power (see also here) of various currencies makes a direct comparison of exchange rates difficult for non-economists (OK, it's not easy for economists either)

Any suggestions?

Also, is there something you would add to or change about this section (note that there is more discussion of the European situation at the head of the Effects section)? Thanks, NJGW (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed it here. My criticism is more on the macro level and less to do with the specifics. —  AjaxSmack  05:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved from talk pages where this is irrelevant

== Irregular editing by NJGW == (from Talk:Peak oil)

Editor NJGW is trying to modify the article to negate the reference in this edit : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peak_oil&diff=next&oldid=185218657 It has been reverted, but NJGW is apparently trying to disguise facts. The fact is T. Boone Pickens actually declared Peak Oil had happened in 1985, ref : http://www.peakoil.net/BoonPickens.html, quote "I am just so sure that we have peaked ", and "Global oil (production) is 84 million barrels (a day). I don't believe you can get it any more than 84 million barrels." This behavior should be looked at.--Environnement2100 (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you left out part of the quote you mentioned: "I can't tell you positive, but I am just so sure..." Also, you might care to mention that he's talking about problems with the stated reserves and production capacities of various countries. It's also interesting that even though I only added context to the sentence, you've managed to find extreme fault in me. I don't really think the sentence adds anything to the article, I was just trying to help it fit in.

If you have issues with my "irregular editing", there are more appropriate forums which I encourage you to pursue. But then, we've been that route and you already know how that ends.

By the way, your use of terms such as "negate", "confirm", "suppress", and "cancel" is confusing. I'm not sure they mean what you think they mean. NJGW (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see how confused you are :). And I confirm you are tampering with facts and refs, pushing this article a bit further away from reality. --Environnement2100 (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

== Untruthful editing by NJGW == (from Talk:Predicting the timing of peak oil)

Editor NJGW decided to change the truth by replacing the previous sentence : "Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens has stated that worldwide conventional oil production will top out at 84 Mb/day (31 Gb/yr). "

into the following : "Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens stated in 2005 that worldwide conventional oil production was very close to peaking. trying to hide the exact words of T. Boone Pickens, in this revision . Editor NJGW has done the same in other parts of Wikipedia. This behavior should be looked at.--Environnement2100 (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have a question to ask NJGW, you can discuss it here: User talk:NJGW. Please tailor your words here to be about the content discussion. In other words, for the article talk pages, please discuss the content, not the contributors. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph does concern this entry discussion, if you care at all to click on the links. Please answer the matter addressed here, thanks in advance.--Environnement2100 (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply. I did click on the links. I saw the revision you refer to. What exactly is untruthful about the new edit? I think the edit looks a little odd, but instead of accusing NJGW of "untruthful" editing, I would have asked NJGW about the reasoning behind the change on his/her talk page. You say he's trying to "hide the exact words of T. Boone Pickens" but you have no way of determining the intent of NJGW. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

== More tampering by editor NJGW ==

Editor NJGW tried to erase twice the above paragraph, in spite of the fact that talk pages are not to be tampered with.--Environnement2100 (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have moved this to my talk page where it belongs. I did not erase anything. NJGW (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of the Little Bighorn

I read the discussion, and I'm confused. I listed the article under the recently passed GAs and updated the number like that Good Article nominations page said, was I not supposed to do that or something? RC-0722 (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

But on the GAn page it says try putting under recently listed articles. RC-0722 (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I know what happened. I in a play at school that night so I put the template on there and everything but I meant to review it when I got home. I guess I forgot, but I can write on if you guys like. RC-0722 (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply from Njoedits

Yes, you guessed right. As such, my goal is to educate people on energy in a non-political, objective fashion. I am starting small, but I hope to improve many energy pages by adding relevant references to EIA content where appropriate. Njoedits (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I am here to educate, not to push an agenda or cause conflict. I think the quality of my edits will demonstrate this. Njoedits (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I work with njoedits. The web stats number has been updated based on more recent data. Thanks for checking.Cmcbless (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Renewable Energy

...It's a good subject to put in, I just think it could be better in terms of the comparison, the calculation/analysis, and sourcing. Electric power really isn't in the same category as a liquid fuel like ethanol. Perhaps if the electricity were used to charge an electric car, then it would be a valid comparison. I'd guess electricity would still release less CO2, but it should be sourced or the calculation should be put on the talk page. Also, I'm not convinced that coal has anything to do with it. Mikiemike (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)--

Predicting the timing of peak oil

The section you are restoring is not about the content of the page but about your assumption of my motives. The article talk page is for what words should be used in the article, not about what I did or didn't do and why. Discuss my actions on my talk page. Wikipedia:Talk#how_to_use_article_talk_pages:

• Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.
• Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject. This is especially true on the talk pages of biographies of living people. However, if you feel something is wrong, but aren't sure how to fix it, then by all means feel free to draw attention to this and ask for suggestions from others.
• Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it.
• Make proposals: New proposals for the article can be put forward for discussion by other editors if you wish. Proposals might include changes to specific details, page moves, merges or making a section of a long article into a separate article.

Further unconstructive edits will be considered disruptive and vandalism. NJGW (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You are not supposed to tamper with talk pages, quote :"Never edit someone's words to change their meaning." Why you are trying to hide evidence is beyond understanding.

I noticed you erased your user page in the same purpose.--Environnement2100 (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:

You look like you've got it covered. If the user(s) continue to break the talk page guidelines report them at WP:ANI. Sorry again for the reverts and warnings, WP:HUGGLE seems to make a lot of errors. Sorry! Scarian^{Call me Pat} 16:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it makes a lot of errors. The clue is in the big "This is in development, it may not work properly yet" notices that appear on everything related to it – Gurch 11:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)