User talk:Jimg

Please leave any comments on my contributions here. Thank you.

Edit warring on corporate haven article

Hi Jimg, I noticed you had issues regarding a dispute over the bias in the corporate haven article Here. Its since become a much bigger issue around that editor and has been discussed in the media. I was trying to build a Case of evidence against the user who is breaching so many WP policies it's not funny. You were correct in your assertions. I dont know how its been allowed to continue for so long. btw, the IP that got involved in that discussion is just a sock puppet for the same account. They bring them into every dispute. Heaps of evidence of this sort of nonsense. Renmap0o talk 02:52, 08 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Renmap0o - sorry I'm a bit of a wikipedia amateur - I've posted a reply on your talk page rather than here Jimg (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on MetroLink (Dublin)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page MetroLink (Dublin), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moneypoint / 4.5%

Hi. I must be overlooking something. Can you add a page number or quote to this reference please? Where does the PDF published by SEAI mention Moneypoint? Or associate it with a 4.5% number? If it doesn't, then what's that reference doing there? Guliolopez (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - it's on page 146 - figure 11.6. Coal is listed as 4% in the 12 months to September (I've corrected "under 4.5%" to 4%). It's represented in a pie-chart so I cannot provide a quote. Moneypoint is the only coal-powered generation facility in Ireland. Jimg (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But that's a form of WP:SYNTH. If Moneypoint isn't mentioned in that report, then we can't really use it to stat that "it" (Moneypoint) represents ~4% of anything. (Per SYNTH, which says that we should "not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", we shouldn't combine one source/knowledge (that Moneypoint is the only coal station) with another source/datapoint (that pie chart) to make a statement not stated in either source specifically.) If there is a source which speaks to Moneypoint specifically, then fine. Otherwise we're not in keeping with guidelines there. Guliolopez (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I disagree with your logic here. I understand the importance of checking wikipedia additions and appreciate it requires effort but this is legalism for legalism's sake.

I had started composing a detailed argument on why I disagree that referencing the fact that "coal provided 4% of Ireland's electricity in the last 12 months" as support for the statement that "Moneypoint provided 4% of Ireland's electricity needs" constitutes synthesis. But life is too short.

So feel free to revert if it's important to you.

In doing so, you will leave this article in a far worse state - and will provide a ludicrously inaccurate picture of the electricity sector in Ireland and the importance of Moneypoint and coal to this sector.

And while removing a high quality contemporary reference with up-to-date statistics taken from an official publication by a government body, you will allow the claim that Moneypoint provides "25%" of Ireland's electricity to remain on the basis of:

- a reference to a poorly-archived 13-year-old page taken from the web-site of the owner (ESB Group) of Moneypoint

- a reference which makes NO mention of Moneypoint's share of the generation mix in Ireland, and specifically no mention of "25%"

I'm really not sure what your goal or motivation is here. Preserving factually incorrect and unreferenced information - on the sole basis that it was added long in the past? Or actually contribute to the process of allowing wikipedia articles to be improved.

I've tried improving a very poor, inaccurate and antiquated article, if you really feel it's more important to preserve it such a state than allow my addition, feel free to revert. Jimg (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]