Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:31, 18 August 2005

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages

Here are some links I thought useful:

• Misplaced Pages:Tutorial
• Misplaced Pages:Help desk
• M:Foundation issues
• Misplaced Pages:Policy Library
• Misplaced Pages:Utilities
• Misplaced Pages:Cite your sources
• Misplaced Pages:Verifiability
• Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette
• Misplaced Pages:Civility
• Misplaced Pages:Conflict resolution
• Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view
• Misplaced Pages:Pages needing attention
• Misplaced Pages:Peer review
• Misplaced Pages:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
• Misplaced Pages:Brilliant prose
• Misplaced Pages:Featured pictures
• Misplaced Pages:Boilerplate text
• Misplaced Pages:Current polls
• Misplaced Pages:Mailing lists
• Misplaced Pages:IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Misplaced Pages:About, Misplaced Pages:Help desk, and Misplaced Pages:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 12:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hubbert peak

My intepretation of Maugeri's paper is that he is not criticizing Hubbert peak theory itself, rather he is criticizing the extreme "doomsday" supporters of Hubbert peak. So perhaps we should move Maugeri's criticisms to the implications of a world peak section to balance out the "catastrophe" section perhaps? Maugeri's paper was also written before August 2004 which, from the sources I've read and i think the article includes, was a watershed moment for peak oil because Saudi Arabia's largest oil field was unable to increase production. Also, we do already cover what Maugeri points out which is reasons why historical global production has not follow a bell shaped curve which was an asuption somewhat separate to the theory itself, it is not a bell curve because supply and demand change due to global politics , technology, and logistical constraints. I just got your talk page response, creating criticisms section is good.

I also just realized we should perhaps add another paragraph to the implications of a peak section that mentions recession, economic depression, and Energy crisis. zen master T 05:57, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to move the critique. I will add that those critical are not denying that fossil fuels will end.

A peak soon would indeed cause a depression and energy crises.

I would prefer to continue the discussion on the discussion page of Hubberts peak so others can follow what we are discussing. Ultramarine 06:06, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hubbert new technology

I am not against the new technology section you added but it's not just non-conventional oil that has the problem, it is conventional oil that is becoming non-conventional extraction energy efficiency wise. According to Hubbert's theory the peak is very significant because after that extraction of the remaining half of oil becomes increasingly inefficient, to a certain degree all the easily extracted and refined oil was done so long ago (so in that sense the peak is more serious than just a half way point). Also, that section should perhaps be moved underneath market solution as more efficient technology is basically the market solution? zen master T 14:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You have some good points. Will try to change. Ultramarine 14:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that even a Communist state might use new technology so I do not see it as falling under the market solution, even though it is an important part of the market solution. Ultramarine 14:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3RR on Capatalism

I have blocked you for 24 hours on a three revert rule violation. I see that you posted on the 3RR board that there is no rule against being involved in an edit war. (my mistake I read too fast) The 3RR rule was designed to stop or slow down edit wars in progress. If you legitimately did not know about the 3RR or for some reason belive my ruling was unjust feel free to e-mail and I will reconsider or reduce the block. I am also checking if User:RJII can also be blocked for this edit war. I'm not doing this because I dissagree with you and if I have made a mistake I will gladly reverse this. BrokenSegue 20:27, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Capitalism

Your creation of a page for "definitions of Capitalism" was a very constructive way to deal with the ongoing conflict with RJII. I am really appaled that s/he wants to remove that link. I am trying to figure out a way to call others' attention to what RJII has been doing (my own view is that s/he has done nothing but waste other editors' time). I don't want to ask for mediation, because I do not think the problem is about some dispute between me and RJII. Certainly, my main problem with RJII is not the dismissive way s/he deals with me on the talk page -- my only concern is the contents of the article. I have filed a complaint at Misplaced Pages:Request for comment; you should know about it. If you have any other ideas, let me know. I just do not want to have to spend the next year taking turns with you in reverting changes RJII insists on, despite the fact that no one agrees. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They will likely turn down a request for arbitration until you have first exhausted the mediation mechanism. However, understand that this mechanism is for conflicts between two users. You have to decide what you think is the basic issue: the way you and RJII interact, or what RJII is doing to the article. If it is the latter, you want a different mechanism than mediation, although I am not sure what it is (unless you want to argue that RJII is a vandal (look here for the policy, see this for action, but some might argue that what s/he is doing is not technically vandalism. Well, whatever you want to do, I will back you up. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "No censorship of Rothbard"? -- Anon.

Capita...cake!

I made the decision to withdraw from the article talk page. Sadly, I am rather confident that the intro will end up glowingly pro-capitalist, representing the views of the Right and Moderate Right, and underrepresenting that of the Left and Moderate Left (again, it should be expected under this socio-economic system called capitalism), as must be the case for such fundamental articles. I don't have the energy to fight a losing battle over this POV eventuality. Watch this flash video for further generic details.

Greetings, we have yet to speak, but I thought I should send and make you privy to the aforementioned forward. While I am withdrawing from the article talk page, feel free to engage me with specific items on my talk page (though we have yet to do so, I thought it would only be fair to offer this to you). Goodluck in being a major contributor to the article – you'll need it (and more than it) ! See the specific comments I left on SlR and RJII, as well as the lengthy one on Luis Rib's, for a more elaborate depiction of my position on this. Sorry for so abruptly intruding on your talk page space, thanks for taking the time to read this. You are under no obligation to respond. El_C 02:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

URGENT

Go here and make a statement:

Then go to the "Evidence page" and follow their guidelines to put in evidence! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Definitions of capitalism

Hi. I don't want to have the page removed, but the current content does belong in Wikisource, as it can't really be said to be an encyclopedia article. So I'm not proposing to have the page removed; diffs will still be available for the purposes of arbitration. With that in mind, would I be able to re-add the transwiki notice? Slac speak up! 03:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

geothermal as renewable/depletable

I noticed an edit you made over on Future energy development that frames the issue of geothermal not being renewable because sites "cool down" eventually. More than technically that is not depletion and not unrenewable I believe. The overall energy "flow" of geothermal energy on earth remains constant, but various "hot spots" do move around on earth, right? What is the logical basis overall to say that geothermal on a total earth scale isn't renewable? Perhaps it's better if we say that geothermal energy is "problematic" or "inconsistant" because it may not be cost effective to follow the spots around (or something similar). Geothermal overall still meets the definition of renewable I believe, what do you think? zen master T 20:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thx. zen master T 20:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes

I noticed you added something to the discussion on footnote style. I have been trying to use footnotes because I often try to thoroughly support my statements with citations (so future fact checkers won't have to consider deleting things they don't know if I verified or not), and I feel that using in-line author-date parenthetical style ends up busier than footnotes for readability in the case of my particular work.

Anyway, I am very confused by the four style proposals I've looked in at. I don't understand what exactly is meant by "automatic numbering" since every time I do footnotes in stories like Kristin Hersh or Tanya Donelly I have to manually adjust footnotes when I make changes to paragraph order or add a new citation. Maybe they mean numbers that automatically jump to the Notes section. I don't seem to be able to visualize how the footnotes are going to appear when I look at the style # 4 proposal that I think was just added, for example. If you look at the style I've been using, can you tell me what the main idea is of how I can differentiate between the style proposals and whether there is one that would be easier for me to use that would not completely change the gist of what I've tried to do? Sorry I'm so confused. Am hoping for a mentor on this subject. Emerman 02:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Compressed air for vehicle propulsion

In Future energy development you've put in " Several companies are proposing vehicles using compressed air as fuel." Can you give us a reference? Seems pretty absurd on the fact of it, to me, since compressing air is a notoriously energy-intensive process. --Wtshymanski 15:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thx for adding the images

Thanks for adding the ASPO image everywhere. The World Energy Council 1993 image on Future energy development seems to be "pessimistic"? Perhaps a little too pessimistic as it appears to have predicted an oil peak in the mid to late 1990s. Is there any source or moderate organization that is known to produce compromise estimates between the optimistic and pessimistic camps? Or are we stuck with extremes? Thx again. zen master T 04:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Energy directory -> Master List of Energy Topics -> List of energy topics_Master_List_of_Energy_Topics_->_List_of_energy_topics-2005-05-06T15:40:00.000Z">

Since I can probably assume you don't, and I doubt anybody would, object to an article at List of energy topics, and that's where ye olde Energy directory has ended up, and since the VfD for the latter expanded to such bloated length and the whole VfD page is apparently choking on a lot of people... You might consider pulling it from the queue? Samaritan 15:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)_Master_List_of_Energy_Topics_->_List_of_energy_topics"> _Master_List_of_Energy_Topics_->_List_of_energy_topics">

Oh! It was under May 5, sorry! I meant going back to edit the VfDs for that page and remove {{Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/List of energy topics}}. Samaritan 16:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I have removed it from the queue. Ultramarine 17:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

...I removed the vfd tag, so this long chapter should be over. :) Samaritan 17:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Magic fairy wheel

Whoever wrote that article is off with the fairies. i concur with your vfd listing for Magic wheel generator, have indicated my comments there. I would appreciate your support by voting delete. Thanks, THE KING 12:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Ad Hominem Attacks

Dear Anon, I understand you enjoy edit wars - I don't Even if an edit was more or less than you would propose. It is better to do something than sit on one's hands for fear. I have been threated with prison time for removing (illegal) advertisemnts from public roads and parks and telephone poles. If you think for a minute, that i'm going to worry about you and your capital letters and your editor friends who have already blocked you, you should probably think again. We should be civil here - first because we probably agree about far more than we disagree, and second because the alternatives are absurd. If you read the wiki guidelines - you're threats are clearly not porportionate even to the offenses you alledge. I'm curious about your proposed solution to the energy challenge - which in a nutshell is that we're hoarding it all, and there isn't enough if we stop hoarding, and there might not be enough even if we keep it all to ourselves and our hummer solists NASCAR worshipping friends. Benjamin Gatti 03:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule

You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 21:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Characterizing edits as "censorship"

Hi! I've removed some material from Religiousness and intelligence and Intelligence quotient that I thought was not in line with NPOV and no original research, or just wasn't useful article content; I wasn't attempting to "censor" anything and I ask you not to characterize it as such in your edit summaries, if you would be so kind. Thanks! Demi /_C 05:17, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

Definitions of capitalism

Hi Ultramarine, I'm sorry that you think my actions on this page are an abuse of power. You can always ask another administrator to review my desicision, or file an RFC. --Duk 23:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear power

I just want you to know that your efforts on Nuclear power are appreciated. I haven't had time to counter Gatti's ranting lately, so it's good that someone is standing up to him. It has been my experience that such supremely biased contributors eventually throw in the towel, so keep it up. I will be chiming in with edits from time to time when protection is lifted. --Yath 3 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)

Price-Anderson Act

The battle on nuclear power has shifted into Price-Anderson, which is the insurance policy for American nuclear power plants. We're starting Mediation now. The key point of contention is "Whether or not the government has a POV and can verify assertions as fact" (the results of this Mediation will probably be cited in Nuclear Power by Ben) but we're going to mediate the whole article. Would you take a look? Go to the bottom of the Discussion for Price-Anderson and use the link in the box down there. Thanks for considering this. Simesa 7 July 2005 13:28 (UTC)

DDT

You have violated the Misplaced Pages:three revert rule on the article DDT. Any further violations of this rule may result in your being blocked from editing for a short period of time. Thank you, Gentgeen 21:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Hi, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Communist State and have been temporarily blocked from editing. If you feel this is unfair, you're welcome to e-mail me using the link on my user page. SlimVirgin 01:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

RfC

You are subject to an RfC at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ultramarine. 172 | Talk 00:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Bibliographies

Try to click at any "ISBN" link in the Joseph Stalin reference section to see what I mean. mikka (t) 01:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:Victim of Lenin's Famine.jpg

Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Magdoff

If you have a moment could you look in at Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff. Thank you. nobs 14:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Let me know if I can be of help. nobs 20:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

172

As you may know, 172 of the Stalin article was recently blocked. What you may not know is that he attacked you and me in his defense. Thanks for keeping Misplaced Pages honest --Agiantman 03:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Pioneer fund

Hi Ultramarine. Please don't put the pioneer fund subsection back in the main article. It belongs to the subarticle Race and intelligence controversy, where it currently exists in two versions already. Keeping the notes and footnotes in order is a hell already, I really don't need a third version of these three paragraphs (and associated footnotes) floating around. (Or do you think the Pioneer fund section should be part of the History section instead? It wasn't before. It used to be section 2.3, and all of section 2 is now on a separate page.) Oh, and remember to assume Good Faith. I am trying to help that section by getting the references right. That doesn't work if I have to do it in three places and once. Implying that I am trying to hide critique is less than polite. Best, Arbor 11:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for all your recent work on race and intelligence and related topics. I have been adding a lot of information (biographies, historical context) to balance out the POV in these contentious areas, and I was feeling a bit set upon for a while. This is my first foray into a controversial topic, and it has been most intriguing. I am impressed you can get involved in more than one! Jokestress 20:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Cyril Burt

His name is Cyril Burt, not Cybil Burt. hitssquad 12:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Page protection request

Unfortunately I do not have time at the moment to investigate requests for page protection, but I note there is a large backlog. I shall mention this at WP:AN and hopefully other admins will have time to deal with it. Thryduulf 09:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Acts 25:12

Yes, I see no workable alternative. I am filing an arbitration request. You are still welcome to suggest one. Septentrionalis 17:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)