This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
this morning I expanded the "criticism" section. I stated facts and put in references and links. This afternoon it was all gone. Only vanilla criticism remains. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cldig ( talk • contribs) 13:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Have people here seen this coverage? http://principia-scientific.org/americas-first-solar-roadway-total-disaster/ -- Nigelj ( talk) 06:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Nigelj ( talk) 06:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
It has been the case with this page since it began, and continues to be, that the majority of the page is purely information put out by the Solar Roadways, and almost all reliable source that criticize it are suppressed, resulting in this page being plainly incorrect. A particularly egregious one being the current removal of the fact of how much energy is being generated by these panels, being replaced with the lie that they are not yet generating power. The reason being, that the source is a competing business with Solar Roadways. This is not true. Enphase help fund solar roadways (and even if it was true, why is it reliable to have almost all of the article being based purely on what the owners themselves say, but not what competitors say? This is very clearly the opposite of reliable... But not relevant anyway, as Enphase help fund solar roadways!)
It is plainly a lie to change the fact of the actual figures the Solar Roadway project produces to the untrue claim that they are not generating power.
With how long this continual censorship and lying has occurred, I can only imagine that the people doing so are vested in Solar Roadways.
81.109.3.70 ( talk) 18:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
In addition, to the claim that Phil Mason is not a reliable source, this could be debated to be true... But I do not see how it is relevant with the claim that is made. Other than the two claims " Panels runs at ~50C in late evening! LED are all but invisible from ~30m/ 30 yrds", all of the claims made by Phil Mason can be seen clearly just with the webcam that Solar Roadways provide. If Phil Mason's name was removed and these claims were made purely with the reference to Solar Roadways own webcam would this be acceptable? I can see the "Wikipedia does not publish its own editors' conclusions" coming already, but this is clearly ridiculous. To the extent these censors are proclaiming this, anything other than exact copying of word for word verbatim is "its own editors' conclusions"! It is clear to see without anything other than looking at it, no actual thinking or working out, from Solar Roadways own webcam that 10% of panels have failed. If this counts as "its own editors' conclusions" then I cannot see how anything other than verbatim copying does not.
81.109.3.70 ( talk) 18:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Yet another IP address with no edits other than this article, trying to argue the same thing as the banned editor Okip, and adding in the Phil Mason nonsense yet again. Check the archives, all registered users who aren't banned seem to agree it shouldn't be in there. Dream Focus 19:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I did not add the Phil Mason part (though, as I have asked above, would the exact same claims just referring to the webcam be allowed? All the claims other than the temperature and LED visiblity at 30 yards are immediately obvious just from looking at the webcam. If this is not allowed... Why? It's not editors' own conclusions. It is immediately obvious visually. If this is editors' own contribution and can't be added then you should go to the Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima page and get rid of it claiming to be the US flag. This is the editors' own contribution from looking at the photo, not actually mentioned in the text it cites.), I added the part citing Enphase and then reverted your incorrect edit removing it, explaining why you were incorrect in doing so. Rather than just reverting back with no valid explanation ( "to last by Dream Focus - these sources are not reliable enough for wp" the reason you gave that they are not reliable enough for wp is incorrect as I explained. Enphase help fund Solar Roadways.) you should give a valid reason that this is not reliable.
Rather than repeatedly reverting valid criticism, and ignore people showing that your claims of reliability are incorrect, please address them.
81.109.3.70 ( talk) 22:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
If you're getting to the point that you cannot mention something that is immediately visually clear, with no thinking or reasoning at all, without counting it as original research, then everything other than exact copying is original research.
Would an image from the webcam that clearly shows 10% of them being failed be acceptable? (so long as it isn't mentioned in any way in the body of text, wouldn't want any original research of describing a picture exactly as it is...) 81.109.3.70 ( talk) 22:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
So, you replaced a reliable source that mentions exactly how much power they produce with the claim "The 30 tiles in Sandpoint aren’t yet generating power." and then after being shown that you were mistaken in doing so, you did so again? I can understand editing it into different words. However you have just blatantly replaced a true claim with a reliable source with a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.3.70 ( talk) 22:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
How is a huge world market leader in small scale energy monitoring a reliable source for small scale energy monitoring?
And not that it matters at all (but for some reason you think it does) they are publicly supportive of solar roadways, and do not make solar panels themselves.
188.29.165.197 ( talk) 23:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
You did not state that, no. And they do not, no. A M215 microinverter is not a solar panel. It is used WITH solar panels. Enphase do not make solar panels, they use solar panels other companies make, connected with their own devices. They are publicly supportive of solar roadways, for a very obvious reason. Solar roadways being big would be a huge boon for them as there would be many solar panels that would have use for their product.
But again, this clearly does not matter. A world leader in small scale energy monitoring is clearly a reliable source for small scale energy monitoring. Even if they were competitors with solar roadways, but that isn't even the case! They are publicly supportive of them, and have a huge amount to gain if solar roadways succeeds.
I could see your point if Enphase's monitoring showed Solar Roadways were great that they wouldn't be a reliable source as they have a vested interest in this(I would still strongly disagree, it is incredibly clear that a reputable world leader in small scale energy monitoring is a good source for small scale energy monitoring). But they don't! Enphase's results show exactly the opposite of what Enphase wants.
It is incredibly clear that a reputable world leader in small scale energy monitoring is a reliable source for small scale energy monitoring . To claim otherwise is clearly disingenuous. (especially when their results are the opposite of what they both publicly claim to want, and what is obviously beneficial to their business)
81.109.3.70 ( talk) 23:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
188.29.165.197 ( talk) 00:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
81.109.3.70 ( talk) 00:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
http://www.solarroadways.com/ gives "Generic page for www.solarroadways.com [You should not be getting this page]". Anyone know what's up? - David Gerard ( talk) 17:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Per this diff it is a global warming denier "think tank" funded in part by fossil fuel interests. They regularly produce propaganda that attacks renewable energy and promotes expanded use of fossil fuels. Their criticism of this company or anything else related to renewable energy is not reliable for Wikipedia per WP:FRINGE. -- Green C 19:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
this morning I expanded the "criticism" section. I stated facts and put in references and links. This afternoon it was all gone. Only vanilla criticism remains. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cldig ( talk • contribs) 13:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Have people here seen this coverage? http://principia-scientific.org/americas-first-solar-roadway-total-disaster/ -- Nigelj ( talk) 06:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Nigelj ( talk) 06:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
It has been the case with this page since it began, and continues to be, that the majority of the page is purely information put out by the Solar Roadways, and almost all reliable source that criticize it are suppressed, resulting in this page being plainly incorrect. A particularly egregious one being the current removal of the fact of how much energy is being generated by these panels, being replaced with the lie that they are not yet generating power. The reason being, that the source is a competing business with Solar Roadways. This is not true. Enphase help fund solar roadways (and even if it was true, why is it reliable to have almost all of the article being based purely on what the owners themselves say, but not what competitors say? This is very clearly the opposite of reliable... But not relevant anyway, as Enphase help fund solar roadways!)
It is plainly a lie to change the fact of the actual figures the Solar Roadway project produces to the untrue claim that they are not generating power.
With how long this continual censorship and lying has occurred, I can only imagine that the people doing so are vested in Solar Roadways.
81.109.3.70 ( talk) 18:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
In addition, to the claim that Phil Mason is not a reliable source, this could be debated to be true... But I do not see how it is relevant with the claim that is made. Other than the two claims " Panels runs at ~50C in late evening! LED are all but invisible from ~30m/ 30 yrds", all of the claims made by Phil Mason can be seen clearly just with the webcam that Solar Roadways provide. If Phil Mason's name was removed and these claims were made purely with the reference to Solar Roadways own webcam would this be acceptable? I can see the "Wikipedia does not publish its own editors' conclusions" coming already, but this is clearly ridiculous. To the extent these censors are proclaiming this, anything other than exact copying of word for word verbatim is "its own editors' conclusions"! It is clear to see without anything other than looking at it, no actual thinking or working out, from Solar Roadways own webcam that 10% of panels have failed. If this counts as "its own editors' conclusions" then I cannot see how anything other than verbatim copying does not.
81.109.3.70 ( talk) 18:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Yet another IP address with no edits other than this article, trying to argue the same thing as the banned editor Okip, and adding in the Phil Mason nonsense yet again. Check the archives, all registered users who aren't banned seem to agree it shouldn't be in there. Dream Focus 19:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I did not add the Phil Mason part (though, as I have asked above, would the exact same claims just referring to the webcam be allowed? All the claims other than the temperature and LED visiblity at 30 yards are immediately obvious just from looking at the webcam. If this is not allowed... Why? It's not editors' own conclusions. It is immediately obvious visually. If this is editors' own contribution and can't be added then you should go to the Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima page and get rid of it claiming to be the US flag. This is the editors' own contribution from looking at the photo, not actually mentioned in the text it cites.), I added the part citing Enphase and then reverted your incorrect edit removing it, explaining why you were incorrect in doing so. Rather than just reverting back with no valid explanation ( "to last by Dream Focus - these sources are not reliable enough for wp" the reason you gave that they are not reliable enough for wp is incorrect as I explained. Enphase help fund Solar Roadways.) you should give a valid reason that this is not reliable.
Rather than repeatedly reverting valid criticism, and ignore people showing that your claims of reliability are incorrect, please address them.
81.109.3.70 ( talk) 22:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
If you're getting to the point that you cannot mention something that is immediately visually clear, with no thinking or reasoning at all, without counting it as original research, then everything other than exact copying is original research.
Would an image from the webcam that clearly shows 10% of them being failed be acceptable? (so long as it isn't mentioned in any way in the body of text, wouldn't want any original research of describing a picture exactly as it is...) 81.109.3.70 ( talk) 22:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
So, you replaced a reliable source that mentions exactly how much power they produce with the claim "The 30 tiles in Sandpoint aren’t yet generating power." and then after being shown that you were mistaken in doing so, you did so again? I can understand editing it into different words. However you have just blatantly replaced a true claim with a reliable source with a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.3.70 ( talk) 22:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
How is a huge world market leader in small scale energy monitoring a reliable source for small scale energy monitoring?
And not that it matters at all (but for some reason you think it does) they are publicly supportive of solar roadways, and do not make solar panels themselves.
188.29.165.197 ( talk) 23:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
You did not state that, no. And they do not, no. A M215 microinverter is not a solar panel. It is used WITH solar panels. Enphase do not make solar panels, they use solar panels other companies make, connected with their own devices. They are publicly supportive of solar roadways, for a very obvious reason. Solar roadways being big would be a huge boon for them as there would be many solar panels that would have use for their product.
But again, this clearly does not matter. A world leader in small scale energy monitoring is clearly a reliable source for small scale energy monitoring. Even if they were competitors with solar roadways, but that isn't even the case! They are publicly supportive of them, and have a huge amount to gain if solar roadways succeeds.
I could see your point if Enphase's monitoring showed Solar Roadways were great that they wouldn't be a reliable source as they have a vested interest in this(I would still strongly disagree, it is incredibly clear that a reputable world leader in small scale energy monitoring is a good source for small scale energy monitoring). But they don't! Enphase's results show exactly the opposite of what Enphase wants.
It is incredibly clear that a reputable world leader in small scale energy monitoring is a reliable source for small scale energy monitoring . To claim otherwise is clearly disingenuous. (especially when their results are the opposite of what they both publicly claim to want, and what is obviously beneficial to their business)
81.109.3.70 ( talk) 23:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
188.29.165.197 ( talk) 00:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
81.109.3.70 ( talk) 00:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
http://www.solarroadways.com/ gives "Generic page for www.solarroadways.com [You should not be getting this page]". Anyone know what's up? - David Gerard ( talk) 17:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Per this diff it is a global warming denier "think tank" funded in part by fossil fuel interests. They regularly produce propaganda that attacks renewable energy and promotes expanded use of fossil fuels. Their criticism of this company or anything else related to renewable energy is not reliable for Wikipedia per WP:FRINGE. -- Green C 19:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)