Mlino76
Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)
Here are a few links you might find helpful:
- Be Bold!
- Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
- Meet other new users
- Learn from others
- Play nicely with others
- Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
- Tell us about you
You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.
If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
We're so glad you're here! Stifle 15:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
You tagged this image for speedy deletion with the reason "I have moved this image to wikimedia commons under the same licence.". However, "I have moved this image to wikimedia commons under the same licence." is not currently a criterion for speedy deletion at Wikipedia. Therefore, I have removed the deletion tag. You may wish to add the tag {{NowCommons|filename}}, replacing "filename" with the file's name on Commons, instead, or just {{NCT}} if the filenames are the same. Thanks for your image work! Stifle 15:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Although I see you have done some careful work creating this image, it isn't suitable for the Solar energy article unless reliable secondary sources can be found to support your analysis: this particularly concerns the black dots representing the area needed to satisfy global energy needs. This appears to be original research and may be taken to advocate a point of view that large photovoltaic arrays are a preferred solution to world energy problems. While I have some sympathy with this, Wikipedia's role is purely to inform the debate, not influence it. Geometry guy 19:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- If I could butt in here, I don't see anyone advocating actually using this image as a guide to which parts of the planet to cover with giant solar panels. If you click on the image it even says (oops I see your confusion - fixed it) when you click on the source, "The following table lists the locations in the map to give an idea of land area requirements and availability, although the particular scenario shown is suboptimal for many political and technical reasons." Perhaps you recall the story (certainly fictional) of the difference between capitalism and communism - the capitalist factory has a goal of producing 2,000 pounds of nails and produces a mix of sizes depending on the market demand, while the communist factory produces one 2,000 pound nail... 199.125.109.129 (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, why are you butting in here? Are you Matthias Loster? You have added a grammatical error to the image summary, which clarifies nothing. The advocacy does not concern where large photovoltaic arrays are built. More important, however, is the absence of reliable sources. Geometry guy 20:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is Wikipedia - anyone can contribute. Click on the source, it is loaded with RSs. I see no change in grammar, I traded one preposition for another. What I did do, though, is change the meaning, from for example installing one 2kW panel in the area of a disk to installing enough 2kW panels to make up the area of the disk. 199.125.109.129 (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with the source. It is well researched: each individual point has a source, as you know. However, the synthesis of these points is not suitable for Wikipedia, unless reliable secondary sources provide a similar synthesis. As for grammar, "installed of" is not grammatical. Did you have Matthias' consent to make this change? Geometry guy 21:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- The grammar looks fine to me. I'm sure there are many who know grammar better than me who could fix it if it is incorrect. In general I don't make any serious grammatical errors, and often correct those of others. It is an error to simply say "systems installed in" without specifying how many panels, but most people interpret the diagram as implying "of an area equaling the area of the black dot". Getting back to the nail story, it is unlikely that any country would ever choose to install only one giant PV array, but instead install many small ones, in addition to some larger ones. The diagram makes no prediction or suggestion about what the future holds. It simply states a simple fact. Does this look familiar?[1] This image probably appears in a hundred places now. I've seen a couple of others that provide the same information, most notably the one by Nathan Lewis.[2] Personally I don't like the squares because it is not clear whether the red boundary is included. And no I am not Nathan Lewis or Matthias Loster. 199.125.109.129 (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with the source. It is well researched: each individual point has a source, as you know. However, the synthesis of these points is not suitable for Wikipedia, unless reliable secondary sources provide a similar synthesis. As for grammar, "installed of" is not grammatical. Did you have Matthias' consent to make this change? Geometry guy 21:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is Wikipedia - anyone can contribute. Click on the source, it is loaded with RSs. I see no change in grammar, I traded one preposition for another. What I did do, though, is change the meaning, from for example installing one 2kW panel in the area of a disk to installing enough 2kW panels to make up the area of the disk. 199.125.109.129 (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, why are you butting in here? Are you Matthias Loster? You have added a grammatical error to the image summary, which clarifies nothing. The advocacy does not concern where large photovoltaic arrays are built. More important, however, is the absence of reliable sources. Geometry guy 20:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)