| Revision as of 22:04, 29 November 2009 editJoefaust (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers4,133 edits Answering place.← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:56, 2 December 2009 edit undoJoefaust (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers4,133 edits →WP matters: POV stuck article, what goes?Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == WP matters == | == WP matters == | ||
| I am answering at my talk page. Thank you. ] (]) 22:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | I am answering at my talk page. Thank you. ] (]) 22:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ==Re: Wind power == | |||
| Wstshymanski, any article on "wind power" cannot validly disregard WECS and TWECS. Many others in discussion are calling for the Danish POV to be far expanded in this article. TWECS on ships and boats are advancing fast in installations; indeed nations could meet the 20% wind RE via traction from the wind power on ships. What is your standing that you prevent cited wind power flows from being in the wind power article? Thank you. ] (]) 02:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:56, 2 December 2009
WP matters
I am answering at my talk page. Thank you. Joefaust (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Re: Wind power
Wstshymanski, any article on "wind power" cannot validly disregard WECS and TWECS. Many others in discussion are calling for the Danish POV to be far expanded in this article. TWECS on ships and boats are advancing fast in installations; indeed nations could meet the 20% wind RE via traction from the wind power on ships. What is your standing that you prevent cited wind power flows from being in the wind power article? Thank you. Joefaust (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)