User talk:Pfhenshaw
If alternate views or style preferences are noted, please advise so we can expand or find the right place for all useful views eco@synapse9.com
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Life Cycle Analysis and Total Balance
[edit]You have been editing Wikipedia for awhile, and have made some valuable contributions. Recently, though, you have added material that appears to be advertising. For example, this link is to your own website and, unfortunately, is contrary to WP guidelines. In addition, the new article you created on Total Balance will probably not survive. "Total Balance" is not a term in general use with the meaning you give it. It is thus original research. I am looking into this further and will get back to you. Meanwhile, the links to your site will be removed. I hope that this will be useful information for you and that you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Sunray (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from, but you need some source for the arguments you are making. Remember that Wikipedia shouldn't include original research or synthesis, and all arguments presented here should have been articulated already in some other reliable source. I'm happy to see the addition to the page, if you can cite a source for your viewpoint. On a minor note, I think that calling something a 'misunderstanding' may be too value-laden a term for Wikipedia. Best to stick to more neutral terms. LK (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I've just revisited the page and rearranged the presentation in a manner that perhaps addresses your problems with it. LK (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the theory behind the rebound effect itself is well-understood by economists, although there is disagreement over the size and importance of the effect. Apologies if I didn't make it clear, but I had hoped that the lead to the Rebound effect (conservation) article spells it out clearly. I have read the two papers you link to, and don't find any fundamental differences between their understanding of the rebound effect and my understanding of it. (I don't usually do this, but I can email you a copy of the second paper if you like.)
- The system effect that you talk about is actually covered in the article as it now stands, in section 2.2 Economy wide effects. It's quite well understood by economists, and was modelled by Harry Saunders in his paper on the Khazzom-Brooks Postulate.
- Also, at the bottom of the lead it says: "in which case, efficiency improvements may paradoxically increase energy use", which I gather, is your point. So I don't really understand where you are coming from. Exactly what do you want the page to say in addition?
- LK (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, let me start by saying I have no issue with the content you want to add to the article, however I do have concerns with the way you are going about it. First and foremost, adding your soapbox at the top of the article is inappropriate and that is likely a large part of why your edits are getting reverted. The article has its own "Discussion" page for a reason, and your comments about the removal of your content belong there. Please see WP:BRD for what I think would be an appropriate method of resolving the current dispute. You have "Been Bold" and added your content, which is absolutely the right thing to do, so thank you for that! However, your content was reverted by LK, so he obviously has an interest in the content. Now, before adding your content back in you should discuss the changes with him and resolve his concerns. Only then it is safe to add your revised content back in! It is not correct to put your changes back in first and then try to discuss it, as it will simply keep being reverted, as you have seen. Hopefully that helps you understand why I reverted your changes. Cecilkorik (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- I unfortunately cannot support your edits, as it seems like every time you add your content back in, you also add a billboard to the top of the article complaining about the editing situation. This is unacceptable to me, as a reader. (and indeed, when I first saw that billboard and made my revert, I had started out simply trying to read the article, I do not watch the page) Futhermore, discussing this on individual talk pages (mine, yours, and LK's) is an awkward and unusual way of discussing this. If you would come to the article's discussion page, the discussion would be easily available for all interested parties to contribute to. You may also find more support from regular contributors to the article that way, since you seem to be looking for support for your point of view. The article's regular contributors certainly do not read my talk page, I don't know about yours. Cecilkorik (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Please write your comments on the talk page and not in the article. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 18:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
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) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The article Total balance has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unsourced original research
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)