User talk:Marshelec/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Marshelec. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have gone back to an article I created a long time ago, Marlborough Lines Limited, to find that it has been given a maintenance tag about over-reliance on Primary Sources. I understand the need to have a good mix of secondary sources to balance out primary ones. However, an electricity lines business is a regulated natural monopoly, and is not in the news much. It is quite difficult to find secondary sources that back up the factual and historic information available from primary sources. I have had a look at National Archives and the Papers Past available from National Library, but without much success so far. I did get some useful content from the Marlborough Express newspaper. Any suggestions ? Ideally I would like to get to a point where the maintenance tag can be removed, but I am not sure this is possible ? Marshelec (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

A maintenance tag is not a death sentence for an article; its purpose is to encourage other editors to pitch in and help with the article. The tag can stay there for an arbitrary length of time. Eventually, one of two things will happen: 1) additional references will be added that allow the tag to be removed or 2) it will become evident that the sort of references needed for there to be an article are not going to appear and whatever standards are in place on Wikipedia at the time decree that the article has to be deleted. Additional original research on your part is not going to solve this. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Way back in 2012, I made a proposal to undertake a major rewrite of Power system protection - see Talk:Power system protection

However, it has taken a few life changes since then, and global pandemic for me to get back onto this :). The article has not moved much in all that time, and is still relatively undeveloped. I see that it has been tagged as a Level 5 Vital article.

I have made a small start on a total rewrite of this article, but I am uncertain about the right level to pitch this to.

There are many text books on Protection for those who wish to explore the subject in great depth. However, my reading of references to date suggests that there is not much available that treats this subject at an introductory level and in a non-mathematical way.

For this Wikipedia article I don't think a text book style approach is necessary or appropriate. Many text books are available, written by authors who are more qualified than me. Summarising a text book also does not seem realistic or even necessary. I don't propose to set out explanations that require the reader to understand the mathematical representations of impedance, phase angle, symmetrical components, or be familiar with mathematical representations of power systems and short-circuit and load flow analysis etc.

Instead, I am proposing a simple narrative description style, supported with a few basic illustrations. The objective would be to provide a high level overview for someone who does not have a background in electrical engineering or physics.

However, I am still a bit unsure, and would appreciate feedback before I go too much further.

Here is a link to a draft in my username space where I have made a small start: User:Marshelec/Power-System Protection

Here is a simple diagram I created that I could use to describe time-based co-ordination of protection, without resorting to mathematics

Although it is quite time-consuming, I could produce a range of diagrams like this to illustrate different types of protection scheme at a high level.

The core question is: who is the audience that I should target ?

Feedback would be great :) Marshelec (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Kia ora, I noticed you are wanting to connect to other editors for the water in NZ article. If you use facebook there is a private group that you could join 'Wikipedia New Zealand'. I put requests form other editors there. I am a new user too and learning as I go. Pakoire (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I will give that a try :) Marshelec (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I plan to prepare a new article on the large and historic irrigation scheme in mid-Canterbury - the Rangitata Diversion Race.

I would like to incorporate illustrations, including a good map of the irrigation canal route, because the route is an important part of the story.

My problem is not knowing the best way to go about this. I am a novice user of Inkscape, and I could potentially use the layers in Inkscape to highlight the route, if I could get a good quality map as the base layer. What I am looking for is a result something like what is available at this website reference: https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/place/37967

However, I don't really understand license arrangements or where/how I can get access to a base layer map that I can use without breaching a licence. The licence statement at the bottom of the Linz website may refer to the Gazetteer tool they use, rather than the resulting image, but I am unsure about this.

I would greatly appreciate some guidance here.

Marshelec (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Marshelec:, although I can't answer HOW to get a base layer map, I can answer your question about licencing. If the data is obtained from the link you gave, New Zealand Gazetteer, then this can be used (and/or edited for use) on Wikipedia as it says on the bottom of the page "New Zealand Gazetteer by the NZGB is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License" which is a Wikipedia supported licence as

You are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format

Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

Under the following terms:

Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

This is supported on Wikipedia. Hope this helps - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 09:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Marshelec

Thank you for creating Water supply and sanitation in the Wellington region.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@North8000: Thanks for taking the time to examine the article, and for providing feedback. It is most appreciated. I have other Wikipedia projects underway at present, and it is encouraging to get this feedback. I still have more content I plan to add to the article, including a few photos, but this will have to wait for a convenient time when I can go and take these myself in suitable weather/lighting.Marshelec (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I seek some feedback and help with a couple of points related to an article about the Rangitata Diversion Race I am currently developing in my username space: User:Marshelec/Rangitata Diversion Race

1. Route map, and attribution to LINZ I have developed a route map of the Rangitata Diversion race, using a 1:250,000 scale topo map as a base. See an image of the draft illustration here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1mCJkP8ec3gIOHSmqTeHANCAP73xA0Ffs

My question relates to the attribution that LINZ says is required when their maps are used for other purposes. They list: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. See: https://www.linz.govt.nz/linz-copyright

I have previously uploaded illustrations and photos I have made myself into Wikimedia Commons for use in articles, and that was straightforward. However, I am not exactly clear how to meet the requirements for attribution in this case where the base image is from LINZ, but I have selected the frame and added the highlighted route of the RDR.

Can you advise how to meet the requirements, or point me to an example of something similar ?

2. Scope of the RDR article - esp criticisms/ negative impacts I am unsure how far to go in this article in exploring criticisms and negative impacts of the RDR. There are certainly references in news articles to salmon anglers concerns about the degraded state of the Rangitata River, but it is not entirely clear how much this degradation is attributable to the abstraction of water for the RDR since 1945. There are also the wider issues of the large expansion in cropping and dairy farming that has been made possible by irrigation, and the pollution of ground water from irrigated land (particularly dairying). I think these topics are probably too broad to be canvassed in this article but I am not totally sure.

Any feedback would be most appreciated. Thanks, Marshelec (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

To 1 – that's quite straightforward. When you upload the file to Commons, simply state in the description that the base map comes from LINZ. Keep the CC-BY-SA 4.0 licence that LINZ is using.

To 2 – when it's controversial, you really have to stick to what it is that reliable sources say. Don't draw any further conclusions from all of it.

I hope that's helpful. I've done a few small edits. The article is good; it's ready for mainspace. Do you know how to move it? Schwede66 22:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Many thanks for your recent assistance with this, and other articles I have created. I promise not to leave superfluous line breaks in future work :) I have now moved the article into mainspace. See: Rangitata Diversion Race Marshelec (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Can you briefly help me with advice about how to request an assessment of an article ? From time to time, I may get an article to a stage where a change in the Quality rating could be considered. One such example is: Aurora Energy (New Zealand). Presumably this assessment should be independent of main contributors :) Is there a standard system for requesting an assessment ? Marshelec (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Please guide me about a proposed change in Category classifications that would apply to all electricity distribution businesses in New Zealand.

The category: Electric power transmission system operators in New Zealand is consistent with practice for other countries. However, it is narrow in scope in the New Zealand context. There is only one true transmission system operator in New Zealand: Transpower. The other lines businesses, such as Aurora Energy (New Zealand), are all electricity distribution businesses. The standard industry descriptions would never classify Aurora or Orion New Zealand etc as transmission companies.

Searching for precedents in Wikipedia about electricity distribution, I found that there is a separate category Electric power distribution network operators specifically for distribution businesses, and that this includes a set of sub-categories for electricity lines distribution businesses in individual countries.

At present, the Wikipedia articles for electricity lines businesses in New Zealand are mostly categorised as: Electric power companies of New Zealand. However, this set includes generators, retailers and lines businesses, and this mixture is not in accordance with what I have found for Australia, Canada and the UK, where they have the category Electric power distribution network operators for that country. We have a reasonably large number of electricity lines businesses in New Zealand (27 I think), although not all of these have Wikipedia articles at present.

Here is what I propose:

1. establish a new category: Electric power distribution network operators in New Zealand (and parent this to the global category listed above, as well as to Electric power companies of New Zealand
2. reclassify all existing New Zealand electricity distribution businesses into the newly created category

Does that seem appropriate ? I am unsure how to create a new category, but with guidance I can probably undertake this myself, if it is the right thing to do. Marshelec (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that the categorisation doesn't seem to fit our situation very well. I can't say that sorting out existing categories is my specialisation. BrownHairedGirl does a lot of work in this space and I'm sure she could provide good guidance. Schwede66 09:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Schwede66: thanks for the ping. Here in Ireland, we have moved in the last two decades from having a monopoly generator/distributor/supplier of electricity (the Electricity Supply Board (ESB) to having a competitive system imposed by the EU, in which a regulated distribution monopoly (ESB Networks at local level and EirGrid for the long-distance) distributes power from multiple generating companies on behalf of multiple supply companies (who bill customers). So basically you have a set of generating companies, a set of billing companies, and a distribution company.

(Personally, I think this is all another neoliberal scam which adds huge massive managerial complexity and thereby reduces efficiency, but allows more private companies to cream off profits. But that's my POV; it is as it is).

This pseudo-competitive model was imposed by European Union directives, basically adopting the model created in the UK when it privatised most of its electricity system in 1990. So every European country now has a similar structure. And -- key point for this discussion -- it seems from the above that NZ now has a similar model.

I don't recall having done any work on electricity-related categories, so I don't know those category trees. But since the UK and the 27 EU countries all now have a similar structure for their electricity businesses, I suggest that it would be worth taking a look there to see if some of that offers a suitable model for NZ categories.

Hope this is some help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, the New Zealand restructuring was designed when I came to this country (in 1996) and I thought to myself that it "would never, ever deliver cheaper electricity to people. What is going on?" It was all about a big wealth transfer is what I concluded later; the consumer sure ended up paying lots more. Marshelec, the suggestion to see how the category system is organised for European countries is a good one. Have a look and let us know whether there's something we can learn from that; it makes it a lot easier if we simply adopt a system that's used elsewhere. Schwede66 19:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Schwede66: yes, it's one of the standard models of neoliberal economics: take public goods, and convert them into cash cows for the people who engage in the economic parasitism of rent-seeking. Usually accompanied by sale of public goods at firesale prices, where the buyers recoup the purchase price within 5 years and then rake in cash for ever more. What a world.

@Marshelec, the main thing here is to see if the business models are similar. If the NZ leccy system has been sliced up in the same way as the UK/EU model, then the cat structures should be similar; if not, a rethink is needed. If you'd like help in setting up a new category structure, please lemme know, and I'll make time to do some research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Thanks for the feedback. I spent almost 40 years working as a professional engineer in the electricity industry in New Zealand. Our previously integrated (and largely state-owned) generation sector was partially privatised, electricity retailing was made competitive and formally separated from lines distribution businesses, and a nodal-priced wholesale electricity spot market was introduced. Several (but not all) of the electricity lines businesses were privatised. So our model is very similar to other western models that followed the neo-liberal agenda. In general, the electricity system here runs reasonably well, and is mostly maintained in a good state and with a view to the future. However, affordability is an issue for many end customers. The privatised companies extract dividends that in some cases flow out of the country. New Zealanders were told that these changes would lead to lower prices, but of course that hasn't happened. With respect to the categorisation of articles, I have decided to follow WP:BOLD, and have just gone ahead and created the new category for electricity distribution businesses, and amended the categories for all existing articles on our various distribution companies. So it is done. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Electric_power_distribution_network_operators_in_New_Zealand Marshelec (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Marshelec. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.