User talk:Drakeguy

I'm currently a student at Drake University in Des Moines, IA. My hometown is in the Chicagoland area. Most of my editing is done on Major League Soccer, maglev trains, and a few other fields. If you'd like to ask about an edit or work out a compromise on something on which you disagree with me on, go ahead and let me know.

Major League Soccer

Have any issues with MLS edits? List them here. By the way, I'm a huge Chicago Fire fan, so if you spot vandalism on their page, let me know!

Hi, Drakeguy. Thanks for adding the information on the new Toronto team's name, but we really can't put that information up until it becomes official. Please keep in mind our policies on Original Research and Verifiability. Thanks! Powers 12:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly fine. I might have been a bit too gung-ho on that one. But I just want to point out that I have written basically 3 entire sections on Major League Soccer: profitability, ownership, and most of stadiums section as well. Stadiums is the one section of which I believe is really getting too long and is not concise enough for the average Wikipedia reader. Oh yeah, and I've written about a third of what you see on the Bridgeview Stadium page. If anyone happens upon this page and would like to discuss their ideas for the stadium section improvement, please feel free to add your suggestions. Drakeguy 07:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and one more thing, I was not, for the record, the guy who originally posted the Inter Toronto FC information on the main MLS page. The culprit is out there. All I did was put it on the stadium page as I thought that the edit had been allowed to stand on its own merits. Wish people were more reliable when I try to standardize things between MLS pages! By the way, has anyone noticed there are at least three entries for the same D.C. soccer stadium? Anacostia Stadium, D.C. United Stadium, and Poplar Point Stadium. I just hope they hurry up and officially name the thing, as the 3 different articles means somebody is wasting their time. Drakeguy 07:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. I don't have Major League Soccer on my watchlist, but I did have the stadium article. Powers 14:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CONCACAF Champions League

Hard not to get excited about this. Finally there will be a rival tournament for CONCACAF to show off to the world watching Copa Libertadores, Interliga, UEFA Champions League, or Copa Sudamericano. I can only hope that at least 4 MLS teams will automatically qualify for this.Drakeguy 07:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate being thought of as the "ultra wikipedian" but I don't have a clue about this. I've never even heard of CONCACAF before, and I visited the link but couldn't make much sense out of the acronyms. My soccer experience is limited to local coverage of the Rochester Raging Rhinos. Powers 12:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poplar Point Stadium

You changed the seating capacity for the stadium in Poplar Point Stadium and D.C. United articles from 27,000 to 24,000. Do you have a source for this? D.C. United's website says 27,000. --dm ^(talk) 20:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at what the Washington Post says about it. I actually was a 1000 seats low, but the Post says it's a 25,000 seater, not 27,000. *[1] Drakeguy 22:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maglev Train

A real passion of mine, I've been adding edits to this page for around 4-6 months. All I can say is it's about time somebody like China started adapting the technology, although it's a shame they had to rip off the Germans to do it.

Welcome!

Hello, Drakeguy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Powers 12:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Evils of Atheism

Drakeguy, I hope you didn't think I wrote the little screed "Evils of Atheism" on my talk page. I realized after your edit that I never tagged User:GreekWarrior's tirade as {{unsigned}}. Thanks for your input in any case, though I suspect it'll never get read by the one who needs most to read it. Powers 14:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Although I wish I had not misspelled a few phrases. Makes me come off less intelligent even though I know how to spell and phrase everything correctly. Drakeguy 05:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that i consider myself an atheist. I dont "bemoan crusades or elivate darwin", i simply refuse to believe in the existance of a being with indefinate powers. I wont get into a religious arguement here, but you should be carefull what you poke fun at. Rekov 22:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol sorry man i made the same mistake the guy above did. I misunderstood this comment to be yours .

"It's about damn time somebody taught atheists their own medicine, and before you ask, I do not generalize, I think there's a cultural distinction between atheism and nonbelievers. Atheists tend to be enraged over religion of any kind, and spend a lot of time elevating Darwin and bemoaning the Crusades. Nonbelievers in general - say, someone who's raised a Christian, believes the Bible is an allegory, and only attends church for a funeral or perhaps at Christmastime - tend to adopt a "Whatever gets you through the night" philosophy and be quiet on matters of faith. It's sort of like the difference between a devout vegetarian and someone who hates the taste of meat. Atheists are proud of their hate. It is something that they love devoutly and use it to hate christians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GreekWarrior (talk • contribs) ."

Apologies, Rekov 03:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Superpower page

It's certainly an emerging concept so deserves attention and I think you've made a great start. If you can add a link to it from some other carefully selected energy pages then you should get a few more comments and contributions. You could also consider adding a few short mentions about how the countries are starting to use their power - in the Russia-Ukraine gas dispute for example... Gralo 04:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apology for adding empty subtitles. As I didn't have enough time yesterday to find reliable information, I decided to return to this topic later and at the same time I had a hope that this could inspire someone to contribute. However, right now the information concerning Iraq and Kazakhstan is added. Once more, my apologies.Beagel 17:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

about energy super power

thanx for your concerns. With the proven oil reserves that can be extracted with the available technology and political conditions prevailing canada ranks seconds to saudi arabia. I'm extremely sorry for my wrong perception about this fact. I swear i won't repeat these kinda things anymore.

I want to tell you one thing, The countries which featured in this articles are all connected with petro - gas energy, why we can have a list countries with nuclear power. like US, France and emerging countries like china and india as these two countries are going to invest very huge amount of money to develop new reactors and technologies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nubin wiki (talk • contribs) 07:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

New energy power pages

I agree we should try to improve existing information to remove any possible doubt concerning OR. About regional energy powers - of course I will assist on this article and, if necessary, to start this. However, I am not sure about the correct title as we have some regional energy powers, which are in the certain sector could be global players (eg. Brazil in the field of the bio-fuels or Qatar in the LNG).Beagel 20:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drakeguy. I've taken a look through the comments on the energy superpower page and the elements that were transferred to the temporary page. I've also edited the 'energy superpower' definition, including external links to contemporary usage of the term. This is a 'cutting edge' area, so I can understand that there might be some concerns about original research. If you are able to find some additional commentary, with references, to support the text in the 'emerging energy superpowers' section, I would think that much of this could be added back into the article relatively soon, if supported by further opinion.

For smaller energy powers, I would suggest the term 'regional energy power'; there are references on the Web to the use of this term in relation to Romania and Kazakhstan, for example.

In relation to the potential superpowers, these seem to me just to be those states with significant energy reserves - in which case it would probably be better to start on article on World energy resources by country, in which you could refer to the potential of the country to reach 'power' status one day. This would also tie in well with article World energy resources and consumption

By putting the above together, I think you can avoid the need for the separate 'Great Energy Power' article.

Incidentally, I've just doen a Web search on Canada as an energing superpower, and found the following, for example: [2] [3] [4] . From my quick scan through these it does seem that there is some doubt about whether Canada can actually make it to superpower status. I'd also doubt the position of the UK as a potential energy superpower - though it does have have large coal reserves.

Hope this gives you a few useful pointers...

Gralo 19:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drakeguy. I appreciate that you are trying hard to get the information 'out there', which is a very worthwhile aim - my comments relate to the 'temporarily removed' section of the article in general, not anyone's specific contributions; your comments about the UK are noted! I should perhaps have prefaced my earlier comments by saying that I don't think it is necessary to obliterate the contents of the 'temporarily removed' section from Wikipedia, but that perhaps, in the light of further research, some of it might be better included in other articles, while there might be a good case for reinstating other portions where they were. What seems to be needed is further research to be able to make and justify the decision.

With that in mind, and in view of your suggestion above, I've been looking at Canada a little more closely and it is a very interesting case. I see that it is the largest oil supplier to the USA [5]. I also see that these exports are around 63% of Canadian oil production, however this only represented around 10% US crude oil requirements [6]. I also note, from the same source, that Canada imports 55% of its oil requirements from elsewhere. Overall, therefore, it seems that Canada only has net exports of 8% of its production. It seems that Canada also sells its oil at prices determined by the world market [7].

In contrast Russia seems to have no significant oil imports and exports around 54% of its production [8], generates 12% of the global oil production, has a 12% share in the global oil export markets [9], and is able and willing to influence world prices [10].

Canada's claim to be a potential energy superpower seems to rely on exploiting oil sands, however as the WP note, the profit margins are not vast - and as extracting the oil is itself an energy intensive process, so as world energy prices rise, so does the cost of extraction. In addition, Canada is under pressure to do this without increasing carbon emissions [11] [12]. And how does this fit into the picture?

Putting all this together, it would seem that Canada's current power over energy is limited, even within the region basis, as it is itself so dependant on imports. Is it an emerging regional energy power? To answer that, it would be necessary to see what the trends are. Is a potential energy superpower? In theory any country with large fossil fuel reserves has the potential to be an energy superpower. In the case of Canada where its reserves are in oil sands, the obstacles - financial and environmental - to achieving this are large, despite the political vision / spin.

Of course if natural gas and uranium are taken into account, perhaps the picture changes? Further research needed.

To add Canada as a potential energy superpower, I think that you need to include this kind of commentary. Since the Canadian government are claiming this status, it does deserve coverage on WP.

Gralo 11:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Energy superpower claims section?

it occurred to me that perhaps we ought to take a look at WHICH state's and their leaders have laid claim to being or becoming energy superpowers. We really ought to include expert opinion on the reasons they believe they will become Energy superpowers versus experts against, or just find expert opinion in general on the claims. Seems to me that otherwise, if someone were to read about the claims of a world leader's country being an energy superpower, that this site would not be able to discuss that topic (or be used as a reference), which is clearly something this page ought to be able to discuss (and verify the arguments for and against) that leader's comments. I think a new section might be a good idea here, in order to address these concerns. Drakeguy 15:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've expressed the concept very well. In the case of Saudi Arabia and Russia there is ample evidence of their status by the way that they have exercised their power. For other countries I think such claims should be included if they are made by a significant figure or group (political leader, government, etc), with views for and against the proposition to maintain a neutral point of view. And, in addition, the facts should be analysed so it is possible to understand what it means in practice - i.e. what leverage do they have over other states in the region / the world markets in terms of market share, etc., or what is the potential in the future. Any well executed work along these lines gets my support. Good luck! Gralo 11:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to Energy superpower page

Gralo, I've added some new sections to the the energy superpower page. I need you to check them out, tell me what you think, and if possible, improve them. I think you'll find that they are right up your alley. But more importantly, since I know how much you like to research, could you please add some of your sources to the "Disputed Energy Superpowers" section? That'd be much appreciated, Drakeguy 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drakeguy; I'm a little pressed for time at the moment, but will come back to it... Gralo 23:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]