User talk:Brian Everlasting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome! (Regarding Template:NASA navbox)[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your experimenting with the article Template:NASA navbox, but please use the sandbox for any tests you wish to do. If you want to learn more about contributing, take a look at the tutorial or the help pages. If you need help, check out where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Jonverve (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome! (Regarding Vikram Pandit)[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your experimenting with the article Vikram Pandit, but please use the sandbox for any tests you wish to do. If you want to learn more about contributing, take a look at the tutorial or the help pages. If you need help, check out where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Jonverve (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to edit[edit]

Yeah, you missed the point on what I was trying to do. The error came up because I just put in "autocollapsed" instead of "autocollapse". This which allows me to not affect all the pages that use the template, but allow the template to be forced to collapsed or not collapse on certain pages. This edit fixed the problem, thanks for finding it. --Jonverve (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Brian Everlasting[edit]

User:Brian Everlasting, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Brian Everlasting and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Brian Everlasting during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTagFirst Secretary of State─╢ 20:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:User_Brian_Everlasting.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:User_Brian_Everlasting.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Template deprecation notice[edit]

Regarding this edit: The deprecation notice was added in order to prepare people for the automated replacement that's coming soon, as was decided in the centralized discussion here: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. If the message is commented out, its purpose is defeated. Could you elaborate on your reasoning for commenting out the message? Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you don't like the notices, but a consensus was established, involving many editors, that the notices were necessary. Perhaps you could note your objection to the notices at the centralized discussion first, before removing the notices yourself? I invite you to come join the discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Equazcion (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Restored removal of content from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter[edit]

Hi Brian, I wasn't sure what youre intent was with [ this change] to Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, So I've reverted it. You removed the content but left the reference, which made me think that perhaps you made a mistake, or something? Feel free to reply here, as I have your talk page watchlisted for now.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious what relevance the ISS has to the LRO. In my view the two are competing projects, not complimentary ones. Brian Everlasting (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
ISS is completing with LRO? Anyway, I don't really know the answer to your question, but I don't actually see it's relevance here (Actually, I do have an answer to the question, which I hinted at to begin the reply, but as I just stated it doesn't seem particularly relevant). Regardless, I'm not 100% positive what you removed (I'll go and look after finishing this reply), but I do know that what was removed seemed odd. As I mentioned above, You removed a large chunk of content and yet you left the reference. Based on your reply above it seems that you have some purpose in mind for doing so, but it looked like some sort of test, incomplete change, or simple vandalism. My suggestion is to post something about this on the LRO talk page and invite some commentary before attempting to make the change again (Myself and others may actually completely support your decision).
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Your vote at AFD nanotech age[edit]

Please reconsider your writing at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nanotech_age: calling someone not knowledgeable may be considered as personal offense. Materialscientist (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the pressure on the renewable energy talk page[edit]

Just read what you wrote on that articles talk page, you are right the page is POV, it does not list the negative effects of the energy sources. Each should be given a balanced appraisal. Deaths, and cost included. Boundarylayer (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Global recession & emissions[edit]

Hi, I uploaded the first version of that image, which has since been overtaken by an updated image by someone else. But I wrote the caption. At the time, I read all the sources associated with the file, and others besides. The RSs do exist to support the contention that the dips are due to the global recession. I don't mind that you took that out of the caption, and I personally don't plan to put it back in. But I would like to ask the REASON you took it out, since your edit summaries did not explain. Why did you delete that RS supportable statement? I acknowledge a pinpoint cite might not appear in our pages, but I could dig one up from the web without too much trouble. Was it just due to a lack of obvious RS referenced on wiki or something else? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed the statement "the dips are related to global recessions" because it is hopelessly biased against clean energy sources such as wind power and hydroelectricity. It implies that the only way to improve our economy is to burn more coal, oil, and natural gas. The non-monetary costs of fossil fuel combustion are enormous. Brian Everlasting (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh. You have persuaded me to revert. If you wish to debate the point, then pursuant to WP:MULTI please pick one or other article's talk pages and start a discussion, and add a pointer at the other article's talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
PS My mistake, before your reversion an RS for that point was already present. Your point is well taken, however, that non thinking idiots might unconsciously assume the only way to mitigate is to have another rececession. I'm sure we can find a way to follow the sources but still give renewables a fair shake. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
For example, at climate change mitigation the lead has accumulated a lot of images. I'm not convinced they are well chosen for telling the story of climate mitigation. A good one to include would be about Sacolow's climate wedges, for example this one though I'm not sure about the licensing for that particular example. In addition, I never quite get around to doing an main article explicitly on the climate wedge concept. Is that something you might be interested in? It would certainly get linked into the major climate change articles, and maybe generate traffic. For stand alone articles, the closest I think we come right now is Stabilization Wedge Game, which sort of trivializes this serious mitigation proposal. These are not RS (they're blogs) but for more background see
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

EmDrive[edit]

Hello, could you please clarify your rationale? EmDrive and Cannoe are using a similar technology. But the topic of the article is EmDrive. The way I see it, if we have an article about Toyota cars, we wouldn't dedicate a good amount of information regarding BMW cars on it, simply because they are also cars? I think it is better to write about similar technologies that are not EmDrive in a general article about the technology or, if there are enough reliable sources to have an article for them. Please reply on your talk page. Dmatteng (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to start a new article for Cannae drive that's ok with me as long as you don't delete reliably sourced information from the EmDrive article. And don't just cut and paste a well written paragraph from EmDrive. And don't leave massive amounts of broken references. One paragraph for Cannae drive is enough for the EmDrive article but if you wanted to go into more depth, including more citations and references, and adding real information, you could do so on the Cannae drive page. Brian Everlasting (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not interested to write a new article about Cannae drive, but I wouldn't like to delete what is written about it either. You can have it your way, but don't you think it would be better to remove the information about Cannae drive from EmDrive article? It might be reliable sourced, but it looks off-topic to me. EmDrive article is about particular implementation of a technology by a certain company. It is not a general article about the technology. In a scenario that we have a notable technology and notable implementation by a certain companies/entities we probably should create a separate article for each: one for technology, one for EmDrive and one for Cannae Drive (if notable). I would value your opinion. Dmatteng (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)