User talk:Hobig

Hi Hobig, and Please excuse this intrusion as you have been around a bit already but if no one has said it before: Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

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.

Good luck, and have fun. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Using your own sources[edit]

Although Wikipedia has some guidelines that preclude the use of your own published works, there is no proviso for that precondition in other writing for publication. If you were quoting from your own report or from your personal material, I would caution that you would be particularly judicious in quotes and amount that you would use verbatim. The easiest solution is to provide a context in which you would use the details or interview material, yet using "fresh" material as well. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC). Sorry I didn't have much time to craft a response as I was in between a few assignments, but another avenue to explore is for another writer to take on the project and you and your knowledge benefits the work as a "source." The question of conflict of interest also brings into play the legal aspects of intellectual property rights so that it would also not be untoward to seek out legal opinion before proceeding. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Flags and such[edit]

Flagging an article is actually a useful device that alerts other editors and encourages more participation in developing the article. It's kind of a call on your part as to when there may be no benefit from a request for more resources/cites when you are quite certain that few exist. My usual practice (not policy nor mandated requirement) is to leave the flag in place for a short period to see if any other contributor comes on the scene, if not, you can simply delete the templated message. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Pebble Mine article[edit]

Hi Hobig -

I'm not hoping for an edit war with you.

My concern is that the article is getting messy, unfocused, and repetitive.

The "Scientific Studies" section was a great addition to the article.

But, it is not an appropriate place for a laundry-list of possible ill effects of mining. Especially since most of those concerns are already addressed elsewhere in the article. For example, see both the geology section and the controversy section for discussion of siesmic risk and reference to groundtruth paper on siemic risk - repeating it in detail a third time in the SciStudy section is too much.

I suggest you put your lists of anti-mine concerns (I do not diss them, they are valid concerns) in the "Arguments against the proposal" section.

Or you could restructure the entire article top to bottom, which might make it a lot better. --CGX (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CGX,

I, too, wish no edit war. But then, I haven't removed any of your posts. While I am relatively new at this, I am attempting to be as neutral as I can. I have, indeed, added scientific study references and links to general mining issues, though they would apply to the Pebble project. I'm not opposed to putting the references in the "Arguments" section, but they seem more appropriate in the science section. That there may be some redundancy does not bother me so much as having the labor of my posts taken down because you believe they are. Why not find scientific studies that offer competing views and leave them in the science discussion area. I even tried to add stuff directly from the Pebble Partnership site that is is the public domain.

I'm afraid I'm not ready to restructure the article top to bottom myself. Perhaps we can work together. Hobig (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

continued discussion on the Pebble Mine discussion page, if thats allright with you.

--CGX (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
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) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
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) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]