![]() | 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 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
You are wasting my time, man. Not me. 47.251.3.230 ( talk) 15:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
senti, tu che ste cose le saprai meglio di me, ma che mossa è quella di mettere all'ambiente il figlio anti-nucleare di koizumi? non ne vedo la logica. -- Dwalin ( talk) 21:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
mi scoccia aprire sempre nuove chat. zhangzou 1 iniziato il 16 ottobre, non si sa se anche il 2 e nessuna notizia degli altri 4 di sto luglio. cmq......una centrale nucleare non è un campo di fagioli, possibile che non si accorgano se sia in costruzione o meno? non ci sono ancora xiapu e bohai shipyard NPP sul PRIS.....-- Dwalin ( talk) 15:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
qui dicono che hanno iniziato due hualong one, ed anche qui lo dicono. solo che guardando la fonte della prima notizia iniziano nel 2020 e nel 2021], c'è stata solo la cerimonia dei progetti. tu ci capisci qualcosa? ho scritto anche a NucNet per avere altre info, visto che le loro fonti smentiscono l'articolo originale. -- Dwalin ( talk) 16:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
ti faccio notare che su china WNA hanno tolto la centrale galleggiante dai reattori in costruzione, mentre rimane xiapu. -- Dwalin ( talk) 19:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Greetings!
After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.
The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.
On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).-- Jamie Tubers ( talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The article Maruhan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 13:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Nice edits. Just wanted to say "thanks." One hears (or wants to express that) so rarely on the Wiki these days. -- 104.15.130.191 ( talk) 11:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello Ita140188, I am wondering why on Dec 11 you reverted the edits I made to the LCOE article (as /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/174.7.245.18)
The claim that LCOE is "the net present value of the generated electrical energy over the lifetime of a electricity generating plant" (which I hadn't realized also occurs in the short description) is certainly wrong in many ways. Firstly it is an attempt to define not the discounted market value of *all* the energy produced but the npv of the *costs* on a per unit basis. And it is indeed just an "attempt" as the decision to discount future power at the same rate as money is only one of many options (and probably not a good one as money depreciates with inflation but amounts of energy do not).
Furthermore, you also removed various places where I identified a citation needed and I don't understand why you think that the definitions and claims made in the article are self evident. Without such attribution it seems that they are just being presented as original research - which I believe Wikipedia frowns on. alQpr ( talk) 22:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I see your point, but I noticed that the file I included was used on over 50 pages, so I figured it was going to be kept up to date. But I agree that since we have built-in graphing capabilities in Wikipedia, we might as well use them. Do you want to suggest changing it on all those pages? Of course, a problem with that is that one would have to change 50+ pages every time there is new data...
Perhaps there is a way to have the graph as well as its data in a central file that can be linked to and used? Best, KarlFrei ( talk) 07:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Dunque, ricapitolando: 1) inizia il processo annullando l'aggiornamento della sezione "Tickets", senza peraltro migliorarla o aggiornarla; 2) continua ad annullare il medesimo aggiornamento, senza peraltro migliorarlo o aggiornarlo. Insomma, un comportamento alquanto infantile nonché dannoso, sia dal punto di vista dei contenuti che del tempo perso.
Cancellando l'aggiornamento si perdono informazioni su: possibilità di interscambio nell'arco di tempo di validità del biglietto, possibilità di utilizzo di carte bancarie in generale (non solo di credito - vedere fonte), implementazione nel 2020 in superficie (vedere fonte), e altro. L'utilizzo della lingua iglese risulta inoltre meno preciso. "For the city center" è errato (vedere fonte).
Io mio occupo di ingegneria dei trasporti nella migliore università al mondo nel settore (ARWU, 2017) e ho un livello d'inglese C1 (certificato). Ita140188?
Saluti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mssddmit ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia page "Solar power in Italy", the subsection "Conto Energia (Feed-in tariffs)" has a table that you added. The table says the MW Installed, Yearly cost, and Yearly cost per kW installed in each of Conto Energia schemes 1-5.
I tried to find the source of the table, but the link is broken. The source, the GSE home page, seems to be archived at the Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20160809083425/http://www.gse.it/en/Pages/default.aspx
However, when I check this source for data, the data are different from what you put on the Wikipedia page. I see these data:
Conto Energia 2: 6,820.3 MW instead of 6,791.2 MW, and 3,282.9 instead of 3,270.1 million euros yearly cost Conto Energia 3: 1,536.7 MW instead of 1,566.6 MW, and 638.8 instead of 648.9 million euros yearly cost Conto Energia 4: 4,787.5 MW instead of 7,600.4 MW, and 1,681.8 instead of 2,469.0 million euros yearly cost
The GSE home page did not actually list data for Conto Energia 5. I think your numbers for Conto Energia 5 were calculated to make a total of 6.7 billion Euros total cost after Conto Energia 5, and to make the total MW installed equal a number that you found somewhere (where?). (For Conto Energia 1, your table and the GSE home page have the same data.)
Maybe the data in your table came from a different version of the GSE home page, or from some other page? I am very interested to understand the source of data in the table you made, why there is a difference, and which numbers are actually correct. I wondered if the difference might be:
Is there some way to tell which data are correct, and whether the data are for (1) indicative versus actual costs; and (2) include grandfathered projects with the scheme whose tariff they received, versus with the scheme active when they were commissioned?
By the way, also, the total yearly cost might have exceeded 6.7 billion Euros, because installations after the cost reached 6.7 billion Euros could still receive incentives for 30 days (from June 6, 2013 to July 5, 2013), and because small systems might have received incentives longer. I wonder if there are any data about this.
This is my first Wikipedia edit of any kind, so I hope I am doing this right. (I came to this because I am trying to determine how much each calendar year's installations cost (million Euros per year of additional cost from one year's installations), instead of how much each scheme's installations cost, for my own research. If you have suggestions, I would be glad to know -- maybe there is a right way to discuss this; I am not sure for Wikipedia.)
-- EconMan ( talk) 01:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
A follow-up: I determined that the information already in Wikipedia must be correct. The information that now appears in the Internet Archive copies of the Gestore Servizi Energetici (GSE) home page is from an older date, 3 June 2012, predating the end of Conto Energia 4. The Internet Archive dates displayed for the GSE home page are misleading, because the page loads and uses lots of subsidiary code files and other files, and those can have different archive dates. A subsidiary file named "contatore_fotovoltaico_dataEn.xml" contains the detailed data accessible via the GSE home page for Conto Energia 3 and Conto Energia 4, and that subsidiary file was only saved once at the Internet Archive, on 3 June 2012. The non-detailed photovoltaic counter data on the GSE home page for Conto Energia 3 and Conto Energia 4 exactly tally with those detailed data, indicating that they also must have come from information provided by GSE as of 3 June 2012. I conclude that the information entered by contributor Beebuzbar on 30 April 2016, and which Ita140188 confirmed when cleaning up formatting on 12 May 2016, must be correct. -- EconMan ( talk) 17:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Sounds great, thank you. If you do find an updated reference, I would be glad to receive a ping here as before (no obligation). -- EconMan ( talk) 04:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ita,
I came across an old comment of yours on the talk page of Graph:Chart and I remembered we interacted recently. I have now investigated SVG charts a bit and it seems nontrivial to use them. The instructions on Wikimedia are not very clear, I feel. And the problem with using third party software is that it tends to create SVGs that are not editable by a text editor.
Anyway what I was wondering specifically is what precisely the problem is with the built-in Wikipedia charts. While I certainly agree that all the graphs on the template talk page look terrible (very blurry and vague), there are other charts which look much better. Indeed, to me it looks like a difference between night and day compared to the graphs on the talk page! Also the particular graph that we discussed earlier actually looks fine to me; I only wanted to do it differently to get a global solution, which could be updated centrally.
You mentioned that the built-in system is canvas-based and inefficient. I am a beginner with respect to canvas and svg, but is the efficiency really a problem in this day and age? I have tried in recent days to get a discussion of SVG versus PNG going in various places, but nobody seems to be interested in discussing this, unfortunately. KarlFrei ( talk) 15:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello Ita
Concerning my revised extension with "half commercial" reactors. I meant: Their electricity was (or in little cases of still operating reactors is) sold, but without overall profit; the plant existed only with the help of state subsidies, for mainly research purposes. I think this completion would be necessary for factual reasons. Greetings-- 2A02:1206:455F:6E20:AC3C:E245:69E9:83CE ( talk) 10:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment is nill, seemed to be a technical problem! Your answer here is ok, thank you. -- 2A02:1206:455F:5BC0:4541:12C9:2897:DC9 ( talk) 16:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I had edited the page because I believed the opening section was too long and made the navbox irrelevant. Guodata ( talk) 14:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Ciao Ita140188, accetto la tua decisione ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Renewable_energy&diff=949191479&oldid=949002143 ). Guardate qui ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Molgreen ) e qui ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wind_turbines_in_Brandenburg ). Vedrete che le energie rinnovabili sono il tema del mio cuore.
Guardando robe sul coronavirus, ho guardato i posti letto per nazione. Nei posti letto ci sono anche i posti delle case di riposo? La differenza rispetto l'UE è immensa. -- Dwalin ( talk) 22:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
huizou rinominata taipingling ed inizio ufficiale il 26 dicembre. -- Dwalin ( talk) 12:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding
this: I was about to self-undo
, but you beat me to it. Cheers. -
DVdm (
talk) 08:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
You have incorrectly undone my edit calculating solar generation as a percentage of the total power generation.
The link you deleted shows that power generation from non-renewable sources + hydro was 1,252.61 TWh in 2019-20 (page 1A). The renewable energy generation for 2019-20 is in the link that is still there (page p1B), which is 138.32 TWh.
1252.61 + 138.32 = 1,390.93 TWh. Hence 1,391 TWh for 2019-20 is the correct figure. Please check and confirm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matsyasana ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
No worries, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matsyasana ( talk • contribs) 10:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Enlighten me! If there is any official rule in en.WP that forbids me to improve titles on discussion pages. -- Manorainjan 07:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
It is only a talk page. No need to seek consensus just because You subjectively without any real argument do not like it. Even if it would be a content page, consensus would have to be sought on the basis of arguments. But You don't have any. You are externalizing You bad feelings and disturbing others needlessly and fruitlessly instead of solving Your own internal conflict. Your feelings are no argument in an encyclopaedic matter. If I would use Your reasons, which are no argument in any way, I could question each and every edit in WP just like this and say, it is controversial, because I oppose it. This is such a blunder! Come to Your senses! Be rational! -- Manorainjan 09:48, 30 July 2020 (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 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
You are wasting my time, man. Not me. 47.251.3.230 ( talk) 15:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
senti, tu che ste cose le saprai meglio di me, ma che mossa è quella di mettere all'ambiente il figlio anti-nucleare di koizumi? non ne vedo la logica. -- Dwalin ( talk) 21:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
mi scoccia aprire sempre nuove chat. zhangzou 1 iniziato il 16 ottobre, non si sa se anche il 2 e nessuna notizia degli altri 4 di sto luglio. cmq......una centrale nucleare non è un campo di fagioli, possibile che non si accorgano se sia in costruzione o meno? non ci sono ancora xiapu e bohai shipyard NPP sul PRIS.....-- Dwalin ( talk) 15:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
qui dicono che hanno iniziato due hualong one, ed anche qui lo dicono. solo che guardando la fonte della prima notizia iniziano nel 2020 e nel 2021], c'è stata solo la cerimonia dei progetti. tu ci capisci qualcosa? ho scritto anche a NucNet per avere altre info, visto che le loro fonti smentiscono l'articolo originale. -- Dwalin ( talk) 16:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
ti faccio notare che su china WNA hanno tolto la centrale galleggiante dai reattori in costruzione, mentre rimane xiapu. -- Dwalin ( talk) 19:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Greetings!
After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.
The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.
On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).-- Jamie Tubers ( talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The article Maruhan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 13:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Nice edits. Just wanted to say "thanks." One hears (or wants to express that) so rarely on the Wiki these days. -- 104.15.130.191 ( talk) 11:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello Ita140188, I am wondering why on Dec 11 you reverted the edits I made to the LCOE article (as /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/174.7.245.18)
The claim that LCOE is "the net present value of the generated electrical energy over the lifetime of a electricity generating plant" (which I hadn't realized also occurs in the short description) is certainly wrong in many ways. Firstly it is an attempt to define not the discounted market value of *all* the energy produced but the npv of the *costs* on a per unit basis. And it is indeed just an "attempt" as the decision to discount future power at the same rate as money is only one of many options (and probably not a good one as money depreciates with inflation but amounts of energy do not).
Furthermore, you also removed various places where I identified a citation needed and I don't understand why you think that the definitions and claims made in the article are self evident. Without such attribution it seems that they are just being presented as original research - which I believe Wikipedia frowns on. alQpr ( talk) 22:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I see your point, but I noticed that the file I included was used on over 50 pages, so I figured it was going to be kept up to date. But I agree that since we have built-in graphing capabilities in Wikipedia, we might as well use them. Do you want to suggest changing it on all those pages? Of course, a problem with that is that one would have to change 50+ pages every time there is new data...
Perhaps there is a way to have the graph as well as its data in a central file that can be linked to and used? Best, KarlFrei ( talk) 07:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Dunque, ricapitolando: 1) inizia il processo annullando l'aggiornamento della sezione "Tickets", senza peraltro migliorarla o aggiornarla; 2) continua ad annullare il medesimo aggiornamento, senza peraltro migliorarlo o aggiornarlo. Insomma, un comportamento alquanto infantile nonché dannoso, sia dal punto di vista dei contenuti che del tempo perso.
Cancellando l'aggiornamento si perdono informazioni su: possibilità di interscambio nell'arco di tempo di validità del biglietto, possibilità di utilizzo di carte bancarie in generale (non solo di credito - vedere fonte), implementazione nel 2020 in superficie (vedere fonte), e altro. L'utilizzo della lingua iglese risulta inoltre meno preciso. "For the city center" è errato (vedere fonte).
Io mio occupo di ingegneria dei trasporti nella migliore università al mondo nel settore (ARWU, 2017) e ho un livello d'inglese C1 (certificato). Ita140188?
Saluti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mssddmit ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia page "Solar power in Italy", the subsection "Conto Energia (Feed-in tariffs)" has a table that you added. The table says the MW Installed, Yearly cost, and Yearly cost per kW installed in each of Conto Energia schemes 1-5.
I tried to find the source of the table, but the link is broken. The source, the GSE home page, seems to be archived at the Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20160809083425/http://www.gse.it/en/Pages/default.aspx
However, when I check this source for data, the data are different from what you put on the Wikipedia page. I see these data:
Conto Energia 2: 6,820.3 MW instead of 6,791.2 MW, and 3,282.9 instead of 3,270.1 million euros yearly cost Conto Energia 3: 1,536.7 MW instead of 1,566.6 MW, and 638.8 instead of 648.9 million euros yearly cost Conto Energia 4: 4,787.5 MW instead of 7,600.4 MW, and 1,681.8 instead of 2,469.0 million euros yearly cost
The GSE home page did not actually list data for Conto Energia 5. I think your numbers for Conto Energia 5 were calculated to make a total of 6.7 billion Euros total cost after Conto Energia 5, and to make the total MW installed equal a number that you found somewhere (where?). (For Conto Energia 1, your table and the GSE home page have the same data.)
Maybe the data in your table came from a different version of the GSE home page, or from some other page? I am very interested to understand the source of data in the table you made, why there is a difference, and which numbers are actually correct. I wondered if the difference might be:
Is there some way to tell which data are correct, and whether the data are for (1) indicative versus actual costs; and (2) include grandfathered projects with the scheme whose tariff they received, versus with the scheme active when they were commissioned?
By the way, also, the total yearly cost might have exceeded 6.7 billion Euros, because installations after the cost reached 6.7 billion Euros could still receive incentives for 30 days (from June 6, 2013 to July 5, 2013), and because small systems might have received incentives longer. I wonder if there are any data about this.
This is my first Wikipedia edit of any kind, so I hope I am doing this right. (I came to this because I am trying to determine how much each calendar year's installations cost (million Euros per year of additional cost from one year's installations), instead of how much each scheme's installations cost, for my own research. If you have suggestions, I would be glad to know -- maybe there is a right way to discuss this; I am not sure for Wikipedia.)
-- EconMan ( talk) 01:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
A follow-up: I determined that the information already in Wikipedia must be correct. The information that now appears in the Internet Archive copies of the Gestore Servizi Energetici (GSE) home page is from an older date, 3 June 2012, predating the end of Conto Energia 4. The Internet Archive dates displayed for the GSE home page are misleading, because the page loads and uses lots of subsidiary code files and other files, and those can have different archive dates. A subsidiary file named "contatore_fotovoltaico_dataEn.xml" contains the detailed data accessible via the GSE home page for Conto Energia 3 and Conto Energia 4, and that subsidiary file was only saved once at the Internet Archive, on 3 June 2012. The non-detailed photovoltaic counter data on the GSE home page for Conto Energia 3 and Conto Energia 4 exactly tally with those detailed data, indicating that they also must have come from information provided by GSE as of 3 June 2012. I conclude that the information entered by contributor Beebuzbar on 30 April 2016, and which Ita140188 confirmed when cleaning up formatting on 12 May 2016, must be correct. -- EconMan ( talk) 17:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Sounds great, thank you. If you do find an updated reference, I would be glad to receive a ping here as before (no obligation). -- EconMan ( talk) 04:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ita,
I came across an old comment of yours on the talk page of Graph:Chart and I remembered we interacted recently. I have now investigated SVG charts a bit and it seems nontrivial to use them. The instructions on Wikimedia are not very clear, I feel. And the problem with using third party software is that it tends to create SVGs that are not editable by a text editor.
Anyway what I was wondering specifically is what precisely the problem is with the built-in Wikipedia charts. While I certainly agree that all the graphs on the template talk page look terrible (very blurry and vague), there are other charts which look much better. Indeed, to me it looks like a difference between night and day compared to the graphs on the talk page! Also the particular graph that we discussed earlier actually looks fine to me; I only wanted to do it differently to get a global solution, which could be updated centrally.
You mentioned that the built-in system is canvas-based and inefficient. I am a beginner with respect to canvas and svg, but is the efficiency really a problem in this day and age? I have tried in recent days to get a discussion of SVG versus PNG going in various places, but nobody seems to be interested in discussing this, unfortunately. KarlFrei ( talk) 15:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello Ita
Concerning my revised extension with "half commercial" reactors. I meant: Their electricity was (or in little cases of still operating reactors is) sold, but without overall profit; the plant existed only with the help of state subsidies, for mainly research purposes. I think this completion would be necessary for factual reasons. Greetings-- 2A02:1206:455F:6E20:AC3C:E245:69E9:83CE ( talk) 10:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment is nill, seemed to be a technical problem! Your answer here is ok, thank you. -- 2A02:1206:455F:5BC0:4541:12C9:2897:DC9 ( talk) 16:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I had edited the page because I believed the opening section was too long and made the navbox irrelevant. Guodata ( talk) 14:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Ciao Ita140188, accetto la tua decisione ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Renewable_energy&diff=949191479&oldid=949002143 ). Guardate qui ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Molgreen ) e qui ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wind_turbines_in_Brandenburg ). Vedrete che le energie rinnovabili sono il tema del mio cuore.
Guardando robe sul coronavirus, ho guardato i posti letto per nazione. Nei posti letto ci sono anche i posti delle case di riposo? La differenza rispetto l'UE è immensa. -- Dwalin ( talk) 22:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
huizou rinominata taipingling ed inizio ufficiale il 26 dicembre. -- Dwalin ( talk) 12:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding
this: I was about to self-undo
, but you beat me to it. Cheers. -
DVdm (
talk) 08:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
You have incorrectly undone my edit calculating solar generation as a percentage of the total power generation.
The link you deleted shows that power generation from non-renewable sources + hydro was 1,252.61 TWh in 2019-20 (page 1A). The renewable energy generation for 2019-20 is in the link that is still there (page p1B), which is 138.32 TWh.
1252.61 + 138.32 = 1,390.93 TWh. Hence 1,391 TWh for 2019-20 is the correct figure. Please check and confirm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matsyasana ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
No worries, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matsyasana ( talk • contribs) 10:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Enlighten me! If there is any official rule in en.WP that forbids me to improve titles on discussion pages. -- Manorainjan 07:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
It is only a talk page. No need to seek consensus just because You subjectively without any real argument do not like it. Even if it would be a content page, consensus would have to be sought on the basis of arguments. But You don't have any. You are externalizing You bad feelings and disturbing others needlessly and fruitlessly instead of solving Your own internal conflict. Your feelings are no argument in an encyclopaedic matter. If I would use Your reasons, which are no argument in any way, I could question each and every edit in WP just like this and say, it is controversial, because I oppose it. This is such a blunder! Come to Your senses! Be rational! -- Manorainjan 09:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)