User talk:Johnfos: Difference between revisions

File:Bnf 20070218.jpg

I'm someone who tries to do the right thing, so if I have slipped up with my editing, just let me know...

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 usually removed more quickly...

I would like to add the authors to entries on List of books about energy issues, to make the entries like those on pages such as: Wikipedia:Wikiproject Books/List of books by title: A. Since you have most of the edits on that page, I'm asking for your opinion before plunging ahead. If you have a good reason not to add the authors, I won't. On another note, I found some more energy-related books in Category:Books about petroleum politics; a few of those titles are not already on the list. --Teratornis (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful note. I really am very happy for you to go ahead and improve the article. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm liking the sortable table in List of environmental books. It's nice to be able to sort the books by title, author, or publication year. I'm trying that out on List of books about energy issues. If you don't like it, we could go back to the list format. --Teratornis (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I think BernardTom is trying to say is that the Anti-Nuclear Movement in Kazakhstan falls under the broader heading "History of Kazakhstan", and more specifically "Kazakh SSR" and/or "Republic of Kazakhstan" (those are on the third line of the template, under the section "since 1456"). Since the template is for "top" topics ("Kazakh SSR"/"ROK"), movements which occurred during those time period (Jeltoqsan, for example, as well as the Anti-nuclear movement) don't go on the template as well. I'm not sure how well I explained that - does it make sense? Otebig (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, please feel free to change the position within the template. I was making a connection between culture, society, and social movement, but sure there are other ways of looking at it. Johnfos (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have a stubby piece online regarding the subject Energy efficient mortgage. If you are able to add to it, I would appreciate it. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Good to hear from you again! I think your article looks fine, and I've just added a cat... cheers, Johnfos (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, thanks! I hope I can call on you for any of my future energy-related articles and editing. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means... Johnfos (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 10 – August 2008 July issue Project News There are currently 4,675 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 141 unreviewed articles. Out of 186 total nominations, 28 are on hold, 14 are under review, and 3 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Juggernaut (wrestler), Dark Angel (wrestler), Irrigation in Peru, Tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting, Coltrane for Lovers, Bayshore Freeway, Jon Cryer, Heather Mills, New York State Route 273, and Tsugaru clan. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film, and drama (28 articles), Sports and recreation (27 articles), Music (22 articles), Transport (18 articles), and War and military (13 articles). There are currently 4 articles up for re-review at Good Article Reassessment. Congratulations! There really is no "backlog" here! :-) GA Sweeps is Recruiting Reviewers We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details. GAN Reviewer of the Month ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for July, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. ThinkBlue had a whopping 49 reviews during the month of July! ThinkBlue was also one of our two reviewers of the month from June, and has been editing Wikipedia since December 1, 2006, and is interested in articles dealing with Friends, Will and Grace, CSI:Miami, Monday Night Raw, Coldplay. Congratulations to Giggy (talk · contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of July include: Gary King (talk · contribs) Giggy (talk · contribs) Lpangelrob (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Peanut4 (talk · contribs) Also, with 17 nominations, Mr.crabby (talk · contribs) is the nominator of the month. Member News There are now 223 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 7 new members that joined during the month of July: 97198 (talk · contribs) Carbonrodney (talk · contribs) Gary King (talk · contribs) Omaga99 (talk · contribs) Protonk (talk · contribs) RSkyhawk (talk · contribs) Samuel Tan (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! GA Sweeps Process The GA Sweeps process has recently reached its first year anniversary. If you are unaware of what GA Sweeps is, it is a process put in place to help ensure the integrity of the ever-growing number of GAs, by determining if the articles still meet the GA criteria. Experienced reviewers check each article, improving articles as they review them, and delisting those that no longer meet the criteria. Reviewers work on a specific category of GAs, and there are still many categories that need to be swept. In order to properly keep track of reviews, a set date was used to determine what articles needed to be reviewed (since any future GAs would be passed according to the most recent GA criteria). The number of GAs that were to be reviewed totals 2,808. Since the beginning of Sweeps, the progress has reviewed 981 by the end of July 2008 (or exempted them). For a table and chart breakdown of the current progress, see here. With more than twenty editors reviewing the articles, progress is currently a third of the way done. At this rate, it will take another two years to complete the Sweeps, and active involvement is imperative to completing on time. We are always looking for new reviewers, and if you are interested in helping in speeding up the Sweeps process and improving your reviewing skills, please contact OhanaUnited. Did You Know... ... that the goal of GA Sweeps is to reviewed all articles listed before 26 August 2007? ... that the entire category of, "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" has been swept? ... that of all subcategories, "Recordings, compositions and performances" in the Music category has the most articles (240 articles in total)? ... that the GA project was recently mentioned in a Wall Street Journal article entitled, "Wikipedians Leave Cyberspace, Meet in Egypt," on Wikipedia on August 8, 2008? From the Editor Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps Correspondent) Nehrams2020 (Article Correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Frank Butler (American football) (talk | history | start review) • Hal Hinte (talk | history | start review) • Wuert Engelmann (talk | history | start review) • Zud Schammel (talk | history | start review) • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Ottawa Senators (original) • British Airways • Siege of Szigetvár • River Don Navigation • Architecture of Denmark • Robbie Fowler • Battle of Plataea • Battle of the Yarmuk • Key Biscayne • History of Poland during the Piast dynasty • Mary McLeod Bethune • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

Hi, I came across the Clean technology (paradigm) and saw that you posted on its talk page. You said you had it redirect to Clean Technology but somehow that doesn't seem to be the case - the old page still exists.?! Thanks Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 17:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, John. I find information about Australian geothermal energy developer Green Rock Energy.[1] I think that probably this company is worth to have its own article in Wikipedia. Maybe you are interested to start this article? Regards. Beagel (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel. What a great name: Green Rock Energy! Stub started... Johnfos (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. Rather than declaring that blogspot.com is not a reliable source, I would appreciate if you could take the time to read the articles cited. I think you will see that each article is in turn supported by reliable sources. Cleantech Investing in Israel is the leading source of information on this narrow topic - Israel's cleantech industry - and I am not sure it is fair to declare it unreliable just because it is blogspot.com rather than .com If any of the individual articles or facts (BrightSource's construction of a solar development center in the Negev, and its expansion plans in Nevada and Arizona), seem unreliable, please let me know. I am somewhat new to Wikipedia and doing my best to make a positive contribution. Thank you. Jonathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jshapira (talk • contribs) 04:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathon. Welcome to wikipedia. Appreciate that you are trying to make a positive contribution. Did you read WP:RS? I think you should also read WP:Verifiability, which says:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.[5]

Hope this helps... Johnfos (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a question on the talk page. Regards, Fleetflame 05:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, replied on Talk page... Johnfos (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be involved in an edit war on Cellulosic ethanol and in violation of WP:3RR. WP:3RR exempts reverting vandalism, but it is not clear that you've been reverting vandalism on this article. Please be careful. Toddst1 (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a section at Talk:Cellulosic ethanol. --Jtir (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. As I mentioned to Todd, I've spent enough time on this issue and am moving on to other things... Johnfos (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. FWIW, the additions were not sourced, so I would have said something like "please cite a verifiable source" or "per WP:V" in the edit summary. --Jtir (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. --Jtir (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the redirects Ceetol and Ceetoh for deletion. You can comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 August 29#Ceetol → Cellulosic ethanol. --Jtir (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnfos. You said about this page: "Main claim to notability is co-authorship of one published book, from what I can see, and we already have an article on that; lots of words, nine refs, but just not enough substance here unfortunately". I don't think that's fair. The subject is also directly responsible for the creation of two Acts of Parliament in Victoria, Australia that are very significant environmentally. If you are prepared to allow a little time for the information to gathered in a legitimate encyclopaedic fashion by neutral parties the 'notability' of the subject can be established. For example have a look at: http://www.climatechange.vic.gov.au/summit/Speakers_Delegates.html#PhillipS Philip Sutton (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philip, Thanks for making contact. I'm yet to get my copy of Climate Code Red, but congratulate you on that initiative. It was a pleasure to start the article on that topic and to keep that page tag-free.

The first thing I would gently ask is: have you won any notable awards for your work, or are you a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, or are you perhaps a highly cited author? Things like that can go a long way to helping to establish the notability of a person on WP.

As for your list of "Discussion Leaders and Summit Delegates", I haven't been through the whole thing, but it seems that most of these people do not have their own article on WP. And it seems to me that that is the way it should be. Unfortunately, we can't have articles on as many people as we would like, due to space and other constraints. Johnfos (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have given a try if it was still unclaimed this weekend. But someone has already done a very thorough review: Talk:Adam_Smith#GA_Review. Thanks anyway for the notice. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. I've been working on the oil reserves article, and was hoping to get it to GA status. Would you be willing to take a look at it?--Work permit (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just skimmed it and my initial impression is that there are not quite enough references, and too many external links. Maybe try to change some of the ext links into refs? Let me know when you've made some improvements and I'll take a closer look... Johnfos (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John for your quick reply. I fixed the reference section to be the list of citations. Is that ok, or do I need to list each reference used in the citations separately? I haven't used any reference that hasn't been explicitly cited. I followed what was done in the featured article 7 World Trade Center. Reduced the external links as well.--Work permit (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my comment about not enough refs was confusing. I simply meant that there are too many paragraphs without any inline citations, see WP:When to cite. Oil shale extraction is a good example of a well-referenced GA, which you may wish to take a look at. Johnfos (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing is that there are too many short or single sentence paragraphs, which are generally frowned upon at GA level. Either expand the point or incorporate it into another para. Hope this helps. Johnfos (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now, thank you very much--Work permit (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just wanted to pass along my thanks for your support in my RfA from earlier this week. I hope I did not disappoint you. I am going on Wikibreak and I will let you know when or if I am back on the site -- I am trying to take time away to clear my thoughts and refocus on this and other priorities. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eco, you are someone I am look forward to working with further, and staying in contact with... best... Johnfos (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Johnfos..it might interest you to join the Claverton Energy Group.....http://energydiscussiongroup.wikispaces.com/

let me have your email and I'll invite you.

Best

Engineman

An article that you have been involved in editing, Non-nuclear future, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-nuclear future. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Simesa (talk) 04:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar. Please keep up the great work that you're doing. Cla68 (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I am back from my WikiBreak with a pair of new energy articles. When you have a chance, please check out Solazyme and WS Energia (that is more of a stub, actually). I also signed up with WikiProject Energy -- I hope to be active in that corner of the project. I hope all is well with you. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Elton John: I'm still standing better than I ever did! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there again. I have noticed you have interest in the subject of bioethanol fuel and the food vs fuel debate. I have work a lot in editing and improving the articles on Ethanol fuel in Brazil and Flexible-fuel vehicle during the past three months, and a bit on Ethanol fuel. I am planning to submit the first two for GA revision, beginning with the article about flex-vehicles, since I still need to work the sections on social and environmental impacts for ethanol in Brazil with full RS, since this is a very controversial issue. I will be doing some nitpicking in the flex-fuel article this coming week before submitting it for GA, and I wonder if you would like to collaborate in reviewing and improving the article, or at least making suggestions. The improvement of the writing/grammar is welcome, as English is a second language to me. See you around.--Mariordo (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mariordo. Good to hear from you again! Yes, you having been doing some good work. I am taking a break from doing GA reviews at the moment, but would be happy to read through Ethanol fuel in Brazil and make some suggestions. Would this be helpful to you? Johnfos (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification on Pseudoscience Category implementation -- Let's get some expert guidance from the Arbcom on the use of this pejorative category tag.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]