Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sebis (talk | contribs) at 14:10, 1 February 2008 (→"Not a good link"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Oakbank

Just thought I'd let you know that there is a special template for adding coordinates to articles. I changed your coords to the template in this change. Qutezuce 01:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Binary Prefixes

For the last time, if you want to change the MoS, an edit war is not the solution. Please take a look at this guideline. You know where to go if you want to change the MoS. Sarenne 18:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing I've learned...stick to your guns. --Wtshymanski 17:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please review HVDC section and suggest link

Is AC synchronization discussed anywhere else other than your Utility frequency#Stability? The wiki section on Electric power transmission#HVDC needs a justification for synchronization within utility grids and the consequences of accidently or otherwise connecting an unsynchronized supplier. In one Electric power transmission#HVDC paragraph, I tried:

"... to transmit AC power as AC when needed in either direction between Seattle and Boston would require the (highly challenging) continuous synchronization of the electricity grids in both cities. Grid synchronization (this is an intuitive not physics description) means the alternating current electrons need to move up-and-down at the same moments ..."

Linking to a slight extension of your "stability" discussion would be even better -- since your article looks like an appropriate place to discuss. Please review the HVDC discussion of AC synchronization and either recommend a wiki link, maybe extend your well written "stabil ty" discussion, or kick back to me and I'll try adding. Scimike 23:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This next few days I'm editing for money, not for fun, and doing specs for a generator. Write what you can and I'll try to look at it when the water drops below my chin. --Wtshymanski 01:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Binary prefix updates

Hello, you asked I message you when there is a vote regarding the MoS and binary prefixes, so I am now doing that. The vote is here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Proposed new guideline for binary prefixes Kind regards, Fnagaton 21:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Transformer

Hello again. Any thoughts on how transformer is going, now that... certain individuals are no longer around? — BillC 22:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Transformer design

Yes, I agree. it's hard to believe that all of this was at one point in Transformer. I very much doubt that this can be cut down sensibly to an article that is suitable for an encyclopaedia; there would be almost nothing left. A proposal to transwiki the article to Wikibooks would be the best idea, I think. The article's creator Craxd hasn't been active since early January, and prior to that had only edited for a few days in late September 2006, so I doubt there is much point placing a notice on his talk page. If you place a transwiki proposal on Talk:Transformer design, I would support the move. Regards, — BillC 23:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting

Why did you just revert about 15 or so edits by Anchor Link Bot? —METS501 (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Because I ran out of time to revert more. I've already sent a message to the bot operator to stop it, since it's free-association style of random comments serves no purpose. Notice that there's links inside comments - these are equally useless to both encyclopedia readers (who won't see the comment) adn editors (who can't follow the link by clicking on it). Stamp out useless bot edits, I say. --Wtshymanski 14:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to see WP:MOS#Section management. —METS501 (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: John Frederic Daniell succession box

They are all natural scientists. But in this case, they're successors in that they were awarded the Copley Medal in successive years. So, they're were leaders in the natural sciences of their age, at least in the opinion of the Royal Society.—Ketil Trout () 19:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's an odd way to organize scientists. Are the Nobel winners organized the same way? King Dimwitt Flathead IX is an obvious natural sucessor to King Dimwitt Flathead VIII; but I'm not sure what I'm learning from a list of scientific beauty-contest winners; the succession says more about the judges than about the scientists. Am I going to get a coherent picture of the evolution of scientific thought by following the chain of successors? And I notice the chain *branches* - which branch is more relevant? Farday or Gauss? --Wtshymanski 20:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Electrical substation

Just noticed your reversion to my erroneous '34.5kV' edits on the Electrical Substation (Warren, MN) picture. Thanks for setting me straight :) By any chance is there a description of this project anywhere? Hard to imagine the reasoning behind isolating a segment from the main 41.6kV system in the area... :)

Westinghouse

Ceiling fan doesn't mention Westinghouse, so using it as the blue link on the Westinghouse dab still doesn't really work -- a user looking for Westinghouse isn't going to be looking for the ceiling fan article, and going there would be surprised not to find the dabbed term. -- JHunterJ 20:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Field-sequential color system

You made some good improvements to the field-sequential color system article. — Walloon 22:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar of Engineering

		The Original Barnstar
		In recognition of your contributions to many Electrical engineering topics for nearly three years, it is my honor to award you this Barnstar on behalf of the Misplaced Pages community. The project is richer because of your participation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Narwhal-tooth and Grid energy storage

Howdy. Could you please review Narwhal-tooth's edits on Grid energy storage as you did previously, especially keeping an eye out for POV bias? I have no vendetta against him, but he seems to be having a hard time understanding what is acceptable content for Misplaced Pages. I already reverted one of his comments on that page, but the others should probably be reviewed by someone else. I'll watch your user talk page for any replies. Thanks! —Mrand 13:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:MICables.jpg

Hello! Would you mind putting that nice picture up on Wikimedia Commons, or would you mind if I did? --Achim 21:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I put it up there: http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:Miccable.jpg. I've spent more time lately on Commons than here. It's neat. Lots of electrical stuff up there that you would like. I put a lot of it up myself. Best, --Achim 18:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about temperature motors

You removed a piece on how to calculate the temperature of an electric motor. In the article is explained that resistance and magnetstrength are dependant on temperature, and when those effects are disregarded large calculationerrors are made resulting in possibly burning out of the motor. That is very informative and engineers should know this, that is why there is a Wiki .. to share usefull information.

So that is not spam and I would like a more clear motivation from you why you removed it? Please put it back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.105.120.80 (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't debate with an IP address. The "white paper" is a 7-page plug for the Web site. If it's pink and opens with a key...--Wtshymanski (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't get the part about opening with a key and being pink. It is free so you do not need a key. Maybe it would be more appropriate to address the remarks I made instead of talking about colors. It is about informing the engineer that resistance and magnetstrength are dependant on temperature, and when those effects are disregarded large calculationerrors are made resulting in possibly burning out of the motor. Who are you to withold that information to the public ? Is there an arbitration committee for Wiki's or something where we can put this forward?

There is a processed meat product which is pink and comes in a can that opens with a key - it's called Spam. This is also a term used to describe unwanted and intrusive advertising on the Internet. The paper cited is a promition for a software package available from the Web site and is inappropriate for the Misplaced Pages. More than one editor has deleted this item. Please read Misplaced Pages:Spam. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is not a software package available from the site. So your hastily made assumption is wrong. It is a free service which objectively chooses (as explained on the site) the best electric motor for a specific calulation. It is free of charge and I am making no monety from it. But lets be constructive. Do you have any suggestions to salvage the article by rewriting it in a neutral point of view? This would surely benefit the Misplaced Pages community. So can you be specific in what really bothered you so I can put the time in to rewrite it for Misplaced Pages? PS I would appreciate a serious answer as I am serious. When I feel the answer is BS I will repost the article as is. Thank you

Image copyright problem with Image:JRT ADV March83.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:JRT ADV March83.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wind Power

Great job on trimming down the Wind Power article. The sad part is that it probably needs even more! Have fun, —Mrand 01:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Maglev windmills

Hello, Wtshymanski. Thanks for keeping an eye out on article quality. I'm dropping you a note to let you know that I have removed the speedy deletion template that you placed on Maglev windmills. The article does not seem to fit the speedy deletion criterion. WP:CSD#G1 is for unsalvageably incoherent text and does not apply to poor writing, partisan screeds or even hoaxes. Please consider other means for addressing ongoing concerns. Please feel free to let me know at my talk page if you'd like to discuss this further. Thanks. :) Moonriddengirl 16:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have replied. --Moonriddengirl 16:58, 9 January 2008 (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)

7400 series

Hi. I've been watching several rounds of edit-revert-restore happening on 7400 series. May I suggest that rather than continuing the Misplaced Pages:Edit war, you discuss the issue on talk:7400 series and come to consensus that all can live with? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Mac or PC?"

Follow the links in this search: "Mac or PC?" before you argue there is no difference in usage for the acronym 'PC'. I'm not saying a Mac isn't a personal computer. I'm saying the term PC is used to differentiate between a clone and a Mac and has been that way since the Superbowl Macintosh introduction commercial in 1984. If you ever answered the phones in a computer service department you would have heard the difference in usage. Personal Computer article can't be N if this distinction is left at the sideline. Alatari (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reversing Anastrophe's biased editing

If Fusion power is in, and there are no commercial Fusion power examples, then Tidal power, which does have working commercial examples should be fairly included also Escientist (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

escientist apparently is not yet familiar with WP:AGF. the removal wasn't biased, it was based on the dearth of useful information in the section added. it would be helpful if user wtshymanski would expand the section to include the useful information he provided about successfully operating commercial tidal power generators to the Energy development article, so that others might have access to that info as well. as it stands, the section is too short and inadequately covered in the existing article. Anastrophe (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Workstations

Hi! In regards to your recent edits to Personal computer, am I correct to assume that your statements regarding workstations is suggesting that they are obsolete compared to PCs? If so, that would be misleading, as workstations still manage to achieve higher performance than PCs. An example of such a workstation would be the BOXX APEXX: http://www.boxxtech.com/Products/APEXX/apexx.asp Rilak (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Your recent edit to the workstation article has removed much of the historical content, such as the paragraph which discussed the evolution of low cost minicomputers such as the VAX into workstations. This is relevant historical information and should not have been removed. Further more, your edits have also changed the wording of statements, such as that which discussed the networking of workstations. I'm not criticising your contributions, but some of them seem rather unnecessary. Perhaps they should be reverted? Rilak (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the workstation edits thinking that I'd inadvertantly cut out more than I had intended. Aside from a spelling error that someone has corrected, I stand by my edits. The history of workstations part is still there. I don't know why all the stuff about 8-bit home computers was there; it has nothing to do with workstations (it is not the history of workstations!) and is better covered in personal computer or even home computer. Not to say that a TRS 80 Model 1 didn't have any engineering or scientific applications, but not the same sorts of jobs that we associate with workstations. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wind power

You seem to know a lot about the subject, but the novice can't read the article without being terribly confused, which is why it is necessary to include an example of capacity factor. What may seem trivial to you is over the head of others. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Commodore Vic-20

Yeah I know what you mean. I'd love to know who changed the years to "1978 Japan/1979 USA"... it was completely braindead given that the article quotes 1980 about half-dozen times. Did the person even read the article? And every website and piece of Vic-20 literature I've ever seen quotes 1980. It almost smacks of vandalism. As far as a reference goes, I'll dig one up :) --Jquarry (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

More wind power

The reference is right there, the whole reason I am editing this section is because it used to say "A well-sited onshore wind generator will have an annual capacity factor of about 35%.", and I added a reference, and took out the baloney about "well-cited". It also isn't so much that one "builds" a 10% capacity factor wind turbine, but if a wind turbine that gets a 35% capacity factor in Scotland is installed in a less windy location, the capacity factor plummets to 10% or even less. 199.125.109.73 (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious - do people routinely spend tens of millions of dollars building wind farms that get a 10% capacity factor? Not baloney. People build wind farms where the wind blows. just like they build hydro dams where the water is and solar panels where the sun shines (well, except in Germany, of course). --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is spending tens of millions? That's chicken feed. Last year over $25 Billion was invested in wind turbines. "Well sited" is also what we call peacock words - they sound impressive but mean nothing. You noticed that Germany has been the world leader in solar installation even though they are very low on the list for economic viability, so as you can see there is something much more important than capacity factor at play. Ever heard of global warming? 199.125.109.38 (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Energy development

This is not a "hasty merge". This merge has been worked on for over six months now, with the last little pieces finally moved today. Energy development already implies "the future". It was pointed out six months ago that Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball and has no business writing articles that are only about trying to predict the future. Please feel free to edit the junk that was copied over and delete any that doesn't need to be kept. But don't create a future of article. 199.125.109.38 (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops!

I just noticed I've added stuff on your user page, not talk! I guess I must have been brain dead when I made that edit! My apologies. Rilak (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wind again

The wind power article is not about wind farms. Even if it was it would need to point out that penetration levels can be increased if they are coupled with solar farms. 199.125.109.73 (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Not a good link"

Could you please clarify why the MURS Group on Yahoo! was not a good link on the Multi-Use Radio Service page? TIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebis (talk • contribs) 14:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)