User talk:Andol


 * }

Careful with sections organization!
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)


 * 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)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22
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)

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)


 * 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)

Removal of section "Birds" in Solar power
Hi Andol, just to let you know that I reinserted section Solar power. 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,  R fassbind  -talk   15:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

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) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force
Please consider joining WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27
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)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11
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)

Variable renewable energy revert
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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

Disambiguation link notification for June 14
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)

Hello. Question about using a url as a title ...
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? X1\ (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your right, I should have looked better. Is it ok now? I tried to fix it. Andol (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems better to me. X1\ (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited District heating, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Energy efficiency ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/District_heating check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/District_heating?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Guus Berkhout, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim O'Brien ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Guus_Berkhout check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Guus_Berkhout?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

DS Alert climate change
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

custom addition
Please click the links and read the pages that open. Months back I posted this same thing on my own talk page, and days back at the other editor's also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * PS... See WP:NPA and WP:BAIT which you may find helpful in dealing with that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Welcome, good luck. I have no opinion on the matter you are arguing over. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2
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)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

A question for you
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 Monthly Weather Review and Journal of Climate. Based on your “I agree” at the start of your statement, you obviously had read the discussion and saw the references made. I am genuinely curious as to what you consider “academic credentials”, since a PhD and academically published material doesn’t seem to be considered that for you. Earlier, you were thinking I was pushing fringe theories, but I’m starting to honestly get concerned that you are maybe unintentionally pushing some.

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 (WP:SPS). That is why people like Thomas P. Grazulis and Timothy Marshall are considered experts in the realm of tornadoes, and their work (even self-published work like tweets or self-published research) is cited all across Wikipedia. As I stated, I fully agree Mr. Maue isn’t a reliable source for every topic, with the exception of tropical cyclones. That exception is because his academically published work was fully about tropical cyclones. For you to claim he has “nearly no academic credentials” seems to be grasping for straws to keep anything from Mr. Maue off Wikipedia. So, what exactly do you consider to satisfy “academic credentials” on Wikipedia? That is an honest question, because what you describe doesn’t seem, at least to me, to match with WP:SPS. I may be wrong, but I’m wanting you to explain it some so I can better understand what you mean and how to better interpret Wikipedia policy. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)