User talk:Pwa66~enwiki

Vattenfall
The sections you deleted are well-referenced empirical assertions about the statements of a highly relevant environmental organisation about Vattenfall. WP:NPOV clearly states that "Reliably sourced material should not be removed just because it is not neutral, or what Wikipedians call 'POV'." Thus, it is your removal that violates Wikipedia policies, and if you insist on it I will have to ask a sysop to intervene.

By the way, it would be good if you familiarised yourself with local policies before editing. You wrote on my user page instead of the talk one, and your so-called spelling corrections are simply expressions of your personal preferences, since both "kilometre" and "commercialise" are perfectly valid UK spellings. Do have a look at WP:MOS before you do that again.

Λεξικόφιλος (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * spelling part okay no problem there and don't be so pro active. I think you should ask sysop to intervene about the NPOV. Because of the arguments I gave you but you still have not answered. Reliably source is not a political organization with a clear agenda neither is an evening newspaper I hope you understand that. If I refer to a scientist who is clearly biased towards exxon that is not a reliable source either, neither should ETC-magazine or the Green agenda voters be. Who has voted, etc.


 * I have clearly said to you that if you put that in a critics section of Vattenfall article I'm fine with it but not in a prologue.


 * So get down from you're high horses and dont be so pro-active. I'm familiar to the local policies and what NPOV is. So feel free to call in sysop... --Pwa66 (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion either for or against CCS, or Vattenfall for that matter. They fall far from my area of expertise, and I try to stick to what I know.
 * What I know, in this case, is that removing properly-sourced assertions violates WP:NPOV. The rationale is that Greenpeace obviously has a POV, but simply asserting that "Greenpeace says X" with the relevant documentation attached is not a show of POV on the part of Wikipedia, as the points of view of relevant actors are part of encyclopedic content. Readers are entitled to know about it and make their own judgement. Simply removing the paragraph prevents them from accessing that information and reduces the usefulness of Wikipedia as a whole. Λεξικόφιλος (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for youre response and I agree with you in the NPOV and the POV matter. I think that this information could be in the article. In a criticism of the Vattenfall or whatever. But what makes this a clear POV is the way they describe the CCS. CCS as a pseudo solution is a clear value statement. If they refine the statement like, CCS has been criticized for being a technic who only postpone the problem or whatever argument they critics has on CCS I'm pretty alright with the statement. But to say that CCS is pseudo solution is much like say CCS really sucks. That is not informative and has nothing of "why" in it. Do you get my point? Or maybe I should refrace it? --Pwa66 (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Pwa66. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Pwa66~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)