User talk:Wtmusic

In response to your feedback
Nice! You made an article better! Improving Wikipedia makes more people learn! Keep on contributing. Remember, articles are written by contributors like you! Thanks!

Jedd Raynier (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

Bicycle law in California
After yesterday's changes, I started a discussion section about them at Talk:Bicycle_law_in_California. But instead of addressing my concerns and questions, you've proceeded with even more changes. Please explain what you're doing and why. Use of the edit summary comment feature can be helpful. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Mark Z. Jacobson
I've noticed, in the Mark Z. Jacobson article, that you've engaged in some editorializing and even adding potentially libelous material (particularly WP:SYNTHESIS). Such activities are considered disruptive, put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy, and put you at risk of being blocked due to the Wikimedia Foundation's (and the community's) sensitivity to biographies of living persons. Honestly, you've made an impression of someone with an axe to grind, rather than a neutral editor interested in improving the article.

As an administrator trying to enforce the WP:BLP policy, I have done some cleanup work, mostly minor tweaks, although in one case I removed the material referencing a YouTube video because it consisted of primary-source interviews rather than secondary-source peer review. If you feel that this material is absolutely necessary to include, please make your case on the article's talk page rather than adding it back.

Please take care; you seem like a good contributor and you are clearly interested in the subject, so I prefer to avoid going in the direction of issuing a topic ban or a block. If you have a conflict of interest with the subject of Jacobson, you must declare it and propose any further substantive changes on the article's talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent Edits to Michael Shellenberger's Page
Hi, look, I'm not trying to belittle or bemoan your contributions to Wikipedia, or even this page. As I've said, I don't want this to turn into an edit war. However, the page is already contentious (I think given Shellenberger and Nordhaus's history of looking to do so within the environmental movement), and with his forthcoming book, I think it best to discuss changes on the Talk page before making drastic changes, such as section moves, critical feedback on a forthcoming book, or critical feedback on his previous work. Perhaps it is best to have it protected for a short time so that incoming attention given the forthcoming publication might 'cool' down, so to speak? --Hobomok (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Understood, and points about yet-to-be-published reviews well taken. I've never had the impression Shellenberger / Nordhaus were seeking to be "contentious", though. To paraphrase Truman: "they weren't giving the environmental movement hell, they were telling the truth and it sounded like hell."

"Perhaps it is best to have it protected for a short time....". What does that mean?

There is a positive review in the Wall Street Journal today. Is vanity considered the underlying motive for citing any positive review? Wtmusic (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd still say it's best to hold off until the book is out and there have been reviews from entities that are not affiliated with Shellenberger--he regularly writes for WSJ, and these are still advance copies. From what I've seen on Wikipedia in the past, the general method is to wait a little while to see "reception"--we still don't even know if the book merits its own page, and Shellenberger's page is about, well, him, and not this specific book. There's no need to cite advance copy reviews in an encyclopedia. The fact that he wrote the book and it is exists, I'd think, is enough to have on his page.


 * Let the ideas enter discussion in various arenas. If the claims in the book and the discussion they foster are worth including, that will happen in due time. That is, after all, what Shellenberger and Nordhaus usually say they're trying to do--elicit discussion. Although, in that heavily cited article on Shellenberger's page, Nordhaus is quoted saying "If this book doesn't piss off a whole lot of conservatives and a whole lot of liberals, we've failed," regarding Breakthrough, and in this Grist article Shellenberger seems to relish the idea that he's a "professional pot-stirrer." Hobomok (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Mass Deletion
Your mass deletion in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cost_of_electricity_by_source&curid=24400357&diff=1069910828&oldid=1069905348

Has caused suspicion of vandalism, be more careful with such mass deletion, please.

K.V

--Keanu Venter (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Understandably, Keanu. But I have been very careful to delete only archaic, historical data of minimal value - and there is a lot of it. The goal is to improve the readability and usefulness of this article. Wtmusic (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Wtmusic (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello - please could you move this discussion to the talk page of the article Talk:Cost_of_electricity_by_source so it is easier for everyone to see and comment - thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Done.

Wtmusic (talk) 15:24, 6 February 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) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)