User talk:Blogjack

"blogjack" aka Glen Raphael[edit]

I'm a software geek and musician in New York. I first met Shakey the Robot when I was about 4 years old.

Some hobby interests:

blackjack
backgammon
fire-spining/poi and other circus arts
exercise-oriented videogames

Some real-world things I created:

NewtPaint (a paint program for the Apple Newton)
the Stanford Newton User's Group (SNUG)
Dailygammon.com (along with my friend Jordan)

My (old) personal blogs were:

 http://blogjack.net
 http://videogameworkout.com

Blogjack 07:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to ask me anything. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Re : Patri Friedman[edit]

Drop me an email. I'll retrieve and send you the old copy for you to work on. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 06:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored, but prodded for notability; maybe I'm jaundiced because I've known David since 1971. Could you convert those references to proper citations/footnotes in citation format? There's a boring amount of detailed instructions at WP:CITE. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident[edit]

Rolbacks are automatically marked as minor. Please state your concerns on the talk page rather than reverting to a disputed version. Viriditas (talk) 07:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was not an appropriate use of the Rollback feature for just that reason. The deleted content was not vandalism or nonsense; rollback is for edits where simply looking at the diff it's immediately obvious why it was removed. Which this was not. --Blogjack (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your concern with the use of rollback refers to this edit by User:P Carn. Please take up your concerns with the user on their talk page. The deleted comment was made by Vryadly (talk · contribs), who had been edit warring from two accounts and had violated the 3RR. I would like to cordially invite you to take your concerns about this content to Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident where we can discuss it further. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"edit warring *from two accounts*" is not how I would have described "edited once or twice without logging in, but then when the page got semi-protected to exclude anonymous or recent accounts, thereafter logged in to user's pre-existing account to edit." Anyway, I'll take it to talk if need be. Or just let it slide. I didn't care much about this particular change other than that I found the deletion underexplained. --Blogjack (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Public good[edit]

I noticed you removed the Public Infrastructure sidebar from the article. If you are a student of economics or engineering, you would know public goods actually refer to the specific assets and facilities defined under public infrastructure (i.e., roads, rails, water systems). They don't just share the word 'public'. I added the sidebar to connect the scholarship on the subject, especially relating the economic theory of public goods to the delivery systems and management of infrastructure projects; for instance, why governments are the best market actor to construct and maintain such nonrival/nonexcludable goods like bridges and airports. But if you see it fit to disinclude it, I'll leave it at that. --Socipoet (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The economic concept of public good really doesn't have much to do with that. Bridges and airports are both rival and excludable. Your use of the bridge makes it more congested and hence harder for me to use it, so bridges are rival. There are guards at the entrance to every gate at the airport limiting access to only the people who have tickets, so airports are excludable. Regardless, governments probably *aren't* the best market actor to construct and maintain either - especially airports - though we're probably stuck with that equilibrium for now due to path dependence. --Blogjack (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Doubleclicks, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Portland and Kevin Murphy (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) 14:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hello, The Future! for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hello, The Future! 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/Hello, The Future! 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 until the discussion has finished.

Star Mississippi 23:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]