Jump to content

User talk:Phanly

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]

Hi Phanly :) (Another Aussie, perchance? From Manly? ;) I hope you like the place and choose to stay.

Some links that may be of use:

Here's some stuff you can do, if you want:


You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.


Have fun! Keep contributing :) Dysprosia 12:06, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Coriolanus effect

[edit]

I believe you wanted to write about the Coriolis effect, which has nothing to do with Coriolanus. If this is a very common misspelling, you might want to change your article Coriolanus effect into a redirect, otherwise it should probably be deleted (or be turned into an article related to some effect connected to Coriolanus). Kusma 17:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you need another one

[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Phanly, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 


some comments

[edit]
  • Also - when you create an article - it is well worth looking to see if there is any related/similar article already existing - theasurus thinking - think of synonyms - maybe there is an article with related issues already exsiting
  • The sandbox is a very good place to do things - half filled articles with headings only attract negative attention - better to have half finished articles in sandbox than in jeaopardy on wiki....
  • Talk with someone - isolated article creation and editing can be a trap - find an article about a related subject - find an editor who has done a lot on it - go to their talk - and talk about possible issues... it can help

cheers SatuSuro 23:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


attempt at reply (more specific)

[edit]

Wikpedia is not very good at specific guidelines - as there are some projects that really should be given with a large handbook and a training course in my honest opinion.

  • (1) Australian subjects, topics and ventures into things australian - should nominally (but not necessarily) be conditionally broached on the Australian Project noticeboard (ok I know nothing is anywhere to tell you that :) )
  • (2) Before putting up a range of articles - you should
    • (a) be rigorous about checking for the existence of other existing articles with close title or subject coverage, specially with synonyms
    • (b) be rigorous about whether adding information to an existing article or editing - it is much better than starting a new article which is only a clutch of headings
  • (3) Religiously conscientiously use the sandbox if you do not have an article that has a category, a reference, and a beginning and an end - half constructed articles cause many checking editors grief
  • (4) Read and re-read very carefully WP:NOT and WP:POV as some editors who have reviewed your work are under the impresssion you have an agenda - you cannot do that on wikipedia - if you feel you dont have one - dosnt matter some feel you have - so thats something to deal with
  • (5) Conservation, Environment and all the possible combinations of the two are an incredible mess on the Australian wiki project - with terminology, scope and variations in articles and categories not systematised, or more importantly

not reviewed by any process (unless someone has started that already - I havent been on my watchlist this am yet) that all australian editors are able to see and discuss - It would be very very wise not to start any more articles as you have until there is a sign that somehwere some part of the australian project is starting to resolve the chaos

  • (6) Another most important issue which is the most invisible but which can be an insurance for the project, yourself as editor, and the integrity of wikipedia - is that if you do create a stub/article - that can stand perusal - it needs to be

listed at the new article list on the australian project page of that name - I would argue that most of your new stubs articles do not meet the standard for that list - because of the issues that I have already made...

So what to do? Go back have a look at what has happened to most of your articles and start attempts and see what has happened to them - learn from it but DO NOT react - more harm comes to those who fight changes on wikipedia - WP:OWN is worth reading on that.

Maybe have a very close look at the australian portal, and the project - and try to get a sense of what its all about - and try to work on existing articles rather than starting up parallel universes - best to leave that sort of thing to the science fiction writers and physicists to deal with that one...

This is given in good faith, and it also expected to be received as such - If there is something you dont like - tell me - be honest - but keep it within bounds of WP:Civility and WP:Wikiquette - cheers SatuSuro 23:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cripes - you say you were in Macquarie Harbour - hope that was not literally and safely and not near the mouth of the king river! SatuSuro 08:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

I appreciate that - youve found the page and put that there - just wait for a few days - some might be monday-friday types as well - but thats the place. I do hope you get a reasonable response there! cheers ! SatuSuro 14:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC) ::There are some issues I'd be prepared to outline off-wiki - you are most welcome to email me at my talk page and I can explain SatuSuro 14:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well worth having a look in my sandbox 2 how i am growing the csnf article - because of my background - refs are far more important than anything - keeps the V, N and heaps of other issues at bay when it surfaces. SatuSuro 01:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Effects of global warming on Australia

[edit]

An editor has nominated Effects of global warming on Australia, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effects of global warming on Australia and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 21:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Barrier Reef - Thanks

[edit]

Thanks heaps for dipping into the literature for climate change and the GBR - the thought of the literature kind of terrifies me. Does the section on climate change in the GBR article read well? I wrote some of it from my old high school notes. -Malkinann 00:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight nomination for Energy policy article

[edit]

I have nominated an article you started for collaboration at Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight#Energy policy of Australia. I am not sure if the article is correctly named. I am not necessarily comfortable with the organisation although I appreciate there is considerable merit in discussing at the Sate and federal levels and that ethe States have different views. However, I think it is a great start. Regards--Golden Wattle talk 20:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new task force that could use your help

[edit]

Hi Phanly, Given your interests and edits, I wanted to draw your attention to a new task force that I've set up with various editors. We're basically committed to making sure that the environmental records of major corporations and politicians are accurately and readably represented. Please take a look and consider joining! Benzocane 01:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Australia newsletter

[edit]

WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

WikiProject Australia newsletter

[edit]

WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 22:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Anvil Hill Coal Mine

[edit]

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Anvil Hill Coal Mine, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 10:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good News

[edit]

Hi Phanly: have you seen this one? Pampa Wind Project -- Johnfos (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Johnfos dinghy (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Mafia

[edit]

The see also is looking like dogs breakfast - am moving most to the talk page - cheers SatuSuro 03:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh - I never knew one personally when i lived in sydney many moons ago - so obscure media refs are not my expertise - bob bottom was big in those days though - if I get around to it Il check out some info - cheers SatuSuro 01:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhouse Mafia

[edit]

Thank you for the very diplomatic comments. I noticed your User:Phanly/Sandbox page on clean coal, you might also like the article on the Greenhouse Mafia. GG (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Socking

[edit]

Please see User talk:Schneehasi and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Phanly and note that this account has been blocked for eight days, being the original seven day block on User:Scheehasi for spamming and disruptive editing, less "time served" (about two days), plus three days for disruptive editing and socking. Sarah 06:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge collaborating with the two real people who established those accounts and providing them with a template for what I believe was a justifiable edit for pages about coal fired power stations in Australia and I accept the block on that basis (meatpuppeting), even though if the edit is valid I don't really see why it matters who makes it. Scheehasi and Mungbo are real people and not sock puppets. Neither Sarah nor Gnangarra have ever responded to the requests for a clarification as to why a proposed reference to CARMA which made clear it is an estimate of GHG emissions is not an acceptable edit for a page about coal fired power stations. Similarly neither Sarah nor Gnangarra ever responded as to why referenced sentences about the IPCC suggested reductions in Greenhouse gas emissions and the Australian government policy referenced to an Australian government web sites are unacceptable edits for a page about a coal fired power station. dinghy (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kogan_Creek_Power_Station,_Queensland

A similar edit to that intended there will also be relevant to each other articles on coal fired power stations in Australia As CARMA is the best available and a reliable source for an estimate using the specific page on their web site which deals with the specific power station as a reference under Wikipedia guidlines is not link spamming but compliance with the requirement for references dinghy (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phanly you were blocked for creating and operating the sockpuppets which where then used to spam CARMA into Power station articles. I recommend that you find some other articles to work, also under the circumstances of recent events sign comment with your user name not something else. Gnangarra 01:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained what was done and apologised. I have signed with Dinghy since my very early edits. I don't see how that is different to Gnangarra. The other people were real people - I did not use any aliases, but acknowledge I now understand about meatpuppets. I believe that like other editors I have a right to edit where I choose provided I act in general accordance with the guidelines. Given the Scientific opinion on climate change there is lots of work to do in Wikipedia to ensure articles reflect the scientific consensus. It is not a POV to make edits where the article does not have relevant scientific information from sources such as the IPCC, Governments or other relevant (reliable) sources, so that the article does have such info. It is also not a POV to make edits to ensure that such info is treated in accordance with it's importance within the article and nearly every major government has acknowledged the critical importance of climate change - List of Kyoto Protocol signatories. For the importance that the new leader of the western world places on it see [1] dinghy (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CARMA

[edit]

Hi, I saw that you have added text to a number of power station-related articles, only to see it reverted or criticised. The reason why people are doing this is likely to be because the words immediately come across as campaigning. I'll quote the ever-eloquent Raul654: "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie." Anyone reading this text or this text is almost certain to think "the author of this section wants to close all coal-fired power stations".

The commentary on the IPCC and global or national CO2 reduction targets is not relevant here, though it is elsewhere in Wikipedia. It's not appropriate to add essentially this same text to all coal-fired station articles.

You might have better success if you confined this edit to something like "The CARMA database estimates that the station emits 4.33 million tonnes of greenhouse gases annually."[ref]

Hope this is helpful. Regards, — BillC talk 21:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bill

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard for discussion where Itsmejudith (talk concluded after additional information was received that CARMA is a reliable source for estimates of emissions of Australian coal fired power stations. dinghy (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Australia newsletter,December 2008

[edit]

The December 2008 issue of the WikiProject Australia newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. This message was delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 07:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme

[edit]

Phanly, the text you reinserted is a word for word copy right violation of the source I have removed it for the article. The second part was orgiinal research we don't make comments about issues or potential obstacles to political debates. Gnangarra 00:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See your user page for reply - I fixed them and put them back in reworded and referenced. dinghy (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

coal future

[edit]

You added "(At 5% growth per annum compound this means the resource runs out in year +45, 2051.) " to the article. Do you realise how ridiculous it is ? That implies that in 45 years time we'll be using 9 times as much coal as we do now. Does that seem likely to you? Greglocock (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

compound growth impact on resource life

[edit]

Hi Greg, Thanks for contacting me:
If you use Excel you can replicate what I did by building the table yourself. I have offset the years by one so the year number matches the compounding number, so I start with year 0 not year 1.
155 years at current usage = 155 units at start of year 0 with none used yet
1 unit used in year 0 (total used = 1) leaving 154 at end year 0/start of year 1
In year 1 starting with 154 and using (1* (1+.05))^1 = 1.05 used in year 1 (total used now 1 + 1.05 = 2.05)leaving 152.95 at the start of year 2 but 154/1.05 = 146.66666667 years of supply left at the increased usage for year 2 (see below).
In year 2 starting with 151.8475 and using 1* (1+.05)^2 = 1.1025 (total used now 1 + 1.05 + 1.1025 = 3.1525) leaving 151.8475 at start of year 3 but 151.8475/1.157625 = 131.1715797 years of supply left at the increased usage for year 3 (see below).

In year 10 starting with 142.4221075 and using 1* (1+.05)^10 = 1.628894627 (total used now 1 + 1.05 + 1.1025 + 1.157625 + 1.21550625 + 1.276281563 + 1.340095641 + 1.407100423 + 1.477455444 + 1.551328216 + 1.628894627 = 14.20678716) leaving 140.7932128 at start of year 11 but 142.4221075 /1.628894627 = 87.43481937 years of supply left at the increased usage for year 11.

In year 20 starting with 121.9340459 and using 1*(1+.05)^20 = 2.653297705 (total now used = 35.71925181) leaving 119.2807482 at start of year 21 but 121.9340459/2.653297705 = 45.9556595 years of supply left at the increased usage for year 21.

and so it goes - it is the magic of compound interest/growth.

If you check using Excel and find any gross error, please let me know dinghy (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing with the maths, that took 5 seconds. If you don't understand why the conclusion, that society will fund a %5 expansion of coal mining the year before it runs out, is ridiculous, then you are impervious to irony. Which you seem to be. Greglocock (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peak oil

[edit]

Hi, just wanted to let you know I reverted your addition to Peak oil because there was no reference given. There has been a lot of back and forth in the past over references in that article, and a section with no citation is not a good idea. Also, it seems that there are too many factors at play to make a blanket statement about the effects of the export land model on a specific country without a lot of background and economic model simulations. NJGW (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went to reply on your user talk page but it loks like you have upset someone. Are the internal references to the relevant wikipedia pages not sufficient? Is Wikipedia not a reliable source? If I gave a page reference to EB on line version would that not be sufficient? I will give it some further thought. Cheers dinghy (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not too sure why you are on my watchlist. No, WP is not considered an RS, as that could be self referential. Inconvenient I know. (Oh, and I've unwathed this page).Greglocock (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay in replying. Greglocock is correct that you can't use Wikipedia as a reference. Check out WP:RS for the guidelines on what can be used. Also, I didn't see information at export model which said the same thing you wrote, but if I'm missing it you can bring over the same sources (as long as they are verified to say the same thing). Be sure you're careful not to put any original synthesis in any of your edits. Let me know if you have any other questions.
BTW, don't worry about my talk page... it's just some kid that can't play nice with others. If you see something like that anywhere on Wikipedia feel free to check the history and revert the vandals. NJGW (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

water security

[edit]

had a quick look - will try to get back to you sometime about it- cheers SatuSuro 13:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Offices

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Offices requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Total Environment Centre

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Total Environment Centre requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Offices

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Offices requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

warming

[edit]

Thanks. Good to see the statement not taking up too much space on the ice sheet page now.

I deleted the warming section from west antarctic ice sheet page. It may be appropriate to add back in a specific comment on the warming of the west antarctic ice sheet with the improved references.

One thing it is important to stress is that except for on the peninsula this warming is weak and as there is little surface melt (the ice sheet is still very cold) it does not have much of an effect on the west antarctic ice sheet at present. There are other factors that are causing increased ice loss from the west antarctic ice sheet which may be related to changes in climate (but not necessarily, and certainly not directly, atmospheric warming) so I think it is important to emphasise these and not confuse this message too much. I will add some more on this when I get the time Polargeo (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted at the bottom of the page only the conclusion that there is warming and used your improved reference and noted that the peninisula is where it is strongest.

Rhodes remediation

[edit]

Hi J Barr, I see you have done a lot of work on suburbs of Sydney which is great, but I think you are having some difficulties either understanding or describing the scope and location of the remediation at Rhodes.

By way of background, I spent 5 years of my life working on this issue including a parliamentary commission of inquiry and 2 planning commissions of inquiry, a contested FOI application and numerous other meetings including up to a short meeting with the Minister and Head of the EPA ass well as a number with local Councillors, MP, MLA, Shadow Minister for Planning

Virtually all the western side of the line has been or will be subject to some form of remediation (with the exception of the area bounded by Walker, Mary, Marquet and Osgathorpe). Most of the sediment within 20 metres of the seawall opposite the length of the shopping centre were remediated for lead, most of the sediments within 50 metres of the seawall from the northern end of the Peninsula to 100 metres south of the play equipment at the park opposite Mary Street are/have been remediated for dioxins to a depth of 0.5 m. While the Commercial area has been remediated to reduce pollutants from Berger Paints and CSR/Orica chemicals, so have all the former Union Carbide and Allied Feeds sites and part of the Statewide site in Marquet St cnr Osgathorpe St. If you are interested I would be happy to take you on a tour one Saturday or Sunday and show you around.

cheers Paul dinghy (talk) 06:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul,
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the articles should be encyclopedic. I can see a good reason to include the remediation information but it shouldn't dominate the article. There are standard formats with these articles and the best way to compile the information is uder the standard headings like History, Population, Politics, Commercial Areas, Transport etc. Therefore the Rhodes article should not have a separate Remediation heading because no other suburb article does eithe. I'm trying to find the best place for your remediation info and think it should either fall under History or Commercial Area.
Cheers, J Bar.J Bar (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi J, Read your message. Thanks. Templates are great and I agree the Wikipedia is supposed to be Encylopaedic. But blind adherence is not a WP rule and this suburb is extremely different to other suburbs. One third of a whole suburb required remediation because of contamination. One quarter of the Bay on one side of the Peninsula required remediation because of the contamination. The contamination required total commercial fin fishing bans in the whole of Sydney Harbour. What other suburb of any city in Australia has that history? It deserves a separate heading because it dominates the redevelopment of a third of the suburb. It is important enough in this suburb to justify its own heading. The fact that it is not a heading in a template does not mean that it should not have it's own heading. To downplay the importance would be contrary to WP being Encyclopaedic!!! Remember, it's WP:BEBOLD not WP:ObeyTemplate The offer of a tour of the UCAL contaminated remediation area is still open if you are interested! Cheers Paul dinghy (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, I understand the importance of the information and especially how important it is to you because of your personal involvement. I've had similar discussions about the importance of certain subjects in these suburb articles with other editors who have also had some involvement in the subject matter. There have been some enthusiastic editors who want to include information about crimes, notable current & former residents or tunnels & bunkers in the articles and sometimes these subjects have dominated the article. I'm not against including the information but I think it would look better if it was part of the History or Commercial Areas or Residential Areas sections. It's fine if Remediation is that important to that suburb that it requires a separate heading but I feel it shouldn't dominate the article and want to make sure that we have a balance in all articles. It might help if other sections of the article were expanded to bring it up to teh standard of some of the better articles on Sydney Suburbs like Summer Hill, New South Wales and Hunters Hill, New South Wales. Thanks for the offer of the tour. Cheers. J Bar (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi J, As you've seen I thought about it and put remediation under History as you suggested. As to balance, with Wikipedia and multi editor articles, people write the sections they know about. Hopefully some indigenous person with a good oral history of the area can add in something about the 40,000 years before the last 250, but there's no reason to wait until we can cover that 99.375% of the history before we write what we can about the 0.625% we know about. As others contribute in other areas of knowledge about Rhodes the article will get more extensive and balanced, but until then, why ignore or downplay such a major part of the suburb's history and its impact? Have a good Easter. Cheers Paul dinghy (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's great that you included the information in History. I think that's the most appropriate section for it too. hopefully some other editors will expand the other sections. You have a good Easter too. Cheers. J Bar (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Warming Affects Antarctic Ice Sheet

[edit]

The quote "slight rise in atmospheric concentrations of CO2" is a journalist comment. I would stick to following the scientist's quoted comments. However, even these deviate a long way from anything that either of the scientific papers which they refer to state. The paper in Nature (March 19th) actually states, almost as a discussion afterthought, 'More well-dated sediment cores, and future experiments using ice-sheet models are planned to assess more fully the different influences of orbital forcing on surface ablation (The sun's effect on ice sheet surface melting-my translation) versus ocean induced melt at elevated atmospheric CO2 levels.' In other words we can't really say what anthopogenic increases (or any increases) in CO2 will do yet.

Also, just for general info, I've just come out of a three hour meeting at the British Antarctic Survey where these two papers were put up as discussion papers (not by me, I'm just off paternity leave) and they were effectively torn to shreds, nobody agrees that the core site is a good site for assessing West Antarctic ice sheet stability (as it is closer to the East Antarctic Ice Sheet) and the basic way they have interpreted the cycles using their sediment core is highly questionable anyway. The companion paper which is a modelling paper uses a 40 km resolution, which cannot capture ice stream dynamics, the main way the ice is lost to the ocean. Another interesting thing about the paper is that it is looking at the early Pliocene (5 million to 3 million years ago) so how relevant to the present it is would be a little uncertain.

Obviously I'm okay with you adding the scientist's findings from the news article. Even better than that go to the actual papers (The abstract/summaries should be online) and use the info directly from them. But from what I've looked at I don't think this is a huge CO2 story, that is just the spin used to sell the science. I won't revert any of your additions but if I have time I will check through and edit if necessary. Polargeo (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

[edit]

Hi. I have emailed you 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 email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GHGe unit conversions from CARMA data

[edit]

Hi Phanly, I just added some comments on the Yallourn Power Station talk page on what I believe was info that you added at some point. Would appreciate your thoughts. Regards, lakolako (talk) 09:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)lakolako[reply]

Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change

[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Scientific opinion on climate change, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 17:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Daryl Guppy

[edit]

I have nominated Daryl Guppy, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daryl Guppy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ridernyc (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. I have put my case for Keep on the page to which you linked. Cheers dinghy (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renewable energy task force

[edit]

Please see Portal talk:Renewable energy#Task force ?... Johnfos (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will have a look. dinghy (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic triangle category

[edit]
  • I have reverted your edit as this article is very specific and not appropriate for the top level category. (If it was then several hundred other sailing related articles would also need to be elevated!!) Boatman (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nowhere Man (Green novel)

[edit]

The article Nowhere Man (Green novel) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails WP:Notability (books): I can't find any WP:RS reviews or claims of awards for this recently-published book. Tons of google-hits, but all appear to be selfpublished (publisher and business affiliates), blog/twitter, or vendors

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DMacks (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have provided lots of reviews - see article talk page. dinghy (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney edit-a-thon invitation

[edit]

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a classical music edit-a-thon Saturday week (13 October) in Sydney. The theme will be Music of France, to coincide with the ABC Classic FM countdown between 8-14 October. If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online during the countdown. Details an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/October 2012. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 09:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Sydney)

Sydney edit-a-thon invitation

[edit]

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a disability edit-a-thon Saturday week (10 November) in Sydney. If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online before, during and after the meetup. Details an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/November 2012. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 15:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Sydney)

Sydney meetup invitation: January 2013

[edit]

Hi there! You are cordially invited to attend a meetup being held on Thursday 10 January 2013. Details an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/January 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 09:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Sydney)

RfC:Infobox Road proposal

[edit]

WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to {{infobox road}}. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.

You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:AUS

Nbound (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC:Infobox Road proposal

[edit]

WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to {{infobox road}}. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.

You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:AUS

Nbound (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC:Infobox Road proposal

[edit]

WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to {{infobox road}}. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.

You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:AUS

Nbound (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nowhere Man (Green novel)

[edit]

The article Nowhere Man (Green novel) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

there is no indication that this meets the notability standard of WP:Notability (books).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JohnCD (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Page has now taken the form of a redirect. I have nominated it for redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion -Mayuresh K 13:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney September 2013 edit-a-thon invite

[edit]

Hi there! You are cordially invited to an edit-a-thon this Saturday (21 September) in Sydney at the State Library of New South Wales (SLNSW), where you can collaborate with other Wikipedians throughout the day. Andy Carr, a senior librarian at SLNSW will also be helping out. The theme of the edit-a-thon is paralympics sports, but you are free to come along to meet other wiki contributors, and edit other topics.

If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online. Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/September 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 09:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Wikipedians in Sydney)

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere Man (Green novel) listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nowhere Man (Green novel). Since you had some involvement with the Nowhere Man (Green novel) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mayuresh K 13:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Phanly. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Total Environment Centre for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Total Environment Centre is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Total Environment Centre until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Phanly&oldid=964764977"