User talk:Anmclarke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to new user[edit]

Hello, Anmclarke! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Petrb (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do

Solar telescopes[edit]

The information in the edits seems fine, the problem is: what context does it belong in? - and is it needed at all? Solar telescopes, as best I can classify,[1] are "Telescopes classified by the task performed". They are not a wavelength classification or an optical classification. This makes them a subtype that may not need to be mentioned at Telescope - that article has links to lists of subtypes already, including Solar telescopes. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Copied solar tracker article[edit]

Greetings Anmclarke:


== Solar tracker article copied? ==
Hello Leonard,
'As you are a major author of Solar tracker, and I'm very much a new contributor, I thought I'd draw the following to your attention and ask your advice on what you might do about it. An external web-page: appears to be derived from the Wikipedia Solar tracker article. It's pretty clear from the Wikipedia history log that the Wikipedia article is the original and the 3rd party page is the copy: the overall structure and section headings are replicated and images used in the 3rd party page are lower-resolution copies of images published via the Wikipedia article. From details of the 3rd party page, it seems to have been derived from Wikipedia sometime on or after July 2010. Although there are many copies of Wikipedia pages, this usage appears to be at variance with Wikipedia's Terms of use: not only is there no attribution to Wikipedia or its authors or the original creators of the images, but instead the 3rd party has re-branded the content as "Copyright © 2010-2011 by Donald R. Bell - All Rights Reserved Worldwide" and "CopySleuth PROTECTED PAGE DO NOT COPY". Your thoughts? --anmclarke (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a similar problem with Imperial roof decoration, an article I created and contributed to, which another editor thought I had lifted from a commercial site: There is still no specific Wikipedia reference on that site, I don't know if they were ever notified, but they now state the proper licensing for the text.

It's probably not a huge problem, but at least we should make the offender aware of the problems.

But (and this is a huge BUT), from the site in question (emphasis added):

Copyright Restrictions On...
The Use Of Our Online Materials
All Online Materials on the website, including, without limitation, text, ebooks, software, names, logos, trademarks, service marks, trade names, images, photos, illustrations, audio clips, video clips, and music are copyrighted intellectual property. All usage rights are owned and controlled by and Donald R. Bell, and other copyright holders from whom we've obtained a license to use.

Sounds like he is waiving a red flag at us since he has not complied with the terms of at least some of the licenses for which he claims to have obtained a license.

I think we should kick this one upstairs. I will refer some other editors to this discussion here.

Thanks for the notification.

-Leonard G. (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The first step should be a polite email to Donald R. Bell.--Wetman (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
If a polite email doesn't have any effect, notify the Wikimedia foundation office. I suspect they know how to deal with this problem... -- SamuelWantman 05:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Air mass (solar energy)[edit]

Hi, Anmclarke!

Forgive my poor english but I'm Italian and thus english is not my mother tongue.

I was reading the Air mass (solar energy) article and I noticed a statement that I do not share:

After the "Solar intensity vs zenith angle z and airmass coefficient AM" table you state that "power is available at only a few degrees above the horizon, and hence the value of tracking solar collectors"

I don't think tracking has anything to do with airmass coefficient: the rationale for tracking is, IMO, to maximize the exposed surface of the PV panel and minimize the light angle of incidence, but you can't alter the zenith of the Sun (and hence the AM) by tracking it.

If you agree, could you please amend that passage? If not, would you mind to explain me why you find my reasing wrong?

Best regards!

--Smanzi (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited AARNet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AVCC (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) 08:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree files[edit]

Some of the files that you have uploaded may be unfree. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 February 26#OTRS pending since November. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)