User talk:Nopetro: Difference between revisions

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes(~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
If you'd like to tell us about yourself and meet other new users, be sure to introduce yourself at our new user log.

Good luck, and have fun.--Dalmation 23:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dalmation

Thank you a lot, Dalmation. --Nopetro 09:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

49,000 less editors in Wikipedia

I am very worried. Following the Wall Street Journal, there are 49,000 less editors in Wikipedia in the first three months of the year. Is Wikipedia unfriendly for new editors?.--Nopetro (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Feed-in tariff. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--ja _62 21:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot.--Nopetro (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gold

I've added a comment in the talk page of the Gold as an investment article which may be relevant to some of your recent posts. It suggests a slight change of direction. Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some content about the economic gold bubble. --Nopetro (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

Hello, Nopetro - I just came across a slew of new categories that you created in connection with the BP oil spill. (Category:Oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico, Category:Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Category:Critically endangered species risks, Category:Fishing bans). I know they were all well-intended, but they are problematic for a variety of reasons -- especially the last two. I can see from your talk page that you have run into this sort of thing with more than a few other categories that you've created, so I would like to request respectfully that you hold off creating additional categories for the time being. The Category system can be a bit tricky, but I'm sure you will develop a better grasp of what makes for a good category if you spend some time studying the Category structure and also participating in discussions, both at WP:CFD and at the talk pages for Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill is one of the the biggest disaster in the history of petroleum. But, it is not the first one in the history of the zone, full of drillings. This is remarkable. Fishing bans and effects for critically endangered species (dead risks) are also remarkable effects of the onil spill and shock the public opinion in all levels, including international levels. --Nopetro (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again - Indeed, I'm well aware of all of these things, Nopetro. But they have little bearing on the suitability of the specific categories that you've created -- that is a very different issue. I hope you will take this to heart and not just reject my suggestions out of hand. Please invest some time in familiarizing yourself with the proper use of Categories if you wish to create more in the future. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But think about Wikipedia as a changing and updating encyclopedia. And some disruptive effects are remarkable and differences one oil spill from the other (that do not appear in all oil spills). For example, in the Prestige oil spill the fishing ban represented an economic ruin, that added to the ecological disaster. In the nowadays ulf of Mexico oil spill (I think it makes urgent the independence from petroleum), there is an additional effect: dead risk for endangered species, mainly singular turtles. Of course, I thanks your suggestions ;-). --Nopetro (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More news: Prominent oceanographers are accusing the government of failing to conduct an adequate analysis of the damage and of allowing BP to obscure the spill’s true scope. It is a gigantic disaster, withouth precedents and the beginning of the end of petroleum in America.--Nopetro (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Renewable-energy promoters

I have nominated Category:Renewable-energy promoters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Gold bubbles

I have nominated Category:Gold bubbles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Electric vehicle parity

I have nominated Category:Electric vehicle parity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Fishing bans

I have nominated Category:Fishing bans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Syndicalist women

CfD nomination of Category:Critically endangered species risks

I have nominated Category:Critically endangered species risks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Volcanic ash clouds

I have nominated Category:Volcanic ash clouds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. Your wikipedian slave is ready to answer to all your desires (I answered to a lot of your CfD yesterday). Personally, I have no personal life, only answer to a lot of CfD in the same day. I think this rythm is an abuse. --Nopetro (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Power and PHEVs

Hi Noptero. With great hesitation, I undid one of your recent edits on the PHEV page. Your edit introduced bad grammar into the article, but it also deleted the assertion that electricity generated from nuclear power plants does not create CO2 emissions. This assertion was debated to death a few years ago, and editor consensus on the article was to leave it in. Yes, nuke plants cause many problems, but CO2 emissions are not one of them, so technically the assertion should be allowed to stay. As always, I am opened to discussing my revert, or any of my other edits. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear power is NOT CLEAN, cheap or safe. It is a non-renewable energy source (it is dependent on limited and dirty resources) . Really, it is a stupidity say now, in the nuclear decline, that nuclear power does not pollutes. Nuclear power is not just an energy technology. Nuclear power is a complex of technical, economical, political and military interests. I know there are some power utilities (nuke utilities) and paid people to say the contrary (The U.S. nuclear industry is estimated to have received more than $115 billion in direct subsidies from 1947 through 1999; Government subsidies for wind and solar energy for the same period totaled only $5.49 billion). But I could be death and not convinced by these "money" arguments. My health, the health of my family and the population and the environment are strong arguments. The same to oppose to offshore drilling, although some paid people said the contrary. Dirty money is not my goal. In any case, it is clear: the nuclear power produces carbon dioxide CO2 by all industrial processes in the nuclear process chain, except the nuclear reactor itself, but just re-begins with the transportation of residues (residues are long-time radioactive - in some cases for hundreds of thousands of years- and very harmful). CFCs and other greenhouse gases never investigated and/or published, but highly probable. The process also pollutes surface water and groundwater with radioactive and hazardous pollutants. Water pollution from uranium mines and mills has been found by Health Canada and Environment Canada to meet the definition of a toxic substance for the purposes of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It has been estimated that the economic damages from a major accident at the Darlington, Ontario nuclear plant east of Toronto would be in the range of $1 trillion, $1 trillion!!!!!. Nor, as its paid proponents claim, is nuclear power subject to "stable" fuel prices. The world price for uranium, the fuel for nuclear power plants, has risen by a factor or more than six over the past five years. Contrary to solar cells to produce renewable electricity. And every Euro or dollar invested in new nuclear power could save ten times more emissions if it was invested in energy conservation measures instead -- thus also securing energy supply ten times cheaper. ([1] [2] [3] [4] and lots more...). Really, my name is Nopetro. But now that petroleum is nearly death, I am going to change to Nudecline (nuclear decline) and cease using Nopetro. More about me : I also use a bicycle. Finally, why include nuclear in an article about hybrid vehicles?. This reference to nuclear must be deleted there, it is off-topic. --Nopetro (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am only the just created Nudecline

From now, I am going to use Nudecline name (just created) and cease use Nopetro, excepting when I cannot edit a page using the new username (i.e. edition not allowed to new users). --Nopetro (talk) 07:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 07:24, 28 May 2010 edit Nopetro (talk \| contribs) 12,049 edits →‎Nuclear Power and PHEVs ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:47, 28 May 2010 edit undo Nopetro (talk \| contribs) 12,049 edits m →‎Now I am only the just created Nudecline Next edit →
Line 104:		Line 104:

	== Now I am only the just created Nudecline ==		== Now I am only the just created Nudecline ==
	From now, I am going to use Nudecline name (just created) and cease use Nopetro. --[[User:Nopetro\|Nopetro]] ([[User talk:Nopetro#top\|talk]]) 07:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)		From now, I am going to use Nudecline name (just created) and cease use Nopetro, excepting when I cannot edit a page using the new username (i.e. edition not allowed to new users). --[[User:Nopetro\|Nopetro]] ([[User talk:Nopetro#top\|talk]]) 07:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)