"blogjack" aka Glen Raphael
I'm a software geek in New York. I first met Shakey the Robot when I was about 4 years old.
Some current hobbies:
- fire-spining/poi and other circus arts
- exercise-oriented videogames
Some real-world things I created:
- NewtPaint (a paint program for the Apple Newton)
- the Stanford Newton User's Group (SNUG)
- Dailygammon.com (along with my friend Jordan)
My personal blogs are here:
Blogjack 07:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to ask me anything. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.
Re : Patri Friedman
Restored, but prodded for notability; maybe I'm jaundiced because I've known David since 1971. Could you convert those references to proper citations/footnotes in citation format? There's a boring amount of detailed instructions at WP:CITE. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- This was not an appropriate use of the Rollback feature for just that reason. The deleted content was not vandalism or nonsense; rollback is for edits where simply looking at the diff it's immediately obvious why it was removed. Which this was not. --Blogjack (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. Your concern with the use of rollback refers to this edit by User:P Carn. Please take up your concerns with the user on their talk page. The deleted comment was made by Vryadly (talk · contribs), who had been edit warring from two accounts and had violated the 3RR. I would like to cordially invite you to take your concerns about this content to Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident where we can discuss it further. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- "edit warring *from two accounts*" is not how I would have described "edited once or twice without logging in, but then when the page got semi-protected to exclude anonymous or recent accounts, thereafter logged in to user's pre-existing account to edit." Anyway, I'll take it to talk if need be. Or just let it slide. I didn't care much about this particular change other than that I found the deletion underexplained. --Blogjack (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: Public good
I noticed you removed the Public Infrastructure sidebar from the article. If you are a student of economics or engineering, you would know public goods actually refer to the specific assets and facilities defined under public infrastructure (i.e., roads, rails, water systems). They don't just share the word 'public'. I added the sidebar to connect the scholarship on the subject, especially relating the economic theory of public goods to the delivery systems and management of infrastructure projects; for instance, why governments are the best market actor to construct and maintain such nonrival/nonexcludable goods like bridges and airports. But if you see it fit to disinclude it, I'll leave it at that. --Socipoet (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- The economic concept of public good really doesn't have much to do with that. Bridges and airports are both rival and excludable. Your use of the bridge makes it more congested and hence harder for me to use it, so bridges are rival. There are guards at the entrance to every gate at the airport limiting access to only the people who have tickets, so airports are excludable. Regardless, governments probably *aren't* the best market actor to construct and maintain either - especially airports - though we're probably stuck with that equilibrium for now due to path dependence. --Blogjack (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Doubleclicks, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Portland and Kevin Murphy (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.
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)