User talk:GliderMaven

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

Particulates edit of yours[edit]

Dear editor I would like you to provide a reference for your edit on 18 March 2016‎ to the Environmental impact of wind power page . . (→‎Pollution costs: wind turbines produce no particulates in operation, but do so during construction. As far as I'm aware wind turbines do indeed produce particulates during use, with gear grinding etc.

If you have a reference, then please add it, otherwise could you self-revert your edit? (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

This shows a complete lack of understanding on your part. Particulates of concern in the context of air pollution virtually exclusively refer to organic particulates, see the relevant article, and often form within the atmosphere due to photochemical processes. Gear grinding produces inorganic particulates, and even then it's overwhelmingly held by the lubricating oil. The only particulates of concern in the context of wind turbines are produced when the materials that make up the wind turbines are manufactured and during construction.GliderMaven (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Apart from being bloody obvious, one of the two references already in the article that talk about particulates explicitly make that point "The energy production phase from wind is clean because no emissions are released from the turbine."GliderMaven (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Your edit-warring at Truthiness[edit]

What part of WP:BRD do you need to have explained to you? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

That is insulting and incorrect. Which bit of completely off topic and completely unreferenced don't you understand?GliderMaven (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello @GliderMaven - you deleted an edit I made to Truthiness as "off topic". I gather you've been protecting that article from edits. Why did you consider my edit off-topic? The concept of "truthiness" is a notable topic in Computer Science, and would seem clearly on-topic for an article on "Truthiness". Several other editors have put in sections on truthiness. There are plenty of references for this concept (for example MicroSoft, Google, and Mozilla all define it). I don't see the rational for deleting this. Do you think the "truthiness" article should be split in two to cover two meanings? If not, please explain on why you consider one meaning invalid? --winterstein (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you'd have to put it in another article. Articles are always on just one meaning or general topic. You can't connect truthiness in a computer science sense to the main topic via references or any other way. The fact they use the same word means nothing. The topic here has nothing to do with electrical engineering.GliderMaven (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 August[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for you, reply on Enviro impact of wind turbines[edit]

Boundarylayer (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Christian apologetics[edit]

Thanks for the revert at Christian apologetics. It appears I'm blind or something. Cheers, Graham (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)