User talk:Skyemoor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Skyemoor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --TeaDrinker 17:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hubbert peak theory

Hey, I accidentally reverted something you did at Hubbert peak theory thinking it was someone else. Sorry about that. I see you put the information back. Nova SS 17:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I made a similar mistake with "Stirling engine." I apologise. Rama's arrow 23:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dat's cool, man! Cheers! Rama's arrow 00:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean for Critiques to be a sub section of Other Hubbert peaks?12.162.10.2 01:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean excluding biofuels? Still something unresolved with that picture.12.162.10.2 17:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DR article

The 1832 convention is discussed in the following section.

The graph showing global production by quarter is out-of-date. Can whoever made it update with the latest quarter? This is significant because there was a new high in output (discrediting the theory that we had peaked last quarter).

[edit] Invitation to join WikiProject Environment

Hi there, I notice your background and interests. I am seeking to expand the membership of Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment to create a more informed vibrant environmental community on wikipedia. Would you be interested in joining? If so please put your name down on the project page --Alex 13:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Environment, glad to have you on board!--Alex 13:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I will invite him promptly.--Alex 15:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Related area

I have a small farm with a hayfield and sheep pasture. I'd like to employ greater levels of sustainable farming practices by using treated sludge on my fields, though here in the US many industrial products are combined in wastewater, with resulting high levels of heavy metals, etc, which I do not want in my soil. Some farm families that have used such contaminated sludge have been diagnosed with dangerously high levels of said heavy metals.

How do you get around the problem in the UK? Any suggestions for us in the US? Skyemoor 14:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Skyemoor, we have some problems here in the UK which they are looking to solve but here it is more legislational. At present some companies have the ability to landspread sewage sludge but a lot of it is peletised and incinerated. We have a strong composting lobby in the UK that has pushed for certain standards for composts and soil improvers. The BSI PAS 100 is an example of this. It sets out strict rules on how waste can be converted into a high grade compost, when a material is no longer classified as a waste and when it can be used on agricultural land.

If something is classified as a waste here you have to have special licenses to move it around and apply it.

We had another problem here related to BSE and foot and mouth disease. The EU and UK governments responded with strict regulations on processing waste feedstocks to be used on land- see Animal By-Products Regulations.

For your specific use I suggest you need to look at the source of your soilimproving material. If there is a likelyhood it will be contaminated, or is derived from unusual sources, i would stay as far away from it as possible.

Have you considered the use of anaerobic digesters on your farm? You will need to feed them with biodegradable waste streams. The resulting product you will get is good soil improver (that you know where it came from) and also the potential for heat and possibly electricity depending upon the size you have. You could also consider setting up a farmers group where a number of farms would join together to feed the plant, cover the expenditure for building it and reap the benefits. Note that on the anaerobic digestion plant article the facility in the picture is a major digestion plant out in Israel that I worked at. Smaller scale ones are available for farms and there are a few that have been set up here, albeit with some grant support from government--Alex 16:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the spot-on explanation and the suggestions! There has been discussion in the area for setting up a digester, though my sheep are on pasture continuously, and since their waste is in the form of little disperable pellets, that doesn't lend itself to collection. They are my current source of fertilization, though I know I will need supplement. I'll look further into local sources. Thanks again, Skyemoor 17:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Just another thought. If you are looking for organic sustainable fertilisers you might want to consider something like this. It is a fertiliser originating from quarrying wastes. As it is mineralised the nutrients stay in place rather than wash away with water. The directors of the company were my old academic advisors at university and not as commercially minded as they could have been, but from an organic point of view its sounds like good stuff, I havent a clue if you can get it in the USAlex 08:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information sources re: renewable energy

Hi... Skyemoor, can you recommend any Web sites or affordable magazine/journal subscriptions that you think are good as sources of developments in the renewable-enrgy field? I'm just as interested in application as in discovery and R&D. Thanks for your help. Joel Russ 20:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, twice, Skyemoor - for the helpful messages you put on my User Page discussion.

Hey, I too like biographies about humanitarians (and other interesting innovators). Any particular ones you would suggest? Joel Russ 19:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic peace

Peace is always a good thing; and, yes, when I have spoken of partisanship, I am concerned with the modern nonsense that Jefferson somehow belongs to the Party now occupying the White House. You may also wish to consider Rjensen's edits to Democrat Party. Septentrionalis 03:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

However, causing the list of United States Presidents to give Lincoln and Jefferson the same party is disruptive editing. I would prefer to be peaceful; please stop. Septentrionalis 04:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

See my response. Skyemoor 12:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The parties have exchanged positions on many issues; but the institutional continuity is clear. This is not new; Lincoln himself compared the parties of his own time to "two drunken men who have fought their way into each other's coats." To attempt to separate the party of Lincoln from the party of Bush is to claim that "that man at the class reunion is an impostor; he didn't have gray hair the last time I saw him"; it is also original research. (To accuse the Bushies of having commandeered the continuing Republican Party would be another question. Wikipedia should not assert it; there is no consensus.)

As for Lincoln and abolition: please read McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom (or indeed any other Civil War history that discusses his policy on slavery) for Lincoln's actions in 1861. Much of it is in American Civil War; see also Corwin Amendment, which Lincoln supported. Septentrionalis 14:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR on Thomas Jefferson

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Thomas Jefferson. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Thomas Jefferson).

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block for vote stacking

You have been systematically contacting people who have previously opposed User:Pmanderson at RFA in an attempt to sink his current RFA. Such efforts disrupt the legitimate consensus building activities at RFA and can not be tolerated. Consequently, I have blocked you for the expected duration of his RFA. If you are willing to refrain from further attempts to influence this RFA, I am willing to unblock you sooner. Dragons flight 08:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In light of your email, I've reduced this down to what will be a total of 24 hours rather than a week. I would strongly urge you not to involve yourself further in Pmanderson's RFA. Dragons flight 22:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hello Skyemoor! I want to thank you for taking time to comment in my recent request for adminship. Though it didn't succeed, I value everyone's opinion, and hope to use the descriptions of the neutral and oppose votes to improve. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 22:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democrat

I am perfectly happy to see it amended to Democratic. However, you claim to see a difference between the two. Madison was a Demcrat, as he was a member of the Church of England - although not at the same time. (Protestant Episcopalian would be better.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book Recommendation

Ideas and Opinions [1] - O^O

I noticed you wrote "I also spend time reading about those who actively sought to improve the state of humankind" on your userpage, and thought you might enjoy this book. It has nothing to do with any ongoing edits. - O^O

[edit] Your reversion on John Boehner

I added a quotation from him, cited to a mainstream media source. By this edit you reverted without explanation. Was there some problem with the addition? I've restored the information but I'm happy to consider any reason it might be inappropriate. JamesMLane t c 18:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The 2% passage was removed in this edit by Eluchil404, not by my edit. Eluchil called the point "irrelevant". I don't consider it irrelevant but I think it's adequately covered by the link to estate tax, which is the proper place to elaborate on arguments for and against repeal. Do you see that passage as adding much to the John Boehner article? JamesMLane t c 21:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey where did you get that name?

[edit] WikiProject Environment barnstar

I have created a barnstar for Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment. Please visit the talk page to vote for the barnstar since there are no votes for 2 months. OhanaUnited 20:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energy portal & future selected articles

Hi! Over the past couple of months I've been spending much more time than I should developing the Energy portal, and intend asking for a portal peer review within the next day or so.

The portal provides a showcase for energy-related articles on Wikipedia. One of the most prominent ways is via a the selected article that is currently changed every 6 weeks or so. It would be good to increase this turnover, and with three Wikiprojects dedicated to energy-related topics and a good number of articles already written, I'd like to suggest that members of each Wikiproject might like to use the 'selected article' to feature some of their best work.

With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that your Wikiproject bypasses the normal selected article nomination page and decides collectively which articles are worth featuring - or these may be self-evident from previous discussions - and add short 'introduction' to the selected article at the appropriate place on page Portal:Energy/Selected article/Drafts, which includes further information. Your personal involvement would be welcome!

Please make any comments on your Wikiproject talk page, my talk page, or on Portal talk:Energy/Selected article/Drafts, as appropriate. Gralo 15:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the barnstar...

...Very kind. I appreciate your reasoned contributions!--Gregalton 11:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] polemic / doc

Can we agree on the "polemical documentary" compromise? Otherwise it will be endless edit war William M. Connolley 17:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, mind if I chime in? You wrote about the implied correctness given to the term "documentary" and I wonder why you think that documentary implies anything like impartiality, objectivity or truth. Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is a documentary, too, isn't it? (Even if some dispute its truth.) --Uncle Ed 20:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been explained on the talk page. Skyemoor 09:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Syn tags

There are two editors and an administrator who agree the syn tags are appropriate, and as best I can tell, none of the three of us disagree with the idea of anthropogenic global warming and all have been reasonably discussing this. You don't get to unilaterally decide that the problem with the article is resolved. Please self-revert, restore the tags, and stop edit-warring. -- TedFrank 13:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't try to use an "admin" as extra weight - this is against wiki policy. But there are now three editors and an admin on the other side, if you really must view it that way - does that mean you're happy to leave them out? Thought not: votes only work when they're on your side, no? William M. Connolley 14:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

William, Ed Poor as reminded you previously: You CANNOT remove valid tags because "you don't like them." There is an ongoing discussion that you refuse to take part in. Ergo, please refuse to part in editing the article. Your edits have become disruptive, and are blatant violations of Wikipedia policy. ~ UBeR 17:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to give me some reason to take Ed Poor's word over WP policy, as the tags were unsupported; one can't simply put such tags there and not defend them. Every editor on the other side of the issue is as equally disruptive; have you stated the same thing to them? Skyemoor 18:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Because Ed used to be a respected administrator/bureaucrat on Wikipedia? William, on the other hand, has stated he is unfamiliar with Wikipedia polices. Surely you hang on William's every word for no other reason than the fact he's an administrator, which is sad indeed. But ignore the appeals to character for a moment, and review the actual policies. Deleting tags supported by policies, such as WP:SYN, is a clear violation of policy in it of itself. ~ UBeR 18:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You ask me to prefer one administrator to another, and then question why someone would listen to an administrator? You application of logic is puzzling, to say the least. The tags need to be supported by rationale, simply saying 'supported by policy' is disingenuous deflection. Skyemoor 18:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I ask nothing of you other than to review the policies. You asked me to give you a reason to listen to Ed. It's apparent he's in concord with the policies; the other administrator is not. The tag is surported by the rationale provided by WP:SYN. It states clearly, "precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia." What is being used in the article, as was previously marked with {{syn}} tags, was in violation of the policy. FURTHERMORE, even if you suspect spurious use of tags, the correct manner to address is through the talk page. That is the very purpose of those pages. ~ UBeR 21:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The policy is simple and I feel I understand it fully, However, since both the G8 academies and the IPCC agree on the prevailing scientific opinion, stating so does not incur a violation of synthesis. We asked for an explanation or rationale why Ted thought so, but only received "look at the example". This is OBE now, however, or so it seems. Skyemoor 22:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. ~ UBeR 02:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You link the opinion of one person, with considerable shaping and window dressing by yourself. You have proved nothing. Skyemoor 11:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I see four or five people agreeing with UBeR there. -- TedFrank 12:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There are others having abstract discussions. No one was informed that there was actual precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic. Further discussion of this matter should take place on the article talk page. Skyemoor 12:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not counting heads to show that I win a vote; I'm counting heads to show that there is a lack of consensus for removing tags, and the default when there is a lack of consensus is to keep the tags. I'm also counting heads to prove that this isn't a question of a single obstinate crank with a misunderstanding of the purpose of tags, it's a good-faith issue that several editors have with the failure of the article to comply with Wikipedia policy. NB that I've taken the issue to WP:AN/I, and I'm leaving the Swindle article, where I was only because I dared to respond to an RFC. -- TedFrank 20:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Tags are text; they come or go on the whim of editors. The assertion that the SYN tags are valid is only one sides POV; others including me disagree with that. Playing lawyerly games over whether the default is to keep or remove disputed tags is merely an attempt to move the dispute onto your territory. I'm glad you've taken this to ANI since you got the obvious response, hopefully you will learn something useful from it William M. Connolley 22:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You also removed an NPOV tag. There is absolutely no excuse for that. I've learned that administrators are permitted to own articles without repercussion. -- TedFrank 22:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You are being silly. Inappropriate NPOV tags can also go, though in this case I wouldn't have cared if they stayed - I too thought it was POV, but from a different direction. If I owned that page, it would look very different, as you're well aware, so pretending that I own it is bizarre. You, and I, and others, disagree on what should be in it. Thats all; except you're trying to bludgeon your way with tags. This is a fairly common tactic William M. Connolley 22:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I tagged things I, in good faith, felt violated WP:SYN that both supported and opposed the film. In the talk page, I gave extensive reasoning for the tags, removed a tag where my concern was addressed, and suggested alternatives for moving important information that belonged in Wikipedia but not in the particular article because of the WP:NOR requirement. You haven't indicated why it's appropriate under WP:SYN and WP:NOR to cite 2005 articles to explain why a 2007 film is wrong; you didn't participate in the talk page discussion at all, but simply unilaterally reverted. Perhaps WP:SYN needs modification, but it's not wikilawyering to note that it's being blatantly violated. -- TedFrank 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYN doesn't need rewriting. The policy is there for a very good reason, and it's apparent that someone people wish to bypass it to ensure they can contribute their POV and OR. Unfortunately for them, the rule is there to disallow that. Unfortunately for us, they don't care to follow it. Don't believe me? Join the discussion. ~ UBeR 02:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peak Theory

I think some work is needed on the overall HC picture but struggle to find the energy to tackle it. I haven't finished a first read through though. --BozMo talk 15:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on TGGWS

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to The Great Global Warming Swindle. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please do not remove a POV dispute tag from an article until consensus has been reached. --Tjsynkral 23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This attempt at editor intimidation is amusing but ineffectual. Try restraining your POV tendencies first. Any further such warnings will be deleted without a second thought. --Skyemoor 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Global Warming Swindle

I don't think "A source at Channel 4" is an especially notable commentator worthy of mention in the article, much less the lede paragraph, but I don't care heavily enough to edit war about it. But can we agree that that quote should only be in the article once, and not twice? Can you fix the problem your edit created? Many thanks. -- THF 02:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Refer to the talk page about this article, where I discussed this edit. Your edit went against the consensus, so I returned the article to its prior agreed to state (noting that you were a party to the consensus discussion). In the future, don't place cryptic complaints on my talk page for items that belong on article talk pages. --Skyemoor 02:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Note his "...fix the problem your edit created." Oh, the irony of it all. Raymond Arritt 03:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/k/y/User_talk%7ESkyemoor_e174.html"