User talk:LMB
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
Contents |
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
"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)
-
- 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
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)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
