User talk:Pstudier

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them; *How to edit a page *How to write a great article *Naming conventions *Manual of Style If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Alexandros 01:13, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hello there Pstudier, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Or ask me, I'm a sysop just wait to help out. - user:zanimum

Sorry. Waiting to help. I won't help you with grammar. :-) Anyway, good start on the Geo-libertarian article, I'd love for you to expand on it even more. If you need help, just shout my way - user:zanimum

"Both Reithy and Chuck F and any sockpuppets are to edit only on their respective arbcom case. Edits to the mainspace may be reverted on sight."

--mav 20:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, very scary. Thanks for the comment and the note. Duk 11:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FYI: I think Improv's idea was actually to settle on wording of the poll first before putting it out for responses. He reverted Chuck's answers earlier. Does my proposed presentation look okay to you? RadicalSubversiv E 23:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Renewable energy sources have a finite energy flow, but not a finite energy reserve like fossil fuels. A particular geothermal vent might move around on the surface of the earth but the overall geothermal energy released from within the earth remains pretty much constant. zen master T 05:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Read the references. The energy is extracted faster than it flows out from the center of the earth. It is just like burning oil faster than nature forms it. pstudier 06:17, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

Of course, then water power is also non-renewable, since it will run out if you deplete it too fast. How long will a hot-spot take to recover its heat? Maybe 100s of years? Oil/coal/gas is 10s of millions of years old.--J heisenberg 12:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

you removed "kidney damage" from the Depleted uranium article (health concerns), saying that uranium causes kidney damage. However, depleted uranium has such a small concentration of radioactive U-235 that it is unlikely to cause any type of damage from radiation. Multiple medical studies have showed this. Bonus Onus 03:33, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

From the Uranium Information Centre Ltd [1], However, uranium does have a chemical toxicity about the same as that of lead, so inhaled fume or ingested oxide is considered a health hazard. Most uranium actually absorbed into the body is excreted within days, the balance being laid down in bone and kidneys. Its biological effect is principally kidney damage. I presume the kidney damage is because uranium is a heavy metal, and most heavy metals are toxic. The damage is chemical, not from radiation. pstudier 21:03, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

I'm very interested in the manufacture of Yellowcake and the centrifuge-process in Iran and I saw that you made a knowledgeable edit on that page. If possible, could you provide me with any additional information concerning this proccess? freestylefrappe 19:22, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

The Isotope separation article and the links at the bottom are a good place to start. I don't know much beyond this. pstudier 22:33, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Katefan0 has editted, and is defending, what I think is an acceptable version of the article. I've asked her how we get it "protected" ("frozen") until after the new Energy Bill in Congress is signed and the debate on PAA is over (yes, it's in the bill). Would you support protecting the article? Do you know how I apply to have this done? Thanks, Simesa 30 June 2005 22:19 (UTC)

While we're at it, we should protect Nuclear Power too. Those are the only two articles I see Ben applying his extreme POV to. Simesa 30 June 2005 22:56 (UTC)

I just applied for a cooling-off period for both articles. Simesa 30 June 2005 23:48 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on the cooling-off.

Ben is changing the intro again. He wants to battle this time. Could you pop in? 216.164.138.57 1 July 2005 02:04 (UTC)

I added back in the text on Chernobyl-vs-Western plants, wth 4 citations. I view this as very significant to the article, but I suspect Ben is going to want to battle. Katefan0 and Woohookitty are discussing an ArbCommittee case - Ben says he just dropped one (I wonder if he was told he was going to lose).
Ben called for a "poll" in the Discussion - could you respond to it? Thanks Simesa 3 July 2005 13:00 (UTC)

Okay, Ben has allegedly filed a request for mediation based on a sentence in PAA. Would you please read the last Discussion topic and possibly comment? Go to WP:RfM Thanks, Simesa 3 July 2005 19:02 (UTC)

Ben, Katefan0 and I have signed up for RfM. We may have near-agreement on the Chernobyl sentences. Simesa 4 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)

Ben's in a hurry to discuss PAA, so I suggested he post a proposed article and then I asked Uncle_Ed to expedite a Mediator for us. I don't know why Ben is in a hurry. Simesa 6 July 2005 06:46 (UTC)

Hi - I see you signed up for the mediation. Please go to [2], sign in, and if possible make a statement? Thanks, Simesa 23:23, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - Better drop user:Ed Poor a line that you signed up on July 6 but are just now using the special page. Simesa 23:29, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - You edited PAA on 20:57, 28 June 2005 - Simesa 23:41, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed you came to nuclear power phase-out, started a new section called "Merge with nuclear energy policy?" and already voted. You also seemed to have no comment on the ongoing discussion which is just about that topic. I am surprised to say the least. What a start. You are very fast... I suggest you just hear what other people say and comment on that before you start such a discussion. Ben ^T/_C 01:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I am listening. Today (2005aug19) you suggested talking about the nuclear policies of all nuclear countries under Nuclear power phase-out. This gives the strong presumption that the phase-out is the acceptable thing to do. It is almost like asking the pro-nuke countries "Why haven't you started phasing out nuclear power yet?" pstudier 02:26, 2005 August 20 (UTC)

That's an important conceptional point, of course. To add or not to add the opposing countries. I suggested on Talk:Nuclear_power_phase-out (yesterday in my time zone) that the pro-countries should be added in order to have a more balanced discussion. E.g. some countries have stated they want to build more nuclear power stations to export energy to the phased-out nations. In France, nuclear energy seems to be popular. It should state whether the countries had discussions about a phase-out and how they react to other countries phasing out. I just want to have a broad perspective of pro- and anti-countries. That's why I initiated also translating the article to other wikiprojects to see how other nationals comment on nuclear energy. I have concerns about getting out of focus, but my plan is first to find as much as possible, and if it feels out of focus and/or gets too big we can still move some stuff to nuclear energy policy (which I neglected the last days) and summarize on nuclear power phase-out. Both articles will profit from that. Ben ^T/_C 03:32, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Mike or Kate has opened an RfC to discuss these edits. you might be inclined to comment. Benjamin Gatti 23:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben is referring to an RfC that hasn't even been fully written yet. It's at [3] Simesa 04:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this. He even voted on behalf of God, which appears to be either extreme arrogance or rather bad humor. pstudier 04:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think hubris is the word you are fishing for. Benjamin Gatti

Your input to an RfC at Talk:Depleted uranium#Request for Comments would be appreciated. DV8 2XL 07:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! The three+ order-of-magnitude error was my fault. (They both end in "illions" you know.) Thanks! --James S. 04:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PStudier, Here's hoping you would reconsider your recommendation to delete Clean safe nuclear energy. These four words can be traced back to the NEI - a nuclear industry lobbying group, and which has already been adjudicated to be false and misleading advertising. I suggest the phrase is notable and important. If you want to improve the balance - you're more than welcome. Benjamin Gatti 04:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla's Means for Increasing the Intensity of Electrical Oscillations ... U.S. patent 685,012. The The patent office classifies the patent as superconductivity technolgy, specifically "Dynamoelectric; liquid coolant" (310/54) and "Specific Identifiable Device, Circuit, or System; Superconductive (e.g., cryogenic, etc.) device" (327/527). 172.137.217.68 05:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come and see at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium. Should you wish you can add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Workshop.

I know you're up to your neck Paul, and I'm not expecting you to jump in if you don't want to - I just thought you might want to follow what's going down. --DV8 2XL 22:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I think I know who the user calling himself Anuke is. If I am right he as been webstalking Filippone for some time now. Just about every blog or forum that mentions CAESAR or Filippone posts to gets a visit from him eventually, if he is not already there, Filippone shows up sooner or later and the flame war breaks out. I just wanted to stop this before it starts.

I wish I had never seen that Economist article. --DV8 2XL 00:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should let sleeping dogs lie. It is just that this CAESAR concept begs to be criticised. pstudier 00:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking? Well, maybe. But I actually found out about "CAESAR" when I was asked to do a technical evaluation on the concept in a previous job. It became clear--once I was able to find the Economist and UMD Research Frontiers articles--that the concept was bogus, but that the "inventor" was out there promoting it--and gettting press attention--while the real work on developing new, safer nuclear plants was generally ignored. Filippone offends me, not only because of his bogus "research," but because of the fact that he takes credit for the work of others. E.g., he represents himself as an "expert" on Generation IV reactors and has presented seminars on the subject, despite the fact that there is no evidence that he has ever done any work in this field. (He has no publications of any sort in any technical journal.) And given the quality (or lack thereof) of his work on CAESAR, I cannot help but shudder when I think of what he may be telling people in those seminars. These are the reasons that I keep checking the Web to see what's being said about "CAESAR" and why I keep telling people that it's a sham. If that's "stalking," so be it; I see it as getting the truth out. Energy is a technological subject that seems to invite scammers, junk science, and other highly questionable work. Cold fusion, hydrinos, zero-point energy, perpetual motion machines, CAESAR--they are all of a pattern. For those looking for a free lunch--or free energy--take a look at the laws of thermodynamics: you can't win, you can't break even, and you can't get out of the game!!Anuke 21:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Filippone is a crackpot. That is why I added the pseudophysics category, and I like the "Disputed science" infobox. pstudier 22:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have put this article up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Packistani A-bomb. Your opinion on this matter would be appreciated. --DV8 2XL 01:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you care about UniModal/Skytran, but since you edit PRT sometimes, I figured I'd let you know that UniModal is now a real page. I'd like your input on it, and perhaps your help. Fresheneesz 23:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I added it to my watch list. pstudier 00:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment on the merge? — Omegatron 20:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Studier. You seem to have an energy background. I would appreciate if you would review The Hype about Hydrogen and make any edits that you believe are helpful to the article. It would certainly be helpful if a number of knowledgeable editors worked on the article. I appreciate any assistance. Thanks! Regards, -- Ssilvers 04:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your new article duplicates the subject of the existing article standby power. How about redirecting electricity vampire to standby power then improving that article. It is a bit scary that wasted standby mode power eats up more electricity than all the solar and wind generation in the country can supply. This was not the case before "instant on" tvs were developed in the 1960's. Before that, "off" pretty much meant "off" except maybe for oven clocks and such. Thanks for the contribution. I am not too crazy about the term "standby power," because to me it implies UPS, standby generators, and automatic throwover gear.Edison 20:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already made it a redirect. "Standby power" seems to be the standard name, otherwise I would be tempted to move it to "Electricity vampire". I just like how sinister that sounds.--Paul Studier 20:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might have been a bit hasty in deleting it. You have to admit, it sounds very fishy. You can either restart the article, or I can resurrect it. It's really the same difference. But be sure to format it so it doesn't look like nonsense. Someone else might delete it. But accept my apology if it is a serious entry and by all means start it again. The page you referred me to actually piqued my interest a bit. --DanielCD 00:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I see it's redone. Again, forgive my hastiness. It's a lesson to me to be more careful. --DanielCD 00:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your checkin note you stated that if "he wasn't on the fringe, he wouldn't have problems getting funding". Tell that to Frank Whittle. I'm sorry, but funding difficulties can't be construed as evidence for anything one way or the other. Maury 21:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see that Brown's gas was nominated for deletion? I just rewrote it to be more scientific, too... — Omegatron 23:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I added my comment to Keep. Don Lancaster has an article debunking it, so it is at least notable to him. Paul Studier 23:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think you might be interested in this article's FA candidacy: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Renewable energy in Iceland. If so, feel free to weigh in or comment. I have not edited that article, but I noticed it there and thought you might have some expertise/interest. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 01:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Geothermal is no more renewable than fossil fuels, so I should edit the article appropriately. Paul Studier 18:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

some well-intentioned but misguided people are still trying to delete my article, which is about the discoverer (among other things) of the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus. Can you weigh in with the voice of reason to help keep Lyle Zapato from being deleted? Mtsmallwood (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks paul! Mtsmallwood (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do you have a Google (Docs) account? I have a bunch of notes stored there. Send me an email. — Omegatron 01:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also can you look at Wind power#Safety and Talk:Wind_power#Safety? — Omegatron 23:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents#Undue_weight for some sources on power plant safety. — Omegatron 13:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pstudier, if you are going to modify the article, then your changes have to come with a valid reference. Otherwise, it's POV pushing. All references must be in the proper form and contain all of the needed information URL, title, publisher, author, date, language, date accessed. If you can't do the work correctly, then don't do it at all. Kgrr (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I corrrected the reference to Bernard L. Cohen's paper for you. Again, Cohen agrees with Hubbert in the case of uranium. Both thought that uranium would last forever in the plutonium economy. So in fact, your insistence of adding Cohen does not balance the article. If you understand, I will add a reference that points out that indeed Hubbert peak theory does apply to uranium.

By the way, Uranium is a mineral. It falls under the Mineral#Element_class. But it did not need to be mentioned there.Kgrr (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete the link at the top (which you undid) for the reason you stated.

Rather, I was following Smartse rule (please look at discussion page at CCD) that references must link to Scientific Papers - which it does not.

also, the article linked to , when clicked on , has this statement:

""And so researchers around the world are running round trying to find the cause of the disorder - and there's absolutely no proof that there's a disorder there."

this is a circular argument - we have Colony Collapse Disorder, however, there is no disorder.

It's clearly not logical. another reason for removing the sentence and it's related link.

P.S. Like your links at the top - I'm New - how do i send a 'message' (i have received messages but don't know how to send) or is the talk page the way to do this?

Thank You--KeepItEven (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rules for acceptable sources are at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. By that standard, the BBC seems to be acceptable. Until a single theory of CCD becomes the scientific consensus, we should not exclude any theory that is considered plausible. Paul Studier (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may want to revisit an edit you made at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. It restored unsourced trivia and a redlink. If you meant to do that, I established a section on the article talk page so we can discuss. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:Pstudier/temp, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. elektrikSHOOS 05:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard. elektrikSHOOS 05:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Raul654#MOTD. Simply south...... digging mountains for 5 years 19:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your link on your external site to "i pencil" is bust, perhaps http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/I,_Pencil might be an alternative Back ache (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I fixed it. Paul Studier (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boudreaux's Butt Paste, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paraffin (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) 14:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April Jace. Thanks. Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Civility Barnstar
		Thanks for your patience in dealing with me over at Synroc. Rather than bristle at me, which has been known to happen, you engaged me with courtesy and civility in the tradition of assuming good faith (instead of assuming snarkiness on my part). I appreciate your being calm and polite while pointing out where I could find answers to my concerns. Thanks for keeping Wikipedia civil! *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]