User talk:Ordinary Person

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Sam Vimes 09:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] User Page

My User Page is not very cool. Is there a page on Wikipedia with tips on improving one's User Page? Ordinary Person 14:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Practice makes perfect. :-) There is a program to get design help, at Wikipedia:WikiProject User Page Help. Prodego talk 14:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks

Re your message: You're welcome. =) I'm not a bot (most of the bots have "bot" in the name), just an avid RC Patroller. -- Gogo Dodo 04:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mini Mammoths

Thank you for your excellent and diligent work in the Mini Mammoths page. Ordinary Person 04:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I can't keep reverting the vandalism all night as I have to go to bed at some point. --TheFarix (Talk) 04:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
What are the de facto rules with regard to reversion? Can I really anticipate being punished for reverting to correct vandalism more than three times in a 24 hour period? Ordinary Person 04:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Reverting vandalism is the only thing that is an exception to the WP:3RR. Just be sure that what you are reverting is vandalism. BTW, a semi-protection request has already been filed for this page. --TheFarix (Talk) 04:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:THanks

No problem. Its a shame to see such utter crap in the encyclopedia. Keep going like you are and I thin you will make a fantastic editor. ViridaeTalk 04:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsigned template

I think you might find this useful: {{unsigned}}. ViridaeTalk 10:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, probably. :-) Does it work pretty automatically? Got it sorted. Thanks. Ordinary Person 10:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No probs. ViridaeTalk 10:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

And justly so, your adminship. Ordinary Person 05:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much, but I am not sure wether Quarl will still submit it considering I have only been here for three months. I am leaving it up to him to decide. That said, I am flattered that people think I am a worth contributor. Crossposted from my talk page ViridaeTalk 05:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article requests

I just piddle here and there. I can't keep up with it. But you're very industrious. :) Maurreen 08:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aged requests

I first would like to compliment you on some of the work you have been doing on the WP:AR1 page. I do have some interest in that page, I created it and do the updating. To answer your question, I would not consider the pages linked from a person's user page to be their project. In most cases those user pages are archives of projects long abandoned, other times they themselves might have made the requests. In my view, if a request has sat unfilled for over a year that is proof that no one is doing much work in that area. - SimonP 06:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article requests

Hi, just letting you know, if you had not noticed, I've been putting stubs and categories on all the blue links. It's a good idea to at least put a stub tag because if the deleters see it, and it looks too short, they will give it a Speedy Delete --meatclerk 07:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
Ordinary Person -- for extraordinary work on Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year -- Maurreen 06:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


Yes, it's a good thing. :) You are most welcome and deserving. WP even has a couple pages about barnstars and Wikipedia:Barnstars. Maurreen 08:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Western New Guinea

You wrote that: "The article makes some fairly serious claims about the Indonesian armed forces that really should be backed up by references or removed. To say that there are claims they are still committing genocide implies that there was a time when they definitely were committing genocide. I think I'll put up some "citation needed" tags for a while and if nothing comes through, I'll "be bold" in my editing of this piece. Ordinary Person 05:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)"

Although I scrupulously avoid any of the political aspects related to this article, and none of the text in question originated with me, I think as someone new to the issues involved, you might consider a bit more cautious approach to be well-advised. To wit: 1. The article did not say that genocide was or is being carried out, but rather that asylum seekers made that claim. Unless the newspapers in Australia are complicit in an anti-Indonesia conspiracy, this is a true statement. 2. There is a link in the External Links section to a paper by Yale University that concluded there is "evidence [of] a strong indication that the Indonesian Government has committed genocide against West Papuans".

I am decidedly agnostic on this issue (genocide), but at the very least your assertion that a reference is absent is not accurate. (I would agree with you and Konstable, however, that the article in general needs a lot more in the way of references inserted into the body of the text. (Btw, the link is apparently no longer correct; it has been removed from the Yale website and thus should be changed to http://www.westpapua.net/docs/papers/paper12/yale-wphr.pdf#search=%22west%20papua%20application%20of%20law%20of%20genocide%22.) The other material suggesting that the military has been involved in abuses is a matter of record; the Indonesian government itself acknowledges that these have occurred in the province.

There are strong feelings (on both sides) about the issues here, and presumably some people who know what they are talking about have contributed to the article. I would agree that the pro-Indonesian side is not fully articulated, but this is an open-source project so it only awaits someone who wishes to do that. Bottom line is please read the article carefully next time before asserting that the characterizations therein are insufficient. Cheers. Arjuna 09:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

OP, thanks for your helpful comments. I understand your point and I agree. Hopefully removing the word "still" solves the problem. Aloha. Arjuna 01:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Coal energy

Although you've provided references, I think the 290 ZJ estimate for the energy of coal reserves is an order of magnitude too low.

Any published estimate of current coal reserves is roughly 10^15 kg, with an energy density of 24 MJ/kg. These are indeed the figures published in the current WP article. This gives 24 ZJ in total.

I refer you to this table by the National Academy of Engineering, which estimates the coal reserves at 30 ZJ. This seems to gel more with the energy density of coal and the mass of current reserves. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309087325&page=72

I don't have a copy of Tester's book so I can't check his working. The URL you have given to Wes Hermann's paper just goes to the front page of the Exergy.com site. I can only think that either a mistake has been made somewhere, or the energy value given refers to ultimate recoverable resources, not reserves.Ordinary Person 00:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right the 290 ZJ is the world's resources as estimated by Tester on page 303 of his book. It is MIT's book on Energy and a pretty serious study. Resources, rather than reserves, is in line with the title of the article. The second reference is Wes Herman from Stanford. I really like his work and like Tester he is also a nice person. On his site http://www.exergy.org/ click on Global Exergy Resources and then click on the graph where it says coal and it will give you a detailed explanation of how he reached his number. So with two independent high quality sources I think the 290 ZJ number is pretty good. In fact all the numbers in the article are pretty good. I have one request; please delete the entry you made on my talk page. I am no longer a Wikipedia editor. I do hope that others like you will carry on the flame; I think Wikipedia is a great project. I will check your talk page in a few days to see if you have other questions. Good Luck - Frank
Thank you for your response, Frank. I am thinking of including an estimate of total resources (in kg) in the article. Ordinary Person 06:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Takashi Yamamoto

I got your message; I tagged the article as unreferenced because none of the statements are cited and have reference to back them up. The databaseolympics.com site functions as an external link since it is not used as a reference for any of the statements within the article. --Ozgod 14:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


I tagged the article as unreferenced because none of the statements are cited and have reference to back them up. I don't understand. ALL of the statements in the article come from information provided by the databaseolympics.com page. Is it just that I have made a formatting error or something? Ordinary Person 23:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion comments: NOPEC

I'm disappointed with your comments on the deletion discussion page for NOPEC.


There is no organization known as NOPEC; it's apparently just some sort of clever, little-used jargon term that amazingly rhymes with "OPEC" and means "everybody else." Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day's corollary is that "Wikipedia is not for something our consultants made up one day."

Yes, NOPEC is an industry jargon term denoting the non-OPEC oil producing countries. I don't know who made it up [for all I know, it was a consultant], but it is not new and is quite well-established. Here are some examples.

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/mckillop021807.html

"CAN OPEC AND NOPEC STOP THE OIL PRICE SLIDE ?"

It is clear from the context of the article that NOPEC means the non-OPEC oil exporting countries.

http://www.petroleumworld.com/sati07032401.htm

"Continued and sustained oil demand growth inside OPEC and NOPEC exporter countries, specially Russia, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, Kuwait, Venezuela, Mexico, Algeria combined with physical depletion and erosion of oil production capacities in the majority of these countries, ensures a tight supply context. "

http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2004/20041100_ciep_vanderlinden.pdf

"It is generally assumed that world energy demand will grow, that import dependence grows, that there will be a growing competition among major net-importing coutnries and that the number of net-exporting countries will decline due to a relative shift in balance between OPEC-NOPEC producers."

http://www.sav.sk/journals/ekoncas/ekon203.htm

"Even though the high oil prices after two oil shocks raised oil revenues in OPEC member countries, they also gave rise to start the production in non-OPEC (NOPEC) countries."


Ordinary Person 09:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Main article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NOPEC
While my comments may have been somewhat flippant (judging from the timestamp, it was late and I was tired), I still stand by my comments' substance, if not their tone. The term is a neologism of vague definition, and the sources you have left on my Talk page merely demonstrate evidence of the term's use, not that the term itself has received the kind of substantial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that would allow it to pass muster under WP:NOTE. The external links in the article aren't any better.
I was unaware that the article had been resurrected. I will not personally nominate it for deletion, in order to avoid the appearance of dickishness, but if the article does not improve substantially in buttressing its subject's claim to notability and someone else sends it back to AfD, I would call for its deletion again. --Dynaflow babble 02:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] =Energy policy in Australia

Talk items go at the bottom of the page not top - and if you have a problem with the article - your edits and or contributions would be appreciated - please note that if you use a living persons name like that in wikipedia - it might be moved if in fact you are making claims against that person without reasonable effort to substantiate your accusations - open ended comments like that are neither of benefit to you or the encyclopedia - dont be suprised if someone reverts your talk page item. The best way to go would be to edit and contribute to make the article more even handed if that is your point SatuSuro 02:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply - no big deal - just a warning if someone does take issue with your comment - you know whats happening - have a good weekend anyways SatuSuro 03:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Typo

Why you were looking through my page for typos, I will not know, but thanks for finding it, I guess. Mr. Vitale (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)