Hello and welcome to my Talk page... Alas, most of what happens here is not really of archival quality, so I maintain this page by simply removing messages which are over one month old. Standard template messages are removed more quickly...
Thanks
I've enjoyed reading your recent contributions at Nuclear power in Japan and 1999 Blayais Nuclear Power Plant flood. Good work! Johnfos (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! It seemed like a topical area to do some work in - and ties in with your interesting Katsuhiko Ishibashi contribution too... Ivolocy (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Nuclear Power in the United States
Hey there! Good info Japan and the US response for the Nuclear Policy of the United States article I started. Thanks for doing some solid leg work and solid information mate (and correctly formated as well). I did some minor formatting changes and added a picture. I was really hoping someone with some info on this would step up. I'll be keeping an eye on the page to prevent any vandalism of your information. Thanks again :-) Kayz911 (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Biofuels
I thought you might be interested in reading this. It is unfortunate that the issue is not treated in a NPOV manner. In the case of sugarcane, the price of sugar has risen so much that ethanol fuel production in Brazil shrank as producers began producing more sugar, and as supply of ethanol dropped the price went up, and for the second year in a row fewer flex-fuel owners are filling with ethanol. Also if you checked some of the analysis done after the 2007-2008 food vs fuel controversy cool down, the actual effect of maize was not quite big as advocated. See you around.--Mariordo (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, certainly hard-hitting stuff, although the complexities of the situation were mentioned in passing. Thought this one was quite good: Boeing Issues First Latin American Study on Jatropha Sustainability Johnfos (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Nuclear power references
I noticed when you contributed to Nuclear power, you included named references that didn't actually have sources. I thought these may have been placeholders you forgot to replace. I've removed these placeholder references and added a verification tag. If you can still add the references to the below facts, that'd be great.
In the early 1970s, there were large protests about a proposed nuclear power plant in Wyhl, Germany. The project was cancelled in 1975 and anti-nuclear success at Wyhl inspired opposition to nuclear power in other parts of Europe and North America.
-Temporal User (Talk) 23:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
March 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive award
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
For reviewing 10 or more Good article nominations during this past March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive, I hereby award you The Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Nice work! –MuZemike 17:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC) |
- Thank you! I enjoyed working with others as part of the drive... Johnfos (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Please review the March section of this timeline article. You will see that the deleted text from your earlier edit has been restored. This is more fully explained at Talk:Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents#Fukushima nuclear accident log during March 2011.
Please consider my invitation to make constructive comments about Fukushima nuclear accident log, March 2011. If you have other questions or comments, please do not hesitate to share them with me. --Tenmei (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Tenmei, and thank you so much for your note. It really does sound like things are moving forward quite well. I'm taking a break from the article right now, but wish you and the others happy editing! regards, Johnfos (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps you did not notice that no edits have changed your draft summary of the March event tree at Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents. It may be premature, but I construe this text stability as a kind of validation of the time and thought you invested. For this perspective, my guess is that the initial resistance to "pruning" appears to have little to do with the merits of the distilled summaries you wrote. --Tenmei (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Verbatim copying of Amory Lovin's words
See [1]. Wikipedia policy is that one should either paraphrase the source cited, or quote it with clear attribution. Copying from an article directly into the text, as you did, leaving only a footnote, does not qualify as clear attribution. See WP:PLAG, WP:COPYVIO Yakushima (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think you are getting carried away with yourself and should look at the text more closely. I notice the citation says Amory Lovins is a physicist but you are calling him a environmentalist. You should also be aware that quotes are not set off as blockquotes unless they are more than four lines long, see MOS:QUOTE. Please revert yourself. Johnfos (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- FYI, there is a difference between the style used in quotations, and not quoting copied material at all. I notice that you have been copying material into articles you have created for over 3 years now. Regardless of how quickly they may or may not be rectified, if you continue to create copyright violations you will be blocked. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciate that if I have done something wrong over a long period of time, that you will want to block me. I understand that. Please block me now. Johnfos (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- If you had been creating a significant number of problems, I imagine you would have received more warnings before now - admittedly I have not looked but I have no intention of blocking you, I think you should just be a little more careful when copying quotes or writing articles from single sources. I noticed your work because CorenSearchBot recemntly tagged Marilyn A. Brown for having some phrases uncomfortably close to the source (see WP:PARAPHRASE). From there I also happened to notice that Hans-Josef Fell created back in 2007 also still had some problems, and felt that a more formal warning was warranted given this recent discussion. I'm afraid I'm not online much on weekends, but if you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to ask - I'll be watching your talk page for a while. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciate that if I have done something wrong over a long period of time, that you will want to block me. I understand that. Please block me now. Johnfos (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- FYI, there is a difference between the style used in quotations, and not quoting copied material at all. I notice that you have been copying material into articles you have created for over 3 years now. Regardless of how quickly they may or may not be rectified, if you continue to create copyright violations you will be blocked. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not either of the above users, but I saw your note when leaving a message at User:VernoWhitney and came to see if I could help with the reply, since I also work copyright problems and it seemed urgent. Blocking somebody who inadvertently caused problems to the project is most definitely not in Wikipedia's best interests. I gather you've been working hard to help build the project for a long time. We don't want to lose that. But we do need to make sure that you realize what the policies are, if your practices are out of step with them. These policies are important to Wikipedia and especially to the people we encourage to reuse its content, and it is necessary to block accounts that persist in this behavior after notification. Providing notice of the potential of blocking in these circumstances demonstrates due diligence with the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, § 512(i). It doesn't mean that anybody wants to see you blocked, and it's very seldom necessary, once people have been told the issue. It would really be far more helpful, if you know of any other instances of copying, to make sure that they do line up with our handling of non-free content. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste for a simple overview, with links to the relevant policies themselves. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
No one is trying to hide the effects of these accidents but your additions are surely too much detail for this general article on nuclear power. Imagine how long the article would be if you covered Three Mile Island, Mayak, Chernobyl and Windscale to the same degree of detail? That is the job of the individual articles on these occurrances, surely? Britmax (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Windscale and Mayak are not mentioned because these were not accidents at nuclear power plants. TMI and Chernobyl are mentioned a few times in the course of the article and I think that coverage is adequate. And then we have one paragraph on Fukushima. I wouldn't have thought this coverage of serious accidents was excessive. I feel most people coming to a general article on Nuclear power nowadays would expect at least a paragraph on Fukushima. What I do think is excessive is the eleven paragraphs devoted to the issue of Solid waste, so perhaps some details could be cut from there. Johnfos (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Possibility of a series of articles
As you know, after 9/11, the US established a Homeland Security agency. This in turn spawned state agencies which mirror the national, and local ones in populated areas. These all have plans of some sort to cover all contingencies. If these were to be reported in a general article, with official estimates of probability, they could be a useful addition. I think a one-liner in the larger place articles, like "[[Homeland Security (Peru, Indiana)|there are planned evacuations for Peru in case of emergency]]". For chemical/nuclear/gas plants, there might be a "see also" to the article. Initially, these would mostly be nuclear-oriented, but if structured and worded npov, would attract other plans as well, like for hurricanes, etc.
What do you think? Student7 (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is an attempt to move any discussion of populations, and by extension any discussion of evacuation or risk, out of articles on nuclear power.Extremely hot (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 April 2011
- News and notes: Survey of French Wikipedians; first Wikipedian-in-Residence at Smithsonian; brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Somerset
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Request to amend prior case; further voting in AEsh case
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Mediation
A mediation discussion is underway here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Feezo#Mediation
Another editor is presuming that say that you and I and other editors are aligned in some sort of "no nukes" cabal against him. I have no idea what your point of view is on nuclear power; I don't have one. But I thought you should know when you're being talked about.Extremely hot (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)