User talk:SEWilco/November 4 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Image:North america basement rocks.jpg

I was able to find a better version of this image with 10x smaller file size. You can go ahead and change the image in your gallery to Image:North america basement rocks.png to that "North america basement rocks.jpg" can be deleted. Also when an image is GIF, try to convert it to PNG: this will often produce smaller file size. Thanks. --Berkut 06:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Done. Well done, and thanks. (SEWilco 06:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC))
    • I know the image is from a school site, but that would mean NASA or USGS stole the image, the NASA image is esentially the same only recompressed. I think with some effort the original USGS image can be found.--Berkut 06:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I think they only sell that map, but they created it, so there should not be any copyright issues. --Berkut 07:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • "I think" is not enough for copyright. I haven't found that map in USGS map lists. There is a 1967 "North America Basement Geologic Map" which looks different and does not include Alaska. (SEWilco 18:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Templates

I'm just curious, what are Template:Country alias USA-CO, et.al., useful for? --Golbez 04:43, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] template: daterange

i think this is a great idea (wikipedia talk: manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date ranges). user:SEWilco++. (Burgher 05:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Pic of the Day

Hi SEWilco,

Just to let you know that the featured image Image:North america terrain 2003 map.jpg is coming up for Pic of the Day on the 19th June. I've basically used the caption on the image description page, but if you can think of any improvements, they can be made at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/June 19, 2005. -- Solipsist 20:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dodgers 25-man roster.

I don't know what in God's name you did, but you screwed up the Los Angeles Dodgers roster page. Please don't change any other roster pages unless you can get the format right.

--CFIF 20:39, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Dodgers' Talk page has request for better description. (SEWilco 01:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC))
  • Good job. Screw up the White Sox roster while your at it. And the Dodgers talk page nor the White Sox talk page did not request for any additional stuff so don't give me that crap! --CFIF 15:07, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • As you can tell by reading what I wrote there, I meant that the Dodgers Talk page has a request for a better description of what you meant by "screwed up". (SEWilco 21:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Please tell me what you are talking about, because the only person who complained about it was YOU. --CFIF 22:38, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SEWilcoBot

I noticed your bot created a large amount of templates, stating the name of an image, but not actually making it inline nor a link. Was this intentional? -- Natalinasmpf 20:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes. Other templates use this template array to find the name of the image. The image can not be linked because templates add formatting information. Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template (SEWilco 17:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I like your flag template, but I notice the flags are noticeably larger on the MLB team pages after your bot made the changes. I personally like the look of the smaller flags better. Is the larger size something you did deliberately? --Veronique 00:52, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes. Many countries lose too much detail with the smaller 20px format and become quite difficult to recognize. It was not apparent in the MLB pages because there are few countries there, and those flags are different from each other and most have large features. There were 25px and 30px formats in use elsewhere, and 25px is what is now used. The 30px is too large. (SEWilco 01:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Template:BAHf

No, don't delete it. It's part of the football flags series I created. It just hasn't been used yet. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I used FIFA codes for football flags. Only makes sense that way. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Try putting {{flagcountry|Bahamas}} in {{BAHf}}, and it will then follow future changes. (SEWilco 07:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Template:clear*

See alternate (more techy) explanation about the templates on User:CesarB/Special effects templates. I'm not sure if the definitions you wrote are right, since they are harder to parse (rightward-clinging?). --cesarb 28 June 2005 05:11 (UTC)

  • I was trying to give an impression of what the templates did for non-technical people, and didn't mind making it wrong enough for someone who knows better to fix the descriptions. Do to its characteristics and the environment, because I haven't read that part of the underlying code I don't feel I understand it well enough to describe it, but I certainly can do better than no explanation. (SEWilco 28 June 2005 05:15 (UTC))


[edit] template:main and template:seemain

Hi, I am trying to fix things, but to do that I have to break them, so someone notices them. I cannot do this in another way. Once spotted things can usually be easily fixed, although some people insist on "fixing" this template, instead of choosing a local fix. --MarSch 3 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)



[edit] Ick, converting inline webpages

also posted at SEWilcoBot talk

I think it is bad idea to convert inline website references to footnotes. Breaks the common convention of people familiar with wikipedia and requires someone to make two clicks to get to the referenced material. Dragons flight July 7, 2005 06:10 (UTC)

Seems like something to discuss at Wikipedia talk:Footnote3. It is a syntax issue, as the bot could convert to other formats if they are preferred. (SEWilco)

I don't see this as being resolved, so I've reverted LIA and MWP. William M. Connolley 19:09:16, 2005-09-09 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Footnote3 says "External links should be avoided in normal text since they break easily", and those articles already had footnoted citations. Discuss it in Wikipedia talk:Footnote3. (SEWilco 21:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC))
Leave it out. William M. Connolley 11:16:57, 2005-09-10 (UTC).
What does that mean? (SEWilco 14:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC))
It means, please stop changing these footnotes William M. Connolley 21:05:14, 2005-09-10 (UTC).
Will you stop changing articles? (SEWilco 00:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC))

[edit] TfD page is for voteing not adminstration issues

I've removed the below from the TfD page. It will unfairly influence the voting, discouraging people from voting who believe the vote may be invalidated or is somehow controversial. If you wish to pursue this then please do so in the correct forum, such as the voteing talk page of wherever administative issues are handled, or after the voteing is completed. The voteing page should be not be used in such a way to influence voters with adminstrative concerns while a vote is open, in particular when you have a vested interest in the outcome as a voter yourself. Stbalbach 9 July 2005 04:53 (UTC)

Aren't both TfD administrative issues? They're discussion items, not TfDs. Reverted. (SEWilco 9 July 2005 05:32 (UTC))
Your discussion items, by design or not, unfairly influence the voteing process. Either by creation of controversy in the voteing procedure, and/or by diverting attention to a separate issue. A discussion item is somthing related to the discussion of removing (or not) a template. If there is an adminstration concern, the voteing page is not the place to handle it because it can influence voters. Stbalbach 9 July 2005 05:49 (UTC)
Put in countering comments there. Any other comments could also be diverting. Ask others about it. (SEWilco 9 July 2005 05:51 (UTC))
If you read the Wikipedia page of voteing procedures (which I just did) the voteing page can contain dicussion, but it only talks about discussion about the vote in question. Procedural stuff about voteing has nothing to do with the vote to keep/delete. I bring this up because youve done it twice now that I have seen, this one and the one where you called the vote an "abuse". These are just your opinions that have nothing to do with the merits of the page being deleted or kept. You clearly know this has nothing to do with voteing because you put it under a seperate header. Is this an abuse of the voteing page? Perhaps we should ask the others for a discussion on the voteing page about your actions there. Stbalbach 9 July 2005 06:14 (UTC)
I just said "Ask others about it." Yes, do. (SEWilco 9 July 2005 06:19 (UTC))
I have to wait for the votes in question to end, or be guilty of my own concerns, or research a better place to discuss. There are laws in the real world about behavior near a polling station that might unfairly influence voters. The only rules about voteing I can find say its ok to discuss the merits of the case, but nothing permiting other "meta" dicussions, in fact it says dont post vote counts, so there is precedent against that sort of behaviour. Any such action along those lines is very questionable. Stbalbach 9 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)
And deletion of three templates is not discussion about three templates. TfD was the wrong process for discussion of the relationship between templates and articles. That error was compounded by doing TfD improperly. A secret deletion vote is a rather nasty surprise. (SEWilco 9 July 2005 14:18 (UTC))
As I said, it was a newbie mistake, a "secret vote" lol? Every page that uses the template has a notice, a TfD template was created, a TfD notice was placed in the edit comment field so it shows up in your watchlist, and a notice was posted on the {main} template talk page where the central thrust of the discussion of this issue was occuring (including participation by your self). Due notice was attempted, although not every location in the guidelines was covered, some others were, the intent was obviously not to hide anything. Do you think differently? If you do, please voice your concerns of a secret vote. Otherwise, your "discussion" on the talk page is nothing more than an influence of the voteing process. Stbalbach 9 July 2005 15:22 (UTC)
Discussion is encouraged on TfD specifically to influence other voters. I encouraged you to place counter-influencing commentary in the TfD page. (SEWilco 9 July 2005 15:28 (UTC))
Clever, but twisted. I think most people see through disengenuious influenceing. Stbalbach 9 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)

[edit] TfD Instructions followed?

In the preceding TfD, the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Instructions were not followed. I lack information as to whether they were followed for this related inquiry but that should be examined. (SEWilco 8 July 2005 18:26 (UTC))

I made the TfD. How were the instructions not followed? Stbalbach 8 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)
Maybe SEWilco meant that you didn't leave a message on the creator's talk page telling him/her that their template was listed for deletion? I suppose we must wait for eir to leave a message here before we know for certain. -Frazzydee|✍ 8 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)
It was my first TfD. Will my newbiew mistake invalidate the votes? I would be happy to personally write each and every voter to let them know its been invalidated if SEWilco would like a revote. Stbalbach 8 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I believe that Stbalbach acted in good faith here. Forgetting to notify the creator of the template is regrettable, but is no grounds for invalidating the TFD vote as a whole. People who are strongly interested in the fate of a template are advised to keep it on their watchlist. Radiant_>|< 21:12, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template redirect

Sure, that sounds like a reasonable alternative. Radiant_>|< 21:16, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re:template note

I feel I'm a pretty experienced user here, one with some solid contributions, but I nonetheless apologize for not having a copy of windows 2000 to test a purely visual tweak of a template on. Someone else did, however, and my changes did not break functionality and did not do anything but potentially improve how wikipedia looks. Also, combining the <cite=""></cite> does nothing to functionality (at least in a valid-code browser) so I'm not sure why anyone feels it needs reverting. If you feel an italicized bold ^ looks good, or that it intuitively suggests it returns a user to the text note, then I'm sorry. I respectfully disagree, question your aesthetic wisdom, and leave it looking shitty for the rest of time. -eric ✈ 07:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: thread problem

Template-based "threading" confuses MediaWiki, causing the "[edit]" links which follow a Thread to not work properly. (SEWilco 17:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC))

I'm aware that a heading within a template makes the link go to that template. Which template are you referring to? The nested ones I've been working on lately - Template:Aircontent and Template:Airtemp-test - don't have internal [edit] links, at least for me. I purposely put the ==Related content== and ==Specifications== outside the template space for this reason. The subheadings used <h3> tags to avoid edit links as well. If they're showing up with them in some places, I can switch to basic bold formatting, but I need to know which template you're referring to. Thanks. -eric ✈ 18:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh! That's not actually mine. User:Ingoolemo is working on an expanded version of what I'd built that includes helicopters etc, and that was just a layout prototype for a table-based one (that's now unnecessary) on my talk page. I'll make sure he knows about the limitation as well. -eric ✈ 19:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, and sorry!

Hi - just wanted to say thanks for your change of vote on the X stubs/X-related stubs business, and also apologise if things got heated during the debate. Personally I think it's good that people can get passionate about the way they think Wikipedia should be heading, but that does have the down-side of potential arguments over - let's face it - fairly trivial points. So if any toes got trodden on, I'm sorry! Grutness...wha? 01:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Japan Self-Defense Forces

Hello, the JSDF ground forces has a flag at http://flagspot.net/images/j/jp^gsfcl.gif, and the Air Force has a flag at http://flagspot.net/images/j/jp_asdf1.gif. We can use the gif images until I can manage to draw something. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dominion of Melchizedek Request for Comment

You have shown some interest in Dominion of Melchizedek, so I wanted to let you know that I created the following RFC. Bollar 13:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

*Talk:Dominion of Melchizedek (Also Malpelo Island, Clipperton Island, Bokak Atoll, Rotuma, Antarctica, Microstate, Dominion, Micronation) - POV over the validity of Dominion of Melchizedek's sovereignty, and claims over numerous small islands in the Pacific plus Antarctica.

[edit] Life saver flag templates

Just want to mention that your templates are superb. Thanks for pointing them out to me. David D. (Talk) 21:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Active volcanoes

Hi. I created Category:Active volcanoes which is correct in terminology, insted of "Active volcano". I've moved there all these volcanoes. You are welcomed to add another ones. -- Darwinek 09:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Countrystub

Hi SE - you're right that I should have mentioned earlier about my qualms with the servers in the discussion on countrystub at WP:WSS/P (I've added a comment since then). The main reason I didn't was that I thought I had - there was a very similar discussion about using a metatemplate in the same way further up the page, and I had made the comment there, and thought I'd also made it further down. My main gripes, other than worries about the server, are partly about the template itself, andpartly with the way the discussion's been going on it.

With the discussion, usually what happens at WP:WSS is that if no-one objects, fine, go ahead. If the same number of people object as support (as in this case, one each), or if the numbers are anywhere near even, then the discussion is archived or otherwise put on one side to be resumed later (sometimes even if the discussion is 3-1 or thereabouts things are left on one side). That doesn't seem to have happened this time for some reason.

As to my other gripe with the template, it looks like an open invitation to people to create new categories. "Hey, there a {{countrystub}} but no Liechtenstein category - we can fix that!" And it would be a lot easier to be prompted into making a new category that way than to independently come up with the idea of a new template and category otherwise. We've already got spurious stub categories coming out our ears - the idea of something that will trigger people into making new ones fills me with dread.

As I think I've said on a previous occasion, I'm sorry if my vehemence gets too much from time to time, but I think that the ability for fairly triviial points on wikipedia to raise temperatures - though not in itself pleasant - is a good indication that we feel passionately about the project as a while. Grutness...wha? 10:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  • You had mentioned some sort of concern about servers, but too vaguely to raise specific concerns nor get specific answers. (I've echoed some of my specific understanding at Avoid_using_meta-templates to expose details) Most concerns seem to be over template updates, and those should be minimal in this case because these should not change much and can be strongly protected if needed. The main template can easily be protected, and the data in template arrays as well (mild protection through locking individual array entries which would still allow little-used new countries to be added, or strong locking by placing array in a group of subpages and I think the pages where the subpages are can be de-permitted from allowing new subpages to be created).
  • Expressiveness from editors varies a lot, and is influenced by both skills and experiences. Particulary whatever the day's WP experiences have been. And we who have been online for a while know the difficulties in communicating only through text messages. Meanwhile, WP grinds on. (SEWilco 04:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC))
    • Most of the information which we were given earlier wasn't related to changes in the templates, just in the call-up of templates that are used on large numbers of articles. That's one of the reasons (though not the main one) why we've been trying to limit stub category size. My concerns about the servers are the same ones that were expressed during the great near-meltdown earlier in the year - that the servers at that time had a great deal of difficulty with heavily-used templates, and that although the strain was alleviated with MW1.5, given the exponential growth of Wikipedia any fix can only be seen as temporary. As to protecting the template, it would need to be de-protected every time a category is split off, and a casual glance at WP:WSS/P should show how often new categories are split off. Overall it still sounds like a lot more work with this method than with the method currently used, and anything which makes more work for the stub sorters and possibly has the potential to put more strain on the servers isn't really in the best interests of either WP:WSS or Wikipedia as a whole, IMO. Grutness...wha? 04:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Seemain

Template:Seemain has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Seemain. Thank you. Template has been removed from articles. Yes, I am notifying myself. SEWilco 01:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear power phase-out

Hey, Seemain. We are discussing to rename Nuclear power phase-out at the discussion page there. I was told and I saw you have been writing on some articles around nuclear energy at wikipedia, so it might be good if you come over and help finding a good name. --Ben T/C 10:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AutoSubster

Hi there! You said such a bot would be easy to implement. So could you please do so? It would be useful for a number of templates - {{vfd}} for starters (VFD guidelines say it should always be subst:vfd but sometimes people forget). There are likely to be other candidates once the possibility exists. Thanks. Radiant_>|< 12:55, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Olympic ownership

I created the icon as a derivative work of Image:Olympic-rings.png. Fair use, if applies to that original, applies here as well. I've added the {{logo}} notation onto my derivative work, and removed the PD notice. --Durin 17:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New York City

The New York City article is already in Category:New York City. We hardly need to duplicate that category with a Category:New York City,, New York. Thanks.--Pharos 06:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DC related categories

Hi, you just nominated categories prior discussed in the Cfd just below yours, which you voted on. You should move your nomination to your vote, and vote a reverse rename, as now we have to conflicting Cfd's. I am going to remove your nomination and ask you to adjust your vote to what you want done specifically. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 08:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to merge two entries in that way, please keep the discussion untangled now as to who is approving/opposing what. Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Washington.2C_D.C._related_categories (SEWilco 16:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC))

Hi, well I see it as reading that you want the originals kept, and not merged, and with your original vote, to merge the abbrv into the old. I did not want to re-word your vote, as its yours. But I was sure the idea would come across correctly. The only reason I merged them, is because in theirs they wanted everything to leave that cat, and in yours you wanted everyting to stay. So its the same Cfd/Cfm really. I can reword it if you wish, but I would prefer you adjust your vote to a way that is comfortable to you. Thanks for replying. ∞Who?¿? 16:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, fixed it. Took a while to untangle the broken editing in CFD and see all these messages for cleaning this up. (SEWilco 16:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC))

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Driftless Area National Wildlife Refuge, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] bot

I assume this is yours? Could it be your bot has gotten logged out by accident? --fvw* 02:32, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

The change is from the bot, but it is still logged in. The log shows it had to try several times to contact Wikipedia for that one update, so something was temporarily confused. The next change was normal. Thanks for the quick notification. (SEWilco 02:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Flagicon

Is it possible that you could reduce the [[Template:Flagicon]] to 20 pixels rather than the current 25? On the soccer squad lists, for example Everton F.C., 25 looks remarkably big and gives a slightly uncomfortable amount of space whereas 20 pixels gives the text a common linesworth of space. Unless there's a particular reason why you have done it this way, for example, a different usage for the flags which requires them to be 25 pixels. Just wondering why they are necessarily that size rather than 20 pixels.

Thank you. Bobo192|Edits

Originally the size was 20 pixels, but a majority of existing sports icons were using 25 or 30. 25 pixels also greatly increased the visible differences between many flags. Incidentally, the size of characters and lines varies based upon the settings of each person's web browsers; my characters sizes are normally dialed down to a quite small size so I'm quite aware of the forced spacing. (SEWilco 04:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC))
Cool - if it's standardization with other things, I can understand that. Question being, shall we do this for all the other teams too? ie, replace the English, for example, with Flag of England, again, for standardization. To have either one or the other would make more sense than having some of one and some of the other. I may run it by others if you agree this should be done. Bobo192|Edits
WikiProject Flag Template was created due to sports icons, and is being used in several sports pages. The Olympic sports pages use the related {{flagIOC}}. List of FIFA country codes, Teams of Major League Baseball, Football World Cup, Major League Soccer, 2004 San Marino Grand Prix (SEWilco 05:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Main vs. Seedetails

Your robot seemed to have changed many main templates into seedetails templates, and later reverted them. I wonder which should be used in future articles where both can apply. Deryck C. 11:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

A good question, discussed in places such as Template_talk:Main. (SEWilco 14:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC))

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:seemain

Template:seemain has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:seemain. Thank you. Yes, notifying myself. (SEWilco 21:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Licenses

All this licensing talk is mumbo-jumbo legalese that makes no sense to me. I said in the description that I took the pictures, which is true, and dat's dat. Wahkeenah 05:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Tell me precisely, step by step, what I need to do to assert that it's my own photos, and I'll do it, just to kiss up. None of this "if-then-else" stuff. Tell me what you would do if it was a photo you took, and then maybe I'll understand and be able to do it. I must tell you, I am not impressed with this website, this so-called "enyclopedia". People who are logons like me get hassled by the likes of you, and meanwhile anonymous users are allowed to put all kinds of stupid and vulgar stuff in the entries, undermining whatever meager credibility this site has, and no action is taken other than the time wasted to revert their junk. I would be better off just being an anonymous user and doing whatever I bloody well felt like instead of trying to obey any rules. >:( Wahkeenah 05:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

For my own images, such as Image:Sunspots 11000 years.jpg I use on the image description page
==Copyright==
{{GFDL}} {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}
Created by [[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] and released under the [[GFDL]] and CC-SA.
If you just want to release all rights (anyone can use it for anything), you could just use:
{{PD-user|Wahkeenah}}
(SEWilco 05:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC))
That is hard to find in my index of images because most of my images are from other sources, thus have other license notices attached. (SEWilco 05:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC))

OK, so if it's a picture I took, and if I think I'm some kind of hot-shot photographer and/or expect to make money off it, I might use the "copyright". And if it's just some photo I snapped that my own mother wouldn't pay to get a print of, I might use the "release all rights". Have I got the concept pretty much correct, minus the sarcasm? And I would put those blurbs in the description part of the photo, right? Assuming I can figure out how to edit that. Wahkeenah 06:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I got it. It's real difficult. I have to click "edit this page". I've been working too much lately. Thanks for the help and for putting up with my little tantrums.  :) Wahkeenah 06:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

In the USA, you hold a "copyright" automatically and have to decide what to do with it. So we know you have to grant permission. Actually, the PD, GFDL, and CC-SA all let others make various use of the image. PD basically gives up control. GFDL and CC-SA require attachment of various license and credit info, but image can still be used. If you want to restrict usage then you'll have to find a suitable license. (SEWilco 06:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC))
The process is similar when uploading to Commons, except then WikiNews and other language Wikipedias also have access. (SEWilco 06:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC))

[edit] TFD

Please stop unilaterally declaring TFD debates as closed. If you have issues with them, discuss them on the talk page. Radiant_>|< 08:46, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Been doing what is appropriate. Sometimes discussion happens, sometimes not. (SEWilco 19:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Sandbot to Templates

I've been terribly busy for the past few months, but I did create this for you...

For the templates, I was not certain of the scheduled time frame, and it appears that the templates are not used very often. 12 hours seems okay, but it doesn't seem like the templates are resetted much. As a result, I created some reset buttons that resets an individual template.

--AllyUnion (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] edit summaries

Please refrain from main nampespace edit summaries such as idiots shot. Thanks. El_C 23:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I particularly hope there are no further edits for which it is appropriate. (SEWilco 23:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Vladimir Putin's response to Hurricane Katrina

Could you withdraw your nomination of Vladimir Putin's response to Hurricane Katrina for speedy deletion? The reason given does not meet any of the 4 criteria for redirect speedy deletion as listed in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (pls correct me if I'm wrong). So let's not waste other people's time with this ... please. Gebuhuka 18:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Oops. I was looking for Wikinews criteria for deletion, I had lost track of this being in en:, so I used Article standards. Ok, I'll non-speedy it. (SEWilco 18:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Template:Country label alias United States of America

Thanks for trying to help, but Template:Country label alias United States of America is part of a template array containing data and should not be redirected. Also, it should contain the short abbreviation of the name, USA, for Flag of the United States United States of America. If you are using a template to refer to the name of the country you can use {{country|name|United States of America}}

The template {{SEWilco/November 4 2005}} is deprecated. Please use {{Country}} instead.
This usage is deprecated. Please replace it with {{tdeprecated|SEWilco/November 4 2005|Country}}.
The template {{Country}} is deprecated. Please use {{Flag}} instead.

. In some situations {{flagcountry|United States of America}} Flag of the United States United States is used; USA can be used because that is an alias in the country data templates, so {{flagcountry|USA}} Flag of the United States United States is equivalent. (SEWilco 18:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC))

Why shouldn't it be a redirect? Template:Country label alias United States contains "USA". Template:Country label alias United States of America is simply another name for the same content. I think that if you test it you'll find that all your templates work fine with redirects. For example, Template:Country label alias USA is still a redirect, and Flag of the United States USA produces the right label. dbenbenn | talk 19:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Just to avoid dropping too deep in the transclusion/redirection count. The deepest I'm aware of right now is 5; if someone decides to make a template with flags in it that will be 6. What's the limit? (SEWilco 05:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC))
Yeah, I guess that's a consideration. I don't think there's a limit. And I suspect that MediaWiki is smart about handling redirects efficiently. Anyway, the benefit of using redirects is that if the content is changed, it only needs to be changed in one place (for example, I recently changed "Flag of the United States.png" to "Flag of the United States.svg", and lots of other flags will be turning to SVG soon).
Oh, I see. I was thinking of the redirection limit, but that is only documented to apply to redirected templates. (SEWilco 17:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Template:Seemain

I was going to hack at some of the backlog on TfD, and this has a consensus-ish to delete. However, the nomination and a few of the votes say to delete it and recreate as a redirect. There appears to have been some confusion over whether it is orphaned or not, and I can't work out whether the redirect is fine as it is, should be reinstated after deletion or something else. Could you clarify what happened during the course of the debate for me, since I think it was your bot doing the legwork? Thanks.-Splash 02:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • The bot tried to orphan Seemain (but silently stopped when it encountered a limit). Thinking Seemain was orphaned I nominated TfD. It was discovered Seemain was not orphaned. I found the limit, re-orphaned Seemain, and restarted the TfD. However, if anyone has used Seemain while it is redirected they show up in "What links here" for "Main". There are a few "What links here" for "Seemain" because it was not a redirect briefly a few days ago. (SEWilco 17:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC))
Ok, thanks. Then I'm going to close the debate as not deleted/no consensus since it is unclear whether the template is in fact ready for deletion or not. Hope that's ok. If it's not, give me a shout and we can work out how best to arrange for its removal which most editors were in favour of. -Splash 01:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Image:Minnehaha Falls nor6a.jpg

Here we go again. OK, Mr. Copyright Expert, given the description I put on this photo, if you were me, what specific tag would you put on it? Wahkeenah 08:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

That depends upon the details of the "permission". Look at your agreement and the list of licenses. (SEWilco 05:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC))

OK, here's the way the website owner worded it to me, in two separate e-mails. Now you tell me what tag to use, since you're the critic and the expert:

Sure, you're welcome to use one of my scans in the Wikipedia article. Crediting my web site would be very nice. (Even though I haven't updated it in a while....) I have literally hundreds more old photos and images of the falls, from the 1850s onward. Many people are aware of the erosion at the falls, but it is not documented in any way I know of, except possibly in my collection.

...

The Wikipedia article and links and such look just fine to me. I have two things to share with you. First, the date on the image you have taken from my site is probably closer to 1860 than 1900. It's much older than 1900, and my best guess is 1860 or so.

Second, there's a copyright question about the image. The truth of the matter is that the image itself is in the public domain. It is too old for there to be a viable copyright on it. Even if it were from 1900 (and I can prove that it is much older), it would still be in the public domain.

The scan I made is my property, I suppose, but you've rightly noted that it is on Wikipedia with my permission. How you can convince them of this public domain issue is another question, and I'll just let you figure that out. I did look at it, but there is no obvious way of just saying, "Hey, no worries, this is all just fine."

Thanks, and nice work.

...

Wahkeenah 09:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like you can describe it as being an image in the public domain which is older than 1900. In that case, {{PD-US}} looks like the best one. (SEWilco 14:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Don't change file names

Thanks for the date fixes, but you can't wikify a date in a file name. [1] (SEWilco)

Thanks for spotting. I thought I had avoided the pix, I have now gone back and done the other captions. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough 13:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
P.S. is there a plan showing the location of the pumping stations? Rich Farmbrough
I think I saw one on the USACE Hurricane Katrina page. (SEWilco 13:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Rita evacuee pics

Hey, sorry I didn't catch you on IRC. No, I didn't evacuate to take the pictures, I evacuated for safety reasons. Also, I have released them under the PD, the only reason they were GFDL was....uh, no clue. There is no reason they can't be PD, so have at it ;)--Orgullomoore 18:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

You're the creator, if you want them PD then you should change the license. Thanks. (SEWilco 03:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Flagicon templates

Hey, your work is great. I'll be adding a lot of your flagicons to the rosters of hockey teams (National Hockey League and American Hockey League). I've noticed you don't have Latvia yet. Do you need any help? From a hockey standpoint I'd be most interested in whatever eastern European and Russian states you haven't come around to yet. Also: why IOC instead of ISO? 2 letter ISO codes seem to be used more. Thanks ccwaters 23:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, 3 letter ISO codes are supported by {{flag}} and others, as those seem to be used more often than the 2 letter codes. {{flagIOC}} is restricted to IOC codes. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template. As for Latvia, I thought it was defined but I saw {{countryedit|Latvia|LVA|LAT}} was showing a gap because a couple of fellows deleted an item, so I recreated it. But {{flagIOC|LAT}} was working: Latvia Latvia (SEWilco 04:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC))

Template:Countryedit is deprecated. Please instead use the templates listed at Category:Country data templates, such as Template:Country data Latvia. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template

[edit] "Cite sources" talk

Hi SE, I made a comment involving you in my last contribution to wikipedia:Cite sources#Style guideline?: in the third point of that comment I interpreted your present attitude regarding robot transformation of references. That was maybe risky, so I notify you about it, inviting you to change the wording of that paragraph, in whatever way you think fit, if I would have misrepresented anything. --Francis Schonken 10:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The tool can not decide on the format, someone has to decide. Edited. (SEWilco 18:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC))

Hi again, I re-tweaked your tweak of the second paragraph of the intro of the Wikipedia:Cite_sources#Style_and_how-to section (diff), this time also avoiding "controversy"-like terminology - hope you agree.

But I return here mainly for a proposal regarding the "speculative" sections of WP:FN3:

I suppose neither of these "speculations" is *exactly* on its place in an "accredited" guideline (especially the "future proofing" part). What I propose:

Further reasons for proceeding thus:

  • will contribute to the clarity about what this guideline is about, and what it is not about.
  • will make it shorter without being less comprehensive

I'd like to leave this to you (since you're a WikiProject Wikicite member); alternatively a subpage and/or separate talk page of WP:FN3 could be devoted to this, and link that from the wikiproject. Anyway the speculation is no part of the guideline now (there's even a distinct possibility it never will be), and it might ease some minds w.r.t. acceptance of the guideline as it is now.

What do you think? --Francis Schonken 09:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The basis of the speculation is already elsewhere in the article or in the Wikicite article. Deleted it. (SEWilco 16:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC))


[edit] District of Columbia category in Arlington, Virginia?

I'm just curious on why you're put category of District of Columbia in the Arlington County, Virginia page?? Granted, Arlington, at one point belonged to the District of Columbia as part of Alexandria County, however, looking at the category articles, it seems like the articles are related to Washington, D.C., not the Maryland or Virginia suburbs.--Moreau36; 1705, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right, this is a task for the improperly-deleted Category:History of the District of Columbia. (SEWilco 23:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Template:vote

Ah, you have comments about {{vote}}. Go ahead. I found the images and obviously am trying them out. I know the text looks different for admins doing counting, but template usage may reduce the variations in types of votes. (SEWilco 20:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC))

Please discuss at Template talk:Vote. (SEWilco 20:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Citations and Footnotes

I appreciate your efforts to improve referencing on various articles, but is there a reason you choose to use footnotes as opposed to Harvard style inline references? Footnotes, while possible after a fashion, are still something of a hack with a number of significant limitations (e.g. difficulty in keeping numbering straight, hard to teach to newbies, and introduce extra clicks on visiting websites). Personally, I would generally prefer that an effort to improve the citations within articles use Harvard style notations. In articles with a lot of web references this would also allow notations like (Jones 2005 [2]) which make obvious those references that point to online material and provide access to them available after a single click, which seems greatly superior to me.

You should be commended for trying to improve to improve the citations and documentation in articles, but this has also been provoking some conflicts. I wonder whether those conflicts might be avoided if your future efforts were directed towards a Harvard style rather than a footnoting style. Dragons flight 02:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

That's a style issue. I'm dealing now with the content of citations. A URL-only style contains less information about a source than does a full citation. However, I am indeed quite aware of Harvard style notation and have been supporting it as a style choice. Indeed, I have further support for it, and need some examples of it in use. perhaps you have some suggestions for Wikipedia_talk:Cite_sources#Examples_of_articles_using_Harvard_notation. (SEWilco 03:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC))
It was time to create {{ref_harvard}}. See style question in Talk page of WP:FN. (SEWilco 18:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Gallup poll

Thanks for the clarification. Guettarda 18:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Somehow, I don't feel three conflicting views are much of a clarification. But at least it records the three concepts which have appeared, and the 1993 source seems like the next best thing to a copy of the poll from Gallup. (SEWilco 18:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Thanks for your vote on the category deletion

I saw you voted on the category deletion for Category:Ecclesastical Government. I also have nominated the article about David Even Pedley for deletion that was created by Johnski in an attempt to further POV push DOM. If you would, please consider voting for its deletion.Davidpdx 04:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abbreviation expanding for country names

I believe you supported the following proposal for a speedy criterion, and I believe I followed the rules and after a week in which no objections were raised I listed it as a criterion. After one day, it has been removed as one user has issues with it. If you still support it I would appreciate your comments at CFD talk

  • Abbreviation expanding for country names: The name of the country should appear as it does in the name of of the article about that country (e.g. US or U.S. in reference to the United States should be renamed to the United States)

I appreciate your time, Steve block talk 12:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Public service barnstar

SEWilco - I award you this Barnstar of Diligence for your success in diverting 'Mostly Harmless' vandalism on the article Earth. Solipsist 13:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
SEWilco - I award you this Barnstar of Diligence for your success in diverting 'Mostly Harmless' vandalism on the article Earth. Solipsist 13:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi SE,

If the world were a less random place, I would be awarding you a barnstar for all your excellent edits on geology related articles. However, as it is, I'm actually awarding you this barnstar for this edit, inserting a lightning rod for 'Mostly Harmless' edits to the Earth article. It really seems to work and so must be considered an edit of extraordinary public service. -- Solipsist 13:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Coincidentally, a few minutes earlier I had added the same lightning rod to WP:VIP :-) (SEWilco 03:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC))

[edit] References

SE, what's the story with you trying to delete Harvard references? The references on Alchemy ended up looking like this [3] which isn't like any reference section I've seen anywhere. The point of a references section is that it should be easy for the reader to follow, and easy for editors to add. I'm also concerned about your push to change even the page on Harvard referencing to footnotes, which seems particularly inappropriate. Is there something about that system of referencing that you don't like, or something I've misunderstood about it? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you're confused. Clarification is going on elsewhere. (SEWilco 17:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC))

[edit] RE: Mountain biking

Yeah I guess have hav a point there. But I still think that a lot more information is needed in mountain biking like the different styles of mountain biking, the different parts, and possibly some of the models (After all, Wikipedia has the different car models, so why cant it have bikes?). --Windsamurai 23:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User_talk:Beadtot vandalism

This user has continued to add nonsense to wikipedia even after the final warning on User_talk:Beadtot. Evidence: [4] --Comaze 05:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Report the user again to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. You may need to explain why that particular edit is nonsense (I understand why, but I know something about the topic). Looks like there are more examples in the User Contributions. (SEWilco 03:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Fumarole or fumerole?

A while ago I changed the caption of the left photo in Fumarole to "fumaroles" since that is how the word is spelled in the title of the article and in the article body (as well as in my dictionary.) You changed it back to "fumeroles." Why?

JShook | Talk 13:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

You changed the spelling of the image name. Wikipedia thus could not find an image by that name and did not display the image. (SEWilco 20:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC))
Oh. duh. I have changed the spelling in the caption to be correct. Do you think that the misspelling of the name of the image file is a problem? I could rename it, upload the renamed version, link to it from the article, and ask that the old file be deleted. I'll ask at the help desk. JShook | Talk 22:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Solkope

Hello again! Hey I was wondering if you'd be willing to watch the article about Solkope as well as look at the talk page. There is a lot of pushing DOM over there. If you could chip in your two cents, I'd appreciate it. Davidpdx 02:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse of Rules

With your edit of Earth, you get my admiration for Wonderful Abuse of WikiSyntax Rules. By golly, it works. (SEWilco 02:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC))

  • I'm not so sure what you mean there. But I am assuming it was a "good abuse." I'm going around to remove unneeded spaces these days. Is there a rule anyway? -- WB 02:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Just admiring the clever Wiki code. (SEWilco 02:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC))

[edit] IOC flag templates

with regard to your Template:FlagIOC. It seems to be specific for 2004? Also are there flag pages for the 1992 Unified Team. Sorry to ask these dumb questions but i'm still trying to work out how these templates work. David D. (Talk) 20:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

That is because most countries do not have individual articles for their Olympic activity. The articles have grown up around activities at individual Olympics. Simplest solution would be an article for each country, as in United States at the Olympics. Discussion took place at Talk:Olympic_Games#National_Olympic_pages. At present the templates just point at the 2004 Games' pages, but I'm trying to see if new template abilities allow a better arrangement. (SEWilco 20:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC))
I see, so the goal is to point to one page eventually. David D. (Talk) 20:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
My goal is to. The Wikiproject for Olympic Games is coasting on precedent. (SEWilco 20:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC))
Hey - I don't know if you are aware but I added the table of flags on the Salt Lake City 2002 article and wanted to do the same for 2006 Winter Olympics, but noticed the dead links for forthcoming (if ever they do) individual pages. I have only just noticed your templates for flags and thought about using them for a table on the 2006 pages if I'm allowed - is it okay to use your country|flag|xxx template with permission? doktorb 20:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are asking to do. (SEWilco 20:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC))
Ah sorry, just re-read that, doesn't read well. I am thinking of amending or replacing the current "Participating Nations" section with a table of participation nations with flags (as has happened for the 2002 Winter Olympics article), and having just found your very useful template wondered if they were available for open use ? doktorb 16:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, they are. Look at the Talk page to find the more general documentation. (SEWilco 17:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Enforcement

Dear SEWilco,

do you know a better place where enforcement of the rules can be applied for you? If you don't, I would appreciate if you erase your comment about adding items - which you incidentally also did. ;-) No, I am not a member of AC right now.

All the best Lubos, --Lumidek 12:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - I knew that you would know a better place. Sorry for my misidentification of the official pages. All the best, Lubos --Lumidek 16:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I have continued the quest to get enforcement on WMC's parole at[5]--MichaelSirks 20:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enabling misbehaviour

You really should know better than enabling Lumidek's incivility and threats. I don't care what you POV is, you should not be making excuses for his threats and personal attacks. That it totally unacceptable behaviour. Guettarda 06:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

  • When did I approve his behavior? (SEWilco 22:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC))
I'll take your word on it that I misinterpreted your comments. I sincerely apologise. Guettarda 22:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC) I take that back. I thought that I should give you the benefit of the doubt, even though I couldn't see another way to interpret what you said. I should have trusted my eyes and not your words, since your recent actions show the person you are. I withdraw my apology. I stand by my initial assessment of the facts. Guettarda 16:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I still don't approve of Lumidek's behavior. I also don't approve of WMC ignoring his ArbComm parole. May the other participants ignore their bans, and how do you propose to give back their lost time? (SEWilco 17:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
So you claim. It looked like youi were encouraging Lumidek; when you said otherwise I took what you said on face value. Your own misbehaviour makes me unwilling to give you the benefit of the doubt any more - I see no reason to discard my own interpretation for yours, when you so obviously put your own agenda above the good of Wikipedia. I no longer see any reason to trust you. Guettarda 17:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Nobody else seems to be enforcing the parole, so my reporting violations is misbehavior? Are you putting your own agenda above the ArbComm decision? (SEWilco 17:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Templates

Hi, I saw you'd been working on template:book reference, and I was wondering if you could help us template newbies at Template:Infobox Australian City. We need to add some optional fields- and have no idea how to do it. Thanks.--nixie 10:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taxonomy @ Villiage Pump and Tree of Life

Good suggestion. Thanks. Courtland 02:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: noinclude breaking subst:

no, i will make a note of it in Wikipedia:Subst -- Zondor 05:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Book reference

Dude, you did a bang-up job with {{book reference}}: I have noticed one teensy-weensy problem with certainly interestingly-formed URL's—which I have noted—but that would appear to be the only blemish. Are you aiming to do the same to the {{journal reference}} and {{web reference}} clusters also? —Phil | Talk 14:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Testing with {{web reference full}} already. (SEWilco 14:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC))


[edit] Kyoto Protocol

Hello and thanks for leaving a message for me. I hope I have the method of answering right.

You wrote:* The article is about the Kyoto Protocol. * The section is about the U.S. government.

It is true that my contribution could have been placed at various points in the article. I was thinking of leaving my note in the Cost-benefit analysis section. But I entered it in the US government section as that is where the greatest opposition to the implementation of Kyoto comes from. Also this opposition is based on a mistaken notion, as I explained.

You wrote: * Original research is not allowed. WP:NOR

Thanks for pointing that out. I have added a reference to a Washington Post editorial in the same vein, thus reducing the note's reliance on my researh.

Your wrote: o You're assuming market forces would affect OPEC prices in a certain way. It is not an open market.

How precisely the OPEC will react to reduced demand is difficult to predict. However the recent run up of crude price from $35 to $60 in two years has been driven by increasing demand. So it is reasonable to presume that a fall in demand will similarly have a steep impact (fall) on prices. Also OPEC produces only 40% of the world's crude, and the past behavior of its members has been to cheat on quotas. In a situation of falling revenues (due to falling crude prices) it is possible that the members would seek to individually increase supply to be able to meet their governments' budgets, thus causing the world price of crude to fall further.

You wrote: o You're assuming a rise in taxes will produce a certain amount of tax income.

I am not clear what you mean by this. The scheme is to tax consumption of crude, but return the money to the consumers as a "lump-sum". Suppose there are 200 million citizens in a country, and the tax on crude produces $200 billion a year. Then each citizen gets back (or an income tax reduction) of $200 billion / 200 million = $1,000 a year. The money each citizen gets does *not* depend upon the gas consumption, so effectively those who consume less gas gain.

Possibly I need to re-write to make the above scheme clearer.

You wrote: o You're stating high gas prices will cause reduction in usage while also saying payments will offset those high prices.

Yes, the tax should be "revenue neutral". That means the citizens will indeed pay more at the pump. But as the foreign producers also see a fall in their revenues, the domestic (US) government ends up woth more taxes than the extra amount paid by the consumers. If the government returns all these taxes to the consumers, then the consumers have (in the net) more money.

I will give a personal example of how this would work. I live in a two-car household and commute about 15 miles to work. We also occasionally take long drives to other cities. Our average gas bill for the month is $200 (with the gas price at $2.80). I have performed calculations of the impact of the second solution with 200% gas taxes (revenue neutral) and tax breaks on the average consumer. For the average of the scenarios I consider, I find that the new taxes would cause prices to increase by 37% leading us to cut out gas consumption by 9%. The price that oil exporting countries would get as a result will fall by 54% (a decline in price from $65 to $30 per barrel. The monthly gas bill for our household would rise from $200 to $250. The US government would get an extra $167 a month from our gas consumption and if our gas expenses are average then the government would get a similar amount from every household. Following revenue neutrality, this money would be returned to us in the form of tax breaks. It is important to remember that the amount of individual tax break does not depend upon amount of individual consumption. Our net expense would then fall to $250 - $167 = $83. The net effect of this tax then would be to reduce our monthly gas bill from $200 to $83 (while also causing us to economize by reducing gas consumption by 9%). After accounting for reduced consumption, the gas tax still reduces the effective household gas bill by 53%. To minimize the economic disruption due to this tax, it can be phased in over a few years. Details of these calculations are provided at: http://www.idonate.com/gastax.html Jayanta Sen 09:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Jayanta_Sen


Your wrote: $167 from $50?

Yes, that is the beauty of the scheme. The rest $117 will come from the producers, who will now get $83 instead of the entire $200 they were getting before. (Note, here producers mean the entire supply chain which includes foreign producers and domestic oil firms. Also I assume that currently gas in the US is not taxed, which is strictly not true, but a simplifying assumption.)

The steep fall in the price obtained by producers happens due to the supply curve being inelastic. That is something we can expect due to the nature of the oil production business. The average worldwide cost of production is $15 per barrel (exploration plus extraction), so producers are unlikely to put production due to a fall in prices. Supply should not start falling till the prices approach cost, and that means at current levels the supply is highly inelastic. Jayanta Sen 18:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Jayanta_Sen

"$200 they were getting before"? The big oil companies aren't getting all that from you. Specifically who would be taxed? Check how much profit an oil company gave to stockholders and how many barrels of oil they processed during the same period. (SEWilco 07:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC))
This analysis was done in terms of the price, production and consumption of crude. The tax would be on crude entering the country (and possibly also on domestic producers if politically possible). The price of gas at the pump is assumed as a mark-up over that cost of crude. Essentially it costs producers an average of $15 a barrel to produce crude (DOE EIA's figures) which they sell for $60+. The US imports approximately 10 million barrels a day. The profit then is $45 x 10 M = $450 million a day = $165 billion a year. A 200% tax on crude would cut this profit to half.Jayanta Sen 09:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)