Talk:Wind hybrid power systems

Merger discussion

The merger discussion to create this page is here. Beagel (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wind hybrid power systems. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110718053333/http://www.wind-hydrogen.com/Citrus%20(Windfarm%208pp%20A5).pdf to http://www.wind-hydrogen.com/Citrus%20(Windfarm%208pp%20A5).pdf

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

or inadequate wind power over-capacity in proportion to the electrical demand.

I wish to raise a dispute against the editors who have unjustly reverted the edits I made in this version.

I had given two good cited references for each of my edits.

My first edit included an independent reference. No reason was given for removing this first edit, supported as it was by an independent reference. The editing note I made was - (or inadequate wind power over-capacity in proportion to the electrical demand - independent reference cited)

The second edit was only to include an addition reference. The note I made was - (Cited my own scientific analysis of the problem with the El Hierro wind-hydro power station. It's the best reference, bar none, even though user-generated. An exception to general rule against user-generated content should be made for this minor edit.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottish Scientist (talk • contribs)

@Scottish Scientist: Regardless of your credentials(which we have no way to confirm on this anonymous forum), a blog is not considered a reliable source, and furthermore adding a blog post that you wrote yourself is not an independent reliable source, and it is also a conflict of interest. Unless your research has been peer reviewed and published in a reputable scientific publication, it is just original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. There is little chance of this information being added as it stands now. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Still no reason has been given for reverting my first edit, which provided an independent reference. Sloppy and illogical. Scottish Scientist (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It's still a blog. A user-editable blog will not be considered a reliable source as its posts are not reviewed by an editor or other third party before publication(as with a book or news story). 331dot (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

You are plain wrong. ScienceDaily.com is not a "blog". Scottish Scientist (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Pardon my error; I missed one edit. I'm not sure but it simply may have been removed when your blog edit was rolled back. I'll restore it for the moment, if someone wishes to oppose it, they will. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks 331dot, yes the two references were added as a package deal and so inadvertently removed similarly.

Scottish Scientist as has been explained numerous times now, adding a link to your own blog is problematic for two reasons, one being a blog is not considered a reliable source and the other being that it is a conflict of interest and self-promotional for you to link to your own website. The note I left on your talk page explained that you were welcome to explain here why you think it should be included, but I agree with 331dot that it is not acceptable according to wikipedia's guidelines. Melcous (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The section being discuss is specifically about the station at El Hierro, and is not about wind hybrid power systems in a general sense. This specific case is not mentioned by the Science Direct source (which is just a press release for a journal article). The article itself also does not mention El Hierro, unless I missed it. This is a reasonable point to make, but it's not up to us to make it, it should be done by sources to avoid WP:SYNTH. If a reliable source does specifically mention the lack of overcapacity at El Hierro, that source might be usable as a supplement, but it cannot be used to falsely imply this connection is made by the source alone. I will again remove the source for this reason. Grayfell (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

References

wind-hydro

Max Bögl Wind AG and GE Renewable Energy solution. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)