Mrshaba

[2]

Wikipedia article in the News

User:Mrshaba/Experiments

User:Mrshaba/Glossary of solar energy terms

Wikipedia:WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team/Mission Proposals

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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.

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

I'd love to help...but I can't at the moment. Real Life^TM 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)Reply

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

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

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

• Thank you for your message today on my Talk page. I have spoken with administrator Anthony Appleyard and he would seem to be the appropriate person for you to talk to regarding 199.125... Johnfos (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Disruption by IP user 199.125.109.XXX. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Disruption by IP user 199.125.109.XXX. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
• I have started a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mrshaba versus 199.125.109.XXX. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

 

^[1]

• With levelized electricity costs (LEC) of 10–12 USCts/kWh the well-known SEGS (Solar Electric Generating Systems) plants in California are presently the most successful solar technology for electricity generation [Price and Cable (2001) Proc. ASME Int. Solar Energy Conf. Forum 2001].
• The O&M costs for the SEGS power plants are recirculation concept and with that the parasitic power 2.5 USCts/kWh (Cohen et al., 1999). This is approximate- consumption is only slightly higher than that of the oncely 20% of the according levelized electricity costs.

Archiving is done to remove discussion which is no longer current, i.e. no response in, say at least five days. Anyone who is curious can read all of the archived talk pages, not just the current page. Keeping old discussions around serves no purpose and just makes the page longer. It isn't like oh I want to make sure that someone sees this - because they will anyway whether it is archived or not. 199.125.109.31 (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I suggest that the IP discuss adding their image below the current one. But I made it clear that they should discuss it at the talk page of the article. Please discuss it at the talk page. I do not want to get involved. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  06:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I had some discussions with 199.12'5'.109.xxx a few months ago. I don't remember the details very well, but I think my main issue with this editor was that he/she had too strong a sense of ownership of the Electric Car article. He/she seemed to have adopted a restricted and somewhat arbitrary definition of "Electric Car" and was undoing any revisions which did not match this limited definition. The result was certainly disruptive, but I do not think the intent was primarily to disrupt, at least in this case. I haven't seen any evidence of sock puppetry, but I haven't been looking for it. Let me know if I can provide any more information. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Solar energy. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 06:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll look at the mediation. Thanks for the Leffe, my favourite lager. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Mediation Case involving Solar energy has been opened, I will be mediating the case for Medcom, please review Mediation Policy to understand the intent of this process and then post an initial statement at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Solar_energy#Discussion. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is slow, but I'm afraid that if we abandon it now it could be worse for us in a few weeks'time. I'll be away all of August BTW. Best. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The two I give evidence for are the only ones I know about. Mac edits in several different circles and gets warned about various things now and again, so it's entirely possible that he has different groups of puppets. NJGW (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, if it helps his English is very poor and he generally edits between 6 and 13 Wikipedia time. That's all I can tell you right now, though he did create Frisian Solar Challenge for what it's worth. NJGW (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

As I said SEVERAL TIMES, you are completly WRONG and you are doing FALSE acussations. I am original and authentic. But your acussations are false. You try to put them in different places, not in only one, so I can answer to them. I believe in the right of people to free speech and not be fasely accused. You are doing an infraction. --Mac (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you think Mac is who I think you think Mac is, they do similar things, but in different ways and their English is way better. In either case, you might post an wp:RFC to see about the first nom, as I never found it. NJGW (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I did use Twinkle and it automatically selected the name. I just assumed it knew what it was doing, but it looks like it might have messed up. Which accounts are you looking at? NJGW (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading Image:SunBurst10.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 03:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The FA-Team has finally launched the mission to help Solar energy and Scattered disc reach FA status. Thanks for proposing the first of these. Your help with both will be much appreciated. Geometry guy 16:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Best of luck with the article, I'm on wikibreak. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

You certainly didn't come off as a jerk. I'm on wikibreak, and I noticed that I was more impatient than usual; I should put off doing copyediting until I'm back, I think. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

{{helpme}} On the solar talk page you asked the following question:

Maybe Mr. Orman's picture isn't a good choice. I'm just asking for input. Here are some other photos that I like a lot. What do you think of the one labeled Photovoltaikanlage bei Hemau (the triangle shaped one)? I asked Mr. Leidorf for permission to use this picture and he agreed. I'm leaving it up to him to upload and I set up a place holder picture here to simplify things. I do have a question about photos though. Can someone tell me what the most protective license would be? Mrshaba (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That isn't the place to ask that question. One way to answer it is to ask it here and add {{helpme}} to this page, as shown above - someone will wonder by and try to help. Another is to ask the question on one of the help forums, such as Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Good luck. Apteva (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Protective in the sense of retaining the most rights? A fair use license is probably what you're looking for in that case- FU images are copyrighted by their owner, and we use them because it is considered appropriate to have low res versions so long as they are necessary to illustrate a point. If we are talking most protective free license, I think Creative Commons is the best. Does that answer your question? L'Aquatique[talk] 05:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Mrshaba. You have new messages at L'Aquatique's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 

Hello, Mrshaba. You have new messages at L'Aquatique's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It might be helpful to declare on the user page or user talk page of the IP you use that you sometimes edit from this address (presumably because you forget to log in). If you do so, then the claims of sock-puppetry can be removed from the user talk page, as long as your contributions comply with WP:SOCK. Geometry guy 20:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done. Mrshaba (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. An edit from the IP to the same page confirming this would remove all doubt that you are attempting to use the two identities to support each other. Geometry guy 21:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done. 24.85.246.143 (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have replied to your comment here. Cheers, --LordSunday 15:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

In response to your comment "This has gone on for a year", I would like to point out the difference between writing an article for google's knol or for Britannica, which are sole sourced, and WP, which is collaboratively written. I would like you to recognize that I and every other editor who wanders by is a strong ally and good resource to lean on for help in writing each article. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, but by working collaboratively we are able to theoretically at least create a more comprehensive encyclopedia than the others. You know it really pains me to see you avoid me like I was the plague, when in fact I'm one of your strongest resources. Like everyone, I really have other things to do than waste my time editing WP... Be happy that I spend some time here. 199.125.109.62 (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please refrain from undoing good faith edits, as edit warring is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. Your tactic of dredging up a year old intro with no regard for the complaints raised about it, and adding it to a project that you have not contributed to in months is more than bizarre. Apteva (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do you honestly expect me to believe that the words "heat and light" have never been in the intro before? You have got to be kidding. And the intro needs 3 to 4 paragraphs, not 2. And you seem to have deliberately left out "solar power", yet this article covers both solar energy and solar power. There is more, by the way, but the main point is that you announce that you have "lost interest" in the project, and then return only to start an edit war. Once again, you have got to be kidding. Apteva (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I forgot to reply earlier. The findings were that Delphi = Apteva. The following conversation was about the other socks, and that Apteva sent an email to the Arbcom. I see no other pending CU action. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid I can't do that (I don't have access to the arbcom mailing list). I'll try to poke someone tomorrow. Or else you can ask one active arbitrator directly. -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't bother, I'm gonna act on that. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mrshaba. Some fellow editors and I want to drown our sorrows on my talk page after Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Itsmejudith, and I know you hand out free glasses of Leffe from time to time. Can I shamelessly ask you to post one there?

Just noticed the outcome of the checkuser, well, well. You have the patience of a saint. Solar energy is inches away from FA. Let's go for it. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ahhh... The checkuser case... a joy that was. The Solar energy page will have to do without me. Good luck. Mrshaba (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Engraving from the 16th century of sunlight focused on to a bottle using a parabolic dish.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

File:7 Meter Sheet Metal Dishes (Flipped).png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:7 Meter Sheet Metal Dishes (Flipped).png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:7 Meter Sheet Metal Dishes (Flipped).png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

File:Auroville Solar Bowl.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Auroville Solar Bowl.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

File:Transpired Air Collector.PNG is now available as Commons:File:Transpired Air Collector.PNG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

File:Transpired Solar Absorber.PNG is now available as Commons:File:Transpired Solar Absorber.PNG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

File:Twice Cropped Zonnecollectoren.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Twice Cropped Zonnecollectoren.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

File:Saline Cropped.PNG is now available as Commons:File:Saline Cropped.PNG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

File:Flipped MIT Solar One house.png is now available as Commons:File:Flipped MIT Solar One house.png. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mrshaba. Long time no see - I was inactive for a couple of months. But I thought I would be bold and put Solar energy up for peer review. And there are some challenging but helpful comments from a user, and I have in turn commented on Geothermal power. Both peer reviews are still open. Hope you're keeping well. Thanks for the Leffe. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Life is plenty good Judith... Sorry though, the solar energy page will have to do without me. Mrshaba (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Compact Solar Energy Flow Diagram.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Artsy Parabolic Trough3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Artsy Parabolic Trough4.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

The first formula you cite is Kasten & Young (1989); it should be fine at the horizon. The Hardie formula blows up at the horizon, as the graph illustrates. A glance at the graph also indicates that Rozenberg (1966), Young (1994), or Pickering (2002) all give reasonable results. Do bear in mind that the theoretical models to which the interpolative formulas are fit assume standard atmospheric conditions (in particular, the lapse rate) consider only Rayleigh scattering, so under typical conditions, values close to the horizon are at best good estimates. JeffConrad (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mrshaba

I copied the approximate data from the graphs that turn up when you google "nature photonics haitz" and look under images. There is also some updated data there that will make any new graph much better than mine.

Thorseth

There is no need to post here warning me about copyrighted pictures that I've uploaded. Do your thing but spare me the little cuts. I've contacted Sandia twice about these pictures and they've confirmed permission to use the pictures twice now. I've forwarded these notes through the internet machine to the wikipermission people. I'm done see. I've takin' all I can take see. Quit bothrin' me. Scram.

Giving Sandia the credit is all that we usually require for inclusion in publications. I don’t see that there should be any further issue with Wikipedia. Chuck

Chuck Andraka Sandia National Labs Dept 6337 Solar Thermal Technology Department MS 1127  PO5800 Albuquerque NM 87185 phone: (505)844-8573

Mrshaba (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File: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 talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your upload of File:Avila Pier.PNG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

The file File:Trough schematic.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

The file File:Power tower schematic.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

The file File:Dish engine schematic.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

The file File:PV Production 1975-2000.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

The file File:Cropped Zonnecollectoren.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused minor crop of File:Zonnecollectoren.JPG, future use unlikely

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

The file File:Insolation side by side.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused image, no context to determine possible future use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply