User talk:Kennywpara

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Kennywpara. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Yashovardhan (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 20:51, Tuesday, November 12, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 20:51, Tuesday, November 12, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hydraulic fracturing by country may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/126689.aspx only non hazardous chemicals] may be used.. (See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom Hydraulic Fracturing

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 20:51, Tuesday, November 12, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 20:51, Tuesday, November 12, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Your edits to Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom.

Thanks for your balanced and well referenced edits to Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom. Could you please put external links as references, as per the Manual of style rather than incorporating them into the text. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin, I am a bit new to this, so am learning and I wanted to get some proper science in to the debate in the UK. Thankyou for your comments! I will review the referencing system as it was a bit confusing to me. I thought that it was OK to put links in as I have been doing tho. Its much more instinctive.

No problem, it is great to get some proper science and encyclopedic content into the subject. External links in the text are rather frowned upon but as references they are fine. Martin Hogbin (talk)

I think I have messed up some of the links. I will try to fix them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still not right

Kenny, I still support your introduction of good science and encyclopedic content into the above article but your style is still wrong.

You have added: 'This report from May 2014^[1] indicates that there is little potential for shale gas fracturing in the Weald Basin, south of London. It does suggest that there is the possibility for the extraction of light tight oil from shales (LTO) and the figure of 4.4 billion barrels is suggested'.

Please have another look at the Manual of Style. Wikipedia should be written in prose, with no need for the reader to follow links such as in, 'This report from May 2014^[2]'. The words 'this report' have no real meaning unless the reader follows the link to see exactly what is being referred to. The words should stand in their own right as in, for example, 'A report from XXX indicates...', or just, 'XXX states that...'.

I removed an earlier addition of yours for this same reason. Please feel free to reinstate it in the correct style. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ [1]
^ [2]

Thankyou Martin,talk its something I will go through, I think I have been following that for a while, after your comments but historical ones need changing.Kennywpara (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation and quote style

Kennywpara, I agree with you that the quality of the content is the most important consideration on a Wikipedia page. Still, glaring issues with style can undermine the content. That is particularly true with citations. Web links can become obsolete, so it is important to provide enough information to uniquely identify the source. I think it would be worth your while to read Citing sources. Note that citation templates like {{cite journal}} are not required, but they do make it easier to keep the style consistent. Also, Help:Referencing for beginners has some good tips, particularly the section on the refToolbar. Finally, I recommend you look at the Manual of Style entries for quotations and italics. Short quotations should use double quotes (the " key on a keyboard), not two single quotes, which look very similar in the editor window but make the font italic (compare "quote" with quote). Long quotes should use one of the block quotation styles. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will go through, thanks a lot for this.Kennywpara (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! RockMagnetist(talk) 15:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Green Party. 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) 10:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

in UK|title=THE UNCONVENTIONAL HYDROCARBON RESOURCES OF BRITAIN’S ONSHORE BASINS - COALBED METHANE (CBM|url=https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/UKpromote/onshore_paper/Promote_UK_CBM.pdf|publisher=DECC|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hydraulic Fracturing in the United Kingdom

Hello User:Kennywpara, I hope this note finds you well. Please avoid tendentious editing without discussion on the talk page first. Your name calling, e.g. "long standing author of this type of rhetoric" prompted me to discover that the report was written by Philip J Lightowlers for CHEM Trust, not by the User you claimed. I also note that after your Chemtrust report/link removal, you then edited your user page to declare your affiliations. Your history has all the hallmarks of a WP:SPA so perhaps it's not surprising that you might be viewed by other editors as an advocate. You might find this useful as you are working as a single-purpose account. I hope in future you will find it more constructive to talk first in order to come to some consensus before any deletion takes place and remember that to strive for a balanced view means not censoring/deleting the CHEMTrust report, but adding the response from UKOOG and allowing wikipedia readers to make their own minds up. Please feel free to discuss genuine concerns surrounding WP:COI in Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Conflict_of_Interest. Please feel free to respond to this note either here on your page or on my own at User_talk:LutherBlissetts. Kind regards, Luther Blissetts (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t get discouraged. You have been subjected to a good deal of criticism which you do not deserve. Your overall record of Talk Page discussions shows that your editing style is collegial, not overbearing, and much more NPOV than that of some of your detractors. For what it’s worth (which is nothing as far as Wikipedia is concerned), I agree with your characterization of the Chemtrust report. It’s an opinion piece that doesn’t bother to get all its facts straight.

In my view, the caution against single-issue editors seems to be for people who advocate for a particular viewpoint. I fail to see that it discourages someone such as yourself who advocates for accuracy. Factual accuracy is not POV. There are certainly enough multi-issue editors who do not hesitate to add their own, and often inaccurate, biased edits. The most discouraging thing in these sort of Wikipedia articles is the amount of misinformation inserted by editors who advocate, but don’t understand the subject.

It would certainly be perverse for Wikipedia to discourage an editor from contributing on the topic of which he is most knowledgeable. Please keep up the good work.Plazak (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your positive comments Plazak. Could I ask that you monitor and contribute to the discussion in the talk section as I am confused by some of the proposals, particularly with regard to supposed undeclared conflicts of interest from a major contributing editor.Kennywpara (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you were the unnamed editor referred to as having a suspected COI, but I believe that you have completely disarmed that charge, so that the only quibble remaining is the single-issue editor caution. I wish I could offer more support, but, unlike yourself, I do have a COI. I have contributed to this article in the past, but I should confine my contributions to matters of undisputed fact. The more contested the discussion becomes, the more I need to keep out of it. Regards. Plazak (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DECC. 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) 09:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kennywpara. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP and COI

Hi Kenny, some of your posts at Talk:Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom have violated our BLP policy by including negative remarks about living people with whom you are or were involved in an off-wiki dispute. Please don't repeat that.

As you seem to have a conflict of interest in that area, the guideline advises you not to edit the article, and to make an effort not to overwhelm the talk page. Finally, in case you're being paid for your contributions, please read WP:PAID, which is policy. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 07:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah, SarahSV ^(talk) I have responded on the talk page. I have no financial or other inducement to edit HF in the UK. There are some unpleasant things going on that admin need to know about. I am in the middle of an unfortunately long letter and would prefer to email it. There appear to be some very inaccurate claims being made. In questioning motives, why do many people do what they do? Why do I work in a school unpaid? Why do I give money to charity? I edit to inform, which is what an encyclopedia is for. Its a simple as that. I am concerned about the future of a page that I have spent a lot of time improving. Kennywpara (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kenny, thanks for the response (here and on the talk page) and for explaining that you have no financial COI. I'm replying here because this concerns you rather than the article. The COI guideline includes a section on off-wiki activism, WP:COICAMPAIGN: "Activities regarded by insiders as simply 'getting the word out' may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with campaigns in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest."

For example, you apparently made a real-life formal complaint about a professional, who you then criticized on the talk page. That violated COI and BLP. Another editor has posted that you run a Facebook page about the topic. It's also clear from your edits that you're what we call a single-purpose account, here to focus on one point of view about one topic, rather than helping to build an encyclopaedia.

It would probably be better for that article if those involved in real-life campaigns (on either side) would stick to the talk page or leave the topic alone altogether. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for clarification SarahSV ^(talk) As I have stated it paid editing does not apply, and apologies for using inaccurate wording.

I do still have some concerns but there is only one thing that is worth taking issue with, and that is the description of me and Rev MR as 'In January 2015, two supporters of fracking, Reverend Michael Roberts and Ken Wilkinson'. I may have taken my activities to a high level but in reviewing all I have done, its all about debunking false science, not supporting the industry. That is a value judgement that violates [WP:BLP] I did in fact compile a list of the material I produced and its ALL about false science and false claims, including the complaint I made, and the letter I wrote to Yorkshire CC, which was inappropriately logged as a letter of support.

Why use names? There are security issues around the matter. "Two laymen' and the drilling company Cuadrilla" would be accurate and acceptable. Could I leave that to you as I will not edit the article unless matters change.

I have a record of certain historical problems but at present apart from the above I am happy with the page. I will monitor and discuss on the article talk page if I see any serious issues, and contact admin if matters cannot be resolved by discussion. This is a useful source of information in what has become a heated topic in the UK, and it should remain that way. Kennywpara (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed "two supporters" and two sources that weren't compliant with our BLP policy. I removed your name from one of the complaints, because you weren't mentioned in relation to that in a reliable source (not one in the article anyway; I didn't look further afield). As for removing your name entirely, you've been mentioned in at least one reliable source in relation to one complaint, so that's an editorial decision for the editors on the page, but I've left a note asking them to consider it. Thank you for agreeing not to edit the article directly. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (talk) I am becoming increasing concerned about the editing in HF in the UK. I am going round in circles trying to find out the way to resolve this situation to retain this page as an authoritative info source. Please note that I find many of the more detailed points of editing new as I am still a [WP:BITE] .HF in the UK is now controlled by a single user who is posting some [WP:TE] material, a point I raised here [3] I also raised the clear matter of [WP:CONTENTFORK] in this diff [4] This is introducing US based material that has no basis in this article. Whilst the

Please note that I am in the process of updating my talk page to fully document the supposed COI that I have, which will include all the public statements I have made. I highlighted the issue in this diff [5] and then stupily did edit. The response was that I was requested not to edit, which I took as a de facto ban [6]

I started editing this article as it was full of activist nonsense. Many contentious Wiki pages have this issue, and this article has remained largely stable until LB appeared on the scene. Now the other experienced editors do not contribute, presumably due to the massive arguments that ensue. There have been hundreds of edits and simple and simple matters involve discussions of thousands of words. There is much false info and false science about, and this article should reflect the full extent of the regulation and practice that occurs in the UK. There is much info on this site and I proposed that this type of info be used in editing in this link. It is not POV or ADVOCACY to use reliable Govt links and to my mind these cover all aspects. If I were to be permitted to edit again I would ONLY use info from this site When I complete my talk page statement, you will be able to see that my constant theme is debunking false science, and ONLY that. That is a fundamental Wiki pillar, that I try to uphold. It is only in certain specific areas and I did declare the COI as I was involved with certain complaints. I am contributing on talk pages but alas there seems to be an invite to 'edit' so I can be banned. See discussion [here] An editor has made a bad edit and asked for clarification, and I have provided assistance. He claims to have made the changes (which are simple) but he hasnt. Is he waiting to [WP:BITE] me again? This is bizarre behaviour and [WP:AGF] seems a remote hope. I would like to ask that editing on the HF in the UK article be suspended until this can be resolved, and that you can see that my COI is a minor issue, specific to only a small section of the article. Recent edits are in my opinion [WP:DE] as a result of there being a single editor whose editing style is 'interesting' to say the least. There is MUCH more to write on this and a long history, details of which I can provide later, before more inapproprate editing is done. Regards.Kennywpara (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note SarahSV ^(talk) that I do have evidence of social media on a certain editor, which I could send you. His off Wiki activitioes involve support for anti frack activism. Kennywpara (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated my talk page SarahSV ^(talk) Please note the comment of another experienced wikipedian concerning my edits and NPOV, at . [7] Please also note this worrying exchange at the start of this matter, where a certain editor overode the opinions of 3 other editors. See conversation on [8] (Some of this was deleted.) After this I appealed for a collegiate approach. See [9] Sadly that seems to be ancient history nowKennywpara (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Regulations in HF in the UK article

Hi Kennywpara, I have moved your discussion into a new header 'Regulations' in timestamp order of appearance on the talk page. Luther Blissetts (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DRN case closed

This message template was placed here by Yashovardhan Dhanania, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed a request or were a major party in the DRN case titled "Talk:Hydraulic fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Rationale_for_moving_sections_of_this_article". The case is now closed: not enough continuous discussion at article talk page. See closing comments. If you are unsatisfied with this outcome, you may refile the DRN request or open a thread on another noticeboard as appropriate. If you have any questions please feel free to contact this volunteer at his/ her talk page or at the DRN talk page. Thank you! --Yashovardhan (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by volunteer: if the issue is about a single user's conduct, consider making a request at admin noticeboard

==Ping test== @Kennywpara:Kennywpara (talk) 06:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please either make requests in the appropriate topic or start a new request using 'request edit' in the COI notice. Thanks

Hi Kennywpara, I don't think this is too much to ask of you, and I hope you don't think it's too much to ask either. Could you please in future make separate requests in the appropriate topic for discussion if it already exists, OR start a new request using the 'request edit' above in the COI edit notice which will give an automatic, dated new section for the request. Thank you. I am moving the other requests to the appropriate places (if there is one), but this is the last time I will do this. It's very hard to follow a discussion if it's separated across all the discussions. Please re-read your DRN advice (which said: "Presently, it seems that all discussion is only sporadic and not continuous under one single header"). Luther Blissetts (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kennywpara. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kennywpara. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [1]

[2] [2]

[1]

[2]