User talk:Sillybilly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Sillybilly, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 12:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] re: negawatt

I took a look as you requested and wikified a bit. I am a bit dubious about the notability of the term. You might want to list it on Wikipedia:Requests for comment or if you feel strongly enough and have evidence file for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. But, please keep your comments on talk pages and edit summaries civil. Don't engage in name calling or derogatory comments. If the subject is getting to you then back away for a bit. Vsmith 02:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Under the circumstances/in the circumstances

The original meaning of "circumstance" is "around where you are standing", hence, strictly speaking, you can't be under a circumstance. However, I've since discovered that American articles use "under the circumstances" so frequently that it must be the norm over there. So, in future, I'll only alter articles on English historical figures, where "in the circumstances" is what would have been correct in their time. Thank you. CarolGray 17:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:PVModuleLabEffic.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PVModuleLabEffic.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 22:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Western Sahara-related vote

===>Here Make your voice heard. Vote or die. And all that. -Justin (koavf), talk 20:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crossing flags

Please do not cross flags on your user page. This may offend others and is even considered a crime in many countries. I am sure you are able to express your valuable opinion in a respectful way. May I ask why you dislike a union you do not even belong to? Imagine someone crossed the flag of your country. ROGNNTUDJUU! 21:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Chrysene.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Chrysene.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Fluoranthene.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Fluoranthene.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Energy portal

Hi! As a contributor to WikiProject Energy development, I thought you might like to be aware of the opportunity to contribute to the new Energy Portal, now that there is one... No need to reply. Gralo 17:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)e

[edit] Image:Fluoranthene.png

Hello, could you please clarify the copyright status of this image. If you indeed wished it to be released under the GFDL please replace {{GFDL-presumed}} with {{GFDL-self}} by editing the image description page. Alternatively you can choose a different image copyright tag, or arrange for the image to be deleted. If you need help, please drop me a line on talk page. Thanks!-- thunderboltz(Deepu) 06:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts to Solar Power

Hello. I wondered why you felt the need to revert all my edits. I didn't insert a spam link to SunPower, in fact I took the mention of the company out of the article. I left in the 21% figure because it seemed to be relevant if that is the maximum that can currently be achieved, and I left the link to the article about the company because it is the source for that figure. I have no strong feelings if it is left out. On the other hand, I thought some of the other edits improved the flow and readability. On the date links I thought this was good practice but having looked at the Manual of Style then I see that you are right, so those can stay out. I have also left some questions on the talk page and would be very pleased if you had any responses to them. Itsmejudith 14:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the time to give me such a full reply. No offence taken at all, and I hope that we can continue with good-faith exchanges to co-operate on the article. Please be assured that this article means a lot to me as well. Some months ago I put in a lot of edits, removing great chunks of text to the Photovoltaics article. This was because when I first looked at Solar power I could make little sense of it, so much did it confuse solar thermal and PV. Since then user:mrshaba has come on the scene, who is an excellent editor. I think we should all be conscious of the to-do list for this article and my edits were supposed to come under the heading "check and polish prose". I strongly agree with you that the article must be entirely spam-free. My interest in the field is as a user of solar power (I have a PV roof, which is pretty rare for domestic houses in the UK.) I am not a scientist but can understand the science if it is explained simply; however I do have experience of writing and editing.
You raised the question of crystalline vs amorphous silicon. This is a real debate that cannot be resolved in Wikipedia. There are advantages and disadvantages to each which need to be fairly presented. The Solar power article is not the place for a full discussion, but only for a brief mention. A section should be added to Photovoltaics, perhaps with a longer explanation in Solar cell. These articles form a series that probably address different audiences. Since Solar power is the most general one in the series it should be accessible to those who are interested in it as a socio-politico-economic question rather than as a scientific-technical one. Itsmejudith 08:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Laszlo ratz.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Laszlo ratz.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi Sillbilly, what problem do you have with my edits, is it typos or is it something else ?Cadmium

Hi again. It looks like we may well think the same way about some things !! It irks me that a great deal of material is in the form of pay per view journals when as you said a great need exists to educate the masses. My history teacher said once that education should be something which occurs throughout your life, I say just becuase you are 18, 21, have a BSc/BA/BEng, have a PhD/MD (or what ever) one should not allow yourself to refuse to learn new things ! My attitude might not be one which some other wikipedia people like but it is oftein to create an article where nothing existed, make a rough and only slightly formatted article from what I know about before moving onto something else. My view is that a rough article which is NPOV is better than either nothing, POV formated to look pretty or an article packed with non-sense. From your edits I noticed you have an interest in nuclear matters (you were asking about reactor design on the chernobyl talk page), for my various 'outrages' (I have written a lot of NPOV matter about radioactivity/nuclear matters) I was given a Atom barnstar and if you have any questions then please feel free to ask me. Please no personal or rude questions (like questions about ladies underwear or other embrassing matters).Cadmium

I find the idea of renewables nice, but oftein they are not as good as they first appear to be. I have seen some data published by the UN which states how much CO2 (or other equivilent greenhouse gases) is created per kWhr of electric power. This is on the IAEA website, I can get your the exact url if you want. This suggested that wind and solar power are better than coal/gas/oil but worse than nuclear in terms of all the CO2 associated with the energy production. This study included all the greenhouse releases associated with the entire process of building and operating plant. So the CO2 from the cement used to build a windfarm was included, I thought that this was a brave and clever thesis. I worry that many people think that just becuase a device does not emit anything nasty it means that the device has a clean billof environmental health. All the zero emission cars are "emission elsewhere cars" becuase they need electrcity which is oftein generated by burning fuel.Cadmium

Unless the zero-emmission cars are running off-grid... then you only have the waste and CO2 of the production of the material (PV panels or turbines or whatnot).
Hey SillyBilly, I happened upon your chat with Cd about renewables... do you read (or used to read) HomePower magazine? I don't think it's terribly common in GB though. It used to be a real handyman's guide to making your own power. It's been soccer-mom'd in the last few years, glossier and fewer articles about Joe Schmuckenburger's home-made power system, but still a nice thing to give to people who give you that look (you pro'lly know what I mean) when you start talking about PVs and turbines. Geez, I never thought to see what WP has to say about solar... I'm so going to check them out. Gaviidae 08:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that soccermomming can be a good thing, to popularise and inform people about something. But in the process, it also lost something. Still, I subscribe. Gaviidae 16:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/i/l/User_talk%7ESillybilly_e1f5.html"