User talk:Fiftytwo thirty

If I left you a message please reply at your talk page. If you left me a message, I will reply here.

I will usually send you a Talkback notice unless we are in an ongoing discussion or your userpage specifically says that you are watching for responses.
When you reply at another place, drop me a Talkback note here and I will get a nice annoying orange box like the one you are currently reading vying for my attention.
I am always happy to answer your questions, ask away. Please be civil and courteous, for you will get a civil, courteous, and thorough answer.
I'm human and I make mistakes. Lots of em.

Leave a New Message

Archives

Page Review

Hi Fiftytwo Thirty, apologies for not having any references on the new page, laptop crashed while I was working on that. Will update shortly.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finchy19 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Don Blankenship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gust

Please do not delete my article yet, I am still working on it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegust42069 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is a draft, please create it as a Draft at Draft:My Article. Please also see WP:Autobiography -- we highly discourage autobiographies here. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spacetime topology

Thank you for the advice and instruction. For now, could you move the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime_topology to my sandbox Vitumanity/sandbox/Universal_Topology_of_Physics ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitumanity (talk • contribs) 16:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I move it to your sandbox then it won't be available in the main encyclopedia. Can you make the edits you want on Spacetime topology? And if you want to move it, I'd recommend posting on the article's talk page(Talk:Spacetime topology) to gain consensus for the move. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok to move the page to my sandbox since the edits were updated there already. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitumanity (talk • contribs) 16:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I won't move a page from the main encyclopedia to your user space. Why can't you edit the page where it is now? --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Masters Tournament

I filled in the article. I was planning on creating it today anyway. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moss Landing Power Plant

Thanks for your edits on the Moss Landing Power Plant!! Overall, the article looks a lot better than it was.

I have a question/request...rather than doing one very large edit in which you re-work the entire page, it is my opinion that it would be better to do several smaller edits (add infobox, move sections, re-work lead, etc.) so that if someone objects to some of your edits, rather than reverting your whole re-work, they could only revert the edits that they have problems with and state why, and then those edits could be discussed, while the others could stand.

Your thoughts? Avatar317 (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Avatar317[reply]

Hey thanks for the note. I get your point that it's better to rework things in chunks, but at the same time it's a little hard because I was reorganizing most of the article while I was at it. Sometimes people will get to revert-happy or edit conflict as I'm still fixing things up so hence why I tend to drop big edits at once.

On to the thing we disagree on--the removal of the block quote. Here's the rub--I don't feel like the block quote adds much to the article beyond the paraphrase. All it basically says is that PG&E can build more power plants instead of buying power and get a rate of return and hence there's more unnecessary competition with this plant. The quote doesn't mention the plant directly at all -- so I feel that it's a bit unnecessary. Stylistically, this big quote doesn't seem very encyclopedic in nature (see WP:LONGQUOTE).

Furthermore, devoting such a big part of the article to this quote almost seems to put WP:UNDUE weight upon the role of PG&E in the plant's closure. Many other factors in are at play here in creating low wholesale prices for electricity, such as the explosive growth of renewables, especially solar in California and neighboring states and the fact that residential electricity growth has stagnated since 2010 when it previously grew steadily [1].

So, for these two reasons I think the quote should be left out of the articles and the footnotes. If people want more info, they can take a look at the (excellent) LA times article in the references. Let me know what you think. Cheers! --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Actually I TOTALLY agree with you about the block quote IN the article, it did add undue weight, and I didn't take the time to summarize it as you did. Your excellent summary of the points make the article much better, and weighted properly. Thank you!!!

I do like having the quote in the references though, because I feel that the quote helps people understand the numbers somewhat better, and the paragraphs in the block quote are pulled from several different places in the article. I don't know (are there any statistics on this?) how many people ever bother to click-through and view the referenced article, (we can't really tell if they READ the reference) but if you can see this info easily on mouse-over, I feel that it is helpful.

I'll admit that it makes for an uglier looking reference section, but I tend to prioritize utility of access to information over prettiness....I'll remove the first and last paragraphs of the block quote because I don't feel they add as much as the middle two....another reason I like having quotes is that it makes it easier for someone to locate info in the referenced article and maybe less likely to challenge/delete the statements as unsupported? I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia so I don't know how likely that is to happen.

Avatar317 (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Avatar317[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Fiftytwo thirty. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]