Mishlai ( talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)
Feel free to sit down and make yourself comfortable. I'll try to continue conversations here for continuity, so if you ask a question and are expecting a response, you may wish to watch this page.
- Mish
|
... Discussion with RonCram concerning the Wegman Report & AGW ... |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
For example, McIntyre and McKitrick won the Hockey Stick controversy. Have you read the Wegman Report? If you had, you would know it was written by statisticians. They were appalled both at the claims Mann made for the robustness of the statistics used and the fact Mann did not check with any real statisticians before he published. The National Academy of Sciences also weighed in on the controversy. While NAS was very polite to Mann and talked of the value of proxy studies, the report sided with McIntyre on all disputed points of science. They concluded that the bristlecone pine proxy were unreliable. They concluded the 20th century was the warmest in 600 years, but were unable to support Mann's claim it was the warmest in 1000 years. Mann was required to publish a corrigendum. BTW, Michael Mann is one of the operators of RealClimate, so their policy is to proclaim victory and change the subject. Mann's supporters call themselves the "Hockey Team." This group of people, including Wahl and Ammann, have published other proxy studies calling them "independent" but they also rely on bristlecone pine or other proxies known to be unreliable. This confuses some scientists and gives the IPCC cover. One aspect of the global warming controversy I find interesting is the group think. This is an interesting phenomenon among climate scientists. I do not believe they are all dishonest (as I do believe Michael Mann is), but it is obvious many of them fall under the sway of the claim "the science is settled." After breaking the Hockey Stick, many more scientists are becoming more outspoken about being skeptical of AGW. I have worked on the article you mentioned List of scientists opposing global warming consensus. William Connelly and his posse fight against including self-described skeptical scientists all the time, but there are many more listed now (and higher quality scientists) than before I arrived. The article used to claim the list was intended to be comprehensive. There are far too many skeptical scientists to list them all. You claim people are attacking the IPCC on nebulous political grounds instead of the science. I have no idea what you are talking about. The entire criticism is that the IPCC is ignoring and twisting the science. You are only reading one side of the debate. You might be interested to know that the warmers are playing with the temperature dataset again. I would suggest you read the story and the posted comments here. [1]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RonCram ( talk • contribs).
|
Compliments to me from Stephan Schulz and Raymond Arritt concerning AGW talk page explanations |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Thanks for your detailed and excellent arguments on talk:global warming and related pages. I try to do something similar, but, by now, I sometimes run out of patience and become much more brusque. -- Stephan Schulz 07:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
|
... Advocacy request over dispute with Hypnosadist ... |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia has a whole system to solve disputes consisting in some steps (take a look on it here), from the lightest to the heaviest one. The idea is to use the last resort only on very grave situations and, from what I read of the dispute, this is not the case. The best thing you can do now is to negotiate with the other party: to discuss civilly and try to get consensus and also try to understand the other's point of view on how should the article be written. But, maybe, an article request for comment (considered as the "second" resort on dispute resolutions) could be useful to bring new editors to the article with new and also better ideas. What I highly suggest you not to do, at least for now, is a user request for comment. Any comments? If you prefer, you can contact me via email. -- Neigel von Teighen 15:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you don't (and won't) need any further action. Negotiation and RfC are the best for solving the dispute you have there. Any question you need an answer for, just call me on my talk page or email. -- Neigel von Teighen 12:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
[... Discussion with WFPM about Nuclear Power, new to wiki, etc. ...] |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
... Compliments and discussion from Engineman concerning Intermittent Power Source article ... |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Great editing - looks really good. you say you want a better reference for demand reduction, i don't know if this one will help, its from the Diesel Generator article.....which has some relevance....
This is extremely beneficial for both parties - the diesels have already been purchased for other reasons; but to be reliable need to be fully load tested. Grid paralleling is a convenient way of doing this. In this way the UK National Grid can call on about 2 GW of plant which is up and running in parallel as quickly as two minutes in some cases. This is far quicker than a base load power station which can take 12 hours from cold, and faster than a gas turbine, which can take several minutes. Whilst diesels are very expensive in fuel terms, they are only used a few hundred hours per year in this duty, and their availability can prevent the need for base load station running inefficiently at part load continuously. The diesel fuel used is fuel that would have been used in testing anyway. See Control of the National Grid (UK), National Grid (UK) reserve service [1], [2][3] A similar system operates in France known as EJP, where at times of grid extremis special tariffs can mobilize at leas 5 Gw of diesels to become available.In this case, the diesels prime function is to feed power into the grid. [4][3]
|
Compliments and capacity credit discussion from Engineman |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Yes - still totally impressed by your editing skill - its looking really good now that a lot of the dross and repetition has been removed - the previous was far to long and rambling. I am not sure if Sinden actually says what is quoted in the wikipedia article in the referenced book, but he has certainly stated it to me and to others in public - any way it certainly is the case that no serous commentator perceives the benefit of wind to come from capacity reduction as is often mi-stated in main stream press- its is widely acknowledged that conventional plant will have to be started during low wind periods - which will happen about 5 - 10 % of the time in Europe...Best..Engineman. PS can I suggest you may wish to join the Claverton Energy Group where technical experts discuss these kind of issues to the nth degree. http://www.claverton-energy.com/# Engineman ( talk) 09:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
|
Discussion of Sizewell with Engineman |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
- you won;t find a referencer to sizewell being the biggest intermittent source, but it is well known in the industry that that is they case. ?I'll try and find a reference, but it is true. Sizwell's fialure caused the recent power failure a fuew mohts ago - that is referecned..... Engineman ( talk) 10:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
|
Discussion with Engineman concerning the meaning of "regularly" in the context of intermittance |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In this context this can mean everry few year. It doesn really matter how often, the fact is, it is well known that in CAN sudeenlty stop genreating on both 660 MW turbines - it is the only station where this can happen...in the Uk...so the grid has to have steps in hand to deal with it...even though it may never in fact happen. Engineman ( talk) 11:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
|
Brief content suggestion from Q Science and response |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
What about a new page. It can give fair treatment to several definitions and explain how each is used and abused by those that show a preference. We already have enough data. Q Science ( talk) 06:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
|
... Friendly discussion with ATren concerning an SPS from WMC in Gray's BLP ... |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I had missed your comments above the section break before. Now that I read that I do think I see what you're getting at, though I'm not too sure I agree at this point. :-) In any case I'll post more tomorrow on it. I do believe strongly that the BLP policy wording is open to multiple interpretations, and regardless of what is decided in this particular case, I think it should be clarified. But I'll hold off on that until there's consensus. ATren ( talk) 05:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
|
Discussion of lede in Intermittent Power Source article with an IP user. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Article lead guidelines specify no more than 4 paragraphs in the WP:LEAD section of an article. That is why the quote on wind, which is not generally relevant to the Intermittent power source article, was moved to the wind section. Unless an article is actually about a quote, I fail to see how a long quote can be a summary of the article. It's as though you are saying, this article is about something, but I'm not sure what, though here is a long quote that might have something to do with it. In other words, the lead is supposed to summarize the article, not the other way around. As it is, the 4th and 5th paragraphs say the same thing and so the quote is not needed in the lead. 199.125.109.54 ( talk) 06:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
|
The Barnstar of Peace | ||
For your extraordinary civility and kindness in helping to resolve a dispute, you deserve praise! I don't know why or how, but something you said to me 'struck a cord', per say, and I am very thankful and appreciative there are editors like you making positively beneficial contributions to the Wikipedia community. Tycoon24 ( talk) 16:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC) |
Hey Mishlai, thanks for the info on how to archive my Talk Page! I'll get to that soon enough, when I get a chance. I definitely appreciate it.
I also need your advice on an issue I'm having with the first article I've created in Wikipedia. Since I'm new-ish, I don't really know how to go about solving this problem I'm having with a user (TharsHammar).
Since you are one of the only (as far as I can tell) unbiased editors, I need help figuring out why an article I created is up for deletion; moreover, I need help figuring out why my arguments seem to hold little weight on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nationwide Chicago Tea Party. I'm very open to any and all suggestions, considerations, and if given reason, why the article should be deleted.
The problem I'm having is running into TharsHammar's WP:FILIBUSTER.
He has refused to provide any relevant facts (the way I see it) as to why he wants to delete my article, and he has continuously been critical of any and all edits I have made that go against his view point. This is where I need your help.
I don't know how to report him correctly. What evidence should I collect against him? From your view, as an outsider, can you see how TharsHammar is running a filibuster to my article? Or is it just me? Because of the lack of reason he has given me for why the article should be deleted, and his lack of response to all of my arguments as to why the article should not be deleted, this is the only conclusion I have come to. And I believe he should be reported for it.
Simply put, I need help from you figuring out if I am wrong or if TharsHammar is wrong -- because TharsHammar won't give me any reason to suggest I am wrong. From what I can tell, you are unbiased, and even you do have your own bias (as do we all), I just need some clarification with sources, facts, or relevance to my article as to why it is the "same as" or a "different" event to the April 15 Tea Party. The February 27 Tea Party, from all of the research and information I've found, tells me it is different than the events that followed it. I really do believe they should have separate articles, and I've given so many reason for why this is the case. Since there's always a chance I could be wrong, but since there's also a chance I could be right, this is where your advice is crucial to me. Is there something I'm missing in my arguments ("the smoking-gun," per say?) or am I really that far off when I show how the two Tea Party events are different from each other? Thanks for your help! Tycoon24 ( talk) 22:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Do they (the events) have different purposes or ideologies? Are the people who organized Feb 27 uninvolved in April 15, or has it just gotten bigger? I think you have an uphill battle arguing that they are distinct, but that doesn't mean that it can't be done. It seems like Tea Party part 1 and part 2 to me, but if that's wrong then you should make that case. Make your points clearly and concisely, don't get distracted by side arguments - all of the astroturf stuff for example is a content dispute and has nothing to do with AfD. If there is overlap between the organization participation (and really it's hard to imagine that there wouldn't be) then I think these will ultimately be covered in one article for the time being. If they are completely different things, then be aware that each of them becomes a single event and the case for keeping the main article is weakened (indeed there would be no "main" article.) One of the arguments for keeping Tea Party protests was that it was not a one event violation. See the problem with arguing that they are completely different events?
As far as more events in the future, that doesn't apply yet. If the article later requires subarticles then you can argue for it then. Even if events went on through 2009 that wouldn't necessarily require subarticles - only if proper coverage required it. This isn't a loophole, and I'm not encouraging you to make the article long on purpose. If you do it will just be trimmed by someone arguing undue weight, etc.
Also, your comments [6] on TharsHammars' talk page would constitute wp:soap as well as personal attacks. You ought to remove them yourself (like, immediately) rather than waiting for Thars to make an issue of it. Try to stick to discussing content rather than individuals. Drama is bad, writing an encyclopedia is good. Mishlai ( talk) 00:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Mishlai. As a participant of the WP:Energy, I would like to ask you to comment the request for tagging WP:Energy articles by bot. The list of potential categories for tagging is located here and the discussion about which categories should be excluded from this list, is going on at the WP:Energy talkpage here. Your comments are welcome. Beagel ( talk) 12:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Ryan Delaney talk 12:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, we would like to thank you for an excellent contribution and the manner you help resolved the dispute on the Wiki entry that spoke about our church. You gave a very convincing and neutral point of view and explained in details all the policies and the potential mistake we may/had committed. We appreciate you and wish you will continue these good work.
Also, we wish to seek some professional advice from you. We are looking through the Wiki entry again and felt it has slanted towards the negative side and wish to add entries that are more positive, such as community givings, and global humanitarian supports (citing with reliable source of course). However, we are not sure this will appear self-promoting and infringed any Wiki policies. Our purpose is to put a balance to the entry so it will not appear too negative.
Thank you once again.
Blessings,
NCC Web Team
Nccwebmaster (
talk) 15:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 ( talk) 17:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The Yale Environmental Performance Index has another set of estimates for GHG emissions per capita (including land use change) for 2005 ( full data set (xls)). -- The Cunctator ( talk) 14:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mishlai,
We are not sure about if the following entry should be inside the wiki and appreciate you can give us your view in the discussion page. Thanks!
Nccwebmaster (
talk) 06:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | ||
Thanks for your even handed resolution of the ODB++ edit dispute I allowed myself to get sucked into. Woz2 ( talk) 16:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC) |
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed you listed yourself as a participant of the Energy WikiProject.
There are 2 new outlines in this area that attempt to consolidate Wikipedia's coverage of their respective subjects, gathering and organizing the articles about them into one place and including descriptions for convenience. The purposes of these outlines are to make it easier for readers to survey or review a whole subject, and to choose from Wikipedia's many articles about it.
The new energy outlines are:
Please take a look at them, and....
For more information about the format and functions of outlines, see Wikipedia:Outlines.
Building outlines of existing material (such as Wikipedia) is called " reverse outlining". Reverse outlines are useful as a revision tool, for identifying gaps in coverage and for spotting poor structuring.
Revising a work with multiple articles (such as Wikipedia) is a little different than revising a paper. But the general principles are the same...
As you develop these outlines, you may notice things about the articles they organize. Like what topics are not adequately covered, better ways to structure and present the material, awkward titles, articles that need splitting, article sections lacking {{ Main}} links, etc.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
The Transhumanist 00:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
P.S.: see also
Outline of energy
Hey Mishali,
I just noticed that quite while ago you made the edit on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita article, where you used the data from the World Resources Institute.
I am not sure if you are still actively editing in wikipedia, but I just wanted to tell you that WRI just published a new data set. Just thought I tell you if want or have time to update the article. I would love to do it, but am a bit to busy... if you don't have time either, I see if I could to it some time.
Data is available here: cait2.wri.org
All the best, Johannes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.21.162 ( talk) 12:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
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) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello: if you are receiving this, you have transcluded Example ( talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks confirmed suspected | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE), I have created a Usercheck with more content, that I plan to update with more when I come across it, as of right now Usercheck-Super has only three more things than Usercheck-full, but as mentioned, I plan to update it, the three things I mentioned are pending changes log, giving all of the revisions you have accepted or rejected, Abuse filter, which gives you the ability to examine your edits, and get many details about an edit, along with Articles created, which links to a page which gives a breakdown of all the pages you have made. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Mishlai ( talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)
Feel free to sit down and make yourself comfortable. I'll try to continue conversations here for continuity, so if you ask a question and are expecting a response, you may wish to watch this page.
- Mish
|
... Discussion with RonCram concerning the Wegman Report & AGW ... |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
For example, McIntyre and McKitrick won the Hockey Stick controversy. Have you read the Wegman Report? If you had, you would know it was written by statisticians. They were appalled both at the claims Mann made for the robustness of the statistics used and the fact Mann did not check with any real statisticians before he published. The National Academy of Sciences also weighed in on the controversy. While NAS was very polite to Mann and talked of the value of proxy studies, the report sided with McIntyre on all disputed points of science. They concluded that the bristlecone pine proxy were unreliable. They concluded the 20th century was the warmest in 600 years, but were unable to support Mann's claim it was the warmest in 1000 years. Mann was required to publish a corrigendum. BTW, Michael Mann is one of the operators of RealClimate, so their policy is to proclaim victory and change the subject. Mann's supporters call themselves the "Hockey Team." This group of people, including Wahl and Ammann, have published other proxy studies calling them "independent" but they also rely on bristlecone pine or other proxies known to be unreliable. This confuses some scientists and gives the IPCC cover. One aspect of the global warming controversy I find interesting is the group think. This is an interesting phenomenon among climate scientists. I do not believe they are all dishonest (as I do believe Michael Mann is), but it is obvious many of them fall under the sway of the claim "the science is settled." After breaking the Hockey Stick, many more scientists are becoming more outspoken about being skeptical of AGW. I have worked on the article you mentioned List of scientists opposing global warming consensus. William Connelly and his posse fight against including self-described skeptical scientists all the time, but there are many more listed now (and higher quality scientists) than before I arrived. The article used to claim the list was intended to be comprehensive. There are far too many skeptical scientists to list them all. You claim people are attacking the IPCC on nebulous political grounds instead of the science. I have no idea what you are talking about. The entire criticism is that the IPCC is ignoring and twisting the science. You are only reading one side of the debate. You might be interested to know that the warmers are playing with the temperature dataset again. I would suggest you read the story and the posted comments here. [1]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RonCram ( talk • contribs).
|
Compliments to me from Stephan Schulz and Raymond Arritt concerning AGW talk page explanations |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Thanks for your detailed and excellent arguments on talk:global warming and related pages. I try to do something similar, but, by now, I sometimes run out of patience and become much more brusque. -- Stephan Schulz 07:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
|
... Advocacy request over dispute with Hypnosadist ... |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia has a whole system to solve disputes consisting in some steps (take a look on it here), from the lightest to the heaviest one. The idea is to use the last resort only on very grave situations and, from what I read of the dispute, this is not the case. The best thing you can do now is to negotiate with the other party: to discuss civilly and try to get consensus and also try to understand the other's point of view on how should the article be written. But, maybe, an article request for comment (considered as the "second" resort on dispute resolutions) could be useful to bring new editors to the article with new and also better ideas. What I highly suggest you not to do, at least for now, is a user request for comment. Any comments? If you prefer, you can contact me via email. -- Neigel von Teighen 15:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you don't (and won't) need any further action. Negotiation and RfC are the best for solving the dispute you have there. Any question you need an answer for, just call me on my talk page or email. -- Neigel von Teighen 12:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
[... Discussion with WFPM about Nuclear Power, new to wiki, etc. ...] |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
... Compliments and discussion from Engineman concerning Intermittent Power Source article ... |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Great editing - looks really good. you say you want a better reference for demand reduction, i don't know if this one will help, its from the Diesel Generator article.....which has some relevance....
This is extremely beneficial for both parties - the diesels have already been purchased for other reasons; but to be reliable need to be fully load tested. Grid paralleling is a convenient way of doing this. In this way the UK National Grid can call on about 2 GW of plant which is up and running in parallel as quickly as two minutes in some cases. This is far quicker than a base load power station which can take 12 hours from cold, and faster than a gas turbine, which can take several minutes. Whilst diesels are very expensive in fuel terms, they are only used a few hundred hours per year in this duty, and their availability can prevent the need for base load station running inefficiently at part load continuously. The diesel fuel used is fuel that would have been used in testing anyway. See Control of the National Grid (UK), National Grid (UK) reserve service [1], [2][3] A similar system operates in France known as EJP, where at times of grid extremis special tariffs can mobilize at leas 5 Gw of diesels to become available.In this case, the diesels prime function is to feed power into the grid. [4][3]
|
Compliments and capacity credit discussion from Engineman |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Yes - still totally impressed by your editing skill - its looking really good now that a lot of the dross and repetition has been removed - the previous was far to long and rambling. I am not sure if Sinden actually says what is quoted in the wikipedia article in the referenced book, but he has certainly stated it to me and to others in public - any way it certainly is the case that no serous commentator perceives the benefit of wind to come from capacity reduction as is often mi-stated in main stream press- its is widely acknowledged that conventional plant will have to be started during low wind periods - which will happen about 5 - 10 % of the time in Europe...Best..Engineman. PS can I suggest you may wish to join the Claverton Energy Group where technical experts discuss these kind of issues to the nth degree. http://www.claverton-energy.com/# Engineman ( talk) 09:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
|
Discussion of Sizewell with Engineman |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
- you won;t find a referencer to sizewell being the biggest intermittent source, but it is well known in the industry that that is they case. ?I'll try and find a reference, but it is true. Sizwell's fialure caused the recent power failure a fuew mohts ago - that is referecned..... Engineman ( talk) 10:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
|
Discussion with Engineman concerning the meaning of "regularly" in the context of intermittance |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In this context this can mean everry few year. It doesn really matter how often, the fact is, it is well known that in CAN sudeenlty stop genreating on both 660 MW turbines - it is the only station where this can happen...in the Uk...so the grid has to have steps in hand to deal with it...even though it may never in fact happen. Engineman ( talk) 11:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
|
Brief content suggestion from Q Science and response |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
What about a new page. It can give fair treatment to several definitions and explain how each is used and abused by those that show a preference. We already have enough data. Q Science ( talk) 06:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
|
... Friendly discussion with ATren concerning an SPS from WMC in Gray's BLP ... |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I had missed your comments above the section break before. Now that I read that I do think I see what you're getting at, though I'm not too sure I agree at this point. :-) In any case I'll post more tomorrow on it. I do believe strongly that the BLP policy wording is open to multiple interpretations, and regardless of what is decided in this particular case, I think it should be clarified. But I'll hold off on that until there's consensus. ATren ( talk) 05:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
|
Discussion of lede in Intermittent Power Source article with an IP user. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Article lead guidelines specify no more than 4 paragraphs in the WP:LEAD section of an article. That is why the quote on wind, which is not generally relevant to the Intermittent power source article, was moved to the wind section. Unless an article is actually about a quote, I fail to see how a long quote can be a summary of the article. It's as though you are saying, this article is about something, but I'm not sure what, though here is a long quote that might have something to do with it. In other words, the lead is supposed to summarize the article, not the other way around. As it is, the 4th and 5th paragraphs say the same thing and so the quote is not needed in the lead. 199.125.109.54 ( talk) 06:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
|
The Barnstar of Peace | ||
For your extraordinary civility and kindness in helping to resolve a dispute, you deserve praise! I don't know why or how, but something you said to me 'struck a cord', per say, and I am very thankful and appreciative there are editors like you making positively beneficial contributions to the Wikipedia community. Tycoon24 ( talk) 16:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC) |
Hey Mishlai, thanks for the info on how to archive my Talk Page! I'll get to that soon enough, when I get a chance. I definitely appreciate it.
I also need your advice on an issue I'm having with the first article I've created in Wikipedia. Since I'm new-ish, I don't really know how to go about solving this problem I'm having with a user (TharsHammar).
Since you are one of the only (as far as I can tell) unbiased editors, I need help figuring out why an article I created is up for deletion; moreover, I need help figuring out why my arguments seem to hold little weight on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nationwide Chicago Tea Party. I'm very open to any and all suggestions, considerations, and if given reason, why the article should be deleted.
The problem I'm having is running into TharsHammar's WP:FILIBUSTER.
He has refused to provide any relevant facts (the way I see it) as to why he wants to delete my article, and he has continuously been critical of any and all edits I have made that go against his view point. This is where I need your help.
I don't know how to report him correctly. What evidence should I collect against him? From your view, as an outsider, can you see how TharsHammar is running a filibuster to my article? Or is it just me? Because of the lack of reason he has given me for why the article should be deleted, and his lack of response to all of my arguments as to why the article should not be deleted, this is the only conclusion I have come to. And I believe he should be reported for it.
Simply put, I need help from you figuring out if I am wrong or if TharsHammar is wrong -- because TharsHammar won't give me any reason to suggest I am wrong. From what I can tell, you are unbiased, and even you do have your own bias (as do we all), I just need some clarification with sources, facts, or relevance to my article as to why it is the "same as" or a "different" event to the April 15 Tea Party. The February 27 Tea Party, from all of the research and information I've found, tells me it is different than the events that followed it. I really do believe they should have separate articles, and I've given so many reason for why this is the case. Since there's always a chance I could be wrong, but since there's also a chance I could be right, this is where your advice is crucial to me. Is there something I'm missing in my arguments ("the smoking-gun," per say?) or am I really that far off when I show how the two Tea Party events are different from each other? Thanks for your help! Tycoon24 ( talk) 22:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Do they (the events) have different purposes or ideologies? Are the people who organized Feb 27 uninvolved in April 15, or has it just gotten bigger? I think you have an uphill battle arguing that they are distinct, but that doesn't mean that it can't be done. It seems like Tea Party part 1 and part 2 to me, but if that's wrong then you should make that case. Make your points clearly and concisely, don't get distracted by side arguments - all of the astroturf stuff for example is a content dispute and has nothing to do with AfD. If there is overlap between the organization participation (and really it's hard to imagine that there wouldn't be) then I think these will ultimately be covered in one article for the time being. If they are completely different things, then be aware that each of them becomes a single event and the case for keeping the main article is weakened (indeed there would be no "main" article.) One of the arguments for keeping Tea Party protests was that it was not a one event violation. See the problem with arguing that they are completely different events?
As far as more events in the future, that doesn't apply yet. If the article later requires subarticles then you can argue for it then. Even if events went on through 2009 that wouldn't necessarily require subarticles - only if proper coverage required it. This isn't a loophole, and I'm not encouraging you to make the article long on purpose. If you do it will just be trimmed by someone arguing undue weight, etc.
Also, your comments [6] on TharsHammars' talk page would constitute wp:soap as well as personal attacks. You ought to remove them yourself (like, immediately) rather than waiting for Thars to make an issue of it. Try to stick to discussing content rather than individuals. Drama is bad, writing an encyclopedia is good. Mishlai ( talk) 00:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Mishlai. As a participant of the WP:Energy, I would like to ask you to comment the request for tagging WP:Energy articles by bot. The list of potential categories for tagging is located here and the discussion about which categories should be excluded from this list, is going on at the WP:Energy talkpage here. Your comments are welcome. Beagel ( talk) 12:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Ryan Delaney talk 12:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, we would like to thank you for an excellent contribution and the manner you help resolved the dispute on the Wiki entry that spoke about our church. You gave a very convincing and neutral point of view and explained in details all the policies and the potential mistake we may/had committed. We appreciate you and wish you will continue these good work.
Also, we wish to seek some professional advice from you. We are looking through the Wiki entry again and felt it has slanted towards the negative side and wish to add entries that are more positive, such as community givings, and global humanitarian supports (citing with reliable source of course). However, we are not sure this will appear self-promoting and infringed any Wiki policies. Our purpose is to put a balance to the entry so it will not appear too negative.
Thank you once again.
Blessings,
NCC Web Team
Nccwebmaster (
talk) 15:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 ( talk) 17:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The Yale Environmental Performance Index has another set of estimates for GHG emissions per capita (including land use change) for 2005 ( full data set (xls)). -- The Cunctator ( talk) 14:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mishlai,
We are not sure about if the following entry should be inside the wiki and appreciate you can give us your view in the discussion page. Thanks!
Nccwebmaster (
talk) 06:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | ||
Thanks for your even handed resolution of the ODB++ edit dispute I allowed myself to get sucked into. Woz2 ( talk) 16:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC) |
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed you listed yourself as a participant of the Energy WikiProject.
There are 2 new outlines in this area that attempt to consolidate Wikipedia's coverage of their respective subjects, gathering and organizing the articles about them into one place and including descriptions for convenience. The purposes of these outlines are to make it easier for readers to survey or review a whole subject, and to choose from Wikipedia's many articles about it.
The new energy outlines are:
Please take a look at them, and....
For more information about the format and functions of outlines, see Wikipedia:Outlines.
Building outlines of existing material (such as Wikipedia) is called " reverse outlining". Reverse outlines are useful as a revision tool, for identifying gaps in coverage and for spotting poor structuring.
Revising a work with multiple articles (such as Wikipedia) is a little different than revising a paper. But the general principles are the same...
As you develop these outlines, you may notice things about the articles they organize. Like what topics are not adequately covered, better ways to structure and present the material, awkward titles, articles that need splitting, article sections lacking {{ Main}} links, etc.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
The Transhumanist 00:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
P.S.: see also
Outline of energy
Hey Mishali,
I just noticed that quite while ago you made the edit on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita article, where you used the data from the World Resources Institute.
I am not sure if you are still actively editing in wikipedia, but I just wanted to tell you that WRI just published a new data set. Just thought I tell you if want or have time to update the article. I would love to do it, but am a bit to busy... if you don't have time either, I see if I could to it some time.
Data is available here: cait2.wri.org
All the best, Johannes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.21.162 ( talk) 12:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
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) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello: if you are receiving this, you have transcluded Example ( talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks confirmed suspected | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE), I have created a Usercheck with more content, that I plan to update with more when I come across it, as of right now Usercheck-Super has only three more things than Usercheck-full, but as mentioned, I plan to update it, the three things I mentioned are pending changes log, giving all of the revisions you have accepted or rejected, Abuse filter, which gives you the ability to examine your edits, and get many details about an edit, along with Articles created, which links to a page which gives a breakdown of all the pages you have made. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)