| Revision as of 15:33, 2 July 2008 editFabartus (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,651 edits →Common courtesy: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:32, 2 July 2008 edit undoWtshymanski (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users76,111 edits revert Undid revision 223095815 by Fabartus (talk)Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Binary Prefixes == | == Binary Prefixes == | ||
| ; One thing I've learned...stick to your guns. --] 17:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | ; One thing I've learned...stick to your guns. --] 17:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 30: | Line 29: | ||
| You're wrong about GMRS being a USA service. it is also Canadian. Have a look: . Respectfully, ] (]) 03:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC) | You're wrong about GMRS being a USA service. it is also Canadian. Have a look: . Respectfully, ] (]) 03:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Common courtesy == | |||
| Common courtesy would be to discuss something and respect someone's time without unilateral reverts. ONLY A JUVENILE attitude can or could justify those ''acts of war''. No larger insult can be given on wikipedia. You also should never revert a whole edit because you don't know about one fact that you are quibbling about— in error in this case if my long ago read and remembered magazine article was correct—I'm referring to why ground wire requirements were written into FIRE CODES, which spread them into all U.S. state laws... historic fact, if little remembered. Don't know about the history up your way. In point of fact, the third wire these days is a waste of copper we are sorely short of already for all possible needs. The third lead with double-insulation adds virtually nothing to safety--save to fire fighters. | |||
| Nonetheless, in the future: '''Hang a {{tl|fact}} tag, or question the editor directly''' when tempted to '''such bad behavior'''. It's totally unacceptable in any quality editor. I spent too much time mediating page disputes here because of such actions and sick attitudes to tolerate it. In short grow up. I may know a few things you don't having dealt with wiring and electrical engineering for some four decades now. Sorry to read about the retina— same thing happened to my Dad in one eye and he was never the same. // <b>]</b><font color="green">]</font> 15:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:32, 2 July 2008
Binary Prefixes
- One thing I've learned...stick to your guns. --Wtshymanski 17
- 47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Electrical substation
Hiya. This article could do with a one-line diagram. Shall I draw one? Obviously, regional variations in symbols would be an issue, though. — BillC 16:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, sure! I will be using Inkscape to redraw it in SVG format, so a scan of a rough pen-and-paper sketch might even do. — BillC 17:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Was this the sort of thing you had in mind? — BillC 07:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Dispatcher training simulator
Hi Bill. If you get the time, perhaps you would care to look this short article over. I put it together a few days ago, but it would probably benefit from a second pair of eyes. Regards — BillC 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Great set of suggestions, I'll look at incorporating what I can find sources for. To answer a few of your questions, I very much doubt someone could qualify on simulator time only – they certainly couldn't at my organisation. A realistic simulator could run on a laptop, but in general these things are either the users' spare EMS, configured to run as a simulator; or a bolt-on package that simulates the response of the transmission system and the Data Acquisition gear. The 'difficult' scenarios vary according to the characteristics of the grid, I am sure, though we (and, from my correspondence, also my counterparts overseas) have had 'interesting' times trying to simulate synchronisation of multiple islands for black start. — BillC 23:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Light bulbs
I don't understand why we don't have an agreed upon and accepted multiplier to convert directly from lumens/watt ( printed on every lightbulb carton) to efficiency or efficacy. If there is one, what is it? 90% efficiency sounds too high and 2% sounds too low for incandescent light bulbs. In the early 20th century 95% efficiency was sometimes cited. Higher efficiency was obtained at the cost of shorter lifetime, even back in the 1880's. Edison (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- But lumens/watt varies by bulb size and voltage and type. Invariably disputes about "efficiency" are really disputes about the definition. What is the output of a light bulb? Monochromatic green light at 555 nm, or "white" light? That by itself is nearly a 3:1 ratio of lumens/watt. The ~2% crowd are doubtless pointing at 685 lumens/watt for green light, whereas the ~10% are using 230 lumens/watt for white light. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Ring indicator
Wtshymanski,
I note that you have changed the Ring indicator article to a redirect for the third time in a row. Misplaced Pages works by building consensus, which is what you should seek before making this change. At the very least, discussion on the talk page would be much more productive. Blanking a page in favor of a redirect is tantamount to deleting it. Misplaced Pages has a process called AfD (Articles for Deletion) that seeks the community's consensus before deciding that a page should be deleted. Only administrators are authorized to delete content on sight, and only subject to rather specific rules, such as blatant vandalism or test pages. If you disagree that the ring indicator should be on Misplaced Pages, then I encourage you to put that article through the AfD process. This is preferable to repeatedly blanking the page and converting it to a redirect, which is considered disruptive. Reswobslc (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- A merge is not deletion. I don't want the information deleted from Misplaced Pages, I want it put in a place where it will get seen. The unique content of the article was moved to the much more commonly used RS 232 article. The article was nominated for a merge several months ago. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
GMRS is also Canadian
You're wrong about GMRS being a USA service. it is also Canadian. Have a look: Government of Canada, Gazette Notice No. SNSE-013-04, Industry Canada, Radiocommunication Act. Respectfully, Fremte (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)