Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:03, 9 October 2008

Archives

/1 /2 /3 /4

Gone Fishing

Oil shale economics

Hi, NJGW. There is an attempt to give a boost to the Oil shale economics article. Considering your expertise in the field of petroleum, you may be interested to participate. The discussion is going on here. Thank you.Beagel (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

US oil dependence

Thank you and good work. I will give it a serious thought and try to merge them together. I am a newcomer, as you can see. I would propose to merge them together under a title of "Oil Dependency of North America". Obviously I don't know how to merge articles and I need your help.

Regards, Dreamliner888 (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

tortoise

Replied. Thanks for your comment. Tony (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaskan gas production

Saw your hidden connent in the Peak gas article, wondering if gas production rose in the late 1970s due to Alaskan gas production. Good guess, but off the mark, because there are still (2008) no gas pipelines connecting Alaska to the lower 48. Some gas is produced around the Cook inlet for the Anchorage market, but whatever gas deposits there are on the North Slope remain untapped. More likely explanations for increased US gas are technology and price rises. Regards. Plazak (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I cited the great difference between Hubbert's projected figure (from his 1956 figure 22) and actual production to illustrate how far off these sorts of projections can be if based on erroneous inputs, even if based on the best data available from someone as highly regarded as Wallace Pratt. Hubbert made a valid contribution, but neither he nor his theory are God, and the mathematical fatalism implied by his curves is subject to modification by technology and economics. I have not studied Pratt's methodolgy, but I do know that since 1956 there have been great fluctuations in natural gas prices, great advances in seismic exploration technology, great improvements in horizontal drilling and massive hydraulic fracturing (needed for tight sands and shale gas), and the startling realization that some coal beds that had been drilled through thousands of times would produce immense amounts of gas if properly handled. Just in 2008, there is a terrific excitement over what some companies say is a huge new gas field in NW Louisiana's Haynesville shale - a formation that had been drilled though hundreds of times. Undoubtably we will run out of gas someday: Hubbert was certainly right (though not original) on that point. But gas production peaked in 1971, again in 1979, 1997, 2001, and now the 2007 data point to a still higher peak. After each of these "peaks" people said, with some justification, that gas had "peaked" ala Hubbert, and we had nothing but shortages ahead; someday they will be right, but it's difficult to say when. The Misplaced Pages articles on peak theory are full of statements that "X commodity has peaked" in this or that country, with the implication that there is only one peak. To be accurate, the wiki articles should include the fact that for some commodities and regions there have been multiple peaks (Hubbert himself pointed this out), and a "peak" does not always mean irreversable decline from then on. Sorry for being so long-winded. Plazak (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As Hubbert pointed out, local peaks are global peaks in microcosm. He used observations for individual states to justify his projections for the US as a whole, and data from the US to to forecast the world as a whole; if his theory succeeds or fails in individual regions, that has serious implications for the accuracy of the theory in global projections. Also, US consumers depend largely on US-produced gas, so peak US gas would have an important effect on the US economy. If it is valid (as I certainly believe that it is) to point out how accurate Hubbert was in his US oil projection, why would it not be equally valid to point out how inaccurate he was in his US gas projection? It would be extreme POV to emphasize the hits and gloss over the misses. As for his using "outdated" gas reserve figures, believe me, all reserve figures are subject to becoming outdated the day after they are calculated. Now matter how modern the statistical methods used, the best present-day reserve calculations are still subject to the same problems faced by Pratt: it is almost impossible to forecast technology or economics. Also, the earth is full of surprises, both good and bad. Plazak (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have to eat my words (see above) on Alaskan gas production. Looking closer at the USEIA data, it turns out that a great amount of gas is being co-produced with the oil on the North Slope, and being reported in the Gross Production totals, even though the gas is being reinjected to maintain reservoir pressure. Plazak (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• "He used observations for individual states to justify his projections for the US as a whole" I was under the impression that he used past discoveries to justify his predictions.

see pages 11-13 of his 1956 paper. He used the examples of Ohio and Illinois to justify the shape of his curve.

• "if his theory succeeds or fails in individual regions, that has serious implications for the accuracy of the theory in global projections" I'd have to see a source which a) says the theory itself has failed anywhere (barring changes in the data) and b) that this has serious implications for the global application.

The utility of any such equation is to make predictions about the future. The whole boldness of Hubbert's work is that he dared to make detailed predictions about future. Anyone can jigger a curve to fit past data. If the timing and rate of peak gas is known only in hindsight, it loses its utility. If the EUR is not accurately known, as it turns out it was not in 1956 and 1971, then the Hubbert equation will give erroneous predictions, as it did.

• "why would it not be equally valid to point out how inaccurate he was in his US gas projection?" I don't believe we've seen anything which indicates that he was inaccurate, only that Pratt was inaccurate.

Hubbert adopted Pratt's numbers as the very best available at the time. So even using the best information then available, the Hubbert curve was a poor predictor in this case. Anyway, Hubbert used his own numbers in 1971, and was again wrong. Again, the point is that even the most knowledgeable workers in the field (Hubbert himself) can be wrong if they have to rely on poorly known inputs.

• "It would be extreme POV to emphasize the hits and gloss over the misses." Again, Pratt's miss, but see the text before you say I've glossed anything over.

Agreed. It is not glossed over as presently written.

• "all reserve figures are subject to becoming outdated the day after they are calculated." Pratts predictions held for 20 years, and given the advances in technology and statistics, I expect today's predictions will last much longer. NJGW (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Increased gas was largely due to new technology (unconventional gas and deep water drilling), driven by higher prices. What modern technology and statistics are there that can predict future technological advances? Your faith in today's peak gas predictions is not justified by past experience. Plazak (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

What is your basis for adding this? Bstone (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: AZ links

Sorry, I got a bit overhasty, when I saw you'd trimmed some useful links (that I probably put there -- I live in the area). Full agreement on the spammy stuff, which is an ongoing problem. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

year links from ancient times

" Has there been any consensus on whether any dates should be linked? "

Sorry for the delay in replying. Single-year links have been on the nose for quite a while, although people are a little more accepting when they're in ancient times. But honestly, I can't see any advantage. Those who write the year articles will complain that they'll eventually be "orphaned"; but my response is "make them a lot lot better and we can find ways of promoting them". Tony (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger of Renewable Fuels and Renewable Energy

You're right, I was neglectful. I was hurrying down a list (for other purposes) and saw two articles that apparently didn't know the other existed, and threw in Merge notices thinking they were obvious. The two articles really do need to wikilink to each other, and not just through the Sustainable Techniologies category. And the Renewable fuel redirect needs to be fixed or disambig'd. I'm rushed right now, and haven't yet looked to see what to do about the overlapping articles in the Renewable Energy portal. Simesa (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Economic_crisis_of_2008

I have started a new thread at Talk:Economic_crisis_of_2008#Meltdown_Monday, of which you may be interested. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified claim

You have entered an big unspecified claim on the article Drug policy of Sweden. Several sources are official government documents about the present drug policy, the latest is from September 2008, others represent different critical views on the Swedish drug policy. So can you please explain what is unsourced etc in the article.Dala11a (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do that as soon as you show me where I said something was unsourced. The key here is that you are too involved to be able to accurately decide when the tags have been fulfilled. This has been proven by you time after time. NJGW (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not involved at all i any governmental or anti-drug organization or any pro- or anti-drug organization of any kind. If you don't have any claims on the sources, what is then not in line with Wikipedeia policy in the article?Dala11a (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Your actions on this article and others show that you have an emotional involvement with the topic of illegal drugs. Your misconstrual of sources in the past and other issues show that you are not the proper judge for when the tags should be removed. NJGW (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You have still not mentioned one single error in the articleDala11a (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A question for you: Where the tags valid when they were placed? NJGW (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw in May 2008 (and I have not change my mind) the general tags on top of the article as a misuse of tags. The user who had critical comments should have specified what parts of the article which he considered to be inadequate. I have improved the article since May 2008, but the general view is the same, the Swedish drug policy was well known to me in May from many different sources in Swedish. The latest update is a speech in September 2008 about the Swedish Drug policy, in your recommendation, from the governments official web site, Maria Larssons speech.Dala11a (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If you saw the tags as incorrect to begin with then you obviously are not partial enough to decide when they have been taken care of. The tags were discussed, and a third party was even brought in and agreed that there were issues with the article. The issues stem from your COI. The tags are a signal to some editor with the time to deal with you that they should go through all of your edits and make sure they sources say what you claim them to say... often they don't (and not just on this article). As for the speech, quoting a politician is not a great source as we have seen many politicians say many untrue things in this world... better to use some impartial third party analysis, or at the very least the actual policy in question. I don't remember recomending that you find a speech. NJGW (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy declined

Hi NJGW. I just wanted to let you know that I declined your speedy tagging of Catch 22 (band). Since the band has apparently released multiple albums on a notable label, there is a suggestion of notability under the WP:MUSIC criteria, so it does not meet criteria for speedy deletion. If you believe this merits a community discussion, feel free to nominate it as an AfD. Thanks, Paul Erik 03:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Also this Google News search suggests that there are many references out there that could be added to the article. Paul Erik 04:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I just came to the article randomly and saw it had only one non RS looking ref, and news.googleing "catch-22 ska" didn't look promising. Looks like they just need to use some of those refs you found though. NJGW (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Peak gas

I have unhidden the paragraph headings. Also I have added a half of a dozen diagrams and a small amount of supporting text. Could you perhaps give me a hand to fill-in the needed paragraphs in the next few weeks? Konrad Kgrr (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

So what are your views NJGW on USA orchestrating 1973 oil shock?

Do you have any opinions NJGW?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Yasis#More_on_USA.27s_orchestration_of_1973_oil_shock

218.186.69.253 (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean what is my opinion? This is not a discussion forum, and I have not written any wp:RS sources we can use in the article, so it really doesn't matter what I think. Please log in (yes Yasis, you need to log in), and suggest the changes you would like to make, as well as the sources you would use, at that article's talk page. NJGW (talk) 06:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking of writing a new section on this issue at the 1973 oil crisis page, so I need your opinion.

Thanks. 218.186.69.253 (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Put it here and I'll have a look at it: User_talk:Yasis/1973_sandbox NJGW (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't have the time now. But I will write up a new section and put it on the 1973 oil crisis page. The current version seems like a fraud.

So are you going to oppose or support?

Thanks. 218.186.69.253 (talk) 06:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose or support what? Put it in the sand box and only then I can answer. If you don't have time to build consensus, you don't have time to edit Misplaced Pages. NJGW (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Oppose or support what?" Supporting the new section on possible USA orchestrating the 1973 oil shock to support their hidden agenda. You don't seem to like the idea.

Thanks. 218.186.69.253 (talk) 07:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're going to write, so I don't know if I'll support it. That's why I suggested that you use the sandbox. As for the Shiek, from what I've read "He is best known for his role during the 1973 oil embargo, when he spurred OPEC to quadruple the price of crude oil." NJGW (talk) 07:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Look Yasis, your editing history is not very credible. You should really take things easy and play by the rules... make sure your sources are wp:RS, make sure your wording is wp:NPOV, and make sure that your text reflects consensus. You also need to log in. NJGW (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"As for the Shiek, from what I've read "He is best known for his role during the 1973 oil embargo, when he spurred OPEC to quadruple the price of crude oil."" That is probably not the full story or some sort of cover story or USA false propaganda, like the Iraq war deception on WMDs.

It's still something you're going to have to reconcile somehow

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2001/jan/14/globalrecession.oilandpetrol

This is the only accurate account I have seen of what really happened with the price of oil in 1973. I strongly recommend reading it.

How do you know this is the only accurate account?

Sheikh Zaki Yamani, former Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia

http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Zeitfragen/Century_of_War/century_of_war.html#WorldOrder218.186.69.253 (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Look Yasis, your editing history is not very credible." What do you mean by that? My editing history not credible???? 218.186.69.253 (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for starters there this: Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Yasis#User:Yasis and this; and then there's your total refusal to understand other certain editing policies (besides sock puppets and edit warring there are: reliable sources, formatting your posts, logging in, concensus building on talk pages ). NJGW (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

NJGW, I think you got things wrong. I was never involved in any sockpuppet activities. Check your facts. That is an unfair allegation against me. 218.186.68.211 (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see... you were blocked for edit warring, and then used at least 11 different IPs to continue the edit war (skipping from one to another as they were blocked) until the whole range had to be blocked. How is this an unfair characterization? NJGW (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That does not fit in with definition of sock puppet, NJGW. You should know that. 218.186.68.211 (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does, you would be trying to avoid blocks. BMW(drive) 15:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean Bwilkins? Can you elaborate on that point. If I make edits without logging in, that is considered a sockpuppet? Thanks. By the way I am Yasis. Currently blocked.218.186.65.198 (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• If you are editing disruptively with 1 IP and it gets blocked, so you immediately disconnect and get a new IP and come back, that's evading blocks and falls under sockpuppetry. If your userid gets blocked, and you come back anonymously right away, you are evading blocks. That's all socks. BMW(drive) 14:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I will be back later NJGW, not now. You don't have to worry about me. Yasis (talk) 03:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

Thanks for letting me know about date formatting. Schmiteye (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss

I have set up a fresh discussion thread on my talk page. Feel free to comment. Jehochman 04:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A note

Hi NJGW,

Please have a look at my opinion here. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me again. Thanks. fayssal - Wiki me up 02:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to deal with this FayssalF. I'll let you know if anything comes up. NJGW (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

2003 to 2008 world oil market chronology

For this edit, can you get a non-yahoo source, as those don't tend to stay up long.

Also, wouldn't it be better off the lead. Unless we put a 'current' price tag. Lihaas (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I figured people would come running this morning to edit (as has happened in the past) so it would be a place holder. Once the situation develops a bit more I'll get a better source with a fuller story. NJGW (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

citation templates

I believe there's a way for some citation templates, but not all; something to do with separating the month and the year access fields (I'm a computer dummy). This situation will inevitably change when the community becomes more used to seeing normal dates and demands greater flexibility in their citation templates. Um ... I suggest you ask the extremely clever User:Gimmetrow.

But more broadly, no one should be forcing dates to be autoformatted in a citation template where it's possible to render them plain. You might consider reporting this at MOSNUM talk if there's still trouble. If it's unresolved, please link me to the relevant article. Tony (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Prohairesis

I see you returned the quotes to the article. They seem to be translations by someone called F. Scalenghe. I have no idea who F. Scalenghe is, and a web search came up with pretty much nothing. That is why I removed them, but if you can find something to justify using them let me know. Otherwise I think they will have to go. (I will add more to the article, but do not have time today.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly didn't add the quotes, I just highlighted what was already there. I thought you were planning on doing something with them, otherwise I would have removed them myself. By all means, feel free to remove them. NJGW (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted text

I see no legal problems with my last edit on Drug policy of Sweden. The Swedish text on the web site state that the text is free if one mention the source. "Citera oss gärna, men ange källan!" Dala11a (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Arilang1234

Thanks for your advice, I am new and still learning, please feel free to point out my mistakes.Arilang1234 (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi its me. Thanks for tidying up the article, I know I can be messy at times. What do you think about the development of this saga? It looks more and more like a script coming from a hollywood block buster movie.124.182.241.87 (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, have you read this article?

"Misplaced Pages founder Jimmy Wales had a meeting with Cai Mingzhao, Vice Director of China's State Council Information Office" http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2008/10/jimmy-wales-mee.html#comments the comments made by Statue of Liberty is very interesting. What yo think?Arilang1234 (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Shock Doctrine

Glad to have improved the article. Thanks for the nudges to edit instead of just delete.MKil (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)MKil

It seems we have a difference of opinion again. I'm not sure why you are removing that information, especially after chiding me for removing information a few days ago. The quote is directly from the article. I fail to see why you say it's "hearsay." The reporter talked to the guy an got the quote and published it. That's not hearsay at all. It's a direct quote.MKil (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)MKil

I didn't think your alterations quite captured the NY Times article, so I just quoted it and let the text speak for itself.MKil (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)MKil

I'm not sure why you are so opposed to this. Since the person being quoted was directly involved with some of the issues described by Klein I think his opinion is pretty relevant. I also fail to see how you can reconcile your actions against including this sourced quote from a very relevant source when you chastised me for removing a poorly-written unsourced insertion a few days ago. It seems that you don't have a very consistent standard here.

Also, nowhere in the article does it say that Aslund has not read the book. The quote from the article gives a very accurate description of what Aslund said and in response to what. Trying to infer would be a mistake.MKil (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)MKil

Wilderness merge

Thanks for your thoughtful comment! For several weeks I tried to make nice.... but lost my cool.

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Melamine-cyanuric acid complex

Hi NJGW, you have just reverted my move of of melamine cyanurate to melamine-cyanuric acid complex, stating Google statistics as the reason. The title melamine cyanurate implies a salt complex. However, the scientific consensus is that the compound is NOT a salt complex but a hydrogen bond complex. Per the Wikiproject Chemistry naming conventions, the title should be melamine-cyanuric acid complex. I will revert to the more correct title if you do not object (e.g. on the talk page). Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know I need to do Thanos5150 (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am working often when I am writing and have many browsers open at once. Sometimes I'll edit on a browser I don't realize I am not signed in and have been taken to task so I got into the habit of manually signing my name just in case. Most of the time I do both. But that's just me right?thanos5150

Uh, apparently I don't know. I have been putting the Thanos5150 (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC) in the wrong spot for years and never noticed. ShhhhThanos5150 (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

9-29

Can I add this back in, now that the day is done? Bearian (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

wp:TALK/Melamine Remedy Talk Edits

"You might want to read wp:TALK, particularly the part that says it's OK to "Delete material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)." The section I deleted did not reference Melamine, and has been removed several times after the same editor inserted it. It is wp:OR with no refs, and off topic. NJGW (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

":Also, I just realized you posted that message to my user page, not my talk page. It's important you know the difference... it's discussed both at wp:TALK and wp:USER. NJGW (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern and my apologies for accidentally adding that warning to your USER page. I am making these edits based upon this line from the wp:OR page, specifically 'Citing Oneself'..."'It should be noted, however, that editing articles related to or about yourself, by you or those closely related to you, is strongly discouraged and you are instead encouraged to discuss potential edits to such articles in the relevant talk page.'" I have not posted these edits on the Melamine page because I am aware of WP's position on original research. Therefore I feel I am within the guidelines here. Please feel free to discuss this with me. I have moved this discussion to your page so that you will receive alerts and thereby give it attention. Thank you. --Gustable (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I don't mean to sound pompous, however I am a Public Health professional and while I do have only Primary Information to discuss, I also believe that this "edit" is valid based upon the following clause from the same page "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Misplaced Pages." --Gustable (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Titanic alternative theories

Hi NJGW. FYI, I've posted a note for you over at Talk: Titanic alternative theories. Thanks. Mgy401 1912 (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Peak uranium

Thanks for weighing in several times... It gets very interesting when trying to nominate the article for GA. These strange people come out of the woodwork.

BTW, Do you know 65.161.188.11? You called him Rob. I did an IP lookup. Interesting to say the least.Kgrr (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC) 63.239.69.1 ncmd.nsa.gov (Md Procurement Office) Gambrills,MD Kgrr (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the notice. Igloo321 (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Pickens Plan

I have worked on the article and restructured it so that I could bring an end to the NPOV edit war. Take a look and make a few suggestions if you have them.

I will take a look at the Oil shale economics article in more detail. At the moment, I still need to familiarize myself with the issues.

Konrad Kgrr (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and such

As you might recall, we overlapped in reverting fringe stuff from Petroleum a few months back. I can't even remember why I was watching the article, because I'm more interested in biomedical than geological articles. Anyways, I always forget that the fringe theory pushers are in all science articles not just medical articles that I watch and now, I see you're crossing swords with some of the people I have to deal with. I wish you luck.  :) Since I stretched my limits with biogenic oil, I was wondering if you could give an outside view on Psychic. I don't know about you, but when it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, it must be pseudoscience. If you have the time and energy, I was wondering if you could weigh in. BTW, there's an IP fringe-theory pusher at Talk:Petroleum. You may want to assist. OrangeMarlin 19:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Elonka, this was inappropriate and ill-founded. OrangeMarlin 19:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR is not about making reverts to the same version, it's about repeatedly using revert to undo other editors' changes. It's frequently a bad idea to revert established editors even once, because this can be seen as a violation of WP:AGF. Reverting four times within 24 hours on the same article, is too much. Especially as you've been cautioned about edit-warring in the past. So please, you have to get away from using "revert" as an editing tool. Instead, try to propose compromises, or to engage in discussion at the talkpage. --Elonka 19:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be problem editing in any way. Each of those diffs is quite different and was in the course of healthy development of the page. Going straight to a block seems a bit harsh. The removal of the fact tag is trivial, and I was about to remove the reference as unneeded until I saw this. Verbal chat 19:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been warned about edit warring for reverting a two POV pushing vandals and a sock user that were later indef banned! There was no edit war here so this block is unnecessary. NJGW (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I reported this horrible block here. OrangeMarlin 20:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any warning for 3RR and the removal of the fact tag was trivial. QuackGuru 20:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it significant that someone I was "warring" with is here to defend me? NJGW (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) NJGW has been warned for 3RR in the past, and also blocked for edit-warring. It is not necessary to issue new warnings each time. --Elonka 20:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the first was later indef banned, and the second was reverting the use of multiple socks of Yasis (talk · contribs). Great, now if you can show us the edit war today... NJGW (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a couple of diffs for your points? I need them. OrangeMarlin 20:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is my report of edit warring that got ME blocked. Here's the block log of the other user who I was involved with... looks like he got himself unblocked. Gotta run for now, but I may be back later. NJGW (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

NJGW, if I unblock, are you willing to avoid the Pseudoscience article for the next 24 hours? --Elonka 20:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, it was not my intention to disrupt the article, and I will avoid it altogether for the next 24 hours. The only reason it's on my watch list is to prevent disruption, so I'm pretty embarrassed about this whole situation. I thought the reverts had to be of the same editor or the same edit, not two different editors with different intentions. NJGW (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've lifted the block. There may still be a lingering autoblock on your IP, so if you still get a block message, copy/paste the info here and I'll fix it. --Elonka 23:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good compromise, but I think he's gone (to bed? I know I'm about too). Good night all. Verbal chat 20:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Remark. I can understand Elonka's block here—it would be reasonable to say that her block was made in order to prevent NJGW disrupting the article through the furthering of a revert war—although I think an unblock would also be a sensible idea, conditional upon NJGW agreeing to use a little more caution when pushing the revert button on a Misplaced Pages article in the future. Until he agrees to that effect, however, I don't think the block should be lifted. Anthøny ✉ 21:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I agree. I was in the middle of writing a decline unblock request when you put it on hold, so I got an EC, but here's what it said:

The three revert rule is pretty broad in scope; i.e. "whether or not the edits involve the same material", which in this case the reverts/edits do not. The fact is that I see four edits of yours on Pseudoscience within a 24 hour period that start with "Reverted" or "restore", and none of them seem to qualify for the exceptions listed on WP:3RR. I'll admit that I agree with some of the edits that you made, but that's unimportant here; in hotly contested areas such as Pseudoscience administrators sometimes have to resort to enforcing the rules by the letter to try to make things run more smoothly.

Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Elonka, as a goodwill gesture can you please unblock, and obviously if there is any disruptive return to that article within 24 hours that can be taken up as a reasonable reason for a reblock. Looking at Chiropractic, there seems to be no evidence that NGJW was involved there recently, and the discussion on User talk:Levine2112 looks very reasonable. So, rather than getting into tedious detail an early unblock would resolve issues. . . `dave souza, talk 21:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Er, Elonka has already offered a less restrictive condition on her unblocking above - although I should think this little affair has taught NJGW a lesson about reverts, 3RR, PS, etc. To be honest, an unblock with the simple request that he not edit pseudoscience should be ok. But now I leave also. Verbal chat 21:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions in Pseudoscience articles

Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. I am hereby making you aware, if you aren't already, that this is a contentious area on Misplaced Pages and administrators are granted broad discretionary powers to impose sanctions on those who are viewed as disrupting. I honestly haven't looked into your editing deeply enough to know whether or not that is the case with you. But you should know about that if you are going to edit in this area. Mangojuice 06:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)