User talk:Escientist

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

I look forward to your input - Please see my profile Escientist (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Escientist,

I have made a comment at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Newcomer_request_for_assistance

Dymonite (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sun path (and copyright)[edit]

Hi Escientist, got your message and thanks. It would be good if you could put an opening sentence in the Sun path article that gives a concise definition using the article title, eg: "Sun path refers to..."

Another important issue: the article seems to be a copy of your website but your website has a message Copyright 1980 – 2007 Larry Hartweg www.ZeroEnergyDesign.com All international rights reserved - Tenth Edition - July 2007 - No reproduction in any form without explicit written permission. The problem is that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted materials without permission. Can I assume that you, as copyright holder, are willing to give such permission? We may need to send a email to your website email address to confirm this, or get you to update your website to say you license the content under the GFDL license. 11:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Passive Solar Design[edit]

Escientist wrote:

The power companies' 1960's - 1970's nationwide "Gold Medallion" all-electric home program actively promoted the worst energy wasting building designs in the history of mankind.[1]
For three decades - since the 1978 U.S. Solar Energy Tax Credits, 70% to 90% energy consumption reduction has been proven in well-designed, cost-effective, passive solar and near zero energy buildings."Side By Side Comparison"
Hi Escientist, I thought I would bring up a couple examples of your recent edits. The first is an example of using a 'peacock' term or in classical terminology - hyperbole or rhetoric. You use the phrase 'worst energy wasting building designs in the history of mankind'. You then back it up with a reference from a blog (not from a credible primary or secondary research). The Gold Medallion program (which you have not defined) may have be expensive or encourage energy intensive usage but saying its the 'worst' is an opinion or speculation. It may have been a policy that did not encourage low energy or renewable use. You might possibly be able to prove it was the worst ever intervention by demonstrating the consequences of this venture by supplying definite figures and comparisons with other energy-intensive projects or buildings. It is probably just safer to state the proven consequences of this policy and let the reader decide whether it was a terrible idea or not. For example I don't think I can state Amazonian deforestation is the worse intervention in world ecology (someone might argue that the invention of the steam engine was instead). But I could talk about what it involves, its extent, the proven consequences of it, and alternatives that could have been reached and whatever cost that might have incurred.
The second statements has a more credible reference with inclusion of a primary reference source. However, you open the statement with 'For three decades..energy consumption has been proven.' If I am right you are perhaps saying that for 30 years now we have the technology to save energy but why the heck hasn't anyone done anything about it??. I think you can restate this in less emotive terms such as....
Energy efficient design principles have been available since the late '70s due to the pioneering work of....... (reference supplied). These concepts have been incorporated in practical constructions over this period (more references). Evaluation of such buildings have demonstrated their cost-effectiveness and feasibility (references again).
You can see the last paragraph states the facts without attempting to 'lead' the opinion of the reader. He will read it for himself and think 'wow this technology has been around for a while' and bring himself to his own opinion of why it has not been widely utilised. The paragraph also makes no assumption that ZEB concepts actually work; only that they have been used. The sentence then comments on the results of an objective evaluation of ZEB. The reader has the opportunity to read the references for themselves to see if a favourable opinion is warranted.Dymonite (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Energy Development[edit]

I've reverted the whole section on quantum power that you added to Energy development; I believe this section was under-refereneced considering the striking and original nature of its contents. It also read more like an essay or entry in a Wikibook than an encyclopedia entry. It was rather speculative, as well, which is not the tone for an encyclopedia article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Gold medallion home[edit]

I think you have overstated what we know about the impact from the Medallion program. From what I can gather from your link was that people were simply encouraged to purchase electrical appliances and the consequences were huge electrical bills. Now it may be true that they were not energy efficient constructions (leaky, poorly insulated, low-efficiency applicances) but you don't have data for this. We need to separate making concrete causation statements from mere association.Dymonite (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The history of energy policy is not the history of passive solar design[edit]

The energy policy of the government of the day is related but not part of the history of passive solar design. Minimising electrical/energy use by good design is important but owning electrical appliances is not itself the antithesis of passive solar design. If you wish you could start a separate article about the history of government energy policy. The present article should just focus the history of the principles of passive solar design.Dymonite (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Editorial style for wikipedia[edit]

To save you unnecessary reversions, you may find these specific articles on Wikipedia helpful on stylistic elements and written expression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOAPBOX#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox

If you strongly wish to share a opinion or make an advocacy, there are plenty of other forums that serve this purposes - special interest groups and internet chat rooms. Wikipedia only deals with known facts in the public domain that are not easily refutable or disproven.

The information should be valid not based on the credibility of the Wikipedian or its supporters - nor by the lack of credibility of its opponents or detractors. There is no specific need to establish ones own credentials or denigrate the reputation of someone else. The only important factor is the credibility of the original source.Dymonite (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

tidal energy[edit]

i've removed this addition. there is only one commercial tidal energy plant worldwide today, generating a minuscule 150kW. this doesn't fit under 'energy development' - more properly, it fits in the Future energy development artictle - where it is already addressed. Anastrophe (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Rance tidal power plant has been fully commercial and 240 MW for about 40 years; there are other tidal barrages in operation listed under tidal power. I've restored the tidal section in the energy development article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


January 2008[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you.

Information.svg Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Passive design history[edit]

I have offered suggestions in style. Despite the original issues with double envelope house, we must be careful not to damage Butler's personal reputation. The discussion should revolve around the technical issues and not the people who have been involved in them.Dymonite (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not go so far as to point out his admitted use of LSD when he "discovered" the double shell concept. (snicker) Respect is clearly due for setting this subject in motion, but refinements were clearly needed. I tried to point out his original errors that have been corrected (so far as I know only by me and readers of my book). Do what you want with style - I have often requested Wikipedia editorial assistance in this area. I only added this because you requested it and I am a self-proclaimed first-hand double-shell subject matter expert (as shown on my website photos, and ZED CD-ROM). Escientist (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting reading[edit]

Since your user page makes claims about your qualifications to edit certain topics, you may want to read this article about another Wikipedia editor who claimed "expert knowledge" to justify their edits. Pairadox (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There are most assuredly criminals among us. Wikipedia makes this type of fraud possible by not checking references, qualifying, or monitoring most editors. Still, Wikipedia.org is the number twelve website in the world, so it must be doing something that is at least popular (if not accurate). You do have good reason to be suspicious, but take the time to look at the documented truth, and do NOT stereotype me, based on the sins of others (who are NOT like me).

I am indeed exactly who I say I am – Clearly recognized by the U.S. DOE & ORNL as a subject matter expert. Recent ORNL.gov website reference They selected and invited ME, because of my unique track record and previous work with them – Check it out.

You are welcome to Google my name on my own referenced websites, see my published resume, and view photos of my outstanding three decades of success. There are hundreds of references on the web to me (including some of the fun things I like to do like high-energy swing dancing for hours, performing improv comedy as a hobby, flying my IFR plane, scuba, and sailing). I have a wonderful wife who has a Masters in E.E. and designs command and control components for nuclear power plants, military cockpit avionics, and the new unmanned aircraft like Global Hawk and Predator. My energy-research-scientist father had a nuclear materials handling license and held patents in remote nuclear energy monitoring, command and control systems. Intelligent use of energy has been the heart of my entire professional career. Thank you for thinking of me. Please do so in a positive way, and appreciate what I have to say in my proven field of expertise. I have very few peers that have been doing this for thirty years, and I already know who they are. Most of them are now dead. (sad) The world greatly needs our documented discoveries. Escientist (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I'd like to point out the Escientist's credentials have little relevance. His expertise in certain subjects may help him write articles but ultimately any contributions must be backed up by good references. It is those references that need verification. Barrylb (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I totally agree and appreciate your input. I have requested Wikipedia editorial assistance, as I slowly learn the subtle elements of style, which are enforced differently by different editors. For example, "Energy development" has many incomplete Pros and Cons with almost no citations. I followed suit and had all of my contributions deleted. Fair enough - Lesson learned. Most of my recent generaous donations are loaded with excellent citations (even though existing bullet points are not), and still the History documents that many of them are irrationally deleted because they came from me, which is very frustrating for a well-documented subject matter expert (perhaps due to a lack of a false sense of humility). PLEASE read the details of my contributions, and do indeed validate my citations. One editor admits to not even reading my contribution before deleting it all, including simple typographical error corrections. Some of his deletions have been reversed by more thoughtful-and-helpful editors. He escalated the issue and was told to "just let it go." Inconsistently-applied editorial rules are difficult to deal with, (as if each policeman enforced a different speed limit). Escientist (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I merely point out the problems of claiming an identity and expertise that have not been proven by outside sources. Let's not overlook the fact that Essjay used claims of expertise to reinforce the use of certain sources over others, and he wasn't even using his own website as a source to write articles favorable to himself.[2] Pairadox (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
In general, your statement of suspicion is valid, BUT are the U.S. DOE and ORNL insufficient outside sources? PLEASE check me out extensively, if you still distrust me. Ignoring my .gov documentation does not justify continued distrust of subject matter expertise. Please also validate the online citations that I am learning to use extensively on Wikipedia. To me and my few peers, these things are intuitive, but I will gladly cite references to help others overcome their resistance to change, and overwhelming disbelief in three decades of proven alternative energy successes. Just because most architects and builders have ignored passive solar, and zero energy buildings does NOT mean that they do not exist. Escientist (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I want to point out that I'm skeptical in the "it hasn't been proven yet" way rather than the "I think he's not telling the truth" way. Unless you can point to a source that definitively states the Wikipedia editor Escientist is the expert named then it's still all unverified claims. That said, I think you should review the guidelines on conflicts of interest. If you who you say you are, then you shouldn't be writing about yourself in such glowing terms. The preferred course of action is to suggest the edits you wish to see happen on the article's talk page and allow somebody else to actually insert them into the article. If that's not happening quickly enough, you could seek out another editor with similar interests and ask them to consider making the edits. Finally, I am not discounting the topics involved; I actually did quite a bit of research on passive solar and other zero energy construction methods when I was planning some off-the-grid work several years ago. Pairadox (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you - Point well taken. I hope that I, and my references to DOE, ORNL, and FSEC, will convince you that it HAS been proven, long ago. I do lack a false sense of humility, but stating my qualifications usually happens only on talk: pages, NOT in my Wikipedia article contributions.
I do feel a sense of urgency to get these valuable lessons out to the world, as do DOE and ORNL who call on me to prepare and present my unique set of knowledge and experience. Every editor must have some degree of conflict of interest, why else would they be interested at all? The reference I gave you on ORNL.gov describes Larry Hartweg's Three Decades of Passive Solar Heating and Cooling Lessons Learned. I AM LARRY HARTWEG ZEDmaster@ZeroEnergyDesign.com. Email me if you like (but my spam filters are rather tight, so be careful with your words.)
That is ME swimming in my solar-heated indoor swimming pool with snow in the background in 1979 on ZeroEnergyDesign.com. I have no reason to hide behind anonymity. I'm very good at what I do, and I've been doing it longer than anyone who is still alive. I could have asked one of my supporters / home owners to enter this valuable content, or use a pseudonym, but why bother? People will know that it is clearly based on my unique three decades of success – Much of which is available from no other source, or from the many people I have trained over the decades who republish my copyrighted work.
Would Wikipedia have prevented Albert Einstein from publishing his Theory of Relativity in 1905, when most of his skeptical “peers” thought he was crazy? Or, is Wikipedia only to be used for obsolete, business-as-usual, status-quo, common-knowledge, mainstream thinking. I do think so now. Our world needs rapid, radical innovation, based on proven things we know will work well. Wikipedia invites subject matter experts with different points of view to make contributions, some of which are indeedcontroversial, due in part to product vendor vested interests. I do NOT sell energy products, just proven design knowledge. My Wikiperia contributions are NOT totally original, but based on sound heat transfer principles that I am documenting with verifiable solid citations. IF government agencies promote me and provide funds for my innovative projects, why are Wikipedia editors not open to reasonable, documented, decade-old, proven alternative points of view? Resistance to change is not a valid answer. If you still doubt who I am, or that my designs have worked well for decades, then Google my name, and contact me by email. Do NOT just delete my contributions without any discussion. Escientist (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to consider these issues:

  • Format of CV: It will be helpful to have a more verifiable formal outline attached to your 'covering letter' style of presentation. e.g. place of education, university qualifications, academic positions held, occupational history, papers published in peer-reviewed journal, presentations. Note that Einstein's ultimate credibility came not from his father (though reports says he was also interested in maths) but that his theory could be independently verifiable.
  • Publication: According to Wikipedia's rules of original research then 'Relativity' could not have been published. But Einstein did publish his theory in a journal so that it could be subject to peer-review. Now that is has survived under intense scrutiny and verification, it would be reasonable for it to be repeatedly cited by other sources including that of Wikipedia. Many people have published original research which have faltered under further review. However, journal publication is the best forum to have ideas tested. Without this, it is impossible for others to reproduce the methodology and results of the original author
  • Peer-review: Photos of projects or copies of speaking programs do not in themselves verify your credentials or work. As you know real estate charlatans and religious cult leaders use the same tools of advertisement. However, data from an independent governing or educational body provides reassurances that such projects do exist and function as specified. Such information is appropriate for Wikipedia.

Previously unverified original theories whilst being an important part of scientific discovery need to be subject to the usual processes of peer-review and verification. Wikipedia is not the correct forum for this (or it should be clear that the theory has yet been independently verified). There will always inevitably be a number of Wikipedia articles which fail in this regard. But for the ready and willing who recognize these errors, it should be a privilege to make successive improvement that result in transparent, unbiased and accurate information.Dymonite (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am growing a bit weary of this pointless, going-nowhere conversation. If you ever do what you are asking me to do, then put it online. I'll read it with interest, and then watch other editors alter it for you. (smile) "Lead, follow or get out of my way."(chuckle) Become an experienced subject matter expert, and THEN publish your work as I've tried to do. If you've never lived in a zero energy home, then perhaps you should listen and assist someone who has. Escientist (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Intellectual property / patent vs academic publication / information in the public domain[edit]

I have no issues that a technology company does not wish to details of their processes for fear of jeopardizing its business and profits. Similarly, I acknowledge that there are academics who altruistically offer thir original insights into the public domain for both scrutiny and benefit. However, I don't think that both can be achieved at the same time. Either it is all hidden and it has no place in Wikipedia or all is revealed. It would be unethical for an author to make a contribution to Wikipedia with the knowledge that he could profit materially in any way from his work. If a business developed a new highly efficient photo-voltaic cell then it is entirely their right not to release any detailed information about the manufacturing process. However, Einstein didn't offer half his 'Theory' for publication but then asked others for some money to get the other half.Dymonite (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Point taken - a reasonable thing to expect. Your viewpoint about Einstein is interesting conservative business-as-usual. Wikipedia is loaded with book references that are likely to lead some interested users to buy the book and study the source in more detail. That has been academic tradition for centuries. Should all such cited references be deleted from Wikipedia? Or, should all book references be only to books that are widely distributed for free?
The conservative business-as-usual is not a conspiracy theory. Would you want a new drug released on the open market before a reasonable amount of testing has been done on it. Similarly, for every Einstein there are probably another hundred people with original but unproven theories. However, we test them all under the same standard - this would fair, just and prudent. It also provides open access for people to replicate, refine and test the theories (and re-publish them). An independent reviewer can reference an author but there is a conflict of interest if the author quotes himself. An academic is duty bound to declare an conflict rather than waiting it for it to be discovered. Dymonite (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I do make my materials widely available to qualified government agencies for free, and to low-income affordable-home projects at no charge. Poor people need zero energy bills more than the rich. I often donate time to worthy causes, but not to people who are building million-dollar homes, or commercial office buildings. Unlike my father, I have elected to not patent my unique energy design contributions. I do not maintain any "trade secrets." My solution details are well-documented in my low-cost (or free) copyrighted materials. My materials come with one free hour of telephone consultation – worth much more than the low charge for the 800-page eBook with an additional 900 DOE / ORNL presentation slides.
Should it matter that who benefits (even commercial interests) You still could patent the constructions first to protect it from exploitation and then freely release into the market. Documenting one's own solutions is not the same as an independent authority formally verifying and publishing the details.


Some Wikipedia editors have asked me to put more details online, and indeed I have done so. I think my position is reasonable – I generously give the basics for free, but not detailed house plans. I don’t know any solar designer who does. I have received compliments from many people who appreciate discovering my online materials and think my eBook is a fantastic bargain of decades of accumulated subject matter intellectual property. Something other than Wikipedia drove my website into the top 2% of websites worldwide. Considering the highly-specialized scientific nature of my material, I never expected to rise to the top 2% (when competing with all of the "stuff" on the web today).
Its not the actual cost that is the issue. As long as the proceeds are only to recover material costs (not intellectual ones) e.g. cost of CD, printing, computer hardware etc. Is there a particular reason to withhold information when you already have benefited from the available research and the privilege of working with with other academics in the field.
No one else has ever accumulated as much subject matter experience as I have. It is not unique research. It IS comprehensive holistic concept integration / optimization. My material popularity is mostly friends telling friends. In our Internet society, that means hundreds of popular websites now link to my materials. I've won "first place" in several online energy information source polls. People need (and want) to know about passive solar and zero energy design. Escientist (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest / Advertisement / Original research[edit]

It is important to note that Wikipedia was not created as an opportunity for free advertisement or to spread a new doctrine. Special interest groups can exploit many other mediums and forums to spread new ideas - they are not constrained to use Wikipedia and neither should they. The Wikipedia community always welcomes independently verifiable and validated information. It is only interested in what can be proven. By its nature it cannot accept anything less without compromising the quality of all of its articles.

However, two choices must be made with regard to original research.

a) Continue to retain full privileges to intellectual property and remain in the private domain. Withdrawal any information from Wikipedia which is unverifiable original research or a reference to a personal publication. Dispense with independent validation and rely on the power of personality, reputation, stature and rhetoric to convince others of new ideas/products. Trust in the usual market/social forces to freely accept or reject these proposals. Enjoy any profits as seen fit. Gain support by investing resources in the print or electronic media or create an independent Wiki with different editorial rules.

OR

b)Pursue the usual route of academic work. Publish or present research in a peer-reviewed forum for analysis and verification. Trust that the methodology and measured data can speak for itself (without embellishment or personal persuasion). Rely on the cold, rational and unequivocal scrutiny of a scientific consensus to bring power and credibility to the ideas. Dymonite (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not fully understand what you keep emphasizing when I first starting responsing to the Wikipedia Welcome invitation to contribute, and the Wikipedia:Five pillars. I think I'm doing better in my most recent edits, but still have room for improvement. Specific comments about my most-recent individual contricutions are most appreciated. Please remember that you are the one who requested my information about the double-shell design and my refinements to it be added to Passive solar design history. Your request for double-shell information (which I hesitated to add), and your above statement are mutually exclusive - You can't have it both ways, and I don't have time to help you sort out your own conflicting opinions.
I think you have misunderstood the theme of my original concern. Indirect and isolated gain houses have greater engineering challenges. Reports on their effectiveness are mainly anecdotal and often mixed. This would suggest there are other unconsidered variables operating. This applies to designs such as - trombe walls, double envelope designs, annualised geothermal and passive annual heating storage. From your description of the some of the issues, it seems some of these concepts have previously undergone independent analysis e.g. DOE, ORNL, FSRC . Can we better discriminate between the sources of information i.e. personal opinion, other editorial opinion or formal measurements. Isolated personal opinion definitely has no place in Wikipedia Dymonite (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I've heard what you have written about conflict of interest several times now - You need not keep repeating it forever. I get your point. If there is something specific that needs to be changed, let's negotiate, but general statements are much too vague.
Some examples of conflict of interest: including your own name within the body of the article i.e. Hartweg, incorporating a reference of a personal publication i.e. ZED, advertising a program for which is a participant i.e. 'Three decades...'. I think appropriate references from Primary sources include articles from reputable building, architectural, energy conservation journals. Secondary sources - EERE, DOE, ORNL, FSRC, Dept Climate change (Aust.), .gov or .edu sites. .org site can be variable - some represent private interests.Dymonite (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The five pillars say "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required. Do not worry about messing up."

This works both ways. Don't worry if you 'mess' things up but similarly expect that people will 'mess' your work up as well. Don't automatically assume these are partisan actions or deliberate subversion - Wikipedia:Assume good faith It is a continually iterative process. All our contributors need to get used to the fact that people here may challenge every statement we make. 'Can you back this up ?', 'I have heard differently...','But did you consider this', 'Have you got a good reference for this statement', 'But I have got something here that says differently', 'How do I know this is not an unbiased opinion', 'how widely can you apply this statement'. etc. Information that can stand up to this scrutiny demonstrates its worth. Another word of advice is not to make black and white statements. Nothing is ever perfect. Most things have pros/cons, limitations etc. In construction and engineering, these may include additional costs, sacrifices in aesthetics, embodied energy issues, EROIE/payback, technical challenges, availability of construction materials, maintenance. For instance would a TBZ house work without a large section of thermal mass in the solarium - what happens if you don't want a pool or spa? what would you replace the thermal mass with? how much would it cost? would you change the glazing ratio? how would the energy efficiency alter? Dymonite (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I do worry about messing up (and wasting my limited time). When one editor was unable to helpfully educate, or negotiate with me, he escalated, and was told to "just drop it." I read the History, and apparently such arguments are common among many Wikipedia editors. I am very open to negotiation, but please be specific - one item at a time, OR be cool and just drop it. I do still reserve my right to clean up discussions on this page that are going no place in particular after viewpoints have been clearly expressed. Escientist (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion notice[edit]

I invite, appreciate, and display CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.

It is my intention to quickly delete destructive comments from anyone on MY talk: page.

I'm trying to keep my constructive comments and responses general without attacking specific individuals.

If I've written something you don't like here, let me know the specifics, and we'll work on a solution together.

Escientist (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

While you are permitted to remove content from your talk page I believe it is poor etiquette to only keep the comments you like, and to interfere with the flow of a conversation in a section. The preferred practice is to archive/remove an entire section after discussion has finished, not to continually edit an existing section. Barrylb (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I will have to read about how to archive these constructive conversations. I still have much to learn about Wikipedia, but not a lot of free time to do it. Wikipedia seems like a popular communication tool, even though it has frustrated me many times. Escientist (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Energy development, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. article talk space is not yours to modify. please confine such editing to your own talk page. thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How to avoid controversy[edit]

Some useful pages:

Note how some previously controversial articles eventually became well-balanced featured articles. Read some featured articles where the topic was potentially controversial (e.g. philosophy, religion, politics, history) but gave an accurate representation of the relative merits of each argument.Dymonite (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a reasonably well written example of a superseded scientific theory - the Bohr model. Clearly the model has weaknesses but the author does not just dismiss it as an ignorant or outdated theory. He provides a good historical overview and explains where the issues lay, the problems confronted by the theory and further experiments that were conducted that contradicted it. He references it with established leaders in the field of atomic physics. A better example of writing style Dymonite (talk) 06:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Escientist (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Energy policy of the US[edit]

Much better tone and style. Watch those refs! Remember let the facts speak for themselves - no need for re-interpretation or embellishment. I am still uncertain about the quality of that reference re building energy consumption. Is it just consumption of existing buildings or includes energy for new construction.Dymonite (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a ROCK SOLID reference that originated in the U.S. Department of Energy, and has been cited in many U.S. presentations many times. I really like the AIA.org reference because Architects now are FORCED to admit that they are THE source of our largest energy waste problem. It is slowly becoming obvious to politicians that passive solar, and zero energy buildings will be keys to our energy future (as I proved three decades ago, but was largely ignored by the AIA.org). I do not have to editorialize at all - just merely refernece their own specific charts and words. THEY FINNALLY ADMIT GUILT, and the need for radical change - Rock Hard Unavoidable Fact! (smile) The original article focused too much on transportation and ignored the FACT that buildings are our largest waster of energy (which is actually the same in most industrialized nations).
I do hope I am learning something from all the editorial "help" I've been receiving. (chuckle) I honestly believe that I am making a valuable (uncompensated) generous gift to worldwide subject matter knowledge. It makes me feel good, despite all of my obvious frustration. I hope you guys can appreciate my moral motivation. I believe that the God who created the universe gave us abundant energy, and a brain that is capable of accomplishing our wildest dreans (like Moon, Mars, and Beyond) in HARMONY with Nature - Best wishes, Larry Escientist (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

re thomas.gov citation[edit]

you're welcome. Anastrophe (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Zero energy design[edit]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Zero energy design, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.zeroenergydesign.com/. As a copyright violation, Zero energy design appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Zero energy design has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Zero energy design and send an email with the message to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Zero energy design with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Zero energy design.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Salih (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Escientist IS Larry Hartweg - I have already told you this before. I have always questioned your motives in blocking valid input from me in the past. I hope we do not have to dredge this up and escalate it again.

I am the owner of the registered trademark "Zero Energy Design" U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Serial #77676226, Registration #3727589) AND all copyrights for www.ZeroEnergyDesign.com, and www.EmeraldEcoCity.com. Emerald EcoCity is NOT in any way a commercial website. It is 100% totally free, with no way top gemnerate any revenuse from it. My email address is published on all of my websites.

I have granted Wikipedia the right to publish the materials that I have freely placed on Wikipedia myself. It is not an advertisement or a solicitation for work. We are no longer designing any individual homes. Our effort is focused on our $77 Billion Emerald Eco-City proposal. I added this precise 1979 definition of "Zero energy design" for historical reference, and to point out what is really means for those who abuse the term today.

I submitted the Creative Commons CC-BY-3.0 license to permissions-en@wikimedia.org

Tags[edit]

Hello. You recently placed tags on IBM. Please enumerate your concerns on the article's talk page (per WP:RESPTAG); otherwise, the tags will be removed. Thank you. —Eustress talk 17:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

About one of your articels[edit]

I started this section Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Zero_energy_design because of the close relation between you and the subject. Essentially it's a request for other, uninvolved editors to look at whether or not there is any cause for concern. I can't really express it in text the way I would in person, but this isn't supposed to be anything accusatory or hostile. Your fellow-editor, 76.117.247.55 (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Zero energy design[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Zero energy design, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ukexpat (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring and cooperation[edit]

I see that at Talk:Zero energy design you wrote "I've fought the edit war over vague tags again and again. I will not give in to self-appointed editors who refuse to be helpful." My impression is that you are right in saying that you have fought edit wars. Perhaps you are not aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is that you don't do it, and can be blocked from editing if you do. I also think that edit warring is just one aspect of a whole pattern of your unwillingness, or inability, to cooperate with other editors, preferring to endlessly push uncompromisingly for your own version. Indeed, the quote I have just given indicates precisely that approach: "I will not give in". This is not how Wikipedia works. We all have to accept that we won't always get our way, and may have to compromise or back down at times. I hope you can start to act in a more cooperative way, as otherwise you may well be blocked. It is perhaps also worth pointing out in connection with your remark "self-appointed editors" that we are all "self-appointed editors". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Zero Energy Design - invalid speedy deletion[edit]

I've gone through this before, senior editors found my position to be correct, and now it comes up yet again. Is this going to go on forever? When an unqualified teenager modifies an article and adds profanity, or malicious false statements, do I not have the right to undo it? Do you consider that edit warring?

In a CCA world, people have the right to express their opinion, but not to change the definition of a registered trademark.

I formally submitted the CCA statement about use of copyrighted material to Wikipedia (as previous discussed above). The Zero Energy Design article is NOT in violation of my copyright! The recent copyright tag was clearly undeserved and invalid.

Advert: You have to explain to me how the Zero Energy Design article is an advertisement, but the peacock-term entry for Texas Instruments, (and many other articles about corporations) are not advertisements.

If you are going to delete Zero Energy Design, then please delete Texas Instruments and all similar advertisement, OR PLEASE explain the difference to me. Is it just because T.I. is a bigger corporation? Please CONSISTENTLY apply your arbitrary criteria.

I am ready to resubmit the Zero Energy Design article. Please be specific about what I should change. Zero Energy Design was deleted before I had the first chance to dispute the incorrect advert or copyright tags, or change the article. The speedy deletion tag offered NO specific hints about what needed to be changed. Clearly, the copyright tag was WRONG.

If you are a CONSTRUCTIVE editor, PLEASE help me get through this extreme ongoing frustration.

I tried to help you by adding the merge info on that other article and what you called "vague tags". As far as the reasoning for this deletion, it was clearly stated that it was written very much like an advertisement rather than a scientific or encyclopedia description of a subject. Someone above mentioned that you most likely have a Conflict of Interest (COI) with regard to this subject, and in my opinion, that may be preventing you from making the changes necessary to the page. Also, you own and released the copyright, but you have demonstrated a sense of ownership in how it is to be presented in Wikipedia. This is not how it works. If you are willing to work with other editors, this subject might be rescued, but I'm afraid that so far, my impression is that you've rejected help when it has been offered. I took note of this article when it was up for deletion or something before, and took steps to help you preserve it and your attitude toward those actions was dismissive at best. -- Avanu (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I might also mention that you could easily recreate the article here at a new page within your user space, like User talk:Escientist/Zero Energy Design and ask others for advice on building it. -- Avanu (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

You can start a conversation here on your talk page and leave a message for people to come back here to discuss. You never replied to what I posted on your page above, but you post these long pleas for others to work on the article for you. Start by talking *with*, not *at*, others. -- Avanu (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind reply[edit]

Let me do exactly what you suggested above. Here is my proposal for an improved version. It does not contain the direct reference to ZeroEnergyDesign.com, but it does contain a reference to the authoritative DOE / ORNL support of Zero Energy Design.

If this is not acceptable, please suggest specific improvements (from any qualified helpful editor). I tried to make this a simple as possible, with none of the controversial clutter.

- - - - - - - Suggested Improvement - - - - - - -

Zero Energy Design is a Holistic System Integration Engineering Process developed in 1979. The work has been supported by the Oak Ridge National Laboratories, and the U.S. Department of Energy for over thirty years.[1]

Zero Energy Design means zero net annual energy utility bills, and zero carbon or toxic pollution emissions – Never burn anything.

Significant location-specific computer modeling is required (using the free U.S. Department of Energy “Energy Plus” energy simulation software, or similar).[2]

A Zero Energy Design building that works well in Calgary Canada would not work well in Orlando Florida or Sydney Australia. There can never be a “one size fits all” Zero Energy Design.

See Also[edit]

Reference List[edit]

Category:Low-energy building Category:Solar architecture Category:Solar design Category:Sustainable architecture

- - - - - - - What do you think? - - - - - - - Escientist (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

"See also" links[edit]

Just to let you know I've removed some "See also" links that you added to various articles - we'll need to wait and see if your proposed new article is accepted before we can really have links to it in "See also" sections -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings 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/Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Feedback on the above draft[edit]

As I said elsewhere, the first reference seems to be just listing a presentation/workshop given by you personally, and does not appear to constitute any in-depth third-party coverage of your project - the coverage itself is by you. The second reference doesn't seem to mention your project at all. I see the term "zero energy design" might perhaps be used generically, but so far I don't see the multiple third-party sources that are needed to support the notability of your project. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You are correct[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to reply with specifics.

Does that mean if I entered the above, you would nominate it for deletion?

Although "Zero Energy Design" is my registered trademark (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Serial #77676226, Registration #3727589) it has indeed been violated (and I am too small to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend it legally). My company name is still "Zero Energy Design, Inc."

Should I publish the reference to the legal registered trademark, or my corporate name? I didn't think that would be a good idea for a neutral point of view. I suppose you agree.

I am also too small to have any major news coverage about my three-decade pioneering effort. My work is known in the scientific world (like DOE and ORNL), but not in the popular press. I have been on local television many time, but there are no Internet archives of TV programs from the 1980's, etc. (smile)

The DOE / ORNL funding of my workshop is the best reference that I have. And yes, I did write the description of the workshop that they asked me to present at their prestegious Internation Buildings Workshop. That should say something - Don't you agree?

I never claimed exclusive use of the DOE EnergyPlus software. I added that as a reference for others who want to imitate Zero Energy Design. It is part of the science (that Wikipedians do not seem to want me to publish).

Zero Energy Design is not an advert - We no longer have time to do any consulting work on individual building design - I made my money long ago and am now essentially retired - Merely sharing my knowledge as a legacy for the next generation to build upon.

What I would like to promote is the elimination of avoidable energy bills, and destruction of our delicate environment. The goal is altruistic, and not in any way motivated by profit or greed. DOE wants to promote my effort. Some editors want to squelch it - How frustrating it is when self-appointed critics look a free gift horse in the mouth. There are times when I regret my generous gifts of content and money given to Wikipedia, and the goals of CCA.

I see from demographic studies that most Wikipedia contributors are males under age 25, and therefore unfamiliar with Zero Energy Design work that was done three decades ago.

I only added Zero Energy Design as a historical reference, so it would not be lost among the new generation that is trying to reinvent the wheel (using the concepts and terms that I created long ago). (sigh)

Escientist (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: What I would like to promote is the elimination of avoidable energy bills, and destruction of our delicate environment. The goal is altruistic,... still not appropriate for Wikipedia, see WP:WORTHYCAUSE. – ukexpat (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • While I respect what you have achieved, and I do not suspect or suggest for a moment that your motivations are anything other than honorable, I'm afraid that everything you are saying here is really just strengthening the evidence that your company has not achieved the notability required for its own Wikipedia article. WP:NCORP outlines the notability requirements for companies and organizations, and WP:RS describes the kinds of sources we need to support that notability - and I'm afraid there's no easy way around that. As for your claim that Wikipedians want to prevent you from publishing the science, well, that's just how encyclopedias work - they are not publishers or repositories of primary research, they only describe what has already been published elsewhere in appropriate sources -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody review what I did to the draft, please?[edit]

Hello, I attempted a good faith copyedit of this piece as a summary of an EO, and now I drop in on this discussion. Would you please take a look at what I put up and see if I got the facts straight? Also, the citations got displaced when I changed the order around.

Regardless of who copyrights or trademarks what terminology, a quick description of the current mandate for energy efficiency in Federal buildings seems an appropriate topic for this encyclopedia. A snappier title, such as: *****Federal Building Energy Efficiency Executive Order of 2009!!!!***** (you may hold your applause) will no doubt draw large crowds to the page. Or leave the title as is-- if that's Federal jargon today, well, it is what it is. Trilliumz (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(Also butting in ;) ) For the title, just use Executive Order 13514. Other executive orders of importance are titled the same way (The first one I found was Executive Order 9066). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.247.55 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I like Trilliumz's edit work. I do think that the title should contain the "Zero-Net-Energy" term defined in the EO, since it is germane to the search argument. No one seaching Wikipedia knows EO numbers. If they did, they would seach WhiteHouse.com. Escientist (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)\
That would not comply with Wikipedia's naming conventions and practices. – ukexpat (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings is not about Executive Order 13514. This article does not cover most of what is in the EO. It also covers part of the "BLUEPRINT FOR A SECURE ENERGY FUTURE", which is not part of EO 13514. If the name needs to be changed would it be: "The Zero-Net-Energy portion of Executive order 13514 and BLUEPRINT FOR A SECURE ENERGY FUTURE" - Of course not. Escientist (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for help concerning energy...[edit]

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....

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 00:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: see also Outline of energy

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)