User talk:Bksovacool

Hi, Bksovacool. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our

• Administrator Noticeboard discussion is the right forum to address the behavior. If consensus does not progress, or if the behavior escalates in the meantime, there are processes to provide parity and relief. placing on both talk pagesEBY (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thank you very much, EBY. It's nice to be here and I will certainly let you know if I have any questions. As for Boundarylayer, I've been having problems with him for almost a year now, hopefully things will reach resolution soon. Bksovacool (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bksovacool. I'm glad you're here. There have been a lot of edits to the nuclear power and related articles in recent months. I, and I suspect some other regular editors, do not always have enough familiarity with the full range of published literature to know how best to order and emphasise various sources and viewpoints for balanced and up-to-date coverage. If you want a hand with any of the technicalities of editing, or some pointers on how to navigate the maze of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I am not an expert, but I will be glad to try to help where I can. Just leave a message on my talk page with a link to whichever article or talk page you'd like me to look at with you at any time. --Nigelj (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One little tip - We normally add comments at the bottom of discussions, and never inside other people's comments (e.g. here). Sometimes discussions do separate into separate threads, and well-indented comments below others at the relevant place work OK. If you separate part of someone's comment from their signature, it makes it hard to know who said what, in what order. --Nigelj (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's Nigel, I suspect I'll need all the help I can get. Wikipedia has its own etiquette and I need to learn it. Happy to also provide comments and suggestions to almost any page related to energy technology or policy.Bksovacool (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Above all collaborative attitude and speaking to article content instead of subject matter is the high road. Everywhere else in the world, good intentions may lead somewhere bad. Here, good intentions towards the encyclopedia and its mission will win you the day. EBY (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bksovacool! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host) talk) 01:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply ]

Hi again

I wonder if you could help with this edit to the top-level article 'Nuclear power'? There is a brief discussion

Hi Nigelj, sorry for just getting to this - been traveling extensively and then moving my family overseas. The calculation for nuclear waste is definitely accurate, and pretty simple to do. According to peer-reviewed studies, we know that a single nuclear reactor will consume an average 32,000 fuel rods over the course of its lifetime, and it will also produce 20 to 30 tons of spent nuclear fuel per year. This is why an average of about 2,200 metric tons annually is produced for all of the US. You get to the 10,000 tons number by simply multiplying the 20 to 30 tons per reactor by the ~430 reactors in the world, leading to a total somewhere between 8600 and 12900 tons.Bksovacool (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sorry for the delay in replying, but I thought you may like to know that I've replied on Talk:Jevons_paradox#Feedback_and_suggestions. Best, LK (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LK , no worries, and I appreciate your careful response.

Hi Prof Sovacool, When you have time, could you please review this content:

Thanks John, will see what I can do.Bksovacool (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Prof Sovacool, for your expert contributions. Thanks also to Nigelj for making improvements to these articles. A nice bit of teamwork... Johnfos (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am very interested in life-cycle emissions of different power sources. I noticed you listed biomass and anaerobic digestion as very low environmental impact. I believe this may be an error, because although these sources are renewable, they have a much more severe environmental impact and consume a large amount of water resources. Do you agree or not? Thank you. Brian Everlasting (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi talk, thanks for writing. Those numbers aren't a mistake but they also don't come from me - just the nuclear numbers in that study are the result of a meta-analysis I did, and I have a second, newer study for wind and solar. Haven't gotten to biomass yet, but I can appreciate your concern. Remember too that we're only talking carbon here, not water or other pollutants like dioxin. If you want to email me (address available by searching google), I can send you the original source that gave me those biomass numbers.Bksovacool (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bksovacool. You have new messages at DASonnenfeld's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See
  Wikipedia:FAQ/Business
  for more information.
• It appears to be a clear
  section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

  If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk

  .

Thanks Randykitty, good advice. I've tried it again and followed the template offered by a similar journal, Social Science & Medicine, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Science_%26_Medicine. Hopefully the revisions to Energy Research & Social Science are sufficient.

The article Energy Research & Social Science has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability not established.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

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

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Energy Research & Social Science is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Research & Social Science until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. Randykitty (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]