Talk:Claude "Bud" Lewis Carlsbad Desalination Plant/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

POV

This isn't an article, it's an editorial. Rsduhamel (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Image overflow

I have removed the image File:Carlsbad desalination plant2.jpg from the article, as the article is too short to support it, and it is largely redundant to the image in the infobox. See MOS:IMAGES and WP:IQUEUE for best practices on image placement and inclusion. Ibadibam (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Image

You should mention that the picture is not of a desalination plant. It is a picture of a very old Sempra/SDGE energy plant. The new plant will be 10x this size. Instead, you should add a copy of the plans, or artist's rendition. It will be next door to the old plant, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.178.120.235 (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I have searched and there are no publicly available, non-copyright images that I can find. The image does depict the area where the plant will be, but if a better image can be found that would be great.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I added a caption trying to explain this context. Ibadibam (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of content

I'm sorry, but I'm disturbed by your wholesale elimination of good data that I put in this article. I did see some good data that you put in, especially the early history of the project, but I do not think that justifies what you removed in your edits.

Let me be more specific:

It is true did that I had some quotes (which I noted in the text). I honestly did not think I was plagarizing, but it was certainly fixable. I would have converted these to paraphrasing or summarization had I been given the chance -- which you did not allow me.

I am also surprised ... NONE of what I put there was in any way "advertising"! Everything I said was factual, and as far as I know none of it was slanted. How you could think so baffles me (and if you have any specific examples, please send them to me). I have no connection with the project or to anyone connected with it (to the best of my knowledge), and I am not promoting it in any way, but rather trying to FULLY explain it. It is true that I live in San Diego County, and will be one of the people paying for it, and in these drought times likely will be benefiting from it.

If you did not know, let me tell you that there are some very serious concerns about the environmental effects of desalination and its operational costs. That is why I specifically added those elements to the article, but you've removed just about all of that data!

I also included information about the basic workings of the plant which also deserved to be noted in the article. This benefits both people who don't know how it works, as well as informs those who know about plant design, so users can see how the novel design is supposed to mitigate some of the problems.

I also included some information about the contract governing operation of the plant ... again very useful information, especially since increasing the output quantity could be significant.

I tried to list both the concerns and the benefits of the plant -- the pro and the con -- to put the plant in perspective. This has also been lost.

It is also important to note the project website has some serious problems with it which I described in the External links section; I also said how to overcome those. Because of this problem, I removed the website link in the Infobox, since it does more harm than good there. Removing my discussion of this problem was another serious mistake, since you are now deliberately misleading people who use the Infobox link.

Lastly, you've removed a reference to data, and in its place left a marker that a reference is needed -- the very reference that you removed!

In conclusion, I'm sorry to say that I'm convinced you've done a lot more harm than good with your "fixes". (Your grammar in a few places needs correction, but that’s a minor issue.) I understand that my judgement is harsh here, but I do not see how I can characterize what you've left as in any way a significant improvement.

It is true that I am still fairly new at editing the wiki, but even I know the point of the wiki is to have a process of gradual improvement in an article. Here I see you've taken a big step backward by eliminating a lot of good data which describes the plant more fully, and examines both its pluses and minuses. If you have specific issues with anything I put up, that's fine, but wholesale destruction which includes good data I don't think is a good solution.

I should also note that Fox News stories should be used judiciously as a reference, since Fox News does not have a good history of accuracy, especially when they have editorial views about the subject. If you did not know, Fox News cannot get a license to broadcast in Canada because they do not meet the country's standard for truth in news; in the US Fox News don't have to meet that standard, and it has the worst record of the major networks in news accuracy. Thus, it's a good idea to check your "Fox facts" elsewhere before using them, since you can never be sure about them.

I'm going to review the good data I had there to see what can be put back. However, I will wait to do so until I hear back from you first. I want to hear if you've any good ideas or suggestions that should be incorporated. The goal, of course, is to have the best article possible.

(I have not done one of these user page responses before, so I'm not quite sure I'm doing the "signature" right.)

Robert92107 (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Excuse me for butting in, Robert, but what article are you talking about? You put your comments right under the DYK notice for the South Bay Salt Works, and you said "this article", but I think you must be talking about some other article. It doesn't look as if you have ever contributed to the South Bay Salt Works article. If you are talking about some other article, please put a new section heading above your remarks, like this ==Name of article== , so that it is clear what you are talking about. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! --MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@MelanieN: Robert92107 is discussing the Carlsbad desalination plant. I will move the content to the article talk page, so all editors interested in that article can see the conversation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@Robert92107: I am sorry if I appeared to come off too rash. When I placed templates on your talk page, I tried to do so with the lost level possible. The edits made to the article, appeared to be copyright violations of content from the Los Angeles Times article which was sourced, and from the website of the subject. I understand that the editor was making a good faith attempt at improving the article, and stated as much in my reversion. The issue is not in the attempted improvement; the issue is with what I saw as copyright violation, that appeared to be promotional (given the heavy sourcing directly from the website if the subject of this article). I did not intend to make my notices or reversion appear to harsh. My apologizes if that is what appeared to have occurred.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Please note that criticism of Fox News has no bearing as to whether the source meets Wikipedia's reliable source definition. This is similar to how criticism of CNN and criticism of MSNBC does not make those sources non-reliable for usage in Wikipedia.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Moreover, the "concerns" section is equivalent to a criticism section. Guidance is that such view points should be integrated into the article, which I have tried to do.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea where you get the idea that "concerns = criticisms"! They are clearly two different things, since a "concern" relates to something that must be handled correctly, as opposed to a "criticism" which is something that is being objected to. Robert92107 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this text: "Water intake is planned to be from subsurface pipes, underneath the seafloor; these will be similar to pipes used at a desalination plant at Fukuoka, Japan.[10]" This is NOT correct. The project website clearly says "The intake pump station is connected to the upstream portion of the discharge channel and delivers 100 million gallons per day (mgd) of seawater to the desalination facility." Yes, the intake is filtered through sand (and other) filters, but the intake is not under the sea or lagoon floor. The article cited in [10] was definitely not clear on this point, since it talked about that in reference to Japan and Long Beach, and the fact that Carlsbad will be filtering through sand, but it did not specify sand on the sea or lagoon floor. So, this text is being replaced. Robert92107 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carlsbad desalination plant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carlsbad desalination 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

2017 Production rs

--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Claude_%22Bud%22_Lewis_Carlsbad_Desalination_Plant/Archive_1&oldid=1097333355"