User talk:Coastwise

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Wikiwings
Thanks, Ahunt. I found all of your edits helpful, and your prods to add citations definitely led to improvements in the article. Coastwise (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Collaboration works! - Ahunt (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

4 Degrees and Beyond International Climate Conference
Thanks for your note. No problem, I just moved it to the correct title. To do this with any page you just need to click on the little "down arrow" beside the star at the top right of the article page. The only choice hidden there is "move", click that and then you type in the correct name. If the target article name is empty (eg no existing article in that name) then it should move the article and the talk page (if one exists). If there is already an article at that name then you will need to merge the two or something similar! Hope that helps! - Ahunt (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Aviation and mitigation economics
Hello. I've removed the paragraph you recently added to the article on the economics of climate change mitigation:

''The environmental impact of aviation and particularly on the climate is receiving increasing attention. Climate scientist Kevin Anderson raised concern about the growing effect of air transport on the climate in a paper[13] and a presentation[14] in 2008. He has pointed out that even at a reduced annual rate of increase in UK passenger air travel and with the government's targeted emissions reductions in other energy use sectors, by 2030 aviation would be causing 70% of the UK's allowable CO2 emissions. Similarly, others have been raising concern about the globally increasing hypermobility of individuals, involving frequent and often long distance air travel.[15]''

It does not appear, in my view, to be an appropriate addition to the article in question. The section you added it to is about structural market reform and its effect on mitigation. The above paragraph does relate to this, but does not explain this relationship in its current revision. Additionally, I feel that it is too regionally specific for the article, as it only applies to the UK. I'm also concerned that it does not, in its current form, provide an economic analysis of mitigation and aviation.

For these reasons, I believe that the paragraph belongs in different articles. I've rewritten and moved it to the article on Energy policy of the United Kingdom. The paragraph is already included in the climate change mitigation article. Enescot (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
--5 albert square (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Concerns of AR POV pushing.
Concerns of AR POV pushing. 141.218.36.152 (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See claim of "Harmful to wikipedia" on Talk:Zero-Net-Energy_USA_Federal_Buildings. 141.218.36.152 (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See recent claims of disruption by that IP (although it's usually been in the 99.* range) at WP:ANI. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive723 & Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive723 are the most recent occurrences that I can find. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is wrongly posted to my user page. I have not edited that talk page or article. You have the wrong user.Coastwise (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your attention to Sustainability-related articles. (",) See WP:Tea.  97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Of interest?
Found on User_talk:Stepho-wrs  See Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin for more background, with attention to View History edit summaries for more information. Note that User:Arthur Rubin has a history of deleting Talk page comments.

Here is only some of the backing evidence I've found ...
 * User_talk:Geofferybard
 * User_talk:Gabriel_Kielland
 * User_talk:Orangemarlin/Archives_June-July_2011
 * User_talk:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris
 * 99.56.120.249 (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I paged through his contributions page (at 500 per page) and found 1140 edits in the past month (10/8 through 11/7), averaging 38 per day with not a day missed. Pretty intense, although counts don't say everything. Coastwise (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thank you for your work on The London Accord. \\(^o^)//  See WP:Tea.  99.181.132.192 (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your WP:Civility and work on Effects of climate change on humans including Small Island Developing States. See WP:Tea

If of continued interest, see previous attempt on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Effects_of_climate_change_on_humans&diff=459572238&oldid=459571957

Also see developing countries/developing nations example since 19 October 2011‎ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Effects_of_climate_change_on_humans&diff=456416424&oldid=456313057

99.181.135.155 (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your attention on Effects of climate change on humans. 141.218.36.43 (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Thank you. (",)  99.181.142.144 (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Burning embers diagram (from PNAS website).jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Burning embers diagram (from PNAS website).jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Introduction of "greenhouse gas"
Hi. I've some criticisms (see Talk:Greenhouse gas) of your edit to the introduction of greenhouse gas:


 * Since 2000 fossil fuel related carbon emissions have equaled or exceeded the IPCC's "A2 scenario", except for small dips during two global recessions.[12] [13][14] In 2010, global CO2 emissions exceeded the IPCC's worst case scenario,[15] leading to concerns over whether dangerous climate change can be avoided.[16][17] [18]

In view of my criticisms, I've rewritten the above. Perhaps we can discuss the issue at Talk:Greenhouse gas? Enescot (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, Enescot. I think your change is OK for now, with one small addition I have made. Coastwise (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

please do not remove the red wikilinks on hydraulic fracturing
If you knew the scope of the literature (you only cite simple web pages), you would know these are highly fundamental terms to the field, and you would do the project a great disservice by delinking them; even though they are red for now, they are a source of future expansion. One reason the project has grown so slowly in the past two years is the project's aesthetic anathema to seeing red links -- but this is necessary for the growth of article/topic. Thanks. DeRanged Resources (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

bias?
what bias did you see in my edits to the lead of energy development? Curious. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Jytdog. It seems to me that a steadily growing supply is not possible without some sideboards on that. In its previous form (although not well written) prior to your edit, there was some indication of sideboards. Also, the article contains some features that are adequately represented by a lede with the focus you provided. If my characterization was unfair, my apology. No offense was intended. Coastwise (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the apology. still unclear to me what bias you saw.   I think the article needs more attention to energy as a commodity that drives everything else, as a reason why we think about energy development at all. And how economics drives what is commercially feasible in energy development  I intend to work on that.   Saw a great show on this - http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12812   Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting interview; thanks for the link. I have seen a few news items about Graham, but never heard him speak. Coastwise (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

RE: Wolf
The category "wolves" is already included in the main gray wolf article, where it is warranted as a species. The Alex. Arch. wolf is not just a "wolf", it is a "gray wolf". People wishing to expand their knowledge on this subspecies can do so by accessing the Canis lupus category. Keeping the "wolves" category into the Alex. Arch. wolf article makes about as much sense as including the "Eukaryote" category for the red fox article.

In any case, given the choice, I would delete the category "wolves" altogether, as phylogenetics demonstrates that the term "wolf" has no taxonomic meaning whatsoever (eg., the maned and Falkland Islands wolf were previously included, but the coyote and golden jackal weren't, despite the fact that the latter two species are close enough to Canis lupus to be able to hybridize with it, while the former two are from completely different genera). The problem as I see it is that "wolf" has never been properly defined. Edward Alphonso Goldman's definition was at least consistent, as it took into account the morphology in common between gray and red wolves (i.e., that in contrast to coyotes, they were larger and had broader snouts and rounded ears). This definition however has since been ignored by the naming of Canis simensis as a "wolf" (despite being coyote-sized and having a much narrower snout and pointed ears) and even completely unrelated canid species outside the genus Canis (see maned and Falkland Islands wolves).Mariomassone (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Mario, I think the difference here is that you are looking at this taxonomically, and I'm looking at it from how a reader of an encyclopedia searches for topics of interest by using common words. Coastwise (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you have any problem then with adding the Canidae category to the red fox article, despite the fact that biological family categories are usually only placed on genera rather than species pages? Simplified or not, placing the Alex. wolf into the same category as the gray wolf gives the false impression that the two are distinct, even though an Alex. wolf is a gray wolf by definition.Mariomassone (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That is an interesting question. So I did some poking around, starting with "Category:felis". There, many cats are listed down to the subspecies level. I also looked at "Category:fauna" which redirects to Cateory:animals. There, there is no entry for mammals, but one can go to  "Category:Carnivorous animals". That is kind of an odd page, but it has a link to "Category:predators" which has a link to "Category:Carnivorans", which has links to "Category:Canids" and "Category:Felids" (which has different content than "Category:Felis". So at least in a broad view of these two forks of mammalia on WP, the construct of the WP category system has become quite messy and would benefit from cleanup (probably a huge task, and not for me). All this said, I think "Category:Felis" is a good example of how it should be done, giving the reader good access via both common language names and taxonomic names, down to the subspecies level. One difference to consider here, too, from an encyclopedia perspective is that "cat" or "felis" does not appear in the common names of felid species or subspecies, but in contrast the word "wolf" does appear in the common names of various wolf species and subspecies. And WP is a resource primarily (I think) for everyday people. So, not a solid answer to your question, but I think there this is food for further thought. Coastwise (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

aircraft fuel economy
This discussion has been moved to Talk:Fuel economy in aircraft. Coastwise (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2014 (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) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Climate Action Plan for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Climate Action Plan 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 Articles for deletion/Climate Action Plan 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. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 16:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

''Since you contributed to the discussion over at Articles for deletion/Climate action, I wanted to ping you and let you know that your input would be valued. I am posting this notice on the talk page for every editor who has contributed to that discussion and the discussion at Articles for deletion/Avoiding dangerous climate change, regardless of their vote or apparent viewpoint.'' J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 16:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping. Coastwise (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change
I explained my removals...care to explain your re-adding of them? DMacks (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)