User talk:RobbieIanMorrison

Hello RobbieIanMorrison, I saw that you are one of the authors of School strike for climate article. Because I am looking for ways to reduce the environmental impact of Wikipedia itself, I wanted to ask you to check out the Sustainability Initiative and to add your name to the list of supporters so that I can show that many community members are behind this effort. Thanks! --Gnom (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gnom Thanks for letting me know. I just added my name. Are you aware of Hiltner (2018) and his nearly carbon-neutral conference (NCNC) model?^[1] There are inclusion benefits too with NCNC. With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow, thank you, I will take a look! --Gnom (talk)

Hi again Gnom. The document is very sensible. One change I would consider is not using "shuttle" email for the discussion over days or even weeks, but rather a chat service (like Mattermost) and limit the period to say two days. Good luck. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, can you look at this change done on the page. I think that this information could be reverted as it is not connected with the topic of the page... Jirka Dl (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jirka Dl. I agree that that information is not relevant on the School strike for climate page. But it is appropriate for the article on Greta if reworked. I made that suggestion on the school strike talk page. Perhaps others will agree? Thanks for raising the issue. HTH. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi RobbieIanMorrison - this is exactly what I was thinking about - I tried to look the references in the paragraph - only start of the article is available - even if references are cited as English, they are in Swedish - there are continuous attacks on the page Greta Thunberg from the very beginning - look for the discussion page there - and this one looks also to be little bit similar (but probably much more close to reality) - there is a long explanation from Greta on her facebook page - "Ps I was briefly a youth advisor for the board of the non profit foundation “We don’t have time”. It turns out they used my name as part of another branch of their organisation that is a start up business. They have admitted clearly that they did so without the knowledge of me or my family. I no longer have any connection to “We don’t have time”. Nor does anyone in my family. They have deeply apologised for what has happened and I have accepted their apology." And maybe in this sense short information should be on the page. Jirka Dl (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi again Jirka Dl. Thanks for the update. I added the PS from Greta's facebook page to the talk page on school strikes. The level of abuse that Greta receives is concerning, that is not how we should treat each other. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi RobbieIanMorrison - I added {{cleanup}} template to the page - I have not found better solution. Jirka Dl (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi again Jirka Dl. I usually favor some discussion before rolling back edits. The original author can at least see that their efforts were not summarily removed. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Please recall that at Talk:Greta Thunberg, I caused chaos with a preliminary floating of the question "what if we merged" during the WDHT discussion. Today I gathered all the merge discussion in one place. After it was dead, you and I exchanged a single round of comments about edit conflict. Talking about having an edit conflict contributed nothing, so ... apologies for presuming... but I deleted that "noise". Everything you said about article content and merger is still there. I hope you don't mind, I'll restore it if you object. Have a great day! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy (Another merge conflict.) I personally would have left the traffic as it stood. In my view, the prospect of a merge is zero. But that should, of course, not preclude discussion. On the other theme, the WDHT text, I'm going to push WMF legal to establish child protection advocacy: that underlying issue cannot be resolved by random editors on specific talk pages. I am now of the view that European fundamental rights apply to wikipedia pages served into Europe and that WMF has a duty of care to act in the best interests of minors. They need to operationalize that duty of care. With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Excellent! Taking those concerns to the real attorneys at the foundation is exactly the best thing that can be done with them. Thanks for (A) caring and (B) investing effort. I look forward to hearing about future developments. As for merge, of course its dead. I've already said four or five or six times that I was floating a feeler not making a proposal and even the feeler already returned results that a real proposal would be DOA. Moving on now.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy. For your information, I forwarded my concerns to WMF legal today and would expect to get a response in due course. I think this is a significant issue. With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks for doing that. Part of me assumes they keep a close eye on this and may already have concluded that existing policies are adequate. After all, you are approaching this from the desire to set a high bar to protect the kids (and good for you!). The attorneys job is (usually) to verify minimum compliance. I'm cheering for you, though I am not holding my breath in the meantime. Sorry to say, just trying to be friendly and realistic. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy I'm sure I'll hear back from legal, so we'll see how that goes. Maybe you're right? Time will tell. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Creative Commons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mountain View. 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) 06:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited YAML, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page String.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Robbie, could you help me? I just tried to read the article Quaid-e-Azam Solar Park and was shocked. According to the article, the solar farm must have been an utter failure of the worst kind. But after looking up the sources that should back those claims, I feel puzzled as they don't back those harsh criticism. In fact it seems as if an Wikipedia author has made up most of the criticism by himself or at least misquoted his sources such as making sourced factual statements about capacity factor or prices, but adding how inadequate, expensive or riddled with flaws everything is. It seems as if this is the main source for all that bashing, but after reading it, I cannot comprehend how that article lead to all that harsh condemnation. Above all it seems to me that the author who has written that Wikipedia article is lacking knowledge about how PV works and what is normal. For example he seems to expect a solar power plant to work all around the clock, and because it doesn't, it has to be a failure. I've deleted a similar claim in the past , but it is still suggested. In fact, the article mentions that it only produces 18 out of 100 MW several times. And there are many other similar issues as well. Could you check that. As a non-native-speaker its difficult for me to describe all the issues and flaws there, and I don't think that I could provide a completely new article, which I think is needed. And as an Wikipedian who mostly writes in the German Wikipedia, I don't have the knowledge about all that quality control pages that exist here and would be firmly needed. Therefore I thought about you. I know you are an energy researcher, having the knowledge to correct that article, or at least can initiate the quality control processes. Thank you! Andol (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Andol: will have a look tomorrow. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Andol (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Small update: It seems as if most of the controverial/manipulative edits (e.g. ) have been made by an user who has been banned due to similar behavior in other articles. And I have also just noticed that another user tried to rewrite the article yesterday after my comment here, though it seems mostly without sources, which is also not the way it should be done. Andol (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Andol: thanks for the update. I will still have a look this evening. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Andol: I read through the article and made some trivial edits. There seems to be quite a lot of commercial and political dispute, but I didn't find anything in the engineering content that I would object to. The recent changes you indicated seemed to have fixed those issues. Thanks for being vigilant. Beste Grüße! RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that! Thank you for your help! Andol (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi RobbieIanMorrison, I work for ADNOC and I recently posted an edit request on Talk:Sultan Al Jaber. I noticed that you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy, so I was hoping you would have an interest in implementing those straightforward edits. Thanks so much. CB at ADNOC (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello CB at ADNOC. I don't have any background in conventional energy or even much background in emerging technologies. Nor any knowledge of the Middle East. My principle interests are the numerical modeling of systems and advocating for access to suitably licensed public datasets. So I don't think I can contribute in this particular instance. Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison: Your not baling out of Wikipedia perchance, are you? I know coi from experience that its a pain in the canker. scope_creep^Talk

@Scope creep: No chance — I'm way too addicted. ☺ I work on open data in my spare time as well: doi:10.5281/zenodo.6321004. Take care, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Nice addition to Open source license litigation; the only issue is is it's got too much detail for a section, with the result that it gives undue weight to this litigation.

In my assessment, the case has enough coverage to clearly pass notability to have its own article; and you've included enough quality references to make that clear.

It looks like you copied/pasted this from your draft at User:RobbieIanMorrison/sandbox/work in progress eW4bo3. What I propose is:

1. Moving User:RobbieIanMorrison/sandbox/work in progress eW4bo3 to Draft:Geniatech v. McHardy (this allows editors other than you to edit it; by convention, your sandbox is your own space and other editors will not revise text there uninvited);
2. revising Draft:Geniatech v. McHardy to conform to standard article format
3. moving Draft:Geniatech v. McHardy to mainspace article Geniatech v. McHardy;
4. trimming the text you added on Open source license litigation to a shorter summary; and
5. continuing to revise, clean up and extend Geniatech v. McHardy.

Any objection? I've long thought the McHardy litigation merited Wikipedia coverage. TJRC (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

That sounds excellent!

I ran the draft content past an open source law and technology community I belong to, so it should be reasonably accurate and capture most of the pertinent literature. Indeed I included the following sentiment when announcing the live version to that community: "Given the length, there may be some pressure to push this section out to a stand‑alone page and then include a precis in the parent page?" So no real surprises then. Just the speed of reaction! On a technical note, the live version was just a copy‑paste, so drawing directly from my user space stub is the correct thing to do. Finally, am happy to let someone else "create" the new article — it does not have to be under my username, if that is how it works?

I am willing to write the precis for the parent page too (particularly given my familiarity with the material).

Regarding that series of events from McHardy and his legal advisor, yeh, certainly notable and hopefully some lessons can flow from some added coverage too.

In case I need to ping @TJRC: please note my reply. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I saw you had contributed to the Peter Kalmus page and wondered if you would be interested in writing about the app mentioned in the page: Earth Hero . I can't because I used to be involved in the all-volunteer team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cydparr (talk • contribs) 22:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Cydparr. Can you tell me something of the software development and in particular the licensing arrangements. I am much more inclined to contribute here if genuinely open source. I could not see anything on the Earth Hero landing page covering the more technical aspects. Also, sorry for my slow reply but I have been on holiday. Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Wow what a coincidence to visit this userpage today, happy birthday

Race To Oblivion (ネザーへのハイウェイ) (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

	Barnstar of Balloons
	Thanks for adding your photo of a discarded balloon to the relevant section of Balloon. It's a great image for illustrating the problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: many thanks. I have about six such images of different spent balloons in my private photo library. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add irrelevant content at Canadian (canoe) that is not related with the byname 'Canadian' for canoe and already covered on the other pages about Canoe and Canoeing on Wikipedia. Kanoniem (talk) 10:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kanoniem: Could you explain please? Is there some special definition of "canadian" in this context that I am not aware of. I thought that image particularly relevant on two counts. It shows what I understand to be a canadian canoe used for touring and loaded with camping equipment. And it shows an aluminium construction. Perhaps this discussion might be better on the talk page? Regards, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see "birch bark" construction .. but is that really the case? My photo looks like a "descendant" to me. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The page about Canadian canoe is not about canoes but is about the byname Canadian for canoe like ping-pong is the byname for Table tennis and Seltzer for carbonated water. Photos or drawings must above all support the text present in order to illustrate what is stated in the text, so that one can see what you are writing about. A loaded aluminum touring canoe is not illustrating anything here, except it is just an example of a canoe that is also called a canadian canoe by many people. But so are all the other canoes on this page. Kanoniem (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kanoniem: Thanks for the explanation. I cannot say I fully understand. But there is a page on canoe camping and I will head over there instead. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Canoe_camping is the right place for such an illustration. Also I agree this is a subject that can take some time to understand, especially when you are living in Germany (or the Netherlands, as I do.) Kanoniem (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi RobbieIanMorrison! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Just Stop Oil several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Just Stop Oil, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Add onto this that you're now at 3 reverts, plus the original addition. Please do not revert again per WP:3RR. — Czello ^(music) 18:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

To note that I did try twice to engage. First on the users Talk page and then on the article Talk page. In latter case, my adversary, if you like, rolled back without engaging. It has been difficult to sift through the issues in such circumstances. These exchanges have been very legalistic and I guess I need to accept that that style of interaction will sometimes occur on Wikipedia. Only very latterly did the other editor engage sensibly. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Open energy system models, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Python.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Now fixed. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

About this edit; there is no instituion called Technical University of Berlin. That's just a mistranslation (arising from the false cognate Technische Universität; in German a technical university is a completely different type of higher education institution). Even the university has issued multiple statements indicating that this is merely a misnomer/mistranslation. SFBB (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@SFBB: I wrote the section you refer to in discussion with staff at the TU‑Berlin. I'll contact that research group and ask their views on this question and will be guided by their response. I am broadly familiar with the tertiary education system in Germany. Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Take a look here (this is one of the many communications of the university; merely the first one I found). I worked at TU-Berlin many years ago (long enough to be able to write here with neutrality), and back then there was a big uproar that the proper translation was Berlin Institute of Technology and never Technical University of Berlin (a mistranslation that has never been endorsed by TU Berlin). Some years later, it was decided that Technische Universität Berlin was never to be translated. Best, SFBB (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@SFBB: Have just emailed the associated research group to ask their view on this question. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@SFBB The research group are fine with the Deutsch version. As a matter of protocol, I would have preferred that the article not be edited with that change until after the research group concerned had responded. You may not agree, but I like to keep in contact with the subjects I write about, where appropriate. It seems more respectful to me. And for the record, I did not "invent" any names (as per your commit message), the original text was cleared by the research group in question. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not the German version. It's the English version. The name of the university in English is Technische Universität Berlin (and there are many document proving that). Technical University of Berlin *does not exist*. It does not matter whether a text was "cleared" by a research group (which may not necessarily be aware of this). Just check the webpage (or any documentation) of the university. The other name simply does not exist. SFBB (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not and have not disputed the policy of the university administration in this regard. I simply said that, as an editor, I would leave it up to the primary research group to state how they wished to be represented. In addition, I am a little upset that you did not let that loop complete. In my estimation, the view of the research group takes precedence over your views. In any case, we now have a resolution that seems to satisfy everyone's needs. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Sony α6600. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade: Thanks. I am usually much more careful with sources — having added 200 or so peer reviewed journal articles to one page I help curate. I own that particular Sony camera so writing about the specs should be straightforward. Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Sony α6600, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: Many thanks. My first effort was patently thin and rightfully shifted to the Draft space. But three hours of proper effort and we now have a usable article with sufficient sources. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Per ardua ad astra! :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Please listen to the advice of reviewers. This draft is a WP:BLP1E.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gaie Delap and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

If you were to submit Draft:Gaie Delap I would be happy to accept. Theroadislong (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: Okay, let's do that. It will be resubmitted in one minute. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: Great, that article is now thru! Many thanks. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to draft articles, as you did to List of whistleblowers. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Arjayay: Sorry, I won't make that mistake again. Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)