User talk:Robertiki

/Archive 1

Kogan Creek Solar Boost: Electric MW or Thermal MW?
Hello...I am wondering on what basis you changed the Kogan Creek Solar Boost sizing from MW electrical to MW thermal? All the references I could find talk about "additional electricity", and more importantly I work in the energy sector in Queensland and have technical documents relating to the project. They state 44 MWe. Please revert your edit.--Graham Proud (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition, I noticed that you updated the project timing but did not provide any references for the new date. I have a few if you need a hand.--Graham Proud (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Compare the revisions and you find that I added a reference: where you read: "The Kogan Creek Solar Boost Project will be the largest solar integration with a coal-fired power station in the world when it is operational in *2015*." and "Construction is underway on the project, which involves the installation of a 44 megawatt solar *thermal* addition to the plant." You could understand otherwise with the following statement: "The solar boost will increase the amount of electricity Kogan Creek Power Station generates by up to 44 megawatts during peak solar conditions" but, having the same turbine and generator it could not be intended that the power grows to 794 MW from 750 MW (it would burn the electrical part, should the turbine take the load). It follows: " ... supply additional steam to the turbine, supplementing the conventional coal-fired steam generation process". And for the funding: "Funding for the project includes a $70 million contribution from CS Energy and a contribution of more than $34 million from the Australian Government. CS Energy has received support from the Queensland Government through a contribution of $35.4 million to CS Energy’s Carbon Reduction Program, which has enabled the company to direct funds to the Kogan Creek Solar Boost Project." I would add, the thermal power of a solar field is straightforward to calculate. But how do you declare the electrical output, without a dedicated turbine and generator ? You could make wild assumption, taking the efficiency of the coal generated steam, which reaches temperatures the solar field could only dream. --Robertiki (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have found that Siemens states Kogan Creek is 744 MW gross power. Source is linked after steam pressure and temperature in article. Should we update ? --Robertiki (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Engineering Procurement Construction
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Engineering Procurement Construction, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.dbpmanagement.com/wiki/epc.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Creating Engineering, Procurement and Construction
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Creating Engineering, Procurement and Construction, and it appears to include material copied directly from https://texvyn.wordpress.com/2015/09/26/epc-engineering-procurement-construction/.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox power station
Sorry, I completely forgot about that discussion. Thanks for doing what was discussed. :) Reh  man  13:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem. It's all fine. --Robertiki (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Venetian people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raffaeleserafini (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Corruption within the Wehrmacht
Hi, thank you for your comment on the proposed renaming. I don't think anybody disagrees that the corruption was widespread; the bribery scheme was just a small facet of that. In fact, if you have sources on the overall corruption, I'd be very happy to collaborate on such an article. My thinking behind requesting the move is that it would allow me to focus on the bribery scheme, and hopefully bring the article to GA eventually. I'd envision the broader "Wehrmacht Corruption" as Phase II. Please let me know your thoughts on this. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Icebreaker moves
I have no problem moving the articles but a heads-up on the talk page would have been useful. Dankarl (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What's a heads-up ? --Robertiki (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Mercy Career & Technical High School
Hi Robertiki,

I want to thank you again for trying to help me out with regards to the name change. I actually just noticed that John has more or less deleted the entire page on the grounds of it not being a marketing site. I get that, but we didn't originally make this page in the first place and as far as I know I'm the first person from the school to actually edit it. (I started there in May.) Furthermore if he's going to blow up that entire page on those grounds why are pretty much every other Sisters of Mercy school page unchanged? This whole thing makes me want to just request the page be deleted and its simply referenced under the Sisters of Mercy page. It's not worth the petty arguing in my eyes. Maybe you can shed some light here on this for me. Appreciate any input you have, thanks again. WburleyCTE (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * First, don't give too much importance to the more active editors, sometimes they look like bureaucrats of Wikipedia, but are not. We are simply more expert than new users.
 * Second, let's read the rules:
 * Retain ampersands in titles of works or organizations, such as Up & Down or AT&T. ...
 * Let us wait what happens next. --Robertiki (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Robertiki, I've closed the discussion and opened up another RM,
 * I agree we did start off on the wrong foot and I too apologize for the way I perhaps handled it,
 * Anyway I've started a new RM and I would ask that you keep your !vote short and sweet - None of this "They did that wrong and this wrong" etc etc as it just causes more heated crap that we don't need,
 * I would also ask that whatever the outcome you accept that consensus and move on otherwise I'll have to drag us all to this swamp and you could end up blocked,
 * Normally I wouldn't budge with RMs however you are correct in that I did close too early and I hope this final RM would put a stop to it all,
 * Anyway thanks & Happy editing, – Davey 2010 Talk 22:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It's fine. You understand that after stating in the move page: "I personally believe the article is fine and that we shouldn't use ampersand ...", that you are barred from closing the request. Thanks and a good day. --Robertiki (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't planning on closing it this time and I couldn't even if I wanted too ..... As much as I love to follow WP:IAR some guidelines cannot be ignored, Thanks & Happy editing, – Davey 2010 Talk 01:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robertiki and Davey2010,

Is this something that I should vote on or does my position as an employee prevent me from voting in favor of it? The info dump that John left on my talk page seems to imply that I shouldn't be editing the page to begin with. Just wanted to check, trying to do this stuff correctly! Thank you :) WburleyCTE (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * - Hi - No you certainly shouldn't vote and yup you shouldn't edit the article either (I mean technically you shouldn't edit it full stop however if you're updating it slightly, fixing typos and or adding new sources then I personally turn a blind eye) but short answer No you shouldn't !vote, Sorry bud. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, no worries thank you. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WburleyCTE (talk • contribs) 15:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, Happy editing :), – Davey 2010 Talk 15:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , as a general rule, when you call two or more editors, unless on your own page, you should prefer the talk page of the article in which the discussion started. Your are aware that also you, for your part, contributed to the mess of the first "round". You should have asked about the ampersand on the article talk page. And also the above is a question for the talk page, because your Conflict of interest (colloquially "COI") was already talked there (before it was followed by the information you received on your page). There is also the annoyance of a personal alert which, a editor may enable for every message on his own talk page. I have enable it; that means, that while you were chatting, I received a row of alerts, one for each message posted. I understand that you are learning how the real wikipedia works, so no bad feelings for that. --Robertiki (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of ULOF
Hello Robertiki,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged ULOF for deletion. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an unnecessary disambiguation page.

If you feel that the page shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Bensci54 (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

kilowatt hour
Please have a look at the International Electrotechnical Vocabular of IEC

watt hour non-SI unit of active energy: 1 Wh ≔ 3 600 J

Note 1 to entry: The multiple kilowatt hour, kWh, is commonly used for billing consumers of electric energy and is therefore indicated on electric energy meters.

ISO specifies in ISO 80000-1:2009 "Quantities and units -- Part 1: General": 7.2.4 English names of compound units In the English language, the name of the product of two units is the concatenation of the two names, separated by a space.

ISO and IEC are internationally the most relevant standard setting organisations, do you agree? --Gunnar (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Moved discussion to kW⋅h talk page --Robertiki (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

nucleare indiano
il tasto edit funziona.

cmq sono le differenze fra la versione su en.wiki e quella che ho fatto su it.wiki. nella mia non hai niente riguardo i pianificati/proposti. --Dwalin (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Please, write in English in this wiki, in order to allow other participants to follow the talk. Beside I prefer to continue here. --Robertiki (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * scrivimi qua--Dwalin (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

India Map in Nuclear power in India
Please modify the map in the Wikipedia page = nuclear power in india, the map must include whole Jammu and Kashmir state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLCStudent (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The map is not mine. You could ask here. --Robertiki (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Time ago, I made another map, is it ? --Robertiki (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

bailong non è fangeggang
devi ridividerli. 2 impianti a 30 km di distanza. --Dwalin (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

February 2022
Your edit to Kogan Creek Power Station has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Robertiki

Thank you for creating Datteln Power Station.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   05:11, 27 May 2022 (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) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
Mellk (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I am puzzled, what reason for the above note to a editor that has been on Wikipedia for 13 years ? --Robertiki (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It does not matter how long ago you created your account. When you start making edits in a topic area designated as contentious by ArbCom and have not already indicated your awareness or have not received an alert before, the alert can be placed. The links above tell you everything. Mellk (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It does matter how long I edit Wikipedia, as I have already, more times, edited contentious topic areas without getting a reminder as yours, including Eastern Europe and Balkan topics. So I am afraid but have to repeat my question: what did I that has disturbed you ? --Robertiki (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This was only updated in December 2022. Again, read above, it is a standard message. Mellk (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That does not answer my question. Why have you placed that standard message on my talk page ? What role are you performing ? --Robertiki (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You made an edit in the topic alert, I placed the alert. You can keep doing this, but now as you are obviously aware of the designation, that is all that matters. Mellk (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's talk clear text. I made one edit in the Mazyr page, you reverted it, placing a WP:CRYSTAL tag. I added one more reputable source, asking you to talk instead of cold reverting. You revert once more, placing a WP:BRD tag and noting that the edit does not belong in the lead. I follow your suit, moving the edit in a section near the bottom of the page and starting a talk, so we could start a dialogue and maybe reach a consensus. You start to talk, indicating a no compromise position and asking a auto revert. I am not sure about what to do, so start a RFC. At that point you revert for the third time, without even waiting che RFC conclusion. Anyway, after, I see that from the RFC that consensus is against editing about the false flag allegation and that closes for me the talk. The only thing I feel should be done is to place a three-revert rule warning on your talk page, because of your actions. But you fully delete the section I opened. I reinstate the edit, placing a WP:TPO tag. And you fully delete once more. Anyway, I let it go. Do you agree with my summary ? --Robertiki (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You made a bold edit which was reverted. WP:ONUS means it is on you to achieve consensus for inclusion. I also have every right to remove whatever is on my talk page. Mellk (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And that was the reason a choose a RFC. And you have no right to remove whatever is on the talk page. You may archive it, if the page is full, but not delete sections started and edit made by other users. Your talk page is NOT your page. --Robertiki (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not an article talk page. This is my talk page. WP:OWNTALK says: users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Mellk (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * But archiving is preferred. You are abusing the initial wording, without following to the WP:UOWN tag: "They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier." I repeat, your talk page IS NOT your page. --Robertiki (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue here is removal of warnings/comments, nothing else. It says in the same section there: Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. It does not say it is mandatory nor does it say you should revert the removal, like you did. Mellk (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As you are a young, albeit active, editor on Wikipedia, I wanted only to make you aware that some of your behaviors are not in line with the spirit of Wikipedia, exposing some hardness from your side. --Robertiki (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not WP:ABF on your part, but it is best if we just move on from this. Mellk (talk) 19:00, 14 August 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) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

March 2024
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Hattin. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. R Prazeres (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * I have only done one revert of an unexplained revert, and explained my revert. You should have started a talk instead of a rude (and empty, you are not an administrator) threat of sanctions. I always start a talk if my revert (first revert) is contested. You didn't give me any chance. You should apologize. --Robertiki (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)