User talk:TeH nOmInAtOr

If you leave me a message here I will reply as soon as I have time.

Please stop removing external links from articles without prior discussion. —Tobias Bergemann (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Why are you removing external links wholesale ? I agree that Wikipedia is not a link farm, but somne of those links are useful. By all means suggest a cull of links (article talk pages are the proper place to do this), but please stop this wholesale slaughter ! I am going to revert some of your removals, pending an explanation or discussion. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please stop. You may also want to read the official guidelines about external links to see what sorts of external links are generally considered to be acceptable. Klausness (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stopped TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you are acting in good faith, but it is best if featured articles are nominated by people who have worked closely on them. In this way, they can give reasoned replies to reviewers and be familiar enough with the sources to act on suggested improvements. Someone who has not worked on the article can not provide this input, so the nomination may continue until opposition to it becomes so overwhelming that the article is failed; this takes away time from reviewers. While the Eminem article is of reasonable quality, it is not yet of featured quality, and principal contributors must be consulted before a nomination, as required in the featured article candidate instructions. You might consider first working the article up through peer review and good article candidacy to prepare for its nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is already GA status TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be a significant contributor to be able nominate an article for FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain here how your oppose relates to the the featured article criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Template:Renewable energy sources, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please, don't get cute. We keep them in alphabetical order for a reason - so that no one can disagree with their order. And no, we do not selectively choose reverse alphabetic order, ever. 199.125.109.98 (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No really; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia-servers-2008-11-10.svg . Rich Farmbrough, 16:13 7 March 2009 (UTC).

Would you consider nominating this article for T:DYK? It certainly meets the criteria. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using an edit summary of "see talk page for rationale" on Wind power in the United States is a bit far fetched considering you have never made a single edit to Talk:Wind power in the United States and all the questions there about the table columns you deleted were thoroughly answered. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lengthy discussion on the talk page titled "50m wind power potential". I suggest you read it. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That question was resolved way back in December. It is a non-issue at this point. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are always glad to have more FAC reviewers. However, I've noticed several opposes (and a support) from you that were not entirely based on the Featured article criteria:

• You opposed one article because you believed it was 'too short' and 'not important enough';
• You opposed several articles today because they had 'zero references in the lead'; and
• You supported one article today but commented that it had 'no peer review' and 'redlinks are bad style'.

None of these comments are based on the featured article criteria. There is no length or importance criterion; no requirement for citations in the lead (as it is just a summary of the article); no requirement to go through peer review or any other process prior to FAC; and redlinks are beneficial when they point to articles that should exist.

Opposes that are not based on the criteria are considered unactionable and discounted when it comes to building consensus for a decision on promotion; they're also confusing to newer nominators who may not themselves be fully aware of the criteria. I understand that you are new at this, and it takes some time to learn the ropes, but I hope you will take the time to re-read the criteria and make sure to base your reviews on them in the future. Thank you. Maralia (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please review WP:LEAD and WP:RED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed that you've been reviewing nominations at Featured Article Candidates. Thank you for your help, and I hope you will continue to contribute! You may already be familiar with the FAC criteria by now, but in case you aren't, you can check out the featured article criteria. Also, the following dispatches are useful for reviewing nominations:

• Reviewers achieving excellence
• Reviewing images (free images / non-free images)
• Reliable sources in content review processes

The best way to learn is by doing, but here is also a quick reference of the things to check for each nomination you review:

Quick Reference It is— (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate; (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: (a) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; (b) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and (c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended). Images. It has images that follow the image use policies and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Useful Links Featured articles Featured article candidates Featured article review Featured article log

Thanks again for your help! I look forward to continuing to work with you at FAC, and if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me or anyone else at FAC. Now get to reviewing some noms! Dabomb87 (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You removed this material from Wind power in Ohio, with the edit summary "copy vio". I reverted your edit because the material is not a copyright violation. It's all rewritten from the cited sources, and the images in the gallery are publications of the U.S. Federal Government and therefore in the public domain. If you have questions about the article, please discuss them on Talk:Wind power in Ohio. --Teratornis (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Wind power in Ohio for reply. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Teratornis (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of your recent edits relating to hydropower (for example), you may be interested in reading David J. C. MacKay's book, Sustainable Energy - without the hot air, where he discusses the amount of new Pumped-storage hydroelectricity capacity that a nation such as the U.K. would have to build to back up its expanded wind power under several energy plans. For example, on page 210 he describes the need for "pumped-storage facilities equal to 400 Dinorwigs" to "completely replace wind for a national lull lasting 2 days" in his sample energy plan that uses the maximum amount of wind power. (For the U.S., multiply by about 10, i.e., roughly 1000 more Raccoon Mountains in a maximum-wind energy plan, although the U.S. might be at lower risk of a national wind lull since the U.S. is much larger than the U.K. and has multiple climate zones. Still, the U.S. undoubtedly needs a very large increase in pumped storage if it wants to get off fossil fuels.) Since a large pumped-storage plant takes years to build (Raccoon Mountain took 8 years), and will likely attract the usual NIMBY objections, there is a risk of wind power development outpacing the necessary expansion of grid energy storage capacity. I have seen a lot of publicity about all the new wind farms under construction, but very little about the construction of additional pumped-storage capacity to provide the necessary load balancing. Pumped storage is not the only solution, see also Smart grid, but it will take more than just a smart grid to handle an extended regional lull in wind. --Teratornis (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]