User talk:Mrshaba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When hell freezes over...
When hell freezes over...
   
Have a cold one...
Have a cold one...

Hello!!!! I'm currently working on the main solar energy article and a few other solar energy projects.[1]

Contents

[edit] Stuff

[2]
Wikipedia article in the News
User:Mrshaba/Experiments
User:Mrshaba/Glossary of solar energy terms
Wikipedia:WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team/Mission Proposals

[edit] New report

Hi Mrshaba, This one has just come out and I thought you may be interested. It paints a pretty picture... Johnfos (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Data

3075-3275 or 80-85% with ~ 2/3rds stored and released seasonally. 66.122.72.201 (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Better source request for Image:National_Renewable_Energy_Laboratory_Campus.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:National_Renewable_Energy_Laboratory_Campus.PNG. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. MECU≈talk 20:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's too confusing, but I and many others are more than happy to help sort it all out. Take a look at User talk:MECU/Image FAQ, especially #2 and #3. That should hopefully answer some of the confusion you have. If you need more help, let me know. Thanks. MECU≈talk 23:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mrshaba,

thanks for you thoughtful note.

You are correct I work in the water idustry but as an Energy Manager and have had a long and deep involvement with the power industry - ie I am not really a water person. The problem is that intermittency has been offered as a descriptoin of something unique to renewables, but it is in fact, a problem for all power plants - that is simply a fact. I have merely pointed this out. Systems are necessarrily in place to deal with the intermittency of existing plants, and these can simply be extended for more renewables. So i have not redefined intermittency just poitned out that it also applies to existing plant. I can assure you that all conventional power plants can and do stop completely unnannounced - and dealing with this is a necessary part of the design of power systems AT THE MOMENT. Kind Regards.

PS have a look at the Claverton Energy Group - you might like to consider joining it.

[edit] TPV NTS

Solar TPV devices call for an operating temperature of 1800 C while nuclear TPV devices aim at 950 C. The lower operating temperatures are no doubt driven by a desire to more easily mesh TPV parameters with conventional plant materials and operating parameters. If a nuclear TPV device is expected to reach near term efficiencies above 20 percent a solar TPV device operating at higher temperatures could presumably reach higher efficiencies (only available estimate is 24 percent). The TPV scheme mentioned below uses a spectral control system to pass high energy photons and reflect-back low energy photons. It would also seem possible to use the spectral splitting technique employed at the University of Delaware to divert the low energy photons to a conventional power cycle.

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/850113-2PRErD/850113.PDF
Analytical Evaluation of a Solar TPV Converter - Michael Edenburn
http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2008/jul/solar072307.html

Mrshaba (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flipping photos

Hi, I never flip my photos for publication because the flipping distorts reality in ways that are disorienting. If I can't find or create a photo that looks or heads in the desired direction, I do without. Almost always, though, it's possible to move a photo to the left side or the right side of the page to solve the "aiming" problem. I'm not sure if Wikipedia itself has a policy about flipping. I just don't do it. Finetooth (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The original is better for aesthetic reasons, I think. The original image-maker thought about spatial orientation when creating the original. The orientation is radically different in the flipped version and not so good, in my opinion. On the other hand, I would have to agree that flipping a perfect circle might not make any difference. I think it is likely to make a subtle difference with human faces, though. I'm not as certain about trains, but why take a chance? Finetooth (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Later this evening I chanced upon this piece of advice in the images section of WP:MOS: "Since faces are not perfectly symmetrical, it is generally inadvisable to use photo-editing software to reverse a right-facing portrait image; however, some editors employ this controversial technique when it does not alter obvious non-symmetrical features, such as Mikhail Gorbachev's birthmark, or make text in the image unreadable." Finetooth (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Solar energy

I'm not going to bother to look up the standard warning templates for 3RR, but consider yourself notified of the rule, but I am going to remind you that the way articles get written is to start out with a stub, add material until the article gets to about 30-40 kB edit byte count, and then create subarticles, and put a summary in the main article for each of the subarticles, along with a main: link to each subarticle. The United States article actually is over 2 Megabytes but has over a hundred subarticles, not all of which are directly linked from the main article - each of the 50 states of course is a subarticle for example. It is never controversial to move blocks of text from a main article to a subarticle, as long as there is a summary in the main article and no content is lost in the shuffle. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think I counted over 100 subarticles and 2 MB total to United States not counting the individual states. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with the rules of style and the 3RR rule. Solar energy is heat and light. The article summarizes solar energy technologies that harness both heat and light. Your action to break out the most significant group of solar technologies from the page is not consistent with the article's summary style. Mrshaba (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. The purpose of summary style is so that we do not have 10 MB articles, even though we can write 10 MB about a subject. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop

Further edit warring [3] will result in a block. Spartaz Humbug! 09:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

I need to spend a bit more time looking at some other articles first but will try to get to solar energy as soon as I can. JMiall₰ 13:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The main PR page automatically has the same comments as are on the individual subpages. The PR page for each article is a fairly obvious place to put comments and it should have a link from a template at the article talkpage so is easily accessible from there. Also if later reviewers (for example for FA) are trying to check on what has been previously commented on and changed then if the PR page doesn't have the discussion it may get confusing. However I don't think that there's a great deal of harm in copying comments between the 2 pages, especially if an article has a number of editors who wouldn't have the PR page on their watchlist. JMiall₰ 18:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Solar Energy

I'd love to help...but I can't at the moment. Real LifeTM is taking up most of my time at present, and I'm not able to edit anything like as much as I would like for now. Good luck with the article, and I will try and have a look at it when I get more time free. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Glad to help and I hope my comments are useful, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greenhouse

I have a question for you on Talk:Greenhouse. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

  • Hey there Theanphibian... I like to dance too... My wife hates it when I drink red wine and do stripteases at parties. Just kidding...
  • I would like to know if you've ever had any luck dealing with the 199 IP guy. It seems strange but this 199 IP hassles both the nuclear pages and the solar energy page with consistently rude and factually incorrect comments. It's a sort of advanced passive/aggressive trolling that skirts the rules here. I was wondering if you've ever had any success with this guy. i.e. Have Rfcs, third party opinions or anything else ever worked. Mrshaba (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
My experience was that this person used a number of IPs to edit the domain of articles in a manner that... well I don't know if there was ever any content creation. Eh, it's the way things go. Clearly the user knows what they're doing, I think there's maybe there's an idea that spotty IPs give more impunity than established user names. Sorry I can't really help you much. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 23:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Theaphibian. I've notice the same: "all critic/no content" As you say though... Eh Mrshaba (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
As somebody who hasn't been editing much lately, I really shouldn't take sides. Solar power isn't exactly my area anyway. But give me a holler if there's something that really looks like it needs to be expanded up my alley. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 01:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good News

Hi Mrshaba: have you seen this one? Pampa Wind Project -- Johnfos (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANI notice

There is some strange complaint about you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mrshaba. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony

[edit] Barnstar

The Resilient Barnstar
For your continuing good work on Solar energy... wish you well in taking it to FA... Johnfos (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Truce

Can we please behave in a civil manner? Deal? 199.125.109.41 (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signing statements

Please identify yourself on talk pages. Saying "I" means nothing unless your statement is signed. When you are responding to a large number of comments, such as on the Peer review page, please remember to add four tildas ~~~~ at the end of each section. They will each be converted into a signature. Signing does not mean signing at the end of your comments, it means identifying each of your comments. Thanks. Please note: If you revise your remarks there is no need to add a new signature... 199.125.109.41 (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A semi-exception, is if you add that something has been "done" no one really cares who did it so signing that is really not necessary, in some cases, that is. You will see "done" being signed a lot, but if you are just going through a todo list, signing who "done" it is totally unnecessary. 199.125.109.41 (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm off on wikibreak

Good luck with the article and hope you can keep cool with the anon. I saw that there are other editors who might be able to help you out. If all else fails, go to User:FayssalF, who is on the Arbitration Committee and say I sent you. Your efforts much appreciated. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] intermittency

Hi - I don't know if you remember your comments on intermittency.... and unplanned outages.... The UK lost 1.5 GW through exactly that, in fact involving Sizewell B as mentioned... they do happen and they have to be catered for.... Kind Regards EnginemanEngineman (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article4023634.ece

Hi - it doesnt matter how reliable they are, unless the conventional plant is 100% reliable all the time, which it can;t be, it has to have back up. It is intermittent, even if it only fails every 20 years. All plant is intermittne to that extent. Kind Regards...Engineman (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet

I have no idea if Oakwillow and the IP address are the same person, but just having multiple accounts is not in and of itself a violation of WP:SOCK. It only becomes a violation if the accounts are used to make it appear that there is more support for something than there really is, or for circumenting policies like WP:3RR. Oakwillow is rather persistent and annoying with regards to WP:SIZE, but I don't see anything in his history where he used the IP address to gain an upper hand in an edit war or discussion. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Solar energy copyedit

Hi, I'm buried in requests and other projects at the moment. Solar energy sounds interesting to me, however, and I'll add your request to the fairly deep heap on my desk. Alas, I won't be able to get to it any time soon. Finetooth (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I have time to have a look at this later. It'll only be my second copyedit though; I'm still learning the ropes, so I can't guarantee anything spectacular. Adacore (talk) 08:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've started on a copyedit, and I was wondering if you could give me any input. I've got almost two thirds of the way through, but I'm unsure whether I'm being too aggressive or not aggressive enough with regard to things like removing what I consider to be extraneous content. I'm using my userspace to edit things for now, since I don't want to leave the active copyedit tag on the actual article for more than an hour or two. Here are my changes: [4] There seem to be a lot of US-centric statistics in the article, some of which I've cropped, and I've removed and/or copied a few of the examples of technologies to subarticles. Any suggestions welcome! Adacore (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Levelized energy cost

Application cents/kWh Ref
Wind 5.5-8 [1]
Photovoltaics 20-40 [1]
CSP 10-16 [1]
Coal
SHW
Natural Gas
Nuclear

[1]