User talk:Mishlai

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

About Mishlai[edit]

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 · UtHx · UtE)

Welcome to Mishlai's talk page[edit]

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

Tip of the Day[edit]

Tip of the day...

Prove it with ProveIt

ProveIt is a user script (and gadget) that makes it easy to find, edit, add, and cite references in Wikipedia articles.

It provides a graphical interface for editing, adding, and citing references.

Prior tip - Next tip

To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd}}.

Become a Wikipedia tipster

Welcoming myself because the links are convenient[edit]

Hello, Mishlai! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Mishlai (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles

Thank you for the note[edit]

Thanks for your good explanations![edit]

AMA Advocacy[edit]

Nuclear power article[edit]


capacity credit[edit]



GW Terminology[edit]

The BLP debate[edit]


Thank You[edit]

Peace Barnstar 6.png 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)
My 1st barnstar! Thank you very much! Mishlai

Advice needed[edit]

Request for tagging WP:Energy categories[edit]

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)

Thank you for the notice/invitation. Mishlai (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009[edit]

Information.svg 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 Button sig.png 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)

LOL. Mishlai (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and advice needed[edit]

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)

Well, yes, that does sound self-promoting, but at least you're aware of that. If you have reliable sources you should post them in the talk page along with suggestions for the kinds of passages you would like to be added. How much of that makes it into an article is a slightly complicated matter - depending upon the notability of the information, the reliability of the sources, and how much weight seems appropriate for various topics within the article. Ultimately it is not our job to promote your church or degrade it, but to neutrally describe the information that already exists publicly.
If you have newspaper articles, etc. (or whatever the sources are) describing the information you would like to add, that would be a good place to start. Your own website would not count for most things - I think you already know that. We were able to use it for the church's response to allegations, but those are different circumstances. We (probably) would not be able to use church-published information to describe your charitable works.
Be prepared to accept that some of what you want to add is not going to make it into the article - it's rare that we get exactly what we personally want in a consensus based process.
I'm willing to spend a little time with this to help make sure that the material is dealt with fairly, but of course I'm doing other things too. Go ahead and begin a discussion at the article talk page. I'll join in as I have time, and you can always stop by here if you have specific questions or concerns that you would like me to look at. Cheers. Mishlai (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mishlai, we are looking at the edits again today, and we had suspicions that Ahnan's posting was not from a neutural point of view, but rather he/she had a certain level of intention to attack the character of our Senior Pastor. Looking at the download source of the "scanned copy" of The Straits Time (which is repeated citation 12) , it is pointing to, which is a church website, probably his/hers and that make his/her intention very dubious. This is very unfortunate. We do not wish to post this on a discussion thread or whatsoever for the fact that we believed he/she is our brother/sister-in-Christ, and we do not want to get involved in an argument with another church. We seek your help to resolve this from a neutral point of view. If putting links and content may sound self-promoting, we wonder what Ahnan is doing is really coming from the angle of benefiting the Wiki community. We seek your kind intervention to this issue.
NCC Web Team Nccwebmaster (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a look at it, but it is not my intention to operate as your proxy, or to conceal your reservations from the article by discussing them at my talk page only. If you have a concern, it will ultimately need to be voiced there to get addressed. There's nothing wrong with coming here 1st, but content dispute is an inevitable part of this process. Mishlai (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I've made a few edits and added a bit more of the balancing information from Prince's side of the controversy, but I think that the article's sourcing is good. Wikipedia's policy concerning a scanned copy of a newspaper article being posted by an editor is unclear to me, but it's a mute point since it's a duplicate of the online version anyway. The statement would stand on the online version alone.
I agree with your assessment that there is POV involved here (on both sides) but as long as statements are being made from reliable sources that's ok. Multiple editors operating with different POVs and following Wikipedia policy can still produce an article that is relatively neutral. The best thing I can suggest is for you to look for reliable sources describing positive information that isn't already in the article - stuff unrelated to the controversy perhaps and then suggest on the talk page that it be added. Your church can also facilitate this process by trying to get reputable newspapers (with online publication in English) to run stories on the church. Once it's published by a reliable source, it can be considered for the article.
Any church that raises large sums of money is going to receive some criticism for that, and any pastor making more than the church's flock should expect a bit of criticism, too - particularly if that pastor becomes well known. Editorializing creeps in a bit, and I'm happy to remove those things as they come up, but the dry facts are going to remain. Honestly there isn't that much bad information, just statements of what the pastor makes, that he drives a nice car, that the church is raising money for a new entertainment complex styled place of worship. If these things are considered to be damning in their own right... well, why do them? Is it the church's stance that these reliable sources have gotten their basic information wrong? Mishlai (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies[edit]

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)

GHG emissions[edit]

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)

Thank you. I'm taking a wiki break atm, so I'm not sure when I'll actually get to making the changes I discussed. Mishlai (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Request help in discussion on New Creation Church Singapore[edit]

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!

Content and style of preaching
The content and style of preaching and teaching in the church are deemed to be controversial by some critics. One such critics, Rien van de Kraats, who leads the Netherlands-based Back to the Bible workgroup, a self-proclaimed "small group of Christians" concerned with "the spiritual the Netherlands and Belgium" [18] (not to be confused with the US-based international Christian ministry Back to the Bible led by Dr Woodrow M. Kroll) , after he listened to the CD recording of three (3) services [19], wrote in an article dated 1 April 2007 that the senior pastor Joseph Prince "exceeds several times the limits of biblical decency"; "preaches biblical falsities, or rather things that are not written"; "frequently imitates people, who have questions concerning his message...[in a way that is] humiliating for the persons concerned and certainly doesn’t radiate pastoral compassion"; "comes across rather compelling... does this for example by always demanding from his listeners to agree with his message by calling the word amen...also lets them repeat his sentences frequently, as an affirmation that they listen to him and that his message is true"; "is manipulative and works toward a certain climax"; and that "In the message of Joseph Prince the same sound rings through. He only adds something. He adds the prosperity message. He uses the good, biblical term of grace to lead up to his eventual aim: that is material blessings for those who live by grace. This principle occurs in all his messages. From his statements concerning grace he always comes back to prosperity, which should be conferred upon every Christian who lives by grace." The article made this conclusion about Joseph Prince, "We do not think it is advisable to get the dogma of Joseph Prince in the congregation."[19]

Nccwebmaster (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating trust in my judgment by asking for my help. It's possible that the material is inappropriate based on the quality of the source or on wp:undue. Unfortunately I don't have the time to address this thoroughly right now. You might ask for an RFC to get additional attention on the article. Alternatively, user:Bigger digger likes to give 3rd opinions and seems to be a pretty reasonable person. Mishlai (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought you might like to know that I posted this to WP:COIN again - an admin blocked Nccwebmaster as a result. Smartse (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. Mishlai (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mishlai, due to my COI status, and to prevent stirring up unnecessary disputes, may I request your help to:
1. review the proposed redrafting of the article by BL here:
2. give your comments here:
Thank you very much!Tanlipkee (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry I never responded to this. I've been off of Wikipedia for a while. Mishlai (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


Peace Barnstar 6.png 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)
Thank you kindly. Mishlai (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad to see Woz2 did this, because I too wanted to say that was a fairly Solomon-like third opinion. Well done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
That's very kind, and much appreciated. Mishlai (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution[edit]

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for help concerning energy...[edit]


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....

if you spot missing topics, add them in.
if you can, improve the descriptions.
add missing descriptions.
show parent-offspring relationships (with indents).
fix errors.

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

List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita[edit]

Hey Mishali,

I just noticed that quite while ago you made the edit on the 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:

All the best, Johannes — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)