User talk:Ordinary Person

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


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

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

User Page[edit]

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

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

Re: Thanks[edit]

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

Mini Mammoths[edit]

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

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


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

Unsigned template[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

Article requests[edit]

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

Aged requests[edit]

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

Article requests[edit]

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


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

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

Western New Guinea[edit]

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

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

I am decidedly agnostic on this issue (genocide), but at the very least your assertion that a reference is absent is not accurate. (I would agree with you and Konstable, however, that the article in general needs a lot more in the way of references inserted into the body of the text. (Btw, the link is apparently no longer correct; it has been removed from the Yale website and thus should be changed to The other material suggesting that the military has been involved in abuses is a matter of record; the Indonesian government itself acknowledges that these have occurred in the province.

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

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

Coal energy[edit]

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

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

I refer you to this table by the National Academy of Engineering, which estimates the coal reserves at 30 ZJ. This seems to gel more with the energy density of coal and the mass of current reserves.

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

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

Takashi Yamamoto[edit]

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

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

Deletion comments: NOPEC[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

=Energy policy in Australia[edit]

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

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


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

Unblock my IP please[edit]

Yes check.svg

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Tiptoety talk 03:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I am suffering some colateral damage.Ordinary Person (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of A. Rafiq[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article A. Rafiq, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

As of now, the article fails WP:RS. I have done many google searches and can only find trivial mentions of this singer. The name seems to be an extremely common name, especially among doctors, which makes searching for it tougher.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Undead Warrior (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:White Latin Americans[edit]

Thanks. I'm trying.

I saw your reply to my last comment there and began to write a reply right away, but I decided I'll wait until I review some info on the subject first.

If you change your mind, know that you'll be welcome to participate.

Another user began the practical joke on his user pages. After I fell victim to it, twice, and vowed revenge, he put the banner on my talk page himself. I decided (especially after his was taken down) that my revenge would consist of keeping it there until he himself would fall its victim: poetic justice I thought. It worked. But your case is collateral damage. My apologies! SamEV (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


When creating articles about living people it is a very good idea to add the WP Bio project and have living=yes on the talk page SatuSuro 22:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ordinary Person. You have new messages at Mendaliv's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


Appreciate the effort for tagging Indonesian tennis players - thanks for that SatuSuro 13:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not worry about the low Indonesia assessment - and request for more WP:RS - it is a standard response I give to most Indonesian articles - SatuSuro 11:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Inline refs for database stuff[edit]

Can you give an example? I tried to look up Rafael Nadal in the ITF database and the link I got was perfectly specific for inline use. (like this) - Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've been giving links like that, to individual player pages, in the External links.
However, individual pieces of information on playing activity are obtained clicking further. e.g., if I want Nadal's full playing activity, I'll click on Activity, then change the date range to a range that contains his whole career and then clicking Apply Filter: the information is displayed on the screen but the URL in the address field is "". If I were to give that as an inline ref, someone clicking on it would only see the default range (the last year), and they'd need to enter the appropriate date range.
I don't think this situation lends itself to inline refs, and it is the lack of inline refs that led Oniongas to put the tag on.
I've contacted him and will wait to hear what he says, but I really think I am justified in taking it off: I mean the article is a set of facts pulled from the databases: if I was going to put inline refs on things, I'd have to put a ref to the WTA player page after every statement in the article. The lack of inline refs can't be helped.

Ordinary Person (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Ingro.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Ingro.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

WTA Tour[edit]

Hi OrdinaryPerson, thank you for the message on my talk page about the 1971 Virginia Slims Circuit. Unfortunately, I know very little about the history of either the circuit or the WTA tour, and certainly almost nothing about that period (way before my time!). I plead ignorance, I haven't the first clue why the 1971 Virginia Slims Circuit either might or might not be considered WTA Tour 1971. Sorry! Maedin\talk 07:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC commencing regarding Tennis expert[edit]

Hi Ordinary Person; thought I'd let you know that a user conduct RfC is about to commence regarding User:Tennis expert, particularly regarding the issue at Serena Williams which you had attempted to help resolve back around April 17. I hope you can take a look into this and possibly provide a view on the issue. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tennis expert —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your thoughts about tennis article guidelines, I wholeheartedly agree, and have started a discussion at WT:TENNIS#Tennis article guidelines regarding that matter. You're absolutely right, the tennis article authors should be focusing on content. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis bio "template"[edit]

Hi Ordinary Person, good stuff on getting this up and running. I've added my 2 cents/tuppence. Look forward to it progressing, and maybe even comparing it to how we're going with the Serena article. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, TRM. Obviously there is no mad rush to get these things finalised and it would be good to hear from as many Tennis contributors as possible. The real pain will start once we try to get articles up to code: "Articles don't have feelings" but I suspect they'll wail like banshees once we start snipping off the In popular culture and Miscellaneous sections.Ordinary Person (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Too true. But if it makes for better and more engaging, professionally presented articles then what has to be done, has to be done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Finders Keepers[edit]

Did you get those excerpts from Powell yet? thanks. --Bureaucracy (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

not yet.Ordinary Person (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting for the excerpts?--Bureaucracy (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes.Ordinary Person (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding, scanning, and posting those.   Will Beback  talk  23:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 Sony Ericsson Open[edit]

I remember interacting with you on general improvement of Tennis-related articles. I've recently worked on this article and have requested PR which can be found here. I'd appreciate you comments on the PR. LeaveSleaves 19:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I'll take a look.Ordinary Person (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Damir Dokić[edit]

FYI I have recreated Damir Dokić as you mooted here. Mark Hurd (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Ordinary Person! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2,639 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Mien Suhadi - Find sources: "Mien Suhadi" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · wikipedia library

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

IP Block Exemption[edit]

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. NW (Talk) 02:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Charles Louis Eloi Pernet[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Charles Louis Eloi Pernet has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable person

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Charles Louis Eloi Pernet for deletion[edit]

The article Charles Louis Eloi Pernet is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Louis Eloi Pernet until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Cricket World Cup Table[edit]

Hi, you seem to be adding red highlight to the World Cup Point table. This is not needed as the table is here to tell who has qualified. Everyone else has not qualified. If you have a different view, please discuss first in compliance with WP:BRD. Thanks. ashwinikalantri talk 16:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, it is needed, and it is widely done so in sports articles for current events.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Not done in previous articles also (2007_Cricket_World_Cup#Group_stage). Please discuss before making such bold changes. Thanks.ashwinikalantri talk 18:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
"This is not needed as the table is here to tell who has qualified. Everyone else has not qualified". Um, Ashwini, do you have a reference for this claim? The table exists to provide several different kinds of information. This is the standard for group table for sports articles in Wikipedia. If you want to change to a non-standard format, then please give a clear reason why you think the table is superior without this extra information, showing the teams that have been eliminated. Ordinary Person (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, please note that the matter _has_ been discussed on the Talk page. Please read the discussion.Ordinary Person (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, 2007, 2003, 1999! All dont have highlights on the unqualified teams. So, as for as I can see, you are trying to make a change. please discuss it before. The talk page shows a comment, not discussion. I see no reply to my comments there. Please head over to the talk page and stop making reverts (WP:3RR) till there is a agreement. Thanks. ashwinikalantri talk 19:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
It is discussed on the talk page already, and the consensus is clear in favor of using pink, and it is WP convention in every article for an ongoing sporting event!!! Accept the convention and the consensus.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories[edit]

Information.svg Hi. Tthanks for working to improve the site with your edit to 9/11 conspiracy theories. However, the edit had to be reverted, because Wikipedia cannot accept unsourced material or original research. The New York Times source you added, for example, does not mention that the cleanup took six months, nor does it make any argument for or against 9/11 conspiracy theories. In fact, that article was written before the cleanup was even finished, as indicated by the following passage at the top of Page 2 of that article: " will have to wait for the removal of tons of debris from the site and surrounding blocks, a process that most estimates suggest will take about a year."

In any event, even when a source does corroborate such a point, it must do so in service to the point for which it is added to the article. In other words, you cannot add such a source in order to argue against the preceding passage, which mentions the accusation that the debris was removed without forensic examination, unless that source makes that argument itself. For an editor to add material for the purpose of making his or her own observation or argument (as with the additional passage you added without a source about the NIST preserving evidence from the site that formed the basis of its findings)is synthesis, which is a form of original research, and is not permitted. (Indeed, the accusation of cover-up points only to the fact that the debris was disposed of without examination, which is not falsified by the time it took to clean remove it from the site.) Let the sources make the arguments; we may only report and summarize them. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, and just so you know, I'm not an advocate of 9/11 conspiracy theories (I'm actually a big fan of the work of people like Michael Shermer, James Randi, etc.). When we find such arguments, though, it's important that we look in the skeptical literature for responses to those arguments by the skeptical community, so that we can just relate those. Thanks again. :-) Nightscream (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, you pretty much summed up the arguments used by the community, which fall into one of those two categories. Most people answer on the other person's talk page (so I guess that's the "standard"), whereas some respond on their own. I understand the desire to keep it all on one page, but like you said, the other person might not know you responded, and I'm sometimes irritated when people do that without notifying me that that's how they do it. There are some people who will respond on the other person's talk page, but will cut and paste the original message from their own talk page onto the interlocutor's page in order to keep a full record of the exchange. Me, I just respond on the other's person's talk page. And then there are some who will respond on their own page, but leave a note on the other person's change notifying them that they did so. Nightscream (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Peak oil "supply"[edit]

Many people have made similar edits in the past due to a lack of clarity in the popular media and seemingly deliberate obfuscation by the oil industry. "Supply" is often confused for "production", even though the jargon term "supply" in the technical literature refers to conventional crude production in addition to such confusing additions as the release of strategic reserves, non-conventional production, and refining of non-crude products. Here's a thread of people arguing over the same fact, caused by confusion of terms, as well as the problem that the EIA and IEA often revise their supply and production estimates (for the prior year) downward long after initially releasing them.

The link you added to the article doesn't say anything about "record highs", and it uses "supply" in the technical jargon sense rather than the more colloquial sense of that article section. As "peak coal", "peak tar sands", and "peak natural gas" are very different problems, "peak oil" should necessarily be confined to the production (or colloquially "supply") of conventional crude oil. In my opinion, it is premature to discuss any figures have been released for less than a year.

As for the use of the term "supply" in the section you edited, perhaps some clarity is required. "Supply and demand" are easy concepts for readers to follow, so I hesitate to consider removing the term altogether. You thoughts? (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good faith. Give me a couple of days to collect my thoughts. Feel free to delete the paragraph in the mean time. Ordinary Person (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Lavinia Tananta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WTA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ordinary Person. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added 01:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dismas|(talk) 01:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Grace Sari Ysidora, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2009 US Open (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Approve icon.svg
This user's request to have autoblock on his/her IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Ordinary Person (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Niceffects2". The reason given for Niceffects2's block is: "Copyright violations".

Accept reason:

The autoblock has been cleared. Kuru (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hubertus van Mook may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • by Australian and British forces. While Australian forces succeeded in occupying the Outer Islands] with minimal resistance, British forces in [[Java]] and [[Sumatra]] were challenged by a nascent

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paul Nulsen[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Paul Nulsen has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Min Min light, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fata Morgana. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)