User talk:Scottish Scientist

Reliable sources
Hello. Please review Identifying reliable sources. Blogs are not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards, as they are self-published sources. You may also find Conflict of interest of interest. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Noted. Scottish Scientist (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Wind hybrid power systems. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Noted. Scottish Scientist (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Wind hybrid power systems. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I would add that a blog entry, even if you wrote it yourself, is not considered a reliable source. Please click on WP:RS to learn about what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. In any event, you need to discuss this matter on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would further add that a blog entry you wrote is not an independent reliable source. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Noted. See the contribution I made on the Wind-hybrid power systems talk page

I wish to raise a dispute against the editors who have unjustly reverted the edits I made in this version.
I had given two good cited references for each of my edits.

My first edit included an independent reference. No even plausible reason was given for removing this first edit, supported as it was by an independent reference. The reverting editor's note utterly ignored the independent reference I gave for my first edit, conflating the two edits into one. Sloppy and illogical. The editing note I made was - (or inadequate wind power over-capacity in proportion to the electrical demand - independent reference cited)

The second edit was a minor edit only to include an addition reference. The note I made was - (Cited my own scientific analysis of the problem with the El Hierro wind-hydro power station. It's the best reference, bar none, even though user-generated. An exception to general rule against user-generated content should be made for this minor edit.) '' Scottish Scientist (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)