User talk:Ignatzmice

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

Tech News: 2015-47[edit]

19:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Pro wind turbine bias in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power (first sentence minimizes huge problems)[edit]

To whomever wrote the bulk of the article: The opening sentence about wind power contains a subjective opinion ("...relatively minor") which is contradicted by the article itself in many places, yet those sections also downplay issues with toneless language. The root of the bias is probably the obsession with fossil fuels as our biggest environmental problem, while vast renewable energy sprawl gets a green light via subsidies. The visual impact of recent fracking is less widespread and visible than wind turbines due to its smaller infrastructure and geographical constraints. Wind turbines (and large solar arrays) are treated as green despite major landscape impacts in addition to existing damage from mining and drilling. Wind power advocates often change the subject to older energy scars, as if wind power isn't spreading blight onto landscapes that have no history of energy development.

Misleading statement: "The environmental impact of wind power, when compared to the environmental impacts of fossil fuels, is relatively minor."

Truthful statement: "The environmental impact of wind power, when compared to the environmental impacts of fossil fuels, is relatively minor in terms of carbon emissions but very significant in terms of visual impact from extremely large structures and access roads in rural areas that would normally not see such development. This includes siting wind turbines on mountain ridges with significant road building, foundation blasting and permanent removal of trees for tower clearances. Noise introduced into formerly quiet areas can be highly intrusive due to topography and other factors, such as time of day, wind speed and direction. Wind turbines are also causing a large number of bird and bat deaths in addition to existing sources of mortality. In the case of bats, deaths are caused by pressure differentials that are unique among man-made structures." (include articles on bird/bat mortality: https://www.google.com/search?q=wind+turbines+kill+birds+bats)

There is also obvious visual bias in the article, a common trick of the industry. It includes one photo of cows with a single wind turbine in the distance, greatly minimizing the size and number of those machines. An honest photo of environmental impact would show ruined scenic areas, e.g. http://s10.postimg.org/xukg322op/AES_Laurel_Mountain_wind_and_storage_3.jpg (mountaintop removal by any other name) or https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/BANGUI_WINDMILL,ILOCOS_NORTE_2.jpg (nice beach becomes an industrial park). Those are just two of thousands you could find, so why choose the most benign photo in an article about environmental impact? If you must stick with the farm theme, at least use a photo like this, which shows how large and numerous they are: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oesterwurth_kuhs_m_winrads.jpg

If you aren't able to admit that wind turbines are causing major problems in the full context of "the environment" (which includes the landscape and other aesthetic issues) please at least cite this 1998 formal complaint in the article: https://www.google.com/search?q=1998+Darmstadt+Manifesto+wind+energy

I'm as big an environmentalist as anyone and consider these machines to be a major "tragedy of the commons." There are a quarter million on the planet already and their numbers are set to greatly expand. Any article on wind turbines needs to treat them as a growing presence (I prefer the word plague) instead of a static level of impact that won't get worse. Thank you for any help in making the article more honest.

A.J. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.166.24 (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not "whoever wrote the bulk of that article"—I never even looked at it until today. You have some valid concerns, I'd say, but you come off almost as ranting against wind turbines, and for the most part (not entirely!) doing original research. (Take a look at those linked pages. Very important stuff for Wikipedia.) If you have concerns about the article, I would say the best place to discuss them would be on the article's Talk page.
I don't have much in the way of time or mental energy to get too deep into this, but I can try to point you in the right direction if you have questions. Cheers! Ignatzmicetalk 07:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Transfăgărășan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Switchback (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-48[edit]

20:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-49[edit]

16:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

November GOCE drive[edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Ignatzmice for copy edits totaling over 8,000 words during the GOCE November 2015 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 17:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-50[edit]

17:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-51[edit]

17:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-52[edit]

18:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-02[edit]

16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-03[edit]

17:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-04[edit]

16:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-05[edit]

21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-06[edit]

18:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-07[edit]

16:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2015 Milan stabbing attack[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article 2015 Milan stabbing attack has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTNEWS. Received only routine coverage. No lasting coverage or significance. Much of article is WP:OR.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-08[edit]

18:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-09[edit]

20:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-10[edit]

20:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-11[edit]

18:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-12[edit]

16:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-13[edit]

19:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-14[edit]

22:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-15[edit]

20:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-16[edit]

20:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week : nominations needed![edit]

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-17[edit]

21:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-18[edit]

20:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-19[edit]

23:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-20[edit]

16:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-21[edit]

18:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-22[edit]

16:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-23[edit]

20:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-24[edit]

18:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-25[edit]

19:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-26[edit]

15:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-27[edit]

19:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-28[edit]

15:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-29[edit]

12:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-30[edit]

19:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-31[edit]

21:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-32[edit]

15:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-33[edit]

19:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-34[edit]

21:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-35[edit]

16:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-36[edit]

17:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-37[edit]

18:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-38[edit]

22:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-39[edit]

18:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)