User talk:Delphi234

Welcome!

Hello, Delphi234, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 19:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source for Image:Available Energy-4.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Available Energy-4.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 19:27, 21 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) 19:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

If you would like to split the Wind power article, please discuss it at the talk page and create the second article before deleting material.--agr (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary. You, however can discuss it to your heart's content. And the second article was created first. Delphi234 (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Sock Case

I started a sock puppet case against you. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Apteva. Mrshaba (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of multiple accounts

I see that you are still using 2 accounts in the same area (Apteva on Talk:Solar energy and Delphi234 on Talk:Renewable energy, both on 26 October). Please stop, this is disruptive and only stirs up drama. Please chose one account and stick to it. We didn't block Delphi234 at that time due to the fact that it hadn't been used for more than 2 weeks but this is no longer the case. If I see both accounts editing again, I'll block one indef, and the other for a week (which is the standard duration for deceptive sockpuppettry). -- lucasbfr talk 17:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply to the e-mail which you should have received. Delphi234 (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I received your e-mail and frankly still don't have a clear idea as to why you feel the need to use multiple accounts. Your reason is apparently "because it's allowed", but that's not so much a reason as an excuse. Besides that, everyone else that has bothered to weigh in has disagreed that your use is allowed anyway. The way I see it, if you get caught by a normal user - which you did - and that user complains - which s/he has (numerous times) - then the two accounts are, by definition, too closely related to each other and you need to cease. If I had not weighed in at the SSP, I would have blocked this account as an abandoned account and let you go about your way. But you had to start using this account again and further ruffle feathers. Agree to have this account blocked or you're likely to have both accounts blocked - and maybe for a long time as lucasbfr alluded. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you may be losing site of the forest for the trees. This account is the primary account. Apteva is only used for RCP and solar related issues. I will indicate that for all to see. My reason is not "because it's allowed" but because it is essential to my privacy. And I know that that is not only allowed, but essential to the operation of Wikipedia. Delphi234 (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, I would be grateful if you could take a look at the POV disputes at India's three stage nuclear power programme and Operation Plowshare. Thanks... Johnfos (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Arctic wilderness zone for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arctic wilderness zone is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arctic wilderness zone until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit caught my eye

Hello, firstly I would like to thank you for your help on the Cost of electricity by source page, however I have a criticism of your edit that I also brought up on the talk page.

I beleive that the large table, and the insertion of discussion on PV panels by your edit now makes the article look disjointed as there is no corresponding heading for Wind, Nuclear etc.,

Currently readers are now hit with PV info before authoritative estimates are given for every other energy source. This is an example of giving undue weight to a particular energy source.

Secondly, I also checked the one reference in the PV section you added, but could not find where, or from what data, the big table is sourced.

So pretty much, I would appreciate if you provided a ref for the table, and would also like you to reconsider the placement of your PV data, to somewhere further down the article page, and incorporated into the headings previously allocated.

Thanks Boundarylayer (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many times people have asked for a reference for that table, but actually it is just a multiplication table. I will look for another website that uses it, though, in the way of a "reference". I think I have seen the spreadsheet formulas used if they are not still there. And please feel free to move it on the page as you wish. Delphi234 (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see, how do you feel about downsizing the table so it doesn't take up so much room and moving down to after 'Additional costs of Nuclear power in the Cost of electricity by source page?
The reason I'm essentially asking you to move it to the end of the page is that, again no other energy source gets its own heading on that page. Although I agree that perhaps each energy souurce should, at some stage, get its own individual section, it's a bit of a can of worms if we start that and may make the page exceedingly long.
Let me know on the talk page of the article what you think,
Have a good one,
Boundarylayer (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Wind power in South Dakota, Delphi234!

Wikipedia editor Kieranian2001 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

reviewed interesting

To reply, leave a comment on Kieranian2001's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Global warming and glacial/interglacial cycles

Hi. I removed your recent addition to global warming on glacial/interglacial cycles. Perhaps we could discuss this on Talk:global warming? Enescot (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested. It was added to the section "Natural systems" and the elephant in the room is the fact that the Earth has been moving back and forth between ice ages and warming periods for a couple of million years, solely due to "natural systems" and that should be mentioned. I did my job, the rest is up to others to follow through. What most people forget when they get all excited about rising sea levels is most of the 127 meters of sea level rise has already taken place and there is only a 7 meter rise left to go. That really should be mentioned. Look at Google earth and it is blatantly obvious that those continental shelves used to be dry land. And the continents covered with ice. Delphi234 (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Granite Reliable Wind Farm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vespas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear power

I should have known the recent edits on the Nuclear power page were made by you, as we've rubbed shoulders before over your unsubstantiated claims about solar power.

Recently I noticed there where yet further wild claims made in relation to the 'cheapness of Solar PV' on the nuclear power page. Incredulous I checked the reference you provided.

Sadly, the study you referenced is false, as it assumes state subsidies will continue indefinitely for Solar. The study http://phys.org/news200578033.html has also not been peer reviewed and it was seemingly only published on this anti-nuclear organizations page. http://www.ncwarn.org/

Real $/kWh figures for all energy sources are here. http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html and, where we first became aware of each other, here- Cost of electricity by source.

In sum please remove this patently incorrect sentence in the nuclear power article and refrain from publishing fringe non peer reviewed anti-nuclear papers.

Boundarylayer (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the United States still subsidizes oil, it is not surprising to see anyone thinking that subsidies would continue for solar. The DOE has two very conflicting groups, one that expects the US to be using only renewable in 30 years, one that thinks that we will still be using mostly oil in 30 years. All we can do is report on what we find. I do try to stick to the eia figures though when they are available, because they go through an extensive internal review before they are published (which is why they are so slow to be published). Thanks for your heads up and I will see if I can improve the article. It is hard to extrapolate "real" nuclear costs since so few reactors have been built in the last 20 years. Everyone agrees that Fukushima caused prices to increase. Delphi234 (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added the EIA estimates, but in this case they are laughable - wind is about 5 cents/kWh now, and San Diego is buying solar power for 12.5 cents/kWh, and has offered a feed-in tariff of from 13 to 17 cents/kWh (17 now, declining a penny at a time as more apply), which assumes that anyone who takes them up on it will be making a profit. Since the solar 30% tax credit does not run out until 2016, I am not sure why that is not considered. All I know is if I was running a business based on EIA estimates I would soon go out of business. Delphi234 (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

As your primary account is blocked, this one is as well (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When your 2-week block expires, I suggest you don't go around the areas you're topic-banned from. GoodDay (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is my primary account, and blocking it is gratuitous and unnecessary. Blocking applies to the person, not the account (i.e. the chances of my logging into this account and violating the block was zero). I know the rules and I follow them, to a T. Which is the reason why the alternate account was blocked. I would request unblocking this account as well, for the same reason. Delphi234 (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the consensus at the discussion at WP:AN, you are restricted to editing solely from the Apteva account from now on. This account has been blocked indefinitely. Any editing by you from accounts other than Apteva will inevitably lead to an indefinite block on your Apteva account as well. BencherliteTalk 19:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appealed. No reason for the restriction. Delphi234 (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural reblock

Noting here that I have revoked this account's ability to edit this talk page or send email. This is not indicative of any recent misbehavior by this alt. account, it was done strictly in the interest of matching the block on the Apteva account. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hopefully this account will be unblocked soon, so that additional pages can be created and the 24 that were created can be updated. Until then someone else will need to pick up the slack and remove any errors that exist, such as saying that wind power has been growing by 30%. That was true - for 2009, but last year only increased by 13%, and over the last ten years by 23%, so until growth picks up, 30% is an inaccurate growth rate. In 2009 growth for the previous ten years averaged 27%. In 2004, though growth for the previous ten years was close to 30%. So the 30% number is ten years out of date. And no this account is not being blocked for any valid reason, or really any reason at all. Delphi234 (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To give a little history, I am mostly an IP editor, who sometimes uses an account, mostly for things that can not be done as an IP editor, like become an admin (still pending), or upload images. This account was shut down for no reason almost a year and a half ago, because of a dispute about punctuation, a dispute that affects no one, other than those who care about getting things right. The people who voted to have it shut down are not picking up the slack, although some others have to some extent, but there are many articles that need to be updated and are not getting updated. I can not promise that I will have the time to do it myself when this account is unblocked, but it is obvious that Wikipedia will be better off by having my assistance available, so it will be very beneficial to the project when that happens. Hopefully it will be soon. WP:Block states the blocking policy, and clearly there is no reason for this account to be blocked. Delphi234 (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I have created over 100 new graphs and charts which anyone is welcome to use. I have just recently learned how to do SVG pie charts, bar graphs, and line charts - and translate them into multiple languages, so if anyone has any requests they can either leave a note here or on my talk page at Commons. See for example, File:World energy consumption by fuel.svg, File:Global Wind Power Cumulative Capacity.svg, and File:History of energy consumption in the United States.svg, all of which have multiple translations within the same file. But hopefully I will be unblocked soon and can get back to adding these and doing other important updates. Delphi234 (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]