User talk:Stefano Schiavon

December 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Displacement Ventilation has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer be able to have them marked as minor by default. For more information on what a minor edit is, see WP:MINOR or feel to get in touch.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ralph G. Nevins.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ralph G. Nevins.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ralph G. Nevins (September 18)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ralph G. Nevins.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Anup Mehra ^✈ 10:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Anupmehra's talk page.

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mean radiant temperature 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:

by [[Center for the Built Environment|CBE]] at [[University of California, Berkeley| UC Berkeley]])

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC) fixedXiongy 20:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OER inquiry

Hi Stefano Schiavon, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ralph G. Nevins concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ralph G. Nevins, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ralph G. Nevins has been accepted

Ralph G. Nevins, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thermal comfort

HI, you say "Removed sentences based on not high quality peer-reviewed journal publications"

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0216362

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280698071_Energy_consumption_in_buildings_and_female_thermal_demand

these publications are not good enough? --Vatadoshu^french 15:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vatadoshu, the effect of sex/gender on thermal comfort has been studied in hundreds of peer-reviewed publications. The selected peer-reviewed papers are just two of many. In these types of situations, it is good practice to cite a literature review or even better a meta-analysis if available. I suggest using: Karjalainen, Sami. “Thermal Comfort and Gender: A Literature Review.” Indoor Air 22 (2012): 96–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2011.00747.x. SSchiavon 09:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

the 2 i had posted are more recent (2019 and 2015). Ok, it is a but it is old (2011). And i don't think that because it is not a "meta analysis" that it has no value. If so, you shoyld suppress all the sources on ncbi study that are not meta analysis. So what i wait that one day a meta analysis speak about these recent studys...to post on wikipedia. i don't think it is in guidelines. Vatadoshu^french 14:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

today, the reference for women used for thermal comfort is a man of 40 years and 70kg

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/science/chilly-at-work-a-decades-old-formula-may-be-to-blame.html?smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0&utm_source=affiliate&utm_medium=ls&utm_campaign=hL3Qp0zRBOc&utm_content=486358&utm_term=1&siteID=hL3Qp0zRBOc-MXrLVS9G_CJrvroO6YDyxg

but thermal comfort wikipedia article indicate nothing about a reference range for thermal confort for women. there are articles and study. but just you need something that i don't have (a meta analysis). you prefer an article with nothing. continuing the error saying 20 degrees is enough for women. :( Vatadoshu^french 14:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vatadoshu, in science a newer paper is not necessarily a better one. One could argue that the opposite could be often correct. A single paper, if confirmed by others, would be valuable if there are not much papers in the literature on that topic. The meta-analysis or the literature review, if properly done, is superior to a single paper because it puts together the results from many papers. In the specific case, the article from Nature has been criticized and, even if properly done, is one perspective in the field. You can read something about it https://www.mcmorrowreports.com/ashrae-rebuts-original-study-nyt-story-about-why-women-are-cold-in-offices-in-the-summer/ and https://www.rehva.eu/fileadmin/REHVA_Journal/REHVA_Journal_2015/RJ_issue_5/P.12/12-13_RJ1505.pdf. You may also like the short post we wrote: https://medium.com/@tom.parkinson/are-thermostats-really-sexist-cd9c7dc2558a Peer-reviewed publications and conferences should be the best place where this issue is discussed and solved. In Wikipedia, it is better to mainly report the prevailing agreement. SSchiavon 00:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Custom signature fix needed

Hi there! You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. Changes to Wikipedia's software have made your current custom signature invalid.

The problem: Your signature contains a syntax error or obsolete HTML tags.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, you can fix your signature, or you can do nothing.

Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:

Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
Remove anything in the Signature: text box.
Click the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page. (Do not click the red "Restore all default settings" button, which will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)

Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:

Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
Click the Learn more button next to the error to learn how to fix the error.
Update your signature to fix the error.
Click Save to update to your newly fixed signature.

Solution 3: Do nothing:

In accordance with a recent request for comment, all invalid signatures will be changed to the default, which looks like "Example (talk)", one month from now.

If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]