User talk:Smm201`0

Welcome!

Hello and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

	The Original Barnstar
	Ugh, you wretched Yank... Now, let me be clear: you will immediately continue improving that fracking article. Iloveandrea (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, my very first Barnstar! Thank you. Be careful what you wish for though! I think that some of the sections need some reorganization, but without removing any of the information. I'm not sure the quotes from the politicians are useful or informative, but they are part of the picture in the practice of the technique. I have a draft explanation of the recent artificial separation of "fracking" from other stages of the hydraulic fracturing process and their consequences in my sandbox. I see that you started to clarify that issue as well. Thanks again.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second the above - excellent work on that article! Sindinero (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo, East Coast Yank! Just to let you know that the main fracking article will be in your hands alone for a little bit, since I am going to be spending some time on

Thanks for the suggested link, WECY (Wretched East Coa...). I shall look into it tomorrow! FOND REGARDS. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New spam for you, Yank:

Squeezing another drop from the barrel

The sheer size of North America’s shale oil and gas boom has been illustrated spectacularly this week by Monday’s $4.4 billion proposed takeover of the Texas-based oil company Brigham by the Norwegian oil giant Statoil and by the pipeline company Kinder Morgan’s $38 billion acquisition of its smaller rival El Paso.

Such deals, the industry is fond of saying, suggest that oil and gas extracted from subsurface shale rock, through a method known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, can help it to become “the new Saudi Arabia”. But serious questions remain over how long the boom will last.

A very real problem facing the oil companies and one they rarely talk about is the yield curve. While fracked wells generally keep producing for 28 years, production can fall off sharply after the first year or two. A typical well in North Dakota’s seemingly prolific Bakken shale oil and gasfield, for example, may produce more than 1,000 barrels of oil per day in year, but only 200 in year two, according to Lynn Helms, director of the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources. Existing fracking methods are capable of extracting only 5 per cent of the oil content of the shale. This can be raised to 15 per cent by multiple extractions from each wellhead. Even then, 85 per cent of the oil remains below ground.

Mr Helms says that the industry is working hard to come up with new technologies to increase the yield. But so far they have not come up with a solution. “We are taking very little oil out ... Even an extra 1 per cent would make a big difference. I think that some smart person will think of a way to get more out.”

The ghastly industry mouthpieces on our side of the pond are massively over-playing what companies can get out with fracking, some truly ridiculous claims. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...Brit... Yes, all while causing all sorts of problems. Initially I thought that they might be using small nukes to frack when I read about the iodine-131. I've been told that they stopped doing that after Gasbuggy, but I recently read that people were talking about it again. Could be those "new technologies." Here they sell fracking as giving us "energy independence"...but actually export much of it.Smm201`0 (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find an article on that topic that I could read, so I used that. I don't have access to the Sunday Times, or at least I couldn't find it in our database. Thanks.Smm201`0 (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Fracking Bubble: The Scam Behind the Gas Boom "It's not only toxic – it's driven by a right-wing billionaire who profits more from flipping land than drilling for gas" ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our official report is in! Deemed safe! Fracking is back on in the UK!
Gas 'fracking' gets green light
~ Iloveandrea (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated editing always deserves one. Iloveandrea (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to explain what the Haliburton rule has to do with the PWD or not? I posted the question once before and you did not respond, but simply deleted the question, yet you continue to make the synthesis of material to link a whole bunch of unrealted sources to the PWD. Arzel (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced that you are not responsive to fact, logic, or anything vaguely resembling it based on how you respond to me and to other editors. That is why I finally reported you.Smm201`0 (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, the response of someone that has no reason other than pure passion. Your activist efforts would be better placed somewhere besides WP. Arzel (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smm201`0, you have my full support here. Arzel has one agenda, which has been perfectly obvious from the moment he showed up: delete any and all negative material to whitewash fracking's image. If you need any help reverting his persistent deletions, let me know and I will be glad to help. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 06:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a lie, and you should retract your statement. I actually included better sourcing for some of the negative material. I think you confuse negative with pure propaganda, which is what you and your anti-fracking group seems to be focused on. Arzel (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Sindinero (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check the ANI - it seems that your initial report was deleted and only partially restored..? [1] You might want to try restoring your original notice again. Looking at the history of the ANI briefly, it doesn't look like Arzel (or anyone else) deleted the thread - maybe it just got archived quickly (since that page gets really high traffic)? Sindinero (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure what you were trying to achieve here [2] but you deleted multiple comments by different users in different threads so it seems like it went wrong, therefore I reverted you. Nil Einne (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I replied to your comment on an IPs talk page about their determined external link spamming.

Re-adding the text is unacceptable. I have reverted it. You will be blocked if you continue

I agree that any further revert like this one should be considered as a good reason to block your account for edit warring. Nothing prevents you from copying your proposed text to the talk page to allow it to be discussed there. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll do that.Smm201`0 (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Smm201`0. You have new messages at Sindinero's talk page.
Message added 19:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

	The Half Barnstar
	Again for the fracking article. Iloveandrea (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited The Guggenheim Grotto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Johnson (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) 12:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radionuclides associated with hydraulic fracturing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  BarkingFish  02:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Smm201`0. You have new messages at Blackash's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

and again. Blackash have a chat 17:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Blackash have a chat 17:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Philadelphia Water Department, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nuclear energy (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) 04:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charlie Mars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weeds (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) 11:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I am perplexed by some of the editing there (although I am very new to the article). If you want to chat, I'd be interested in your perspective, before I spend much time getting frustrated. Thanks ( Martin | talk • contribs 14:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I have added two paragraphs on the talk page of hydro fracking. It seems like people are applying principles unevenly, resulting in text that is objectively bizarre. I see two areas of problems: 1) the desire to have a "fracking page" and then also a "Unite States fracking page", and 2) the handling of documentaries (films). The only video now cited (in Notes) is Frac Nation, which is a reply to Gasland, which has been removed from the references. Frac nation calls itself a documentary, but it is still "in production", so compared to Gasland, its not much. "Truthland" is at least in distribution. I wanted to add a film on the haynesville shale paly in louisianna (movie: haynesville), and to add "split estate" about parachute, and to add a film about the Bakken, but all were delted. Some because they should have been added to the US Fracking page (?) and some becuause all films were remove the objection being to IBDb as a website (?) Maybe some of these ideas can be defended, in part, but as a whole, they damage the article.

• Haynesville, a 2009 discussion of energy, centered around the Louisianna Haynesville Shale discovery
• Split Estate, a 2009 documentary about drilling in Garfield County, Colorado
• Crude Independence about the Barnett Shale

( Martin | talk • contribs 16:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah, there has been a push to send negative info about fracking off to the US, environmental/us or environmental fracking pages. There is also a real need to keep the hf article focused on the main issues, and have links for people seeking more detail. Regarding the films...they are in several places. The link to the WP:Gasland film page (which looks like it is being taken apart) is actually in the text, which is why it doesn't appear under "See also" (ala WP rules). There are no film links under "External links" ala WP rules/recommendations for external links (WP:EL). I read WP:EL again, and it looks like film links that could be promotional are not recommended. You might consider creating a page about documentaries on hydraulic fracturing based on descriptions and reviews of the films and link that to the hf page, or even create a page for each of the documentaries and a category for films about hf. Then link that. So, as much as I understand your frustration and acknowledge that there is biased wordsmithing on the page, some of the objections are based on WP rules. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could I raise a more basic problem that I feel that wikipedia has? On topics that are controversial, wikipedia doesnt like to get into "on the one hand" and "on the other hand". But I feel that a careful exposition of each side's unresolved arguments would be most useful. Is there any provision that you know of that comes close to that? Thanks. ( Martin | talk • contribs 02:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Also, if you have not yet, would you mind reading the paragraphs I added to the talk page about "my issues" (which I think are not that controversial: like why it is ok to link to a PBS page that describes GasLand, but not to link to an IMBd page that describes GasLand...) Thanks ( Martin | talk • contribs 02:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Also, you refer to WP:Gasland, which I understand to mean the wikipedia page for GasLand. I do not see that reference in the article. Footnote [95] is the PBS site for Gasland. ( Martin | talk • contribs 02:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I agree that having more "on the one hand on the other hand" would be useful. You may want to bring that up on the HF talk page, or insert text that begins to do that. At one point the HF page had more of that, especially in the environment section. The article grew very long (and exposed some reports and detail that the industry folks didn't want viewed) so some of those discussions were moved to the US HF, HF environment and US, and Environment HF pages for that reason. These pages get less traffic, and therefore less attention, so they still need more editing and organization. Although to include all details in the main page would overwhelm it, I agree that main points of the debates need to be included, but in a succinct way.

WP:Gasland is a blue link in the text of the HF article. Do a "control F" and search the page for "Gasland." The difference between the PBS and IMDB sites is that the latter is not considered a reliable source (RS) - although it includes information about movies, it's current main purpose is to advertise them. It is owned by Amazon.com. Such commercial sites that primarily promote products for sale are not typically allowed as links. PBS sells some stuff on its site, but is also primarily a news and information source. Again, the best way to get those documentaries into Wikipedia is to create articles for them based on reviews published in news sources, etc. That way you can also include a more thorough description of their content as well. This is what others have done for Frac Nation and Gasland.

Anyway, I hope that helps. My goal was to give you some ideas for WP friendly ways to meet your goals. Mine is just one perspective (you may want to ask other editors about the issues), and again, I'm trying to be helpful (which doesn't guarantee that I am). I'll re-read what you have written and add to my answer if I missed anything... Smm201`0 (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do appreciate the time you have taken to guide me, and the comments that you have made. I have actually read little of the article, so I will go and do that, and will read the US version as well. ( Martin | talk • contribs 01:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

You are welcome...I was just watching the linked PBS news video on Gasland to see what it said. In the news clip Fox himself makes it clear that his report was not the same as a scientific study, but it was a step in looking at the issue. He said research was next...so that may be part of the reason the word "claim" is used. On the other hand, he also seemed to think there was plenty of data already to suggest various types of contamination, and the news clip goes into a fair amount of detail about the types of contamination, covering all the material for which it is listed as a source. Smm201`0 (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just watched that PBS/Now program. Josh did such a good job of explaining the issue I think, better than I would have. When Broncaccio talked of a bridge fuel, I was thinking Haynesville Shale was supposed to be the bridge fuel, but Josh said - gas is not a bridge - or something similar. Much better answer. ( Martin | talk • contribs 02:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Category:Red Wanting Blue, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<ref>{{cite web |last= Faucon |first= Benoît |date= 17 September 2012 |title= Shale-Gas Boom Hits Eastern Europe |url= http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443866404577565244220252020.html |publisher= [[WSJ.com]] |accessdate= 17 September 2012 }}</ref>

Faucon, Benoît (17 September 2012). "Shale-Gas Boom Hits Eastern Europe".

[I]t isn't clear that the potential supplies are as great as was initially hoped. In June, Exxon Mobil Corp. said it would halt exploration efforts in Poland after two early wells proved commercially unviable. ... In January, Bulgaria canceled a decision to award a license to Chevron ... and implemented a moratorium on shale drilling. Romania also has put shale-gas exploration on hold, and the Czech Republic is considering a similar move. ...

Some estimates put the cost of exploring for shale gas much higher in Eastern Europe than in the U.S. According to Schlumberger Ltd., the oil-field-services supplier, drilling a shale-gas well in Poland costs almost three times as much as in the U.S. ... And shale depths in Europe are on average 1.5 times greater than in the U.S., translating into the need for powerful rigs, more powerful pumps and more fracturing fluids, according to the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.

ColaXtra (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444301704577631820865343432.html

ColaXtra (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That will help internationalize an article - not sure which one. Kind of busy, and spent too much time on WP already today, but will get to it. Smm201`0 (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may have seen this already, but just in case: Pennsylvania Report Left Out Data on Poisons in Water Near Gas Site. Sindinero (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I haven't been on WP since the hurricane. Sending this from a Staples! Interesting article. Smm201`0 (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to unreverse your reverse. If you want to edit war, then we shall have to take it to someone. But this source is utterly disowned. It is not right to put a source like that in wikipedia. Even if you DO put it in it needs to be quoted correctly.. and it is not quoted correctly. And the article is not the place to have a war over the fact that the source is bad. Wikipedia already says not to use bad sources and so it should not be discussed in the article.--Blue Tie (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeff Raspe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WHTG-FM (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) 11:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Empire Circus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Irish and REM (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) 11:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As we have both taken interest in the Philadelphia Water page, I noticed you have detailed a large section on Iodine 131. All sources I have found on this topic say that experts assure there is no threat from Iodine 131 in the water and it is not listed as one of the department's main issues. For this reason, I feel it does not need such a large summary on the Philadelphia Water page. If you want I can share my sources here, and we can collaborate on how to restructure this section to an appropriate length that indicates the department's involvement with this topic. Let me know what you think or if you have other ideas. Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleanwaterguru24 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, because this is a content issue, i am moving it to the article's talk page. Smm201`0 (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Need more content for this ref "College students are likely to drink due to social demands which induce social anxiety. The consumption of alcohol in cases such as these are to help cop and alleviate the anxiety felt when trying to fit in with their peers. (Oliver, 2009)" Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Smm201`0. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eryn Shewell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eryn Shewell until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.