User talk:Mishlai

=About Mishlai=

=Welcome to Mishlai's talk page= Feel free to sit down and make yourself comfortable. I'll try to continue conversations here for continuity, so if you ask a question and are expecting a response, you may wish to watch this page.

- Mish

Thank you for the note
I am very familiar with RealClimate.org. It is an organization that advocates policy. It also censors scientists who disagree. When reading RC, you will ALWAYS think RC pseudo-scientists won the debate because they do not allow all the facts into the debate.

For example, McIntyre and McKitrick won the Hockey Stick controversy. Have you read the Wegman Report? If you had, you would know it was written by statisticians. They were appalled both at the claims Mann made for the robustness of the statistics used and the fact Mann did not check with any real statisticians before he published. The National Academy of Sciences also weighed in on the controversy. While NAS was very polite to Mann and talked of the value of proxy studies, the report sided with McIntyre on all disputed points of science. They concluded that the bristlecone pine proxy were unreliable. They concluded the 20th century was the warmest in 600 years, but were unable to support Mann's claim it was the warmest in 1000 years. Mann was required to publish a corrigendum. BTW, Michael Mann is one of the operators of RealClimate, so their policy is to proclaim victory and change the subject. Mann's supporters call themselves the "Hockey Team." This group of people, including Wahl and Ammann, have published other proxy studies calling them "independent" but they also rely on bristlecone pine or other proxies known to be unreliable. This confuses some scientists and gives the IPCC cover.

One aspect of the global warming controversy I find interesting is the group think. This is an interesting phenomenon among climate scientists. I do not believe they are all dishonest (as I do believe Michael Mann is), but it is obvious many of them fall under the sway of the claim "the science is settled." After breaking the Hockey Stick, many more scientists are becoming more outspoken about being skeptical of AGW. I have worked on the article you mentioned List of scientists opposing global warming consensus. William Connelly and his posse fight against including self-described skeptical scientists all the time, but there are many more listed now (and higher quality scientists) than before I arrived. The article used to claim the list was intended to be comprehensive. There are far too many skeptical scientists to list them all.

You claim people are attacking the IPCC on nebulous political grounds instead of the science. I have no idea what you are talking about. The entire criticism is that the IPCC is ignoring and twisting the science. You are only reading one side of the debate.

You might be interested to know that the warmers are playing with the temperature dataset again. I would suggest you read the story and the posted comments here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RonCram (talk • contribs).


 * I have indeed not read the Wegman Report, so a real response from me will take a while (in case you're waiting for one). As far as RC, I frequently see them state uncertainty, caveats, qualifications, etc.  They also make arguments against the alarmist side, and indeed virtually shredded Flannery's The Weather Makers.  These are all hallmarks of intellectual honesty, which is why I place some degree of trust in them.  What I see, personally, at RC is not GW-advocacy but science advocacy.  This tone is not often taken by the environmentalists or the deniers/delayer crowd.


 * I will look into the things you cite, but it will take some time. Mishlai 19:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Mishlai - i saw that you were looking for the Wegman report (i assume that you've found it) - otherwise here it is here. Of interest as well are the two hearings - First hearing and Second hearing - all of which have documents and transcripts. The video's of the hearings should be there as well (although i haven't checked 'em). --Kim D. Petersen 14:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Mishlai, I just learned about Wegman's response to Rep. Stupak. I have not had a chance to read it myself but I understand that it clarifies many points.  The document is long (about 10 Mb) so the best thing is to right click on the link and click "Save target as..."  It will take a minute or two to download. I look forward to discussing this with you.RonCram 18:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Mishlai, I got your note that you have the Wegman report. I thought I had provided you with that earlier, but at least you have it.  I did try to provide a link to a piece from Wegman answering questions from Rep Stupak.  I see I forgot to provide the link.  I provided it above and here it is again.   It is a long file.  It will download more quickly if you save it to your hard drive. RonCram 13:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your good explanations!
Thanks for your detailed and excellent arguments on talk:global warming and related pages. I try to do something similar, but, by now, I sometimes run out of patience and become much more brusque. --Stephan Schulz 07:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I wish to reiterate Stephan's sentiment. There's a constant stream of people attempting to put a spin on global warming-related articles that is contrary to the scientific evidence, and I don't always have the patience to give detailed explanations. I think the explanations are most valuable to third parties, as those who are pushing the non science POV seldom show any willingness to accept information that counters their worldview. Thanks for taking the time. Raymond Arritt 18:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys. I appreciate the encouragement.  I've already said this on your individual pages, but thank you both for your own contributions and efforts as well.  I appreciate a community of "honest brokers", and the two of you certainly qualify. Mishlai 19:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

AMA Advocacy
Hi, I've read your request for advocacy and decided to take it.

Wikipedia has a whole system to solve disputes consisting in some steps (take a look on it here), from the lightest to the heaviest one. The idea is to use the last resort only on very grave situations and, from what I read of the dispute, this is not the case.

The best thing you can do now is to negotiate with the other party: to discuss civilly and try to get consensus and also try to understand the other's point of view on how should the article be written. But, maybe, an article request for comment (considered as the "second" resort on dispute resolutions) could be useful to bring new editors to the article with new and also better ideas. What I highly suggest you not to do, at least for now, is a user request for comment. Any comments? If you prefer, you can contact me via email. --Neigel von Teighen 15:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestions. Another editor has weighed in on the matter, and it may be settled as a result.  I'm not sure, Hypnosadist has not responded since then.


 * It seemed to me that negotiations had reached an impasse, particularly since the conflict centered not around wording -which is pretty flexible - but around whether or not the material even deserved a mention in this particular article. From my standpoint at least, it seemed that negotiations had gone as far as they could and there were points on which we were simply not going to agree.


 * If it isn't resolved, I'll look into the RfC. My main question for you was whether I should pursue RfC or 3rd Party, because at the time Hypnosadist and I were the only ones seriously discussing the article content, with others just occasionally arguing the topic.  At this point its pretty clearly not between 2 people anymore.  I'm still curious about the 3rd party request guidelines.  Other than that, unless you have suggestions as to how I might have handled things better, I think you've answered my questions.


 * Thanks again, and sorry if I've taken up your time unnecessarily. Mishlai 16:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you don't (and won't) need any further action. Negotiation and RfC are the best for solving the dispute you have there. Any question you need an answer for, just call me on my talk page or email. --Neigel von Teighen 12:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear power article
Please excuse me for my diatribe about being able to contribute to the article about Nuclear Power. But somehow I cant understand why I cant help with the articles that I'm interested in due to restrictions caused by parties that obviously know more than me about editing but give me the impression that they dont understand the subject matter. WFPMWFPM (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)PS I also have a son who was an electrician in nuclear submarines and is now in Computer programming (Project Management) and know that you can see that subject matter in an article is important, and that it and the historical references have any real significance. WFPMWFPM (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Part of the challenge of editing wikipedia is dealing with people who do or don't understand the subject, or who understand it differently. If you're new to wikipedia, then I would also say that it can be a challenge to understand the mindset of wikipedia.


 * Truth, for example, is not very relevant to what does or does not go into an article. Clearly the encyclopedia tries to be accurate, but what matters is verifiability, the notion that reliable sources can be found that support the statement.  The reason for this is that in disagreements between editors, "truth" is difficult to ascertain.


 * For the matters relating to the nuclear power article, I've responded on that talk page. For general wikipedia concerns I recommend - and strongly - that you read the editing guidelines and get a full grasp of how this community works.  To neglect that would be akin to entering science without understanding the scientific method - no one would take you seriously unless you were willing and able to work within the context of their existing and proven framework.  Wikipedia is the same.


 * These are a good start, but wikipedia has many policies and I'm still learning them myself.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT


 * If you're continuing to have difficulty, then taking to the talk page is the right thing to do, which you've done.
 * Mishlai (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I must be stupid, but Speer said I could contribute to the article without using my talk page signature. How do I do that? WFPMWFPM (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When you edit a talk page you conclude it with the symbols for your signature.


 * When you edit an article you do not. It will still be recorded in the history as having been edited by you, but you don't want your signature appearing in the text of the article itself.


 * See WP:Signature or ask back here if you still have questions. Mishlai (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It's sure taking a lot of time for this old dog to learn the new tricks. And incidently in your Nuclear Power article I think you did casually mention the solution to the problem, which is when we finally quit mincing around and get busy expanding the French and Indian 92U233 reactor technology move on to the proposed Hydrogen fueled Economy which is supposed to eliminate the need for centralized electrical power facilities. WFPMWFPM (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont find a Nuclear Science article. It was merged into the Nuclear Power article. WFPMWFPM (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How about you helping me get it moved into the Talk:Nuclear physics article? WFPMWFPM (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's probably a good place to start. I'm unclear on what changes exactly you want to make, but I've got nuclear physics on watch so if you make a change or add something to the talk page I'll see it.  atomic nucleus is another possibility.  Mishlai (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Intermittency
Great editing - looks really good. you say you want a better reference for demand reduction, i don't know if this one will help, its from the Diesel Generator article.....which has some relevance....

[edit] Supporting main utility grids Emergency standby diesel generators such as those used in hospitals, water plant etc, are, as a secondary function, widely used in the US and the UK to support the respective national grids at times for a variety of reasons. In the UK for example, some 2 GWe of diesels are routinely used to support the National Grid, whose peak load is about 60 GW. These are sets in the size range 200kW to 2 MW. This usually occurs during say the sudden loss of a large conventional plant of say 660 MW, or a sudden unexpected rise in power demand eroding the normal spinning reserve available.

This is extremely beneficial for both parties - the diesels have already been purchased for other reasons; but to be reliable need to be fully load tested. Grid paralleling is a convenient way of doing this.

In this way the UK National Grid can call on about 2 GW of plant which is up and running in parallel as quickly as two minutes in some cases. This is far quicker than a base load power station which can take 12 hours from cold, and faster than a gas turbine, which can take several minutes. Whilst diesels are very expensive in fuel terms, they are only used a few hundred hours per year in this duty, and their availability can prevent the need for base load station running inefficiently at part load continuously. The diesel fuel used is fuel that would have been used in testing anyway. See Control of the National Grid (UK), National Grid (UK) reserve service [1], [2][3]

A similar system operates in France known as EJP, where at times of grid extremis special tariffs can mobilize at leas 5 Gw of diesels to become available.In this case, the diesels prime function is to feed power into the grid. [4][3]

^ http://energydiscussiongroup.wikispaces.com/EJP+-+load+reduction+in+France — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engineman (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you so much, I've been working hard on it for days.  I'll take a look at the reference. Mishlai (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

capacity credit
Yes - still totally impressed by your editing skill - its looking really good now that a lot of the dross and repetition has been removed - the previous was far to long and rambling.

I am not sure if Sinden actually says what is quoted in the wikipedia article  in the referenced book, but he has certainly stated it to me and to others in public - any way it certainly is the case that no serous commentator perceives the benefit of wind to come from capacity reduction as is often mi-stated in main stream press- its is widely acknowledged that conventional plant will have to be started during low wind periods - which will happen about 5 - 10 % of the time in Europe...Best..Engineman.

PS can I suggest you may wish to join the Claverton Energy Group where technical experts discuss these kind of issues to the nth degree. http://www.claverton-energy.com/# Engineman (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yeah, there's no doubt that the main benefit of wind is energy, fuel use reductions, etc. but that doesn't mean that it is incapable of substituting a little capacity too.  The issue gets a little complex because it's so dependent upon the grid makeup, which is fascinating but it makes it more challenging to write an article that accurately conveys the dimensions of the issue.  It's still far from done but I'm taking a little break.


 * Thanks again for the compliments. Mishlai (talk) 06:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sizewell
- you won;t find a referencer to sizewell being the biggest intermittent source, but it is well known in the industry that that is they case. ?I'll try and find a reference, but it is true. Sizwell's fialure caused the recent power failure a fuew mohts ago - that is referecned.....Engineman (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that it's true. It would be nice to have the ref, but I'm not deeply worried about it because:


 * It's only one country
 * The larger point is already made - the possibility of failure of this large nuclear plant is a major factor in determining spinning reserve. Mishlai (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

regularly
In this context this can mean everry few year. It doesn really matter how often, the fact is, it is well known that in CAN sudeenlty stop genreating on both 660 MW turbines - it is the only station where this can happen...in the Uk...so the grid has to have steps in hand to deal with it...even though it may never in fact happen.Engineman (talk) 11:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think "regularly" sounds like more often than that. I think that the data in the intermittency section of nuclear (that I just added) would lead you to believe that reactors must fail about once a year or so anyway. If sizewell is being singled out as a noteworthy problem, then that really sounds like it's failing more than that. It's better to describe the actual data on failures than to use vague terms like that anyway... in any case, I think the point is made.  All power plants can fail, big power plants fail in big chunks, and the grid has to accommodate that.  We should probably do most of the article discussion at it's talk page so others can see it. Mishlai (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

GW Terminology
What about a new page. It can give fair treatment to several definitions and explain how each is used and abused by those that show a preference. We already have enough data. Q Science (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that would be an unnecessary split, and would conceal the use of terminology that is important to the main article. If anything terminology might have a home in global warming controversy but I wouldn't think that would alleviate the need to discuss terminology, at least briefly, in the main article. Mishlai (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The BLP debate
I had missed your comments above the section break before. Now that I read that I do think I see what you're getting at, though I'm not too sure I agree at this point. :-) In any case I'll post more tomorrow on it. I do believe strongly that the BLP policy wording is open to multiple interpretations, and regardless of what is decided in this particular case, I think it should be clarified. But I'll hold off on that until there's consensus. ATren (talk) 05:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And as I stated, I'm not sure that I'm right. It just seems sensible. I would love to get clarification, but it doesn't seem that we've received participation from anyone.  I haven't really been involved with the article, but I do have a POV about Gray's science, and aside from that I'm not knowledgeable enough on BLP to truly decide something like this.  I was expecting other users/admins to review & comment on the BLP/N.  Hopefully someone will.


 * A difficulty is created here because Gray's fringe theories are unpublished and would not generally be notable except for the controversy created. They haven't been specifically refuted in published literature (as far as I know) because they were never published to begin with, and denial of publication is generally sufficient to the scientific community to indicate that someone's work hasn't met standards.  His fringe views are notable in his BLP because it's most of what he's notable for, but specific refutation of his science is only available (as far as I know) via this SPS, which is problematic.  In the absence of the SPS we're left with just the relatively non-scientific opinions - one stating that his views were not recommended to be published, and the other frankly is confusing and sounds personal, like perhaps someone just doesn't like the guy.  It would be nice to be able to state some specifics on why we don't think Gray's moon is made of cheese.  The topic also carries so much weight in his article (because that's what most coverage of Gray is about) that that the article barely seems to be about him, but I don't think it's a wp:coatrack because he's genuinely notable for his fringe theories on global warming.  If Gray had stuck to hurricanes he might not have an article.  Thanks for stopping by.  Mishlai (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note in response: in that "moon is made of cheese" example, my approach would be to add a simple statement about that view, and a simple response. A paragraph at most, just to acknowledge that he's known for that view, but no detail. This is what I and others have advocated for Gray. He is known for having this contrary view on GW, but all that is notable is that he has this view and others oppose it. His science is not notable, so any specifics beyond "Gray doesn't believe in AGW and most of his peers disagree" is unnecessary. A while back, DHeyward proposed a very simple statement like that to minimize the coverage of Gray's specific views, thereby minimizing the need to counter them with unreliable sources, and I supported it, but WMC blocked it. You can still see the discussion on the talk page I believe.


 * FWIW, my view on GW is quite pragmatic. The predictions on both sides are impossible to verify, so my feeling is this: even if there's only a 1% chance we're killing ourselves with CO2, shouldn't we take precautions now? So my personal concern is less about the predictions and more about taking action. Think of it this way: if they found an asteroid in the sky that had a 1% chance of impacting earth and destroying all life in 20 years, governments of the world would spend trillions to try to divert it; yet, here we have an even more plausible prediction of possible doom, and we do nothing.


 * But my problem is that some GW scientists focus so hard on proving themselves right and denigrating their opposition that they're losing the real battle - that of public opinion. So when Connolley continues to add his own criticisms to Gray's article, it draws unnecessary attention from deniers like Lawrence Solomon, who can now persuasively claim that the GW crowd is trying to smear the reputation of the world's foremost hurricane scientist. It already happened with Connolley and Fred Singer a while back, and it's just a matter of time before it happens here. So why give the detractors ammunition? Why bend the rules to add scientific criticism which almost nobody will understand anyways, when it opens the door to external criticism? Do you see why I object so strongly to this kind of thing? ATren (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your points, and it may very well be that the inclusion is inappropriate. Particularly given the personally critical nature of the blog itself, and also the title which would have to show up in the list of references.  Those things, combined with Wikipedia's sensitivity to BLP probably mean that it's no good.  I'm not sure I'm the right person to determine that.


 * As far as pragmatic caution, I certainly agree. I also think that the IPCC is probably about right, even if it turns out to (hopefully?) not be as bad as we currently think.  The only prudent action is to address the problem aggressively.


 * One of my own personal biggest complaints with all political movements is a tendency to not be an honest broker of information. I think as long as the facts are being discussed objectively and treated fairly, then everything is alright.  People get into trouble when they begin to try to make their case stronger than it really is - this produces short term gains at the cost of disastrous long-term loss of credibility.  Other examples near and dear to my heart would be Greenpeace overstating the economic challenges of nuclear power, and the nuclear power lobby overstating the technical problems associated with intermittent power sources such as wind.  Organizations such as the Union of Concerned Scientists have demonstrated to me that they are willing to treat subjects like nuclear power fairly, and this ultimately makes any objections that they raise carry a great deal more weight with me.  Environmentalists must be careful to not overstate the case for global warming, it certainty, or it's consequences lest they lose public faith.


 * I would argue, in fact, that it is only the whims of fortune that make the environmentalists (and I am one) right on this count. If the science were coming in that it was probably just natural variation, I suspect their arguments would still be just about as fervent that fossile fuels were the culprit, they'd just have to work harder to make their case.  This is the problem with the skeptical side, too.  Their position isn't fact based, they're just looking for bits to support their existing beliefs with.  The world needs honest brokers.


 * Hurricanes and rising sea levels, for example, have been presented more dramatically than the science warrants by Gore and by many of the basic street-level participants. These are the mistakes that I worry about.  It concerns me less now that we're coming up on an election where both candidates propose strong measures to deal with the problem.  That hopefully means that action no longer depends on making the case.  We'll see.


 * As far as Gray, I would argue that he brought that bit of smear to his own reputation. If someone in science presents an idea that is wrong, there really is no other course of action but to say that it's wrong.  If your ideas aren't fit for publishing and you take them public anyway to attack the science establishment in the media... well, I think it's reasonable to expect that some embarrassment would result from that.  Plenty of people understandably have reservations about models, but Gray's refusal to acknowledge them in any way strikes me as a sort of extreme version of insisting on doing math without a calculator.  Eventually the calculations get complex enough, and interative enough that it only makes sense to build a computer model to do the heavy lifting.  Such things are more accurate than pencil and paper speculations, not less.  I respect scientists like Lindzen, for while he may be wrong he's working with the system of peer review to explore other options, and that is a very valuable service to science regardless of the outcome.  Others, like Abdustamatov (sp?) have proposed the truly ridiculous based on the wispiest of evidence, and shame on him too.


 * It may indeed be that it's unproductive to discuss such things, I don't know. I certainly appreciate the availability of the various debunkings for the arguments that get put forth by the skeptical crowd, because the issues are often to complex for a layman like myself to know what's bullshit and what isn't.  I wouldn't be opposed to a simple statement and counter as you suggest, perhaps just using the bit that his work was not consider worthy of publication.  Some will attribute this to a vast liberal conspiracy to hold down anti-GW scientists, but what can you do?


 * At this point I suspect that we're moving into a period of action, which is why I'm trying to better undertand energy policy these days and not spending so much on the question of attribution of GW. Thanks for stopping by, and sorry if this was too long to read ; )   Mishlai (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is so much in your above response that resonates with me. I am also frustrated by the lack of what you call "honest brokers". What is particularly frustrating is when the evidence is already strong enough to be convincing without overstating. Like some of the GW overstatements - why exaggerate claims when the real story is already pretty compelling itself? This type of exaggeration is basically a scare tactic, and while that may work on the least common denominator, it only serves to alienate those of us who are intelligent to see the BS.


 * Unfortunately, politics these days always seems to cater to the least common denominator. :-(


 * Back to Gray again - we already dealt with this issue many months ago, and general consensus was to include a pretty scathing piece of criticism from a fellow scientist of Gray's - a scientist who had actually co-authored papers with Gray in the past (you can see it in the article, it's still there in the criticism section). This criticism was published in a newspaper feature article which was otherwise very balanced on Gray. This, IMO, is rock solid from a sourcing standpoint, and it perfectly demonstrates how Gray's GW views have made him somewhat of an outcast, even among close colleagues. Sure, it doesn't delve into scientific specifics, but it does demonstrate harsh criticism from another climate expert, which gets to the heart of the matter in a way that is bulletproof from a sourcing standpoint. So, my point has always been: why add more criticism that can only weaken the strength of the article by introducing a blog source? Especially when that criticism is added to the article by the author of the criticism himself.


 * Anyway, I won't drag this on anymore, this has been a great conversation. I'm sorry if I was a little short at times on BLP/N; I was just a little frustrated at having to make the same arguments over and over (as I said, this is not a new issue). :-) ATren (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "What is particularly frustrating is when the evidence is already strong enough to be convincing without overstating."


 * Exactly. I felt the same way about Michael Moore's criticism of Bush.  Why sharpen and level when the plain facts are damning enough already?  Why expose yourself to criticism of bias?  It's bewildering to me... the impacts of that dishonesty go far beyond just a compromise of ideals, it's actually impractical, in the same sense that violence hurts causes more than it advances them in almost all cases.  Good talking with you.  Mishlai (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Intermittency
Article lead guidelines specify no more than 4 paragraphs in the WP:LEAD section of an article. That is why the quote on wind, which is not generally relevant to the Intermittent power source article, was moved to the wind section. Unless an article is actually about a quote, I fail to see how a long quote can be a summary of the article. It's as though you are saying, this article is about something, but I'm not sure what, though here is a long quote that might have something to do with it. In other words, the lead is supposed to summarize the article, not the other way around. As it is, the 4th and 5th paragraphs say the same thing and so the quote is not needed in the lead. 199.125.109.54 (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The four paragraph limit is a general guideline, and a good one. The article is long, and the lead paragraphs are short, so I don't feel like there is too much lead.  The intro could perhaps be re-written/condensed but I think that the quote on wind or at least it's core principles should be included.  That paragraph characterizes the nature of the challenge that intermittent power provides.  It happens to be about wind specifically, but wind is one of the more fickle intermittent power sources, and also the most notable because of the large growth in wind and the many nations with plans to expand wind power substantially.  Certainly there are other topics and the article addresses these, but largely when people talk about intermittent power penetration they really mean "wind."  Every pen study done has had, as a majority of it's renewable/intermittent penetration, substantial increases in wind power.  I see it as the major theme of the article, even though other sources are given treatment for completeness.


 * The quote - it's actually a pretty excellent summary of intermittent sources - there are challenges to the grid, but these challenges are similar to those that already exist. Intermittent power changes the magnitude but not the type of challenge - that core information is reflected in greater detail throughout the rest of the article, and that's why I think it belongs in the lead.  The quote from the IEA also gives a supporting voice to statements that might otherwise appear to simply be the opinions of editors, and I think that's important given the potential for controversy in the article - pro-nuclear groups tend to paint intermittents as unviable and environmentalists tend to make it sound like the real challenges presented will melt away without significant cost or effort - so I like having a statement from this very credible international body of experts, I think it makes the article better/more trustworthy.


 * I agree that paras 4 & 5 are discussing the same thing, but I don't see them as redundant. I'll merge into one paragraph, let me know how that looks to you.  My major overhaul of this thing certainly isn't done, by the way, I'm just taking a break. I'll copy this to the article's talk page. Mishlai (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

 * My 1st barnstar! Thank you very much! Mishlai

Advice needed
[... Discussion with Tycoon24 concerning Tea Party articles ...]

Hey Mishlai, thanks for the info on how to archive my Talk Page! I'll get to that soon enough, when I get a chance. I definitely appreciate it.

I also need your advice on an issue I'm having with the first article I've created in Wikipedia. Since I'm new-ish, I don't really know how to go about solving this problem I'm having with a user (TharsHammar).

Since you are one of the only (as far as I can tell) unbiased editors, I need help figuring out why an article I created is up for deletion; moreover, I need help figuring out why my arguments seem to hold little weight on the discussion at Articles for deletion/Nationwide Chicago Tea Party. I'm very open to any and all suggestions, considerations, and if given reason, why the article should be deleted.

The problem I'm having is running into TharsHammar's WP:FILIBUSTER.

He has refused to provide any relevant facts (the way I see it) as to why he wants to delete my article, and he has continuously been critical of any and all edits I have made that go against his view point. This is where I need your help.

I don't know how to report him correctly. What evidence should I collect against him? From your view, as an outsider, can you see how TharsHammar is running a filibuster to my article? Or is it just me? Because of the lack of reason he has given me for why the article should be deleted, and his lack of response to all of my arguments as to why the article should not be deleted, this is the only conclusion I have come to. And I believe he should be reported for it.

Simply put, I need help from you figuring out if I am wrong or if TharsHammar is wrong -- because TharsHammar won't give me any reason to suggest I am wrong. From what I can tell, you are unbiased, and even you do have your own bias (as do we all), I just need some clarification with sources, facts, or relevance to my article as to why it is the "same as" or a "different" event to the April 15 Tea Party. The February 27 Tea Party, from all of the research and information I've found, tells me it is different than the events that followed it. I really do believe they should have separate articles, and I've given so many reason for why this is the case. Since there's always a chance I could be wrong, but since there's also a chance I could be right, this is where your advice is crucial to me. Is there something I'm missing in my arguments ("the smoking-gun," per say?) or am I really that far off when I show how the two Tea Party events are different from each other? Thanks for your help! Tycoon24 (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When you refer to the WP:FILIBUSTER do you mean the conversation in AfD? I wouldn't agree that this is a fillibuster.  If you mean in the article itself then I haven't looked at that, but based on the conversation in AfD it sounds like a pretty typical content dispute.


 * TharsHammar doesn't have to provide references that the two events are the same thing in order to justify merging the two articles, there just has to be a wp:consensus that it's the right thing to do. WP:ONEEVENT seems to apply to individuals who are notable for only one event, so that may not be an applicable argument for the deletion/merging of your article.  That said it does appear to be an unnecessary wp:fork and it seems reasonable to me that both events could be covered under one article.  If the two events had different motivations and were organized by different people then you might be able to argue that the distinction is important and would be blurred by covering them both in one article, but it's my impression that both tea parties were similar enough that this isn't true.  I don't know a lot about the topic though.


 * If consensus goes against you (and it looks like it will) then the best thing to do is accept that gracefully and keep trying to improve the article. If you think that the astroturfing charges should apply to the April 15th protests but not the Feb 27th protests then you can still make that distinction (with a wp:rs of course) in that section, even if one article is covering both events.


 * One of the things that Wikipedia is wp:not is a newspaper. A question that people will be asking themselves is:  "If I opened Encyclopedia Britannica and they'd covered the Tea Party Protests would I expect to see two entries on the topic or one?"  In my opinion the answer to that question is one.  Wikipedia is also not paper, so the analogy can occasionally fall down, but it's still a decent mental guideline.


 * Other possible reasons to break out a subarticle would be if there was too much information to fit comfortably in one article, but with only 2 events to cover I think it's reasonable to get both in. If new events keep coming up then the article might ultimately require a main and then a smaller sub-article for each event, class of event, or something like that but I don't think we're there.  Try not to let it frustrate you.  When two people disagree about the content of an article it's easy for them to believe that the other is being underhanded, but that doesn't make it true and assuming bad intent just makes things worse.  The number of comments from other editors supporting the delete/merge is a good indication that Thars is making a reasonable suggestion.  I only saw one support for Keep (other than yours) coming from an IP.


 * My suggestion would be to express change of heart and support a merge. I don't think there's any real danger of the article being deleted because merge is the right action, but you could help steer it that way.  Then you can move the relevant pieces into the main article.  This has the added benefit of making that article stronger during it's own AfD review, which is the one you should be most concerned about IMO.  Whether or not the events are covered separately is a very minor point compared to the question of whether they are covered at all.


 * A good way to learn about this is to read the AfD entries on other articles and see what the arguments are and whether the article was kept, deleted, or merged. I'm still getting a feel for it myself.  I don't see anything from Thars that would be reportable, so I wouldn't go there.  AfD itself gets a lot of attention, so if his arguments were inappropriate or disruptive someone would most likely have made that point already without a need to report.  However, for the future wp:ani is a good place to report problems.  I wouldn't do it if you're not sure you're right though.


 * Good luck. Mishlai (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A correction - it looks like the AfD for the main article is already resolved, so no worries there I guess. Mishlai (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is an example of Thars getting shut down on an AfD nomination (on the same day actually.) No real point, just FYI.  Mishlai (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll try and respond to individual statements you suggest to help clarify my reason for why the article is not a content fork. You state, "If the two events had different motivations and were organized by different people then you might be able to argue that the distinction is important and would be blurred by covering them both in one article, but it's my impression that both tea parties were similar enough that this isn't true. I don't know a lot about the topic though."
 * This is the point I keep trying to make (but apparently not very well). The importance of this is extraordinary to the events; the events were organized by different people and/or organizations. The February 27 protests were organized by three "grassroots" groups: Smart Girl Politics (SGP), DontGo Movement, and Top Conservatives on Twitter (TCOT). After these events took place, then the other non-grassroot organizations jumped on board to help guide future protests. The first future protests was on April 15, Tax Day.
 * You state, "Other possible reasons to break out a subarticle would be if there was too much information to fit comfortably in one article, but with only 2 events to cover I think it's reasonable to get both in. If new events keep coming up then the article might ultimately require a main and then a smaller sub-article for each event, class of event, or something like that but I don't think we're there."
 * This is exactly what is happening. More and more events are taking place, and there are more protests being organized for the Summer. I think July 4th is one of the next big Tea Party protest days. This will assuredly require more sub-articles because the "main article" will start to get very cluttered with a long list of protests. The first instance of this caused the Timeline of Tea Party protests to be created.


 * So here's my take at this point; to me, it seems like a failure on my behalf to explain why it is important for the articles to be separated into sub-articles. The other article, The New American Tea Party, was terrible. Ha.. I'm not surprised that got deleted or merged. It had very little reliable references to support it. However, the Nationwide Chicago Tea Party has a lot of reliable sources to verify it happened, and to verify these events were guided by different groups than the Tax Day Tea Party.


 * Do you have any suggestions that I could try to help clarify this?


 * If all else fails, I will try and merge the information into the article Tea Party protests myself, however, I just don't think two events that were organized by different groups should be in the same article.


 * Thank you very much for you input, too! I very much appreciate it. Tycoon24 (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh! Thank you! I'll look into the example of Thars getting shut down on an AfD nomination (on the same day actually.) . Could be helpful for me to know. :) Tycoon24 (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Do they (the events) have different purposes or ideologies? Are the people who organized Feb 27 uninvolved in April 15, or has it just gotten bigger? I think you have an uphill battle arguing that they are distinct, but that doesn't mean that it can't be done. It seems like Tea Party part 1 and part 2 to me, but if that's wrong then you should make that case. Make your points clearly and concisely, don't get distracted by side arguments - all of the astroturf stuff for example is a content dispute and has nothing to do with AfD. If there is overlap between the organization participation (and really it's hard to imagine that there wouldn't be) then I think these will ultimately be covered in one article for the time being. If they are completely different things, then be aware that each of them becomes a single event and the case for keeping the main article is weakened (indeed there would be no "main" article.) One of the arguments for keeping Tea Party protests was that it was not a one event violation. See the problem with arguing that they are completely different events?

As far as more events in the future, that doesn't apply yet. If the article later requires subarticles then you can argue for it then. Even if events went on through 2009 that wouldn't necessarily require subarticles - only if proper coverage required it. This isn't a loophole, and I'm not encouraging you to make the article long on purpose. If you do it will just be trimmed by someone arguing undue weight, etc.

Also, your comments on TharsHammars' talk page would constitute wp:soap as well as personal attacks. You ought to remove them yourself (like, immediately) rather than waiting for Thars to make an issue of it. Try to stick to discussing content rather than individuals. Drama is bad, writing an encyclopedia is good. Mishlai (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the remarks. Thanks for letting me know. Tycoon24 (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I also just added another comment at Articles for deletion/Nationwide Chicago Tea Party. I can see how, because future protests have not taken place yet, it may not yet constitute a sub-article by itself; however, if future protests are planned, and if different organizations put together the February 27 versus April 15 Tea Parties, then does it seem like the moving in the direction of having sub-article's is a positive contribution to Wikipedia?
 * In another example, pretend for a moment you were doing research on the February 27 Tea Party (or how the Tea Party protests started and who organized them), could you find that information on the Tea Party protests article? Would it make sense to an unknowing researcher who's researching the topic covering the February 27 events to also find (or be forced to sift through)--in the same article--allegations of astroturfing and teabagging jokes that were directed at another event which was organized by different groups? It seems contrary to what makes sense to me, especially when put in the scenario of doing research on the topic. Here's another example, if you were doing research on the Super Bowl, would you find all information about every single Super Bowl football game in one article--or, more likely, would the main Super Bowl article briefly discuss all of the events but direct researchers to sub-articles that cover each unique Super Bowl game individually? After all, there are different football teams who star in each event; likewise, there are different organizations guiding each unique nationwide Tea Party event. Does this make sense? Tycoon24 (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It does but I think you're going to find that the articles are merged. If you make them single events then you run into one event problems with having an article at all.  The possible future need for a subarticle shouldn't be preempted, and will only matter if the first article gets too big.  We can't really predict that at this point.  I do think the main article could be made so that the Feb 27 event is well covered.  Whether or not it should be tied in with astroturfing, etc. is something I'm not qualified to comment on.  If Feb 27 is distinct from that claim then the main article can be made to reflect that.  Based on what I see at AfD you're probably going to have to accept a merge outcome.  Hope this was helpful. Mishlai (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for tagging WP:Energy categories
Hi, Mishlai. As a participant of the WP:Energy, I would like to ask you to comment the request for tagging WP:Energy articles by bot. The list of potential categories for tagging is located here and the discussion about which categories should be excluded from this list, is going on at the WP:Energy talkpage here. Your comments are welcome. Beagel (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice/invitation. Mishlai (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Ryan Delaney talk 12:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Mishlai (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and advice needed
Hi, we would like to thank you for an excellent contribution and the manner you help resolved the dispute on the Wiki entry that spoke about our church. You gave a very convincing and neutral point of view and explained in details all the policies and the potential mistake we may/had committed. We appreciate you and wish you will continue these good work.

Also, we wish to seek some professional advice from you. We are looking through the Wiki entry again and felt it has slanted towards the negative side and wish to add entries that are more positive, such as community givings, and global humanitarian supports (citing with reliable source of course). However, we are not sure this will appear self-promoting and infringed any Wiki policies. Our purpose is to put a balance to the entry so it will not appear too negative.

Thank you once again.

Blessings, NCC Web Team Nccwebmaster (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, that does sound self-promoting, but at least you're aware of that. If you have reliable sources you should post them in the talk page along with suggestions for the kinds of passages you would like to be added.  How much of that makes it into an article is a slightly complicated matter - depending upon the notability of the information, the reliability of the sources, and how much weight seems appropriate for various topics within the article.  Ultimately it is not our job to promote your church or degrade it, but to neutrally describe the information that already exists publicly.


 * If you have newspaper articles, etc. (or whatever the sources are) describing the information you would like to add, that would be a good place to start. Your own website would not count for most things - I think you already know that.  We were able to use it for the church's response to allegations, but those are different circumstances.  We (probably) would not be able to use church-published information to describe your charitable works.


 * Be prepared to accept that some of what you want to add is not going to make it into the article - it's rare that we get exactly what we personally want in a consensus based process.


 * I'm willing to spend a little time with this to help make sure that the material is dealt with fairly, but of course I'm doing other things too. Go ahead and begin a discussion at the article talk page.  I'll join in as I have time, and you can always stop by here if you have specific questions or concerns that you would like me to look at.  Cheers. Mishlai (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Mishlai, we are looking at the edits again today, and we had suspicions that Ahnan's posting was not from a neutural point of view, but rather he/she had a certain level of intention to attack the character of our Senior Pastor. Looking at the download source of the "scanned copy" of The Straits Time (which is repeated citation 12), it is pointing to http://www.tmc.org.my, which is a church website, probably his/hers and that make his/her intention very dubious. This is very unfortunate. We do not wish to post this on a discussion thread or whatsoever for the fact that we believed he/she is our brother/sister-in-Christ, and we do not want to get involved in an argument with another church. We seek your help to resolve this from a neutral point of view. If putting links and content may sound self-promoting, we wonder what Ahnan is doing is really coming from the angle of benefiting the Wiki community. We seek your kind intervention to this issue.


 * Blessings,
 * NCC Web Team Nccwebmaster (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it, but it is not my intention to operate as your proxy, or to conceal your reservations from the article by discussing them at my talk page only. If you have a concern, it will ultimately need to be voiced there to get addressed.  There's nothing wrong with coming here 1st, but content dispute is an inevitable part of this process. Mishlai (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made a few edits and added a bit more of the balancing information from Prince's side of the controversy, but I think that the article's sourcing is good. Wikipedia's policy concerning a scanned copy of a newspaper article being posted by an editor is unclear to me, but it's a mute point since it's a duplicate of the online version anyway.  The statement would stand on the online version alone.


 * I agree with your assessment that there is POV involved here (on both sides) but as long as statements are being made from reliable sources that's ok. Multiple editors operating with different POVs and following Wikipedia policy can still produce an article that is relatively neutral.  The best thing I can suggest is for you to look for reliable sources describing positive information that isn't already in the article - stuff unrelated to the controversy perhaps and then suggest on the talk page that it be added.  Your church can also facilitate this process by trying to get reputable newspapers (with online publication in English) to run stories on the church.  Once it's published by a reliable source, it can be considered for the article.


 * Any church that raises large sums of money is going to receive some criticism for that, and any pastor making more than the church's flock should expect a bit of criticism, too - particularly if that pastor becomes well known. Editorializing creeps in a bit, and I'm happy to remove those things as they come up, but the dry facts are going to remain. Honestly there isn't that much bad information, just statements of what the pastor makes, that he drives a nice car, that the church is raising money for a new entertainment complex styled place of worship.  If these things are considered to be damning in their own right... well, why do them?  Is it the church's stance that these reliable sources have gotten their basic information wrong? Mishlai (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

GHG emissions
The Yale Environmental Performance Index has another set of estimates for GHG emissions per capita (including land use change) for 2005 (full data set (xls)). --The Cunctator (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm taking a wiki break atm, so I'm not sure when I'll actually get to making the changes I discussed. Mishlai (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Request help in discussion on New Creation Church Singapore
Hi Mishlai,

We are not sure about if the following entry should be inside the wiki and appreciate you can give us your view in the discussion page. Thanks!


 * Content and style of preaching


 * The content and style of preaching and teaching in the church are deemed to be controversial by some critics. One such critics, Rien van de Kraats, who leads the Netherlands-based Back to the Bible workgroup, a self-proclaimed "small group of Christians" concerned with "the spiritual climate...in the Netherlands and Belgium" [18] (not to be confused with the US-based international Christian ministry Back to the Bible led by Dr Woodrow M. Kroll), after he listened to the CD recording of three (3) services [19], wrote in an article dated 1 April 2007 that the senior pastor Joseph Prince "exceeds several times the limits of biblical decency"; "preaches biblical falsities, or rather things that are not written"; "frequently imitates people, who have questions concerning his message...[in a way that is] humiliating for the persons concerned and certainly doesn’t radiate pastoral compassion"; "comes across rather compelling... does this for example by always demanding from his listeners to agree with his message by calling the word amen...also lets them repeat his sentences frequently, as an affirmation that they listen to him and that his message is true"; "is manipulative and works toward a certain climax"; and that "In the message of Joseph Prince the same sound rings through. He only adds something. He adds the prosperity message. He uses the good, biblical term of grace to lead up to his eventual aim: that is material blessings for those who live by grace. This principle occurs in all his messages. From his statements concerning grace he always comes back to prosperity, which should be conferred upon every Christian who lives by grace." The article made this conclusion about Joseph Prince, "We do not think it is advisable to get the dogma of Joseph Prince in the congregation."[19]

Nccwebmaster (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for demonstrating trust in my judgment by asking for my help. It's possible that the material is inappropriate based on the quality of the source or on wp:undue.  Unfortunately I don't have the time to address this thoroughly right now.  You might ask for an RFC to get additional attention on the article.  Alternatively, user:Bigger digger likes to give 3rd opinions and seems to be a pretty reasonable person. Mishlai (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you might like to know that I posted this to WP:COIN again - an admin blocked Nccwebmaster as a result. Smartse (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. Mishlai (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Mishlai, due to my COI status, and to prevent stirring up unnecessary disputes, may I request your help to:


 * 1. review the proposed redrafting of the article by BL here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Creation_Church#Making_the_Article_Neutral


 * 2. give your comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Creation_Church#Comments_on_Draft


 * Thank you very much!Tanlipkee (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I never responded to this. I've been off of Wikipedia for a while. Mishlai (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

ODB++

 * Thank you kindly. Mishlai (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see Woz2 did this, because I too wanted to say that was a fairly Solomon-like third opinion. Well done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's very kind, and much appreciated. Mishlai (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Dispute Resolution
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for help concerning energy...
Hi,

I noticed you listed yourself as a participant of the Energy WikiProject.

There are 2 new outlines in this area that attempt to consolidate Wikipedia's coverage of their respective subjects, gathering and organizing the articles about them into one place and including descriptions for convenience. The purposes of these outlines are to make it easier for readers to survey or review a whole subject, and to choose from Wikipedia's many articles about it.

The new energy outlines are:


 * Outline of solar energy
 * Outline of wind energy

Please take a look at them, and....


 * if you spot missing topics, add them in.


 * if you can, improve the descriptions.


 * add missing descriptions.


 * show parent-offspring relationships (with indents).


 * fix errors.

For more information about the format and functions of outlines, see Outlines.

Building outlines of existing material (such as Wikipedia) is called "reverse outlining". Reverse outlines are useful as a revision tool, for identifying gaps in coverage and for spotting poor structuring.

Revising a work with multiple articles (such as Wikipedia) is a little different than revising a paper. But the general principles are the same...

As you develop these outlines, you may notice things about the articles they organize. Like what topics are not adequately covered, better ways to structure and present the material, awkward titles, articles that need splitting, article sections lacking Main links, etc.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines.

Thank you. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 00:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC) P.S.: see also Outline of energy

List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita
Hey Mishali,

I just noticed that quite while ago you made the edit on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita article, where you used the data from the World Resources Institute.

I am not sure if you are still actively editing in wikipedia, but I just wanted to tell you that WRI just published a new data set. Just thought I tell you if want or have time to update the article. I would love to do it, but am a bit to busy... if you don't have time either, I see if I could to it some time.

Data is available here: cait2.wri.org

All the best, Johannes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.21.162 (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

New Usercheck
Hello: if you are receiving this, you have transcluded, I have created a Usercheck with more content, that I plan to update with more when I come across it, as of right now Usercheck-Super has only three more things than Usercheck-full, but as mentioned, I plan to update it, the three things I mentioned are pending changes log, giving all of the revisions you have accepted or rejected, Abuse filter, which gives you the ability to examine your edits, and get many details about an edit, along with Articles created, which links to a page which gives a breakdown of all the pages you have made. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)