User talk:Theanphibian/Archive3

Greenpeace II
Thanks for your thoughts. I have moved the section to the criticism page, but with clarification, which I think sits well for the moment, but you might want to change. I have added a few thoughts on both the Greenpeace and the criticism discussion pages, which I would like to hear your thoughts on. Thanks again Paul haynes 11:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear power
Ok, here is the tradeoff, either bump Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant back down to mid importance for energy or put in a section about it being offline into the nuclear power article - to me it should be in the attacks section, but debate is fine. You didn't like my wording so perhaps you can propose something. Do you see how silly it is to pretend that it is of high importance to energy and not even mention it in the nuclear power article? By the say, saying "the assumption that wind and solar aren't drastically affected by earthquakes and heatwaves is laughable" misses the whole point between a thousand megawatt power plant and a hundred thousand 10 kilowatt rooftop collectors or wind turbines - in one case if it goes down you are SOL, in the other you don't even know the difference if one goes down. The fact that the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine does introduce its own problem of course, but that is a separate issue (the need for backup power). 199.125.109.47 06:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania in Atlanta!
Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 22:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Good work!
Hey Anphibian, Nice to see those new templates popping up at the bottom of some of the energy pages... good work! -- Johnfos 20:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Olkiluoto 3
Hi Anphibian, I was reading this piece, but note that the Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant article makes no mention of the significant problems discussed there. I just wanted to check that I am looking at the right article please. -- Johnfos 23:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're completely right regarding that, the reactor article has yet to address any of this. The delays with this plant have, however, been addressed (to some extent) in the European Pressurized Reactor article.  Honestly, I haven't touched the text of that article and there's a lot that could go in there.  It's been low on my priority list, but I might move it up since it is one of the most important developments in nuclear power today.  I feel like we're in a little bit of a stalemate in construction of new nuclear power plants right now.  Everyone is looking at everyone else saying "you build it first" and then the one new generation reactor that is being built is suffering.  Granted, Areva is the one taking the hit on this one due to the turnkey agreement, but every utility in the world is waiting to see what happens.  I think they'll come out ahead though.  Areva is big enough to roll with the punches and still offer investment assurance beyond all other vendors.


 * But yeah, it's the right article. But it's just a baby. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 23:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a really good source though. Bloomberg is very good in the reporting of these things, they capture the reality about the best of anyone. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 23:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that... I wanted to ask: what other WP interests do you have besides energy? When I first started here I edited articles mainly on Buddhism and reincarnation, but then I moved to renewables and found that there was much to do there as so little had been written... Johnfos 02:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

District Heating
Thanks for trying to contribute to the district heating article. As you may noticed, this article is rather unstructured. To add a unconventional and currently not used technique contributes rather to wiki-user confusion than to help him understanding the central point of district heating. It is true that nuclear power is used in district heating, but only to an infinitisemal share. So please don't add things like "the use of nuclear power for desalination and hydrogen production" or "spent nuclear fuel" here. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Season21 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:SK nuke plant map
Template:SK nuke plant map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — PC78 09:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:SK nuke plants, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SQL(Query Me!) 06:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You tube Links
Please DO NOT link to copyvios on You Tube from your user page, The links concerned are commented out currently, Should you wish to reinstate them, please confirm the (C) status of them before doing so. Sfan00 IMG 21:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Click through the links, you will find that the clips concerned have been

removed from You Tube (for terms of use violation) or that the clips are obviously TV footage but not uploaded by an official profile of the broadcaster concerned. Sfan00 IMG 11:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox proposal
I saw you had placed in May a proposal for List of infoboxes/Proposed but subsequently there has been created Template:Infobox Reactor which has been used on university reactor articles. Assuming the infobox proposal to be now met, I've deleted it, but please let me know if this needs reversing :-) David Ruben Talk 00:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Stendal-Work
Hi Anphibian! I´m impressed by your work. Lets get in contact: nicransby at aol.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicransby (talk • contribs) 21:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear Power
What are you thinking your friend Nailedtooth screwed with the picture and now costing its deletion if you want it changed talk on the actual image page.Sparrowman980 04:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I re-did the original pic and did it the way that was stated by you also the ONLY reason i never changed it because there was no reference or i didn't see it but i checked and it was there and now it is fixed.Sparrowman980 05:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear power in France
Excellent idea to add a graph. Thanks. — Omegatron 17:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Energy Portal
Hi, Theanphibian. You have made lot of great contributions, particularly related to the nuclear energy. I wonder if you are interested to contribute also to the Energy Portal including news and nominations of DYK and selected articles. Thanks. Beagel 19:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

OMGoogle!
Hahahahahha, thanks for the source. Actually I was just kidding when I put the fact-tag there because I thought that sentence was redundant, does anyone think Switzerland have nuclear weapons? Thank you anyway! Aaker 18:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear
Possible problems in some articles do not mean that problems should remain in other articles. The best is to source according to policy, there are plenty of sources on this topic. Regards.Ultramarine 12:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Separate template for nuclear
There already is a separate template for nuclear, and has been for a long time. It is not workable to create one giant template that includes coal by country, oil by country, solar by country, etc., etc., and downright silly to stuff nuclear into the renewable template, which as it grows will be split into two separate templates anyway, one for only solar and the other for only wind. 199.125.109.108 06:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't agree
 * 2) There was already an AfD and a discussion on this, sorry you missed out on it. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 12:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please keep discussion in one place. The afd was to delete, not combine. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but not to make Wikipedia silly. You may have been thinking of this discussion instead. 199.125.109.108 17:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Having a separate template for Wind and Solar complicates things way further than what they need to be and hides related articles from the reader.  In case you were worried, we don't have "oil by country" or "natural gas by country" articles, so you can sleep easy on that one.  We have wind, solar, and nuclear articles in that format, and such should be made clear to the reader.


 * If you're worried about the size, there are much larger templates out there that are commonly used.


 * And it should go without saying that you don't just see an article or template and make an administrative decision by yourself when it's clear that other people put work into it to get it the way that it is. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 18:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For the second time, please keep discussion in one place. The two templates existed for a long time and it makes sense only to keep them separate. It is also easier to work on them when they are separate. Big templates get portalized and deleted, you should know that. 199.125.109.108 19:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting. Let's leave the RFC up for at least a few days to see if anyone else has an opinion on the matter. I think the merge tag is only for articles, it wasn't working, and isn't necessary. 199.125.109.108 05:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR
You are on the verge of violating WP:3RR, making more than three reversions to an article in a 24-hour period. A fourth reversion will result in a 24 hour block. You appear to be aware of 3RR by your edit summary, 3r stuff. 199.125.109.108 19:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * By all means yes, and to the extent of my understanding, the 3R applies for reverting 3 times without writing on the talk page. By the time you posted that on my talk page the template's talk was filled with a conversation between me and myself.


 * I do appreciate you contributing to the discussion though. Thanks. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 20:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For the third time, please keep discussion in one place. 3RR is a hard and fast rule, the only exceptions are vandal reversions and if you weren't warned. The suggestion is to revert only once and then work out a compromise on the talk page. In this case it's just a case of reverting silliness. 199.125.109.108 20:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Yonden logo.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Yonden logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 06:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

History
What are you doing with the history of this page (your talk)? Something isn't right there. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 05:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please reply here so I can find it. I rarely get the same IP address so I move messages to the userpage of the person leaving the message so I can find them. 199.125.109.73 05:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, well that actually makes sense now. I'm sure you know the deal with accounts, so I won't patronize you about it. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 06:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Environmental effects of nuclear power
Hey, just wanted you to know that I look a close look at the article last night before I went to bed. Feel free to take a look at Talk:Environmental effects of nuclear power! :D Happy editing and I hope you have a great day! :D - Jameson L. Tai  talk ♦ contribs 16:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Posting photos on talk page
No one seems to like your suggested photo, not even you. It is more appropriate to list the category, than to post the photo. Posting photos on the talk page to make a point is not helpful. 199.125.109.45 19:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Russian floating nuclear power station
Do you have a reference for this edit? There is a "Cite error 8; No text given." for #5 --mikeu 23:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

List of massacres
Please see Articles for deletion/List of massacres where I have posted a response to your Keep opinion --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings
Hi A, Wondering what to make of this: Japan Nuclear Energy Drive Compromised by Conflicts of Interest. Also wanted to take the opportunity to wish you and your family a safe and happy Christmas and New Year... Johnfos (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No longer supporting nuclear power
Isn't this like asking if you have stopped beating your wife? Anyway, glad to hear that you no longer support nuclear power. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, though, not a forum. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank You
Hi - Just wanted to say a belated thank you for your efforts maintaining the 'Environmental Effects of Electricity Generation' page and all your other good works. It's people such as yourself that elevate my late-night debates with friends above the uninformed ramblings they would otherwise be. Have a good Christmas, if that's your thing, and keep up the good work. Gholson (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Geothermal
is some really good information about geothermal. I was just looking for something that describes the ultimate source of Earth's internal energy. Thanks for that. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 18:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See those indians actually know what they are talking about sometimes, even though they don't express it in the same technical terms that we do. They also think the same about oil, I have a quote from one that oil is the blood of the living planet and to pull it out of the ground bleeds the planet. 199.125.109.46 (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Image
Can you reduce the resolution of 320px to no more than 400 pixels and upload it again? It is common practice when uploading a fair use image to provide only a low resolution image. Please keep the same file name. Note: "The use of this low-resolution version". 3,048 × 2,746 pixels is hardly low resolution. Thanks. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I know it's physically too large. I don't have software sufficient to shrink it. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Let Wikipedia do it for you. Above you will see an image that you can download to your computer and then upload back to WP. Just make sure you keep the original file name. Clever, no? 199.125.109.108 (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes that did work. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 23:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Much much better. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Nuclear power stations that had a significant accident
Category:Nuclear power stations that had a significant accident, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

New sections of the Energy Portal
Hi and a Happy New Year! I created new sections of the Energy Portal for new articles (found by bot) and for announcements (nominations for good and featured articles, peer and expert reviews, deletion and merging discussions etc). You are welcome to add your announcements there and also share your thoughts how to improve and further update this portal. Beagel (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Three Gorges Dam
Hi, Theanphibian. I got following message concerning GA nomination of Three Gorges Dam. As the factual nominator you, I copy this message also into your talk page. I hope we could fix these things for the GA status. Beagel (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC) The article Three Gorges Dam you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Three Gorges Dam for things needed to be addressed. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  ♠ 05:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)}}

Re: Coal power in China
Thank you for your comment. I got this CCS plant information from the Power Engineering International, and didn't check it from other sources. Of course CCS and IGCC are not the same thing, but it is still possible that actually the news from PEI referred to the IGCC. You are welcome to edit or remove this information if you will find necessary. Beagel (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:United States nuke plant map
A tag has been placed on Template:United States nuke plant map requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Canada nuke plant map
A tag has been placed on Template:Canada nuke plant map requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Broken map Template:Taiwan_nuke_plant_map
hi Theanphibian, i am about to complett taiwan (german wikipedia) and noticed that the NPP in taiwan map is broken. A1000 (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject North Carolina Newsletters
 A newsletter has been planned for WikiProject North Carolina, a WikiProject where you are a member. As a member, you will automatically receive the newsletter on this talk page unless you choose to opt-out. If you wish to opt-out of the newsletter, then please leave a message on the project's talk page. If you would like to help write the newsletter, then please add your name at WikiProject North Carolina/Newsroom. Thank you. Diligent Terrier Bot (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This message was delivered by, a bot operated by .

WikiProject North Carolina May 2008 Newsletter
 The message above has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot, a bot operated by Diligent Terrier.

Image copyright problem with Image:Chuden logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Chuden logo.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --23:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC) ✅

Advice

 * Hey there Theanphibian... I like to dance too... My wife hates it when I drink red wine and do stripteases at parties. Just kidding...


 * I would like to know if you've ever had any luck dealing with the 199 IP guy. It seems strange but this 199 IP hassles both the nuclear pages and the solar energy page with consistently rude and factually incorrect comments. It's a sort of advanced passive/aggressive trolling that skirts the rules here. I was wondering if you've ever had any success with this guy. i.e. Have Rfcs, third party opinions or anything else ever worked. Mrshaba (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply Theaphibian. I've notice the same: "all critic/no content" As you say though... Eh Mrshaba (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the offer. Believe it or not I'm a nuke.... 6 years as a Nuke mechanic in the Navy, 3 years of Nuclear Engineering in school, a little over 3 years at Diablo Canyon. I feel your pain when it comes to working with nuclear stuff.


 * If there's one thing on the solar energy page that could be up your alley it would be the units. I've used joules throughout the page for consistency but there maybe other units like kWh/MWh/TWh or oil equivalence that should be used. The unit issue with solar energy is that it can provide light, heat or electricity so there's no obvious choice. You might have an idea I don't. The facts on the page are generally up to date but just the other day someone noticed a gross abuse of math on my part. These things happen. There's a peer review link at the top of the talk page and all the peer reviews so far have definitely helped the page. I'm willing to trade peer review for peer review and I have an experienced eye as far as nuclear goes. Cheers Mrshaba (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Helpdesk
It appears that a help desk request you submitted has been answered. Please take a moment a view the reply over there - if this doesn't quite help you, please feel free to ask for more information or clarification. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Joe Lucas
Hi, with regard to this edit, the IEA study does not quote Lucas, either as an expert, or indeed at all. The study was released by the IEA, and Lucas is commenting on it in his office as communications officer. His comment occurs in a press release issued by the ACCCE. In other words, it's a press handout from a lobbying group welcoming a report which supports views they too endorse. Regards, &mdash; BillC talk 02:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for tagging WP:Energy categories
Hi. 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) 11:58, 16 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) 19:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Graph in Three Groges Dam
Hi,please update the graph about the energy production in China by source, as the data of 2008 is available. There is a significant change in Hydro over the years. Here is a link from BP gives you hydro and nuclear. http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2008/STAGING/local_assets/2009_downloads/statistical_review_of_world_energy_full_report_2009.xls —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvingao (talk • contribs) 15:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)