User talk:Andrewa: Difference between revisions
Why? I Ask (talk | contribs) |
Notification that File:Futurikon logo.png is orphaned and will be deleted in seven days per WP:CSD#F5 |
||
| Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
I noticed that you left a comment on the article's talk page, so your input in the current [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SATB|deletion discussion]] would be much appreciated! [[User:Why? I Ask|Why? I Ask]] ([[User talk:Why? I Ask|talk]]) 13:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC) |
I noticed that you left a comment on the article's talk page, so your input in the current [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SATB|deletion discussion]] would be much appreciated! [[User:Why? I Ask|Why? I Ask]] ([[User talk:Why? I Ask|talk]]) 13:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC) |
||
==Orphaned non-free image File:Futurikon logo.png== |
|||
[[File:Ambox warning blue.svg|35px|text-top|left|⚠|link=]] Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Futurikon logo.png]]'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|claim of fair use]]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|our policy for non-free media]]). |
|||
Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F5|section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --[[User:B-bot|B-bot]] ([[User talk:B-bot|talk]]) 17:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:24, 24 March 2022
G'day! This is Andrew Alder's user talk page, you knew that. Welcome!
 | If you'd like to see what I'm doing, this is how I do that |
 | If I left you a message on your talk page, please respond there, I am watching your talk page. That's of course unless the message at your talk page was a mere heads-up as to progress on a discussion here or on another talk page, in which case probably best to continue the discussion where it is.
I prefer to discuss issues regarding any particular article, policy etc. at its talk page, so if I'm already involved in a discussion there's no need to fork the discussion to here, and if not then a simple heads-up here with a link to the relevant talk page and section is best. Be aware of the canvassing guidelines, but if you're just asking me for advice rather than a whole list of people there should be no problem there. Please don't censor my talk page. Just because you don't support what someone else is saying is no reason to remove it. Is it now? (You wouldn't think I had to say that, but I have learned otherwise.) On the other hand, if the edits you are removing are by banned users (or their socks), then please feel free to do it. That's not censorship, it's administrative drudgery, and I thank you for taking it on. But if there's doubt as to who the contributor really is, or if the proposed ban is not yet in force, or both, better to leave me to clean up my own page. (And again I would have thought that was obvious to all, but have learned otherwise.) A non-abusive heads-up on the other antics of the contributor, in reply to what they have said or done here, is always appreciated. TIA! |  |
If you're tempted to go below the top three levels, you might like to read User:Andrewa/How not to rant first
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
| |||
List of current IPL team rosters listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of current IPL team rosters. Since you had some involvement with the List of current IPL team rosters redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).
As I noticed you on the talk page, please check this out and let me know what you think.
2012 Yale University systematic review and Harmonization
A Yale University review published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology analyzing CO2 life cycle assessment emissions from nuclear power determined that.[1]
"The collective LCA literature indicates that life cycle GHG emissions from nuclear power are only a fraction of traditional fossil sources and comparable to renewable technologies."
It went on to note that for the most common category of reactors, the Light water reactor:
"Harmonization decreased the median estimate for all LWR technology categories so that the medians of BWRs, PWRs, and all LWRs are similar, at approximately 12 g CO2-eq/kWh"
The study noted that differences between emissions scenarios were:
"The electric system was dominated by nuclear (or renewables) and a system dominated by coal can result in a fairly large ranging (from 4 to 22 g CO2-eq/kWh) compared to (30 to 110 g CO2-eq/kWh), respectively."
The study predicted that depending on a number of variables, including how carbon intensive the electricity supply was in the future, and the quality of Uranium ore:
"median life cycle GHG emissions could be 9 to 110 g CO2-eq/kWh by 2050."
- ^ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00472.x/full Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Electricity Generation
Merger Proposal
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Road Case/Flight case merge
Agreed. I think that someone looking for encyclopaedic information on this topic would not differentiate between a flight or road case and would want all the information available in one article. Indeed, it would make Wikipedia more concise to merge. A visitor may not know there's any difference anyway, and not look for the other article at all.
What is the procedure for getting a merge to happen once it's been flagged on a talk page?Black Stripe (talk) 14 July 2013.
Cuban missile crisis or Cuban Missile Crisis
There is currently another vote taking place on the talk page of Cuban missile crisis whether to recapitalize the name or keep it in lowercase. You participated in the 2012 vote, and may want to voice an opinion or comment on this one. I'm writing this to the voters from 2012 who may not know about this vote. Randy Kryn 19:04 13 January, 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Andrewa. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.
Bach cantata
I am not sure that you see the problem I see: The proposed name Cantatas (Bach) points at the List of Bach cantatas, and that makes sense. To use the name for an introduction article is misleading. Bach cantata is an article that is no longer needed, do you understand? The introduction is now found in more specific articles, and the super-detailed list at the end is only for specialists. It could have any name, from Cantata (Bach) (for its 2010 beginning) to List of Bach's cantatas according to the BWV of 1998 (for what Francis Schonken added to it in 2020). The article that remains needed for the average reader is the other, and better with the traditional redirect, consistent to cello suites and motets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps JackofOz is also interested? In a nutshell: nobody needs the article Bach cantata, - the relevant article is presently called List of Bach cantatas, and I wouldn't mind if THAT would be renamed Cantatas (Bach). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Gerda, having these side discussions away from the main debate is very unhelpful. If you now acknowledge that "Bach cantata is an article that is no longer needed, ...", the place to state that is at the debate about the name change, not anywhere else. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- It was stated at that discussion, on 16 February: "We should not move the present article to Cantatas (Bach), because that is - as it should be, consistent with Cello sonatas and the others - a list of the works with a short introduction." Bach cantata, a long introduction, is not needed, and articles don't link to it any more because we now have better introductions in other articles, which I also listed on 16 February. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Have it your way, you always do. But in the end, consensus will triumph. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict:) If you think this would help on the RM page, please feel free to move it there. I believe it's only a duplication, but may be wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Have it your way, you always do. But in the end, consensus will triumph. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- It was stated at that discussion, on 16 February: "We should not move the present article to Cantatas (Bach), because that is - as it should be, consistent with Cello sonatas and the others - a list of the works with a short introduction." Bach cantata, a long introduction, is not needed, and articles don't link to it any more because we now have better introductions in other articles, which I also listed on 16 February. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- The above copied to Talk:Bach cantata#Requested move 15 February 2022. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of Melodic percussion instrument for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Melodic percussion instrument, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melodic percussion instrument until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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 notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of SATB for deletion
I noticed that you left a comment on the article's talk page, so your input in the current deletion discussion would be much appreciated! Why? I Ask (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Futurikon logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Futurikon logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
