User talk:Narwhal-tooth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Unusable edits

Howdy Narwhal-tooth, Please allow me to take a moment to explain the exact problems with the edits on articles such as Criticism of Greenpeace, Wind power‎, and Grid energy storage:

  1. Wikipedia can't project opinion. For example, in NO case can an article have something like It is incongruous that Greenpeace does not campaign on population issues., as shown here. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
  2. Further more, even if that statement were reworded with a completely neutral tone, we couldn't use it because the reference is to the Greenpeace website itself. In other words, Wikipedia is drawing a conclusion from their public website. That is also against wikipedia policy - please read Wikipedia:No original research.
  3. ALL content in articles must basically summarize material which has already been published in reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  4. Lastly, a number of edits tend drift slightly off the direct topic of the article. For example, the discussion about I = PAT, while interesting, is not a direct criticism of Greenpeace, and as such, does not belong in that article. At most, if a reliable, third-party has published a criticism of Greenpeace using I=PAT as a basis for their criticism, it MIGHT warrant a BRIEF (one or two sentence) mention in this article. Wikipedia articles, if allowed to drift and include such material, would be come a huge incomprehensible clutter of disparaging information.

I'm sorry to say that almost every paragraph of your most recent edits violate one or more of these policies, and as such, we can't accept the edits. In summary, all articles in Wikipedia need to be approached as if they were well researched items for a major nation-wide newspaper. They need to be objectively written and they need to summarize EXISTING reputable published sources. I hope this does a better job of explaining how you can better contribute to Wikipedia! If you have any specific questions, please feel free to respond below.—Mrand T-C 02:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This was placed on my (Mrand) user page. I've moved it here:

In deleting my edits, you have once more made it appear that Pumped Storage systems can make up for lost generating capacity on windless days. The items now cite a Chinese system with 2% of national capacity and world systems with 3% of world capacity. But this is deliberate nonsense, for these systems only generate for 5 or 6 hours. What matters is kwh (or total demand over time) and if electrical energy was required to cover two days without wind (assuming all renewable energy supply) then those figures quoted would have to be reduced tenfold. In other words, the Chinese system can only cover 0.2% of demand over 2 days - much less than the article makes out.
These paragraphs need to be changed, to reflect the truth. Will you let me do it, without deleting everything again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narwhal-tooth (talk • contribs) 11:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


The above paragraph belongs in the article on pumped storage systems, not in the Green Peace or wind power articles. Wikipedia accepts any and all "truth" as long as it follows the above mentioned policies/guidelines - unfortunately the text you are currently attempting to add to the articles using violates nearly all of them simultaneously. —Mrand T-C 02:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:CIEN.158.2.66.pdf

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:CIEN.158.2.66.pdf. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)