User talk:LMB

Hi,
Could you explain to me the change of the link in the article on Rzeczpospolita? There was a perfrclty relevant link to the website of Rzeczpospolita paper which you removed. Don't you think a link to Poland.pl would be more relevent in the article on Poland, not there? --Kpalion 18:43, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Gall Anonymous - though he was not Polish by 19th century standards, it seems perfectly ok to say that he was a Polish cronicle writer, don't you think? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:39, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Replies

To Kpalion: sorry to have taken so much time, I simply couldn't figure how to reply. As for a "perfectly relevant link",I must disagree. Rzeczpospolita, as you know, means "republica". There's a newspaper called "The Republic" in many countries in Europe, e.g. La Reppublica. Thus, in my opinion, if you want to link to a newspaper, why not www.wyborcza.pl?

To Halibutt: For me (not an English native!) a "Polish chronicle writer" states a person of Polish origin/citizenship etc. We's probably agree it's rather not the place to discuss Gall's nationality, but I'd change "Polish chronicle writer" to a "writer of chronicles on Poland", or whatever is relevant to the context. I'm going to change (restore) what was erased if you hadn't done so. Sorry for trouble, I'm still a newbie.


Motorcycle speedway

Hey. I've adjusted your addition to the motorcycle speedway article, as you've used heat, where I think you mean lap - in motorcycle speedway, a heat is a single race, with generally 3 to four laps per race. The evening's competition will consist of several heats. kju 12:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah

Hi! While I'm not arguing with your edits to Lebanon, I feel that you should know: Hezbollah has been labeled a terrorist organization by the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Canada, Israel and Australia, but not by the European Union.

In a non-binding resolution adopted by the European Parliament on March 10, 2005, the MEPs urged the EU Council to brand Hezbollah a terrorist organization. However, the Council has so far been reluctant to do so, as France, Spain, and Britain fear that such a move would further damage the prospects for Middle East peace talks.[109] The EU has, however, agreed to block Hezbollah's Al-Manar television from European satellites in order to enforce European regulations against "incitement to racial and/or religious hatred."

This is from the WP Article, and although in my eyes Hezzabollah are a terrorist organisation, I understand that it might be tricky to name them as such. HawkerTyphoon 12:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"in my eyes" simply does not apply in Wikipedia. I also have my own opinions about the conflict, but this is not the place to express them.

I'm not saying that we should change it, I'm simply saying that there are more countries than the three you mentioned that state HB as a terror group. I'm not arguing, i was just informing. Sorry!HawkerTyphoon 12:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree. I've seen BBC News, Hizbollah is firing rockets southwards, yet the organization was originally created to get rid of IDF from southern Lebanon. Lots has changed since the early 80's, I guess. Anyway, I'd use a less emotional adjective, e.g. "militant organization" (is that good actually? don't know). LMB 14:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Sv-Linus Torvalds2.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sv-Linus Torvalds2.ogg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Volt Charging

I understand why you deleted the unreferenced claim, but EVs generally do generally charge faster at higher utility voltages. The higher the voltage you pull out of the wall, the lower the current required to achieve the same power transfer rate. Three-phase 480VAC input is just wonderful... Apologies if you already know all this. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is the faster you charge, the shorter the life is. As far as I remember Li-Ion cells can be charged with the current of 30% the capacity, that is if the battery is 100Ah, then max. current is 30A. As I said, I'm not sure if the limitation is 30% or 100%, but IT EXISTS.

You simply CANNOT charge the battery at any current. I know there are "quick chargers", but your AA cells don't cost as much as a battery pack in the car. Applying too high current may seriously damage the cell, not to mention the excess heat created during the process.

Hope this clears the problem.

PS Is that how you should reply to a message?

LMB (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you say can be a good rule of thumb in many cases, but having designed "smart" chargers at AeroVironment for many years, I understand that not all LiIon batteries of similar capacities can be charged at similar rates. Also, if you carefully monitor cell voltage and temperature, you can dramatically increase the amount of current you pump into the pack, especially when the pack is significantly discharged.
BUT, your original response helps prove my point as well, increase the charging voltage and you can get the same amount of power into a pack which is limited by current capacity. Of course, utility voltage is going to get chopped up by IGBTs, but the higher the utility voltage, the more efficient the system, and the less current you need to pull from the wall. That's why GM used higher voltage for the "standard" charger and 110V for the "emergency charger."
Oh, and I thought your reply and your method of reply were quite appropriate. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Bacca

Yes I noticed. I had it at the formal title as wikipedia tends to have a policy of naking articles with the subjects most common name, but as it is very unclear as to what extent she was known as Pippa Bacca it is probalby a good call to move it to her real name. Cheers --SGGH speak! 19:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it for now. I've never done a current event page before, it's interesting chasing all the news breaks. --SGGH speak! 19:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

16.7 vs 16 2/3 Hz

Not that its of any importance to the encyclopedia, but is there a reference saying all the listed traction power networks have actually standardized at exactly 16.7 Hz and not 16.66666..Hz ? ( as you indicated at Utility frequency. If it's an autonomous generator, it could run at any arbitrary frequency - but for traction power networks derived from 50 Hz supply, surely it would be an advantage to keep the same exact 3:1 ratio? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand the issue, the 1:3 ratio could be of importance if only the power networks were interconnected (train with "mains") -- but they are usually not. As far as I know, the DB power supply network is completely separate in all but one German state (Meklemburg-Vorpommern, the least populated one). Why did the DB and "associates" (as far as I know also that happened in Austria and Switzerland) changed that is beyond my knowledge. I've just found a link on the German version of the same article, so I will supply it. LMB (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is 16 2/3 Hz =50/3 makes the electronic switching simpler because now it runs in synch. Inversion van be done with a transformer.16.7 is rounding.Wdl1961 (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found many refs to 16 2/3 Hz and a couple to 16.67 and one stating 16.7 and does not want to talk about it.i suggest reverting to 16 2/3 Hz .Wdl1961 (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already provided a source from the German Wikipedia which clearly states that there was a frequency conversion. LMB (talk) 10:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is very dangerous to use any quotes out of context. I have no access to the original text used so i can not check it .It is probably a bot translation . Europeans can be very sarcastic and state obvious wrong facts to get attention. There are many refs with 16 2/3 .The one ref i could find with 16.7 did not want to discuss it for obvious reasons. I found 16.67 also. 2/3=0.6666666666666666666666666666666666666666----. Maybe we should use 16.67 as a compromise.Wdl1961 (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC).Wdl1961 (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The frequency is 16.7Hz, it was earlier 16.(6) so I'm sorry, but 16.67 is simply wrong. The quoted magazine states in its title that there was a conversion to 16.7Hz (try translating the title in translate.google.com). I don't have the rights to read the article, but the title says it all. What's missing is the date, maybe it's somewhere there on German wiki. EOT for me. LMB (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does the article say why the change was made? --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The German wiki states it is a minor change to 16.7 Hz's not affecting the rolling stock. It was done to eliminate the dc component in the rotating converters generating heat in the windings due to a constant phase angle lag. It stated these still running isochronous at a three to one pole ratio and the difference is accomplished with a ac on the field windings. Some nets still run at 16 2/3 Hz's. Sofar there is little general and detailed technical information as it does not seem to be considered a major event. Some refs use 16.7 ,16.67 and 16 2/3 Hz without distinction. sorry.Wdl1961 (talk) 04:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The change happened on 16 October 1995 at 12.00 in Germany, Austria and Switzerland for the reason Wdl1961 mentioned. It did not apparently happen in Norway and Sweden, but their networks (both railway and utility) are out of synch with "continental" Europe, so it doesn't matter. LMB (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Molly Windman

Hello LMB, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Molly Windman has been removed. It was removed by Milowent with the following edit summary 'gonna de-prod. though article is sparse, i do think there are sufficient sources out there to improve article'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Milowent before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Merge discussion for Interface_(computer_science)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Interface_(computer_science) , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Tom94022 (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Archive

Re: [1]. Have you tried the IA to find a working link? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Swiss Standard German, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Umlaut (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blaise A & A

Why did you want this article deleted? I see four major notable contributions, all of them well covered in national media. – SJ + 04:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

San Bernardino train disaster

Thanks for the changes regarding the brakes. I've had that on my list of things to do for quite some time. The tablecloth, of course, demonstrates a completely different principle. I am considering fixing or deleting the bit about efficiency of braking. Braking is braking. It is 100% converted to heat. Cam Finnigan (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zwickau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DDR (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to photo cd page

I've reverted the edits you made to the photo cd page. While I understand your concern about Wikipedia policy, the sections in question are the most common things that people actually want to know about the format. If you feel uncomfortable that the sections feel like a manual, please rewrite them, keeping the information, rather than simply deleting useful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.42.243 (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, those deletes were based on the following grounds, hence your revisions have been reverted:

Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. Describing to the reader how other people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not.[4]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shiksa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doctorate

Hello LMB!

RE your comment on the *Dr.* issue (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daimler_AG&diff=601270340&oldid=600971156), I would like to point out that a *Doctor* is someone who hold a *Doctorate* degree (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_%28title%29), which - I am certain you are aware of - does not have to be in medicine. According to Wikipedia: "A doctorate is an academic degree or professional degree that, in most countries, qualifies the holder to teach at the university level in the specific field of his or her degree, or to work in a specific profession." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctorate#Professional

Consequently, Anglo-American Wikipedia (Doctor/Dr.) vs German Wikipedia (Doktor/Dr.) are both correct/correkt for either Christiaan Barnard (Dr. of Hearts), Theodor Seuss Geisel (Dr. Seuss), Alan Greenspan (Dr. Mr. Bubble), Werner von Braun (Dr. Space), or Dieter Zetsche (Dr. Z).

When addressing a PhD/Doctorate holder in an American university or institution of higher learning, the titles to use can be "Professor" or "Doctor", usually at the preference of the individual bearer of title.

I agree that in general, in order not to confuse readers, it is well not to have "Dr." preceding the name each time, although it should appear at least once in article (an encyclopedia should also educate readers). I thus do not agree with your comment, not with the fact that you reversed, at Daimler AG, for instance: " This title means something completely different in English, where it's called PhD", or "from German to English (the Dr. means something else in English)", at History of the internal combustion engine.

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello, whether the common understanding of this word is "a physician" or a person with a doctorate is in this case unimportant. The reason I have removed the "Dr.", however, is that while it means something in Germany, in English culture it does not carry the same esteem. It simply is an academic title, while in Germany (and possibly Austria) it is also a social rank. One can have one's "Dr." before the name in one's passport. N'est-ce pas? LMB (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bonjour! Thank you for returning to me with further explanation, which I knew. However, either university or social title, at one point it seems to me well to have once *Dr.* before the name because the person has a doctorate degree in something, then drop it in the rest of the article. As I wrote you, it is not the reverting I was disagreeing with, but your comment - which was not as clear (to me) as what you wrote above. Article in de.wikipedia does not show any *Dr.*. The only place one can see title is at Daimler home page. Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • " Thank you for returning to me with further explanation, which I knew. " -> if you know that then why are you bothering me? LMB (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said, it is your comment at the article when you removed the title that was not clear to me. After you explained above, I realized that you & I were on the same longueur d'onde. Toutes mes excuses pour le "bother". --Frania W. (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, LMB. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, LMB. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, LMB. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]