User talk:Environnement2100

Welcome!

Hello, Environnement2100, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Peak oil

Hi Environment2100, thanks for the addition to Peak oil. A few of us are working on the page at the moment, to source out the entire article. Do you happen to have any source that discusses the issue you mentioned? If so, that would help us improve the article. Thanks, Plinkit (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph we're discussing is about what would happen if the price of oil shot up like it did in the 1970's. This might have a huge impact on the economy in a lot of different ways. If a country wanted to lessen the effect of this "price shock", what could it do? Well, if it has taxes which also raise the price of oil, it is a FACT that the taxes could be lowered. Now, I AGREE with you that it would be very painful for a government to lower the taxes, because they have probably reached a point where they count on that money in their annual budgets. But, someone put those statements there, and as far as I can tell they are FACTUALLY correct. If you have a way to argue that the facts as I laid out in the disscussion section are not accurate, please say so. However, I believe that the last version was a good compromise between what you are trying to say and what I am trying to say. I put your claim in the last version incase you didn't notice. I have tried compromising with you at least three times already, so please read carefully what I wrote on both the article and the talk page, and see if you can help me understand what you think is wrong with the statements. So far you are arguing that you want it to say what it already says. [GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Environment2100, but you are mistakenon the other hand goverment must compromise between the people who provide the material an the user. I showed two seperate articles that show there is discussion about lowering oil taxes even before the very high oil prices of the past two years. That prooves that some people in European governments believe it is an option (otherwise how could there be a discussion). The version I have proposed states both sides of the story, as Wikipedia demands.

As far as sources go, you have given several sources in French, which would be great for the French Wiki site, but you have to at least try to find English versions if you want to use them here. Also, this is very Franco-centric of you, as I happen to know of several other countries in Europe.

How can you argue that taxes can never go down? I cited three articles about European countries cutting taxes in the past few years. Cutting taxes seems to be getting popular, and if oil prices rise even more, the other article I mentioned (as well as the whole section this is coming from) show how damaging this can be to a country's economy unless there is a way to bring prices down. Believe me, if oil keeps going up the way it has been doing, European countries will be looking for a way to offset the pain of those prices on their people and industries, and one of those ways is indeed and UNDENIABLY lowering gas taxes. If you can find a source that contradicts anything I just said, please provide it.

Your arguments so far have been that "this is wrong", and "the French government hasn't done it, so it will never happen." These are not acceptable arguments, and if you do not have a source which supports your possition explicitly by tomorrow I will put the statements back in (with the new sources that I have already stated above). It will still represent your position, so I don't see what problem you can possibly have with the statements. If you remove the statements I will ask an administrator to look this over and consider your unconstructive edits.[GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Peak oil. 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. The information you removed is well sourced and NPOV and adds to the subject. If you have information to contribute, please feel free.

December 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Predicting the timing of peak oil. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Jauerback (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points

You make 5 extremely good points at Talk:Oil price increases since 2003‎. Thank you. NJGW (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1980s oil glut

Hi Environnement2100. I replaced EIA nominal graph and chronology on the 1980s oil glut with one with The Real and Nominal price of oil from 1971 to 2007. I just added link to 1980-1989_world_oil_market_chronology . (Halgin (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

I have not problem with having a time line or chronology in the article. (Halgin (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Predicting the timing of peak oil

The section you are restoring is not about the content of the page but about your assumption of my motives. The article talk page is for what words should be used in the article, not about what I did or didn't do and why. Discuss my actions on my talk page. Wikipedia:Talk#how_to_use_article_talk_pages:

Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.
Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject. This is especially true on the talk pages of biographies of living people. However, if you feel something is wrong, but aren't sure how to fix it, then by all means feel free to draw attention to this and ask for suggestions from others.
Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it.
Make proposals: New proposals for the article can be put forward for discussion by other editors if you wish. Proposals might include changes to specific details, page moves, merges or making a section of a long article into a separate article.

Further unconstructive edits will be considered disruptive and vandalism. NJGW (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct: "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning." Well, I didn't edit your words, I only moved them to the appropriate forum. There is a big difference between moving and editing. As you can see above: Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. NJGW (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I noticed you erased your user page in the same purpose" I have no idea what you're talking about here. Please provide the dif that shows this. NJGW (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Rieber-Office.JPG)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rieber-Office.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Rieber-Time-1936.JPG)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rieber-Time-1936.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:AramcoCoin.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:AramcoCoin.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) 00:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Energy law

Hi, you are right about cutting out the cruft, but I added back in {{See also|Energy policy of the European Union}} for ease of navigation. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you are correct in cutting out any and all text about policy, but I thought that links to policy might be appropriate. Since I agree the article needs to remain focused, perhaps it is better to err on the side of leaving out lots of mentions to policy. I'm not certain that I agree with you completely, but I'll leave it be. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:AramcoCoin.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:AramcoCoin.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theory

Hi, as there were no comments to my little inquiry on the talk page, and as I assume you don't mind, I have removed that phrase in Theory again. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please verify statements before you make them

When you say that Hubbert didn't talk about Logistic curves, you show that you are not familiar with the topic. Please read this to start out with. Hubbert originally did apply the logistic curve, but decided to use a Gaussian curve later. Modern scholarly articles refer to a logistic curve as well as a Gaussian curve. They also don't agree with what you are saying on the peak oil talk page. For example, you totally ignored the overall conclusion of the Testing Hubbert article. And also it's well known that there are methods to boost production of a given well for a period of time, but this does not change the aggregate of the field production curve much--except that it can lower the overall recover amount. I think you may be reading too many blogs. 69.127.18.249 (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]