User talk:Andrewa
G'day! This is Andrew Alder's user talk page, you knew that. Welcome!
 | If I left you a message on your talk page, please respond there, I am watching your talk page. That's of course unless the message at your talk page was a mere heads-up as to progress on a discussion here or on another talk page, in which case probably best to continue the discussion where it is.
I prefer to discuss issues regarding any particular article, policy etc. at its talk page, so if I'm already involved in a discussion there's no need to fork the discussion to here, and if not then a simple heads-up here with a link to the relevant talk page and section is best. Be aware of the canvassing guidelines, but if you're just asking me for advice rather than a whole list of people there should be no problem there. Please don't censor my talk page. Just because you don't support what someone else is saying is no reason to remove it. Is it now? (You wouldn't think I had to say that, but I have learned otherwise.) On the other hand, if the edits you are removing are by banned users (or their socks), then please feel free to do it. That's not censorship, it's administrative drudgery, and I thank you for taking it on. But if there's doubt as to who the contributor really is, or if the proposed ban is not yet in force, or both, better to leave me to clean up my own page. (And again I would have thought that was obvious to all, but have learned otherwise.) A non-abusive heads-up on the antics of the contributor, in reply to what they have said or done here, is always appreciated. TIA! |  |
If you're tempted to go below the top three levels, you might like to read User:Andrewa/How not to rant first
| This is Andrewa's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 31 days  |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
| |||
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).
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.[1]
"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."
- ^ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00472.x/full Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Electricity Generation
Merger Proposal
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.
Portals tasks requests: presented in the newsletter below...
Happy First Edit Day!
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #030, 17 Mar 2019
Previous issue:
- Single-page portals: 4,704
- Total portals: 5,705
This issue:
- Single-page portals: 4,562
- Total portals: 5,578
The collection of portals has shrunk
All Portals closed at WP:MfD during 2019
Grouped Nominations total 127 Portals:
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/US County Portals Deleted 64 portals
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Districts of India Portals Deleted 30 Portals
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portals for Portland, Oregon neighborhoods Deleted 23 Portals
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Allen Park, Michigan Deleted 6 Portals
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cryptocurrency Deleted 2 Portals
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:North Pole Deleted 2 Portals
Individual Nominations:
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Circles Deleted
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Fruits Deleted
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:E (mathematical constant) Deleted
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Burger King Deleted
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cotingas Deleted
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Canada Deleted
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Agoura Hills, California Deleted
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Urinary system Deleted
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:You Am I Deleted
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cannabis (2nd nomination) Reverted to non-Automated version
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Intermodal containers Deleted
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adventure travel Deleted
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adam Ant Deleted
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Benito Juárez, Mexico City Deleted
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Spaghetti Deleted
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wikiatlas Deleted
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Greek alphabet Deleted
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Deleted
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Accounting Deleted G7
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lents, Portland, Oregon Deleted P2
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ankaran Deleted
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jiu-jitsu Deleted G8
- Portal:University of Nebraska Speedy Deleted P1/A10 exactly the same as Portal:University of Nebraska–Lincoln also created by the TTH
Related WikiProject:
(Attribution: Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Portal MfD Results)
WikiProject Quantum portals
This was a spin-off from WikiProject Portals, for the purpose of developing zero-page portals (portals generated on-the-screen at the push of a button, with no stored pages).
It has been merged back into WikiProject Portals. In the MfD the vote was "demote". See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals.
Hiatus on mass creation of Portals
At WP:VPR, mass creation of Portals using semi-automated tools has been put on hold until clearer community consensus is established.
See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Hiatus on mass creation of Portals.
The Transhumanist banned from creating new portals for 3 months
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal 1: Interim Topic-Ban on New Portals.
Until next issue...
Keep on keepin' on. — The Transhumanist 09:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Andrew.
Just in case you aren't aware, your contribution on the Patrick Moore (consultant) (sic!) page is a bit troublesome.
"If it's sources that we regard as reliable versus Greenpeace, we have a dilemma." To me, an otusider, it means that you are wholeheartedly on Greenpeace side. Here you voiced a concern, that multiple reliable unrelated sources cast serious doubt on integrity of current Greenpeace steering commitee, and you would like that not to happen.
The very next para: "If we could find reliable secondary sources that state he's not a founder, that would mean we could say that sources vary, and cite both." - seriously, you still consider your approach to be NPOV? When something you do not like (being exposed lying) happens to something (Greenpeace) you want to be promoted as "good" on WP, you start looking for excuses that would look - at least superficially - grounded.
Do you like Greenpeace so much, that you are ready to give up on your journalistic integrity to back their lies up?