Talk:Crosswind kite power

Caution on original research and self-promotion by AWECrosswind
Article starter author has yet to well document prior art while he writes in paths and links to his original research coupled with untenable claims. Editors, carefully handle his inputs up to Wikipedia policy and watch for interpretive overclaims and slighting of prior public-domain art. 68.126.251.208 (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Contrary to Wikipedia acceptance of on-topic patent coverage for technical topic, the author starting the article is continuing to delete the crosswind kite power patent section that holds prior art that competes with his effort to show a narrow POV over crosswind kite power; such actions violate WP:NPOV policy. It might be best for the author to recuse himself from editing this article. 68.123.234.188 (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Patents on topic
Patents on topic are very much part of the encyclopedic scene in Wikipedia. 68.123.234.188 (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

False declaration of vandalism is against Wikipedia policy. Removing appropriate prior art to further your private agenda to keep your narrow point of view is against WP:NPOV. You seem to miss that Wikipedia articles are not owned by any one person. 68.123.233.218 (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Mr. AweCrosswind, you are respectfully asked to recognize that others are building this article. The patent section is on topic and follows Wikipedia acceptance policies. No one is "making patent claims" when the record of a patent document is stated, linked, and paraphased for on-topic teachings for the readers' benefits. Your continued deletion of the patent section serves to keep things narrow to serve your personal technical article that you seem aggressively to keep as "the" POV of this larger article on crosswind kite power. You do not own the article; you do not own the topic; you do not own the reach of the topic. If you insist on your POV as being kept centered, then Wikipedia is not for original research foisting; other venues are more appropriate for publishing your research results. The building of this core article will take time; many editors will be interested in the article. The article has importance in aviation and energy. Give interested editor time to build sections. Your quick deletions are not helpful. If something is supportable, then you are asked to help reference the matter instead of deleting the supportable item. 68.123.233.218 (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

AWECS and AWES
AWECS and AWES are both used in consensus in the field. AWES is receiving the most use. 68.123.234.188 (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Timeline
This section will be built by concerned editors. Significant steps in the history of crosswind kite power are appropriate for this section. Both the uses of and the devices that produce crosswind kite power are seen as entries that will grace the readers. 68.123.233.218 (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"Some" instead of "all" or "the main"
To keep a neutral point of view when the field is young, unsubstantiated overclaim by use of "the main" is to be avoided in the article. The article starter has shown a tendency to support a tunnel vision on the large topic; his narrow vision of the field has resulted in pushing that the topic is just covered by his perceived few methods, whereas, the field of methods of crosswind kite power are more extensive than the three methods he started the article with. In order to grow the article to best serve encyclopedic needs, one editor's POV is not to constrain a more serving enriching representation of the field of crosswind kite power. 68.123.233.218 (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

User talk:JorisvS
User talk:JorisvS has been helping on some phrasing matters. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JorisvS#Crosswind_kite_power

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crosswind kite power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121231040127/http://www.nampet.org/resources/mars.html to http://www.nampet.org/resources/mars.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Some ugliness in the 'theory' header
Here they are: Where is a citation of the example? The Loyds papers formula does not show it in thowse simple terms. What is CL What is Pa Where does 2/27 come from? How can this be scaled to loyds c5-a example? 50Mx2M =100m^2 2/27=0.07407407 pa=1.225 kg/m^3 P=9.074074*CL*G^2*V^3 g^2=225 v^3= 1728 P=9.074074*CL*388800 P=3527999.97*CL CL=0.0882 The free and open source OpenVSP can be used to model designs of CWKP systems. http://hangar.openvsp.org/vspfiles/350 The first bit really shoud be in the talk page and the bit with the link really doesen's sit right with me, though im not sure if it shouldn't be there.--YoungVenus (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed, 4 years later. Retswerb (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)