User talk:Andol

Hello, Andol, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Beagel (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply ] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi Andol, please note that in two articles related to wind power, you repositioned sections related to 'Further reading' and 'External links' prior to the References section. While you may have seen that format in other reference works, its contrary to Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MoS -please see the procedure there), which tells all editors how sections are organized in every article. I've reordered the two articles to agree with the MoS, but if you've altered the organization of other articles you should return them to the MoS's order.

Other than that, thanks for your help with the articles, and good writing with your future edits. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Harryzilber, thank you for your information. As you may have noticed I am no nativ speaker and just do edit occassionally in the english Wikipedia. I repositioned the sections following the order as it is most commonly used in the German Wikipedia. I didn't know there are strict rules in the English Wikipedia. But now I know for future edits. So thank you for your advice and the correction of my mistakes! Best wishes, Andol (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Martin Kaltschmitt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King’s College. 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) 08:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues here. An obscure economist is quoted saying nuclear energy is too expensive, but whenever I put in an opinion from an economist that says the opposite, it keeps getting edited out - And why on earth is a crackpot philosophy professor like Lowe quoted at all? I'm also appalled that you think "Furthermore, here are a large number of exciting proposals for new reactors which exemplify the great promise that nuclear fission shows in providing abundant cheap energy" is bad but "However, nuclear supporters continue to champion reactors, often with proposed new but largely untested designs, as a source of new power." is OK.

I'm quite willing to compromise but we either have Quiggin and Sachs, or we have neither. And either Lowe goes, or the argument is balanced with another balancing opinion. I only added my "exciting new proposals" when Rosoft kept editing Sachs out and editing the "nuclear proponents" back in. I will be happy to find words intermediate between the two.Graemem56 (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one thing I want to tell you, a warning. Your edits are strongly biased and contain a lot of

WP:OR. Both is a no-go in Wikipedia. If you go on like that and try to defend your edits by edit-warring, this will lead into problems, which means, you will be banned. I suggest to change your behavior, because if you go on like this, your work here won't last very long. Andol (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Andol, just to let you know that I reinserted section Solar power#Brids. I think whenever there is a misinformation campaign, it should be addressed and debunked. Maybe, you'd like to add another paragraph? This article seems helpful. As far as I can see the misinformation campaign continues. I will take a break from editing the article, so there won't be any edit conflicts. -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 15:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. I saw it allready. I don't think I will edit something to that section any more, but I will be looking for scientific literature, i.e. scientific journals. Maybe I find something useful that I can add about that. And thank you for your improvments in the article! Unfortunately many articles about energy, especially renewable energy, are quite out-dated in the English wikipedia. So it's a very good thing that you try to improve that. Cheers, Andol (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beijing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emission. 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) 09:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Incandescent light bulb, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury. 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) 09:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andol, I'm not used to user talk so please bear with me. In revision 700665949 you mentioned "completely contradicting the papers that were referenced" I'd be interested hear which papers or which references. Care to say? Dougmcdonell (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Both of the Jacobson papers. References 12 and 15. Jacobson did model several regions (here the world), in which he researched the possibility of 100% renewable supply. He, together with his coworkers, came to the conclusion that 100% renewable supply is possible. Most of balancing is done by a strong grid, water power, solar thermal with heat storage, electric vehicles and load shifting and hydrogen, which is used for ships and aircraft. There is not much need for other storage. So when you wrote nearly the opposite, you turn his findings upside down. Andol (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, I removed the future scenario because it doesn't represent the current situation. We aren't on the way to excess wind and solar and there aren't any plans to use valuable hydrogen to power ships. It's a sci-fi piece and to be in the article at all it belongs in "Future prospects" and I deleted it to save myself the effort of moving it. Any disagreement with me moving it and writing the current situation in its place? Dougmcdonell (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it's not science fiction. You missed the point in what Jacobson did. Jacobson did (and does) research what is needed for a total renewable energy supply. So he describes what a future energy system entirely powered by renewable sources has to look like or should look like. Because a renewable energy system has it's own characteristics and cannot look like a energy system powered by fossil fuels. Most paragraph is about how a future energy system should look like, because variability is mostly a problem of the future. So if you move it, you have to move nearly the complete paragraph. Is that wise? What could be wise, however, is a sentence that variability will only in the future with higher shares of renewables a topic, that has to be addressed and solved.

And one further word: I would like to undo this edit. First, I think the citation is wrong, because also the sentences below are Jacobson. And second, the shift in thinking has to take place earlier than 2030, because without that shift, the 2030 goals cannot be reached. If the shift takes place in 2030, then there is no way that by 2030 100% renewable energy can be reached. But there is also another reason. In his later work, Jacobson names 2050 as the date when 100% renewable energy can be reached. He found, that while there is no technical barrier, there are political barrieres that make 2030 very unlikely. Andol (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your feedback, It seems we are on two very different topics here, I'm trying to write about the present and you're interested in what's possible in the future, of course they contradict each other. I have no comments about Jacobson or his report other than noting in the article that it's in the future. If you'd like a different date or a different citation please edit it the way you'd like to see it. And yes I think moving the the complete paragraph to "Future prospects" would be very wise in that there would be no conflict or confusion at all then, I'd like to finish adding to the current status and I don't do edits about the future. Sound OK to you?Dougmcdonell (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are. Well, ok do it. And maybe I will change some parts, ok? But please try to use fresh sources, as there is a lot of change going on and older references often don't reflect that. Greetings, Andol (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andol, I answered your question about Final Energy on the talk page of Primary energy. Rwbest (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peabody Energy, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Thread and Roy Spencer. 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) 10:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Andol. 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

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]

I get the value of your summary description of the usefulness of the url, but how is this appropriate. There must be a better way, no?

Your right, I should have looked better. Is it ok now? I tried to fix it. Andol (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems better to me.

X1\ (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Andol. 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

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]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Andol. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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

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]

Hello, Andol. 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

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]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

PS... See

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello

User:NewsAndEventsGuy, thank you for that advice. I have to admit that I only know some of the rules in the English Wikipedia, therefore this is helpful for me. I usually edit the German Wikipedia and only occassionally happen to contribute here, so I may misunderstand some things in which the German and the English Wikipedia diverge. This is not done on purpose and so I really welcome your help! Greetings from Germany, Andol (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Welcome, good luck. I have no opinion on the matter you are arguing over.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cold district heating, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Arzberg and Heat storage.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

So in this edit, talking about Ryan Maue, you stated, “I agree that the statement by Maue isn't needed, as it doesn't relate to the article here. But even if such information was needed, it shouldn't be some statement by a Twitter user with nearly no academic credentials and a highly controversial CV… Earlier in the discussion, it was mentioned that Mr. Maue got a PhD and published two academically, peer-reviewed journals in

I’ve worked on multiple articles, and generally, once a person has published an academic paper in that field, they are generally considered an expert in that specific field (

Oh, come on, and having published two (!) scientific articles on a subject doesn't necessarily make someone an expert. Especially if after the PhD he becomes a pundit, lobbyist, merchant of doubt or outright denier. Nearly every climate science denier the industry has put forward has had a PhD, and why? That people confuse them with experts. Please look up some literature on climate science denial if you make the same mistake. Let's make it very easy: An expert on a topic is someone who has published on a subject multiple times and still regularly publishes, tells the state of knowledge on the science as given in assessment reports and is considered an expert by other experts in the field. Someone who has a PhD and then chooses to work as a lobbyist for the climate science denying think tank Cato Institute, one of the most influencial cogs in the climate denial machine, cannot be an expert on climate science. And I really don't understand how someone can't get that. How much more fringe than pushing Cato-Institute-denial and being appointed by the Trump Administration to corrupt the science can it get in climate science? It's not that complicated. Andol (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I am assuming when you mean “climate science”, you mean meteorology in general, correct? I’m asking because climate topics aren’t the same as

tropical cyclones, which are a weather phenomena. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]