User talk:Andrewa

G'day! This is Andrew Alder's user talk page, you knew that. Welcome!

If you're tempted to go below the top three levels, you might like to read User:Andrewa/How not to rant first

Psalm 150 (paraphrased)

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Volume I, Issue III February 2012 Front cover | Feature | News and announcements | Humor | Want ads To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page. ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.

List of current IPL team rosters listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of current IPL team rosters. Since you had some involvement with the List of current IPL team rosters redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).

Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources

As I noticed you on the talk page, please check this out and let me know what you think.

2012 Yale University systematic review and Harmonization

A Yale University review published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology analyzing CO2 life cycle assessment emissions from nuclear power determined that.

"The collective LCA literature indicates that life cycle GHG emissions from nuclear power are only a fraction of traditional fossil sources and comparable to renewable technologies."

It went on to note that for the most common category of reactors, the Light water reactor:

"Harmonization decreased the median estimate for all LWR technology categories so that the medians of BWRs, PWRs, and all LWRs are similar, at approximately 12 g CO2-eq/kWh"

The study noted that differences between emissions scenarios were:

"The electric system was dominated by nuclear (or renewables) and a system dominated by coal can result in a fairly large ranging (from 4 to 22 g CO2-eq/kWh) compared to (30 to 110 g CO2-eq/kWh), respectively."

The study predicted that depending on a number of variables, including how carbon intensive the electricity supply was in the future, and the quality of Uranium ore:

"median life cycle GHG emissions could be 9 to 110 g CO2-eq/kWh by 2050."

Merger Proposal

You've got mail

Hello, Andrewa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Road Case/Flight case merge

Agreed. I think that someone looking for encyclopaedic information on this topic would not differentiate between a flight or road case and would want all the information available in one article. Indeed, it would make Wikipedia more concise to merge. A visitor may not know there's any difference anyway, and not look for the other article at all.

What is the procedure for getting a merge to happen once it's been flagged on a talk page?Black Stripe (talk) 14 July 2013.

Cuban missile crisis or Cuban Missile Crisis

There is currently another vote taking place on the talk page of Cuban missile crisis whether to recapitalize the name or keep it in lowercase. You participated in the 2012 vote, and may want to voice an opinion or comment on this one. I'm writing this to the voters from 2012 who may not know about this vote. Randy Kryn 19:04 13 January, 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Andrewa. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

please help

dear sir, can you help with ethnic issues in Japan? the article has multiple issues and needs urgent attention. Фквжьись (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

AN/I goof?

Andrew, if my latest conjecture at AN/I is correct, you might want to just hat that whole section, or move it, or in some other way address the error. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Capitalisation

I'll completely back you if you try to get the policy on title capitalisation changed. The current situation is ridiculous, and I suspect you'll find a lot of support. G-13114 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, User:G-13114. It will also face a lot of bitter opposition.

Several editors have put a lot of time and effort into implementing Sanger's style decision on capitalisation. (See the very first version of WP:AT which he wrote.) They've done it in good faith, following the guidelines of the time, and to have their work thrown out is not welcome, understandably. And they've defended their actions in good faith. There has been much bitter discussion, it has lost editors, and people are rightfully sick of talking about it.

Sanger does refer to previous discussion on that point, but I have not been able to locate it. The MediaWiki software has changed a lot since then, the WikiText syntax has changed, and some of the links don't work as a result. Any help finding these previous discussions is appreciated, but it may be a lost cause.

I'm still getting my thoughts together, but personally I think we should adopt a style that says use capitals in article titles wherever it makes the topic clearer to the general reader (and not otherwise). This would capitalise for example Eastern Brown Snake.

The other obstacle to overcome is that some people have very strong feelings as to what is correct capitalisation, generally expressed in terms of proper nouns and proper names. They are I think mistaken in this. Modern linguists cannot even agree on what these terms mean, let alone the circumstances in which they justify capital letters. But in Australia most people haven't studied grammar since primary school, where such simplifications are necessary, and I suspect America (where most of our potential supporters and opponents were educated) is the same. Andrewa (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I really have two objections to the current rules:

1) I really can't see the logic to using sentence case for titles, virtually no publications I know of in the real world use this convention, and titles are IMO supposed to be different from the text, as they fulfil a different purpose.

2) The current one-size-fits-all convention is inflexible and often completely inappropriate for certain topic areas, and it can lead to a situation where an incoherent mishmash of capitalised and non-capitalised titles can exist within one category. I would say there is a good case for consistency within categories.

G-13114 (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Good points all, but I'm not in complete agreement with several of them. It sounds as if you would use capitals in titles even more frequently than I would. Andrewa (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Gawker RSN discussion

Thanks for your comments and help. I'm trying to walk the line between deescalating the situation and clarifying it for editors such as yourself. I'd hope we can get to the point where we can get further discussion from outside editors. So far Collect has made clear statements against using the source, MrOllie has provided some context, and you've commented that the source might be used in a limited manner. --Ronz (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever looked at the hat documentation. That's embarrassing. Thanks for bringing it up. I use them regularly to de-emphasize extra details and side discussions. In this case, I was treating it as a side discussion on a topic that I'd already asked for responses on my talk page [1]. I won't be doing that again, but will continue to use it for extra details. --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't help that wp:hat redirects to wp:hatnote and until recently that was a dead-end. I'd guess from that we can conclude that a great many haven't looked too hard for the doco (or it would have been fixed long ago).

Ironical that wp:hatnote lacked such a much-needed hatnote, what? (;-> Andrewa (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

[2] What specifically are you referring to, if anything, other than the hat? --Ronz (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

question

Would you please remove my name from your last comment on the RSN re: Napoleon Hill? I ask because you've made it appear as if I've signed my name there and I have not. You can substitute a reply in {{ }} instead. That makes it clear that I did not sign my name there. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. I do not see any problem, but it's easily solved. Andrewa (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Apostrophectomy listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Apostrophectomy. Since you had some involvement with the Apostrophectomy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Rude comment

Hi, Andrewa. I find the fact that you linked your comment aimed to the RM proposal made by me, to the newly created essay by you, quite rude. It says that you considered it humorous and asks do not take it seriously but I think you are wrong here. Actually, by my understanding everybody should take wiki policies seriously. Saying this, I have to say that I agree with your comment but not with link it to your essay. Actually, I have read WP:TITLE and WP:NCCORP (well, not in this particular case but tens times before) and my mistake was not to elaborate the rationale in more details. Actually, there is a lot of sources using the new name after the company was purchased by creditors, so I think that it is possible to establish the notability of the new name. My bad was not adding these sources (except one) to the article before nominating it for renaming. This was because of the current shape of this article. It miss a lot of information from the earlier history as also about more recent development (actually everything what has happened after filing for bankruptcy protection) and by my understanding it was just created because the company's listing and was mainly missed afterwards. I tried to sort out that mess but soon discovered that the total rewriting of this article may be a good idea. Saying this, that article is not my top priority and due to lack of time there is a long list of thing in wiki I want to do before spending my time for exploring that company and rewriting that article. Once more, I am not disagree with your comment but with link to rather rude essay. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)