User talk:SvonFNotH90
Welcome!
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
Editing on climate change mitigation
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Femke (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia editing. I have just reverted two of your edits. If you disagree, you are welcome to open up a discussion on Talk:energy transition and Talk:100% renewable energy, to either compromise or to find out if there is consensus on these changes despite objections. You may want to familiarise yourself with the policy of WP:Neutral point of view and WP:words to watch. Femke (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- The page "100% renewable energy" is clearly impractical and Wikipedia does not acknowledge this fact? SvonFNotH90 (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- You'll be most succesfull in changing the article by engaging on the talk page with good sources, rather than reverting. (fyi, I do agree that 100% renewable energy can use a tweak in the direction you're proposing). Femke (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notice. Luckily our kids know not to rely on Wikipedia for information and would realise that the page is a bit of a 'fanfic' as noted by someone else on the talk page who suggested removal of '100%'. And, if that one point has not been taken seriously since 2017, despite the legal claims of Mark Z Jacobson having been thrown out of court, and so many people deliberately removing any factual references I try to share that point out relevance of numbers and anti-nuclear sentiment within the green agenda, there is very little chance of anything further I suggest making a difference. I don't get paid to be here, unlike the pro-renewable fantasists who refuse to accept truth over ideology. SvonFNotH90 (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- You'll be most succesfull in changing the article by engaging on the talk page with good sources, rather than reverting. (fyi, I do agree that 100% renewable energy can use a tweak in the direction you're proposing). Femke (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- The page "100% renewable energy" is clearly impractical and Wikipedia does not acknowledge this fact? SvonFNotH90 (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- if you ever decide to come back, please bear in mind that a continued WP:focus on content is the best way forward. Insulting people and caring aspersions about WP:paid editing will not get you far. Femke (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am sorry, it wasn't meant to be an insult and I do appreciate your feedback. What I say is from experience. I don't know your personal background.
- We all have different perspectives, so what I say above could seem like an aspersion, but I am simply being honest in acknowledging that the logic as to how anyone might expect sunshine and wind - even with hydro-electricity is flawed and cannot be trusted. Without honest and open explanations, we have blind spots in the rationale. The message is becomes muddied and biased against real solutions. I just hope that more and more people are realising that the blind spots become a weakness that can be exploited, if inadvertently, by the fossil fuel industry. SvonFNotH90 (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- if you ever decide to come back, please bear in mind that a continued WP:focus on content is the best way forward. Insulting people and caring aspersions about WP:paid editing will not get you far. Femke (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)