User talk:Roadrunner/Archive1

Hello, I was told that spike bayonets were illegal against the Geneva Conventions. I went searching and didn't find much, but eventually found old versions of the Wikipedia page on other sites that said it was illegal, but with no references. Then after searching through the history of the bayonet page, I found you were the one who removed that reference. I assume then that you're familiar with the Conventions and know that they are not illegal, right? Thanks. CumbiaDude 03:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Basically, I did what you did. I did a literature search to see if there was any evidence that those bayonets were illegal, I could not find anything, and since the claim was then unverified, I removed it."

OK, thanks for the response :) CumbiaDude 06:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I´m so confused when you use the t-symmetry definition. If this is the definition, what is the t-invariance definition? I think the article need some corrections about this. Thanks.Tokkamak 23:34 15 May 2006 (UTC)

G'Day, in your first edit to Constitutional convention it looks like there may have been some lost at the end. See direct link from history.

I don't know enough to confidently complete it, but then you've modified that page since, so please ignore this comment if you want :-)

--Mark Hurd

Hello, I'm wondering about the paragraph you included in the article on treaties, starting with the sentence: "The Supreme Court has ruled that the power to make treaties under the U.S. Constitution is an power separate from the other powers of the Federal government, and hence a treaty can override state law under any circumstances."

It appears as if you're saying that under a treaty formed with Senate advice and consent, the U.S. can commit itself to action that is beyond any of its delegated powers under the constitution. You contrast it with CEAs, which are limited to Article I powers, and sole executive agreements, which are limited to Article II powers, implying that if it is a literal "treaty", then it is not subject to limitations. I don't believe that's correct--no matter what form it takes, the U.S. can't use an international obligation as justification for going beyond what it can do constitutionally. For example, if the US signs and ratifies a treaty that says we must pass an ex post facto law, or must nationalize factories without compensation, we wouldn't be able to constitutionally comply.

Looking at both self-executing v. non self-executing treaties might make my point clear--if it's self-executing, that means that the US already has the power under its preexisting law to fulfill the treaty obligations, which means that any compliance actions must be Constitutional. If it's non self-executing, then new law must be passed, which also must comply with the Constitution.

I also don't understand what you were trying to say about the power of a treaty over State law as compared to the preemption power of other federal law.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're getting at? --Postdlf 15 January 2004 3:34 (EST)

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or drop me a line. BTW, you have been very busy for a newcommer. I especially like your work on Colonization of Africa and Quantum suicide. Great work! --maveric149

This page could really use some expansion, particularly as regards the generic bird on the one hand and the individual (cartoon character) bird on the other. --Daniel C. Boyer

There is already an article on "relativeism" (that briefly discusses cultural relativeism) -- could you coordinate your work on the cultural relativism article with the relativism article? I could just make a link, but you may want to do more thatn that, slrubenstein

Thanks for jumping right in on four-color printing! Vicki Rosenzweig, Saturday, July 13, 2002 --- arrived at Mao just after you left took a look at the edit . thought you could use a laugh. this is how the article now ends:

The Encyclopedia of Marxism gives a Marxist view of Mao's life. Parts of this article are based on it; but, we are in the process of wikifying it to make it npov. 216.129.198.41

You’re very sharp, I have to admit. But can we trade places? You revamp crapy articles and let me needle your writing.

172

I know that we’ve have many differences, put I’d really appreciate it if you could attest to my generally even-handed contributions on the user page 172. I have come under attack from several users who don’t realize the extent of my contributions, who’ve only heard about me in the context of debating more contentious issues, such as those on the Chinese history or Stalin articles. After all, you’ve accepted at least 90 percent of my text on modern East Asian history, even though we vigorously debated each article.

Please fix Cow and Chicken, the second sentence is broken. --Eloquence 02:26 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hui_pan-nationalism

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_chauvinism

Hi Roadrunner. I notice you deleted the list of other homelands in the Transkei article. I included the list to cross reference them with other homeland articles. You haven't written anything in the summary or explained it in the talk page, so I can only guess. Maybe you have a good reason and I'd like to know it. Thanks. D.D.

Roadrunner:

An article on a very critically important subject is way too short. Land reform needs a lot of work. I was wondering if you wanted to revamp this article in light of the land reform strategies implemented by the East Asian Tigers and China.

I'll get along to adding content too.

172

Up to about a week ago, Jiang and I had been discussing the possibility of spliting up Mainlander. The split hasn't occured because of the uncertainty as to whether or not the subdivision of Wàisheng rén & Dàlù rén can be achieved as well. Currently, it can't be, due to our inability (well, mine. Jiang is quite competent) to specify Dàlù rén any further, to give any more example, than that one-sentence intro you provided. (The dead discussion is @ Talk:Mainlander.) Any info you can provide would facilitate the specification needed for the distinction between those two definitions. --Menchi 07:34 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

What do think of moving "Hui Chinese" to "Hui"? Does the lack of mention of "Chinese" in the title have derogatory political significance? --Menchi 07:36 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your stub Asian financial crisis -- Youssefsan 13:56 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Regarding Finlandization, it's stated: proponents of the Finlandization-term.

Any improvements of our continental European pidgin-English is more than welcome (thank you!), but you maybe ought to read up on the subject before you make factual changes? This term might be a bit more sensitive for them it's directed at, than one initially considers.
-- Ruhrjung 16:25 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hello. Please see my editing of your Hong Kong chief executive and governor articles. The title phrase should be highlighted at its first appearance. 131.183.84.166 21:06 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

As for Al Haig being in control: Since George Bush the First was still alive, and was not incapacitated, Al Haig had nothing to do with it. The Chief of Staff was legally responsible to the Vice President, under standard existing executive orders. When Reagan was incapacitated, George Bush was entitled to act as President, period, and the Chief of Staff was Bush's deputy. Haig was a usurper (or a fool, one or the other). --Tb 07:47 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In the change on the Presidential Succession, you say "it has been pointed out"; by whom and where? --Tb 07:53 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've started a Talk:Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems page.
Dandrake 18:06 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi RR, good revertion to Divine right of kings. Hlavac clearly does not understand what the term means. But he has gone way over the line on Royal Prerogative. He moved its entire text to a made-up name called European Royal Prerogative and then installed his patiently wrong theories on the original RP page. I tried to delete his text and re-move but as sometimes happens it would not work, so I ended up having to delete the RP page and its talk page, then move ERP to RP where it belongs, and then delete ERP as it is a non-existent term that would never ever be used by anyone in a search and so was worthless. I have complained about his behaviour on the annoying users page. I think the more complaints come in the better. It might finally bring it home to him that what he is doing is wrong. lol FearÉIREANN 19:40 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I despair for the ignorance of youth...

For your information, there were six other seasons of Red Dwarf before the first one with Chloë Annett in, during the course of which Christine Kochanski appeared in at least three episodes — more, if you count the hallucinations — including the very first episode of the series. She's not an unseen character by any measure.

—Paul A 13:46 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Good job catching and merging the duplication between Declaration of Independence and Unilateral Declaration of Independence. Sorry if I jumped in a little too quick with my own edits -- I'm perhaps a bit attached to the old article. :-) Daniel Quinlan 04:58, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

You may want to add any "official" votes you want to make to the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion regarding Gravitational motion and related pages. Daniel Quinlan 06:10, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

You may want to avoid creating orphans. No pages linked to ROC Presidental Election 1996, ROC Presidental Election 2000, ROC Presidental Election 2004 until I linked them to Politics of Taiwan. --Jiang

You mentioned at Huang He a Chinese expression. What is it in pinyin? "Dang1 Huang He biàn qing1"? --Menchi 06:44, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)

Some thoughts

I am going to hit the proverbial hay, but since you also seem to know your way around e-commerce, would you care to do some of these that are in my to-do stack?

Reintermediation (linked from disintermediation)
E-procurement
E2E
Vortals
Bullwhip effect

If you can nail some of these down, I will be eternally in your debt. ;)

Hi Roadrunner,

Just read Article_9_of_the_Constitution_of_Japan, where you added

"The existence of article 9 for Japan is in marked contrast to the post-war constitutions of Germany and Italy, neither of which have constitutional restrictions on a military."

I don't know, what you mean with that, but I think both countries do have "constitutional restrictions" on their military. About Italy I can not give any guarantee, but for Germany:

The constitution of Western Germany had various changes in the past, but the initial version of the Grundgesetz said in article 24

"24.Actions, made with the aim of disturbing the peaceful coexistence of the nations, especially preparations for leading a war, are against the constitution and have to be punished." (yeah, I know my English is not too good).

The German rearment happened in 1956. I'm not sure what the situation is today, I think Germany is allowed by its constitution to defend itself (and allies of the NATO countries!!) and to take part in UN-missions. There were a lot of changes with the reunification, the 4+2 negotiations, peace treaty with the allies etc.

Oh, by the way Eatern-Germany was also rearmed in 1956. They were also only allowed to defend their country. But browsing on google I discovered this document from 1961, which I think is quite nice. It gives the justification, why Eastern Germany had to enter the Warsaw treaty.

"Western Germany has become the most dangerous crisis area in Europe through the incorporation of this country into the aggressive NATO-Alliance, the forced rearmament, the handing over of missiles and nuclear weapons to their army, which is commanded by Hitler's generals and the concentration of power in the hands of former fascists, of militarists and the Bonn ultras (??), which lead a revanchist policy to conquer the German Democratic Republic (eastern germany) and the territory of other socialist countries."

Sorry, I did not find any good link in English (and I think Italy is also not allowed to attack any country).

Klaus

Thanks for your useful contributions to China and the United Nations. I have rendered them a bit more compatible with the rest of the article. Adam 03:49, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

1990s, not 1990's. The apostrophe doesn't belong. --Jiang

--- I responded to your thought-provoking comments on the Shenzhou V talk page. They might be hard to find, since they're all under your comments and not written in a single edit. 172 03:37, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Good Job!

Good Job on the Mozilla article. —Noldoaran (Talk) 05:08, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)

Aircraft carrier

Do you have any sources to confirm the eBay aircraft carrier is indeed the NAeL Minas Gerais? No articles I found could back this up. Fuzheado 06:39, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Great edit on Communism

You did a very excellent job of improving on a very difficult to agree apon passage. I distinctly appreciate your fine and accurate work. Cheers. Jack 06:42, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Communications in Cambodia

I notice that your additions last July to Communications in Cambodia look like they were (1) as of some date in the past, maybe 1987, and (2) from some pretty specific source, but it's uncredited (unless I'm missing something). I tried doing some as-of-ifying, but you probably can improve my As of 1987?, and indicating your source would sure be appreciated. (now if only we had a more current reference...) -- Jmabel 08:12, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

adminship

I nominated you for adminship. Please go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Roadrunner to either accept for decline the nomination. Cheers, Jia ng 22:16, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Enough people seem to be supporting you for admin, if you post there accepting, it shouldn't take long... (Being an admin doesn't mean you have to do anything, but can be useful occasionally.) Κσυπ Cyp 18:09, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Aren't you going to accept? --Jia ng

Hi Roadrunner. I hope you'll agree to be an admin here, all you have to do is post a note there saying you accept your nomination, which nobody has objected to. No action can be taken until you respond, so if you accept or decide to decline, please respond either way. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 23:56, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey go sign your post with four tildes (~~~~) so they know it's you. And congratulations. :) - Hephaestos 05:09, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi, you are now an admin. Enjoy Bmills 16:13, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) To check out your new powers (ha!) see Wikipedia:Administrators.theresa knott 16:42, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC). And with "power" comes responsibility - like in avoiding bad grammar and disinformation. Outwit us all : ) Sincerely, irismeister 14:57, 2004 Feb 7 (UTC)

As you have probably guessed irismeister rather dislikes me. theresa knott 23:34, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Liking Theresa is not the issue, her "new powers" comments are

Theresa rest assured, as a person, you have all the rights - including your brand new typos and your being wrong all the time in editing medical stuff - . Whether or not I like you (in fact I do like you and your drawings) is not an issue. Please correct me if I'm wrong: I only resent disinformation you spread about medical articles as a whole. What you do best - *.png drawings of minimum size - requires perhaps more of your exclusive attention. Lying about medicine is mortal. Correct medical information is safe. Medicine is a never ending story - so perhaps you'd care more for your strict implementation of a policy of rigorously correct information in Wiki. Non supra crepidam, non te petto, piscem petto ! . Sincerely, irismeister 00:40, 2004 Feb 8 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United Nations

A new WikiProject to do with the UN has just been started, and, given as you've editted UN-related pages before, I thought you might be interested.
James F. (talk) 04:23, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

W and Z boson

Thanks for your help with the vandal(s). ~~Are you finished with the page, do you want to wikilink as of 2003 in the last paragraph?~~ Done it --Phil 15:01, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Please see my comment in Talk:Atlas (rocket) -- Jmabel 03:40, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Unprotecting pages

It isn't really kosher to unprotect a page and then immediately go in and start editing it, even when you weren't a participant in the preceding edit war. I don't know if that goes so far as to be considered a violation of sysop privileges, but it comes close to violating the spirit, if not the letter. RickK 04:20, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi, could you please update the listings on Wikipedia:Protected page when you protect or unprotect a page? It gets a little confusing without this. Thanks, silsor 18:18, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

Editing Qigong

Thanks for deleting the clunky homeopathy paragraph. I wanted to, but I think I'm a bit young here yet to delete that much stuff wholesale.

Fire Star 03:29, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Plautus satire

Your comments are requested on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Plautus satire. →Raul654 05:14, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Plautus satire is now editing the Big Bang page. You did a great job improving the Black hole page, if you have the time perhaps you can check out Big Bang. Curps 16:31, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tangental Comment on Spectation

I've been watching the interplay of other users (particularly Roadrunner and Reddi) editing pages I am watching and attempting to contribute to, and I am finding it at least as enjoyable as creating my own editions. Well done, gentlemen. - Plautus satire 06:48, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Roadrunner, while we all have our differences, I have found that your contributions to the cosmology articles are indeed positive, once interplay is reached. Although I lean to the plasma side of the debates, you are correct in that Alfven did not directly have anything to do with disproving the standard Hubble Interpretation of redshift. However, he did not like it, and allowed room in his theory for expansion in order to not be slaughtered by the mainstream. -Ionized 20:21, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Quasar

Thank you for helping with Quasar -- it's nice to have an astronomer around the place. silsor 22:43, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

FISC

Just wanted to let you know that I expanded the article on the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to which you contributed a while ago. --Xinoph 04:44, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

ROC constitutional amendments

What are your sources? The news articles I'm reading say there needs to be a second and third reading by the LY and passage by the National Assembly (which needs to be elected and reconvened) for these proposals to be passed. Even passed, they (the halving of the legislature at least) aren't to take effect until 2008. It's only March 12, BTW. --Jia ng 06:30, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here's an article. I commented some stuff out, so they can be uncommented once something does happen. But I reverted National assembly because it would be difficult to comment out, and passing the constitutional committee does not effectively strip the national assembly of its powers - the national assembly must convene to amend the constitution. It would be some time... --Jia ng 05:10, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The dollar bill pages

You edited the U.S. two dollar bill page to make it more specific. But, do you have anything to add to the pages for the other denominations?? Here they are:

User 66.32.65.245

TCM sub-articles

Hi Roadrunner,
Any interest in writing the following TCM related articles: Acupuncturist, Jing (currently mis-redirected), meridian, or acupuncture point? Or, having a look at San Jiao if you haven't already? heidimo 15:42, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

blackadder

Lordy! You've had me reading for ten minutes trying to figure out your change from alternate to secret histories. I find I can't argue with you. Exceptional (well, to me, but I'm way out of my area of knowledge here...)

ROC legislative election, 2004

I started a stub on ROC legislative election, 2004. Please add some content to it if you can. --Jia ng 07:03, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Pinochet

Do you want to make some comments at Talk:Augusto Pinochet#Another poll?

International law

Hi - you made some changes to Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe a while ago, most of which were fine, but there's one I'd query. You took out the phrase that said "The constitution supersedes national law, as do all international laws to which a country subscribes". Why did you delete this? It's my understanding that international law always supersedes national law in countries who agree to obey that international law. This just means that countries agree not to pass laws in contradiction, must interpret existing national laws in agreement with international laws wherever possible, and may not enforce national laws which cannot be interpreted in agreement. This is the case with both EU law and other forms of international law. What do you think? Toby W 23:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on this on my talk page. That clarifies things for me. You're right, the European and North American interpretations are different. With that in mind, your edits to the EU constitution page make perfect sense. Cheers. Toby W 11:47, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for being civil!

Thanks for acting in a civil manner on Checks and balances. Naturally I think you're utterly utterly *wrong* ;-) but at least you're being civil about it, and that's great. There's plenty of people who see red when discussing political topics. (Um, maybe me too sometimes.)

(Note: I won't do any discussing here, since I think that should be kept to the relevant article talk page :-) .)

Have a nice day! Kim Bruning 21:56, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah, that's interesting! You see, I'm not an American at all. I had edited Checks and Balances to what I thought was a more universal POV (which is why it was on my watchlist). I was kind of horrified when you actually managed to edit it *towards* a (liberal?) American POV three times in a row. I now think you were actually meaning well though. And have a nice day! Kim Bruning 22:28, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh dear

Only now do I notice that you've been putting the same hmm, North American POV on separation of powers too. Oh dear. We need to talk.

We could try discussing through the wikipedia e-mail system. Let's see if I can get it to work.

Once we reach a consensus or so we could then just publish that back on wikipedia.

Have a nice day! Kim Bruning 23:08, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmph, well IIRC my e-mail does work, or well, it's quite easy to find my address anyway. It's kim at bruning dot xs4all dot nl . Kim Bruning 23:18, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, worst case we won't be able to sort it out and will have to ask for some assistance. Best case we might make progress, so it can never hurt. :-) Kim Bruning 18:08, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Criminal Organizations

While checking New Pages I came across the stub for Criminal Organizations. Since it looked like a dicdef of something we already had a good article on, I almost made it a redirect to Organized crime. Instead, I hesitated and ended up clicking "Watch this page." Now I'm glad I did. Thank you for your addition to the article. I learned something new today. SWAdair | Talk 05:52, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bell test loopholes merger

Hi Roadrunner You've merged two of my pages: Bell test loopholes and Loopholes in optical Bell test experiments. I was planning to do this anyway, but not the way you have! The refs are all over the place, there are two introductory sections, some of the text no longer makes sense where you've edited out a link to a file on my home page. Can we revert to having the two pages for the time being, then I'll merge them myself, but not piecemeal? I can no longer access the second page because you've redirected it. I could manage, of course, working from your lash-up, but meantime readers are being presented with rubbish. Caroline Thompson 08:08, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, and I've now done the edit, but the point was that there seemed no way of reverting! I'm relatively new here and perhaps don't know all the tricks, but because you'd redirected from the Loopholes in optical Bell test experiments page I could find no way of retrieving it. Never mind. At least you forced me to get down to the job!

Caroline Thompson 21:46, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

EPR paradox questions

Roadrunner, I appreciate the work you've put on wikipedia. Do you think you can look at my two questions and comment on them? [[1]] Thank you.

Wodan 21:40, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Second question

Roadrunner, I got your response and have posed a subsequent question. Can you please give it a look when you get a chance? [[2]]. Thanks again. I appreciate your time.

Wodan 16:49, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Third set of questions

Though I'm getting more questions each time you respond, I do believe I am getting closer to resolution. That's because I'm not trying to resolve any paradoxes, but simply trying to understand the questions they are asking. I have three new questions for you. Can you please take a look when you get the chance? [[3]]. Thanks again.

Wodan 14:00, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Fourth set of questions

You are a very patient man. Thanks for looking. Here are my follow ups ... [[4]]

Wodan 23:12, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Paragraphing

Hi Roadrunner:

A comment about paragraphing: can you not put carriage returns in the middle of paragraphs, saving them instead only for between paragraphs?

Sorry if this sounds like a weird commment ;) -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 08:14, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

inflation

Hi Roadrunner, thanks for the improvement on horizon problem. I made some comments on the talk page; please object if you think your formulation should stand as it is. Fpahl 16:55, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

War Powers Resolution

I see you've made some edits to War Powers Resolution. If you are knowledgable on the subject and feel that the article is accurate and "Wikipedia average" in quality, you can remove its entry on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, where I placed it about two months ago because it seemed a little iffy. - dcljr 22:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just removed it myself. - dcljr 23:13, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

SARS

There are some POV edits regarding SARS at [5] and [6]. I think you are more knowledgeable and can do a better job cleaning up than I can. --Jia ng 21:30, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 most active Wikipedians, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles.

Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. -- Ram-Man 21:16, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi. To delete a page add {{delete}} for a speedy deletion. This is betterthan blanking the page. -- Chris 73 Talk 08:18, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Hubbert Peak article

I don't think Lynch is arguing Hubbert peak is wrong, just Campbell is using very pesimistic data as input into the Hubbert peak model. And the fact that Campbell may not be admitting his past data mistakes when new input information and future oil production information is available does not impugned the hubbert peak model overall, only possibly Campbell. Until you cite where Michael Lynch refutes the Hubbert model completely and recently I am going to remove it. I believe most, even oil industry insiders, now agree this model is the accurate hubbert peak model: http://www.peakoil.net/uhdsg/Default.htm What has Lynch said recently (in 2004) about things? Some of your other edits I believe are incorrect. The belief that the USGS estimates were pessimistic is very old claim and does not take into account the facts from the present/2004 that Saudi Arabia can no longer increase their output, I believe. Also, the North Sea oil field started declining in 2002. If all of the largest oil fields except Saudi Arabia have hit peak, and Saudi Arabia is at or near peak how is it possible the world can go for another 50 years before hitting global peak, that doesn't make sense? I noticed you did not respond to my comments on the talk page or use a change log entry that describes each edit you made? Zen Master 03:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hubbert 2

The reason Hubbert's peak didn't happen was because of the input data, not because of the model, I believe you may be missing the point. No one is disputing the overall hubbert model (the article of Lynch's you cited only takes issue with Hubbert's belief the model would look like a bell curve, it doesn't have to. The article is titled "Hubbert peak" not "hubbert curve" or "hubbert model" for this reason I believe. One main point of hubbert's model is that oil prediction will peak (again "peak" is the title of the article). Lynch is not arguing there will be no peak (oil is finite), just that the peak will be delayed. So be careful when you claim Hubbert's model is worthless because some might construe you as saying there will be no oil peak at all, which I believe Lynch would agree is very false. Zen Master 04:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hubbert 3

Again in 2004 the situation has changed I believe. Find me any critic of Hubbert/Campbell like Lynch from after summer of 2004 please? Matt Simmons is a key advisor to president bush and even he believes peak oil is near [7] The wikipedia article is about Hubbert Peak not just the model or theory (note the "Peak Oil" in bold at the top of the article), if you or Lynch have criticisms specific to Campbell perhaps you should take them to Campbell's wikipedia article? Also, Lynch only disputes that the hubbert model should produce a bell curve, not that the model is fundamentally flawed. I believe there is broad consensus (outside of Campbell, Lynch etc) here in 2004 of a peak before 2010 if not now. When did you hear Lynch speak? Zen Master 04:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hubbert 4

USGS and IEA's estimates are very old I believe, what is the date of most recent figures you have? Again, call people you knew and search the internet, I believe the situation majorly changed this summer when it was discovered Saudi Arabia can no longer be counted on to be a swing producer. Also, growing economies in China and India have pushed global daily oil consumption to 82,000,000 which is much higher demand that anyone predicted which sped up the date of the peak. All industry geolists I've seen in 2004 articles have taken the Hubbert model very seriously. We would not need Lynch to refute his past claims to remove his info from a wikipedia article if recent data shows parts of his claims were false. Lynch only claims there will be no peak because future oil discoveries and technology would be limitless, no one believes that any longer. I would suggest all the articles on www.peakoil.net (campbell is just one participant among industry geologists on this site I believe). Zen Master 04:44, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hubbert 5

I am not against the article being labeled controversial at all. I just think you violated POV with words like "worthless" and you errantly framed the debate in terms of Lynch vs Campbell. The article is about the Hubbert peak theory and the peak itself. Arguing about data input into the model should not really be put in the introduction in my opinion, especially lengthy details. I would support the creation of a criticisms of Hubbert theory section or new article where you can put whatever you, Lynch or whomever want. But again, I suggest you (and Lynch perhaps), take a look at 2004 events, the fact that by far the largest oil field in the world (the Saudi Arabian one) is at or near peak has to have strong implications that global oil production is near peaked, doesn't it? Lynch has not refuted the claim that Saudi Arabian oil fiels are near peak? Also, you discount bush's key oil advisor Matthew Simmons belief that oil may be near peak very casually, again, it's not just campbell. Two additional points: power point-esque presentations really don't give much detailed information (Lynch's), and windows media formatted content is not the most desirable (I am on Linux). Zen Master 05:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Another day for Hubbert peak

I added back the oil price chart, can you detail your concerns with it on the talk page? Also, I believe we reached a (perhaps tenuous) compromise on the intro wording yesterday, so what else is disputed? If there isn't anything feel free to remove the disputed tag you added. Zen Master 18:53, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

hubbert peak renaming/split

Well, I had thought yesterday that perhaps the article should be split into "Peak oil" and "Hubbert theory" which would allay your concerns I believe. But it may have been intentional whoever created the article did so as "Hubbert peak". For now I think it's best to keep it together. We can further discuss any split/rename proposals with others on the talk page? Zen Master 20:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland

Quote>The federation issued its first postage stamps in 1954, all with a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II in three kinds of designs, and inscribed "RHODESIA & NYASALAND". The first to appear was the 2 1/2p, on 15 February, with the remainder, 15 values ranging from 1/2p to one pound, coming out on 1 July. <Unquote

Are you saying that they had decimalized sterling before the United Kingdom? Sure the stamp denominations should be 2 1/2 d and 1/2 d or better still (for clarity) call them 2 1/2 pence and 1/2 penny. "p" as an abbreviation for pence or penny only applies to the new penny/pence after 1971 (100 to a pound). Previously it would have been Pounds, shillings and pence (240 to a pound) i.e. £,s,d or L,s,d. I have not ammended this in case you are going to tell me something different inm the context of this country. Dainamo 16:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Taiwan Notice Board

Hello,

I have started a Wikipedia:Taiwan-related topics notice board in the hope that contributers on Taiwan related topics can have a place to discuss on different proposals.

I also made a page List of Taiwan-related topics (by category) so that we can keep track on the topics by category. I hope this would be useful for us. Mababa 05:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello??--Mababa 02:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

International law: occupied vs. annexed

Hi Roadrunner. You made this [8] edit almost 2 years ago, in which you stated "Because military occupation is often considered illegitimate, the term is often used to refer to territories whose government they consider illegitimate. This usage is not technically accurate under international law because territory which has been formally annexed is not occupied territory." I know it was a while ago, but do you have any references for that? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1992 Consensus

There's a content dispute at Talk:1992 Consensus. I would like to respond to everything Mababa has posted, but my Chinese isnt good enough for me to read it all. If you could take a look and respond...--Ji ang 11:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's a poll at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC. You might want to vote. --Ji ang 04:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Treaty FAC

Roadrunner, Are you interested in drug control treaties? I have created an article, Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs, which is up for a vote. Please take a look.. 205.217.105.2 18:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

could you take a look at Talk:Taiwan? some users keep insisting on labelling Taiwan a "nation" when this is still a disputed and hotly debated notion--Ji ang 22:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your Assistance Requested

Roadrunner, your assistance is requested on the Democratic Progressive Party article as well as the Kuomingtang article. BobbyBuilder's edits seem awfully POV and while trying to remain neutral, I find myself getting upset. Perhaps it could use some Taiwan experts like yourself.--GrandCru 29 June 2005 00:03 (UTC)

I resent that you said I made Lien Chan sounds like a lunatic. The stabled DPP page was absolutely fine, and consisted with all the necessary information to back up those statements. If you check the version by {vandal|GrandCru}, he deleted all the criticism, and protrayed DPP as the party whose formation was based on their objection to the communism. which is as ridiculous as calling Nazi Jew-lovers.

I also don't feel comfortable with the statement about GMT out of touch with the rural area, because GMT's government helped the agriculture in Taiwan. (DPP didn't, but this is not for comparison). However, I do appreciate your statement about doing business doesn't mean communist-leaning, otherwise more than 80% of the countries are ruled by "communist-leaning" governments. bobbybuilder 10:44 30 June 2005 (UTC)

List of warez groups on VfD

Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of warez groups for an ongoing discussion regarding the potential deletion of the List of warez groups article. —RaD Man (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion of Melchizedek Request for Comment

You have shown some interest in Dominion of Melchizedek, so I wanted to let you know that I created the following RFC. Bollar 13:48, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

*Talk:Dominion of Melchizedek (Also Malpelo Island, Clipperton Island, Bokak Atoll, Rotuma, Antarctica, Microstate, Dominion, Micronation) - POV over the validity of Dominion of Melchizedek's sovereignty, and claims over numerous small islands in the Pacific plus Antarctica.

This page is too bad:美籍华人

I think it's translated from some English to bad Chinese. Maybe you used some Machine Translators? Anyway, it needs to rewrite. Hope you feel pleasure in 中文维基! --玉米^ō^麦兜 05:06, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

User categorisation

Greetings, Roadrunner/Archive1! Please accept this message as an invitation to categorise your user page in the category Category:Chinese Wikipedians overseas and removing your name from the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/China#Overseas page. The page will be deleted when all users have been removed. Even if you do not wish to be placed in a category, could you take a moment to remove your name from the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/China#Overseas page? Thanks!!

To add your name to the category, please use the tag [[Category:Chinese Wikipedians overseas|Roadrunner/Archive1]] to ensure proper sorting.

For more information, please see Wikipedia:User categorisation and Category:Wikipedians by location. --Miborovsky 02:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ZH

You may want to coordinate your language levels on ZH vs EN userpages :) --Dpr 17:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nihao

Hi~ I'm a student in Fudan University in Shanghai. Can I become one of your wikifriends?--Anthony Aragorn Gao 16:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review/Yuan (surname)

If you have a minute, could you take a look at the article Yuan (surname) - I've put it up for peer review (see Wikipedia:Peer review/Yuan (surname)/archive1). I hope to make it a model for expanding other Chinese surname articles. Since you've contributed to the Chinese surname article, I would really appreciate your suggestions. Yu Ninjie 21:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

if youre not aware of it, we've started ROC local elections, 2005. --Jiang 00:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CPC/Totalitarian

Not to start an argument or anything, but I'm curious why in the CPC talk page you pretty adamantly say the CPC is not totalitarian. Even say that the people who think so are nuts. The party demands total political control of the country, and dives a lot further (or tries to but is hindered by incompetence) into minute facets of people's lives than would make most inhabitants of democracies comfortable (hukou system, and the way things are dealt with in the nongcun in general). --Easytoremember 06:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization of "China" articles

There are two parallel proposals that seek a massive reorganization of the "China" articles: The discussion here seeks to turn the current China page into a disambiguation page and the discussion here seeks to move/merge People's Republic of China into China. Your comments are welcome at the relevant talk page. Thanks, Jiang 11:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstreaming Wikipedia

Hi,

I found your edit about PR firms & Wikipedia. My thoughts and some discussion can be found here. Hope this helps, GChriss 23:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China lightning talks

Hi Roadrunner, please see my comment at the Wikimedia wiki. I proposed to do several China-related lightning talks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling programmers

We need coders for the WikiProject Disambigation fixer. We need to make a program to make faster and easier the fixing of links. We will be happy if you could check the project. You can Help! --Neo139 09:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help...

Hi, on 01/13/05 you added the following text to Banach–Tarski paradox:

Banach and Tarski intended for this proof to demonstrate that the axiom of choice was incorrect, but the nature of the proof is such that most mathematicians take it to mean that the axiom of choice merely results in bizarre and unintuitive consequences.

This line suggests (at least to me) that either Banach or Tarski (or both) did not really like AC and maybe even were searching for inconsistency of ZFC. (After all, that was before Gödel's L, so everything possible.) Did you base this sentence on any particular source? If yes, could you please give me the reference? If not, could you please let me know what you based this claim on? (Is this a kind of common knowledge????) Any info/help you may give me will be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Best, Stotr 14:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer! I will try to check the sources you gave me. You mentioned an article in Scientific American - do you remember when (approximately) it was published? Best, Stotr 18:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MIT OpenCourseWare

Just giving you a heads up that I've replied to your comment at Talk:MIT OpenCourseWare#Making MIT courseware more Wikimedia friendly - would appreciate your thoughts.

btw, someone appears to have left a question on your user page, instead of here. --Singkong2005 ^talk 09:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Weinberg

July 31, 2006, you wrote "More recently, he has written some papers arguing that the smallness of the cosmological constant is due to the anthropic principle." Was this your idea of a joke? You did not provide references for these recent articles. I would be interested in those papers since Weinberg is an athiest and on his biography page is a link to "A Designer Universe?" in which he argrues against the anthropic principle.

I posted will post a cite in the article

Statute of Westminster

In your recent series of changes to this article, at the point where the article explains how the SoW was superseded in the 1980s, you added the following sentence: In the case of Canada, the Statute of Westminister [sic] allowed the Canadian Constitution to have legal effect through an act of the British Parliament, in spite of Quebec's refusal to agree to the Constitution.

I have reread this several times and I still don't understand what you are talking about, let alone what connection is has with the preceding text. Which Canadian Constitution are you talking about (BNA Act? Canada Act of 1986? what?), when and how did Quebec refuse to agree to it, .....? Could you please reword the sentence so that its meaning and relevance to the context is a little clearer? Thanks. --Chris Bennett 16:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]