HOME
        TheInfoList






Archives contents
   
   * 1 Thanks!
   * 2 You can call me "STEW"PID
   * 3 Kindly point me in the right direction
   * 4 Re:_Vandalism 
   * 5 File copyright problem with File:Japan-Korea tunnel.png 
   * 6 Canadian Parliamentary Motion 37/1-1205
   * 7 Unreferenced tag
   * 8 Articles for deletion/Russell Blaylock
   * 9 Japan-Korea Undersea Tunnel
   * 10 KV33 changes moved to TT33
   * 11 File permission problem with File:Ericsson videophone -color image w-licence- GetImage.ashx.jpg
   * 12 Congratulations.
   * 13 Hydyne
   * 14 File permission problem with File:Ericsson_videophone_-color_image_-_GetImage.ashx.jpg
   * 15 Please help in deletion
   * 16 Meucci's 1871 caveat
   * 17 DYK nomination of Alexander Graham Bell
   * 18 Links
   * 19 LAV III
   * 20 ICU Global
   * 21 Transcluding page content
   * 22 Pre-WWII public videophone services
   * 23 errata
   * 24 Removal of 'Alleged holocaust perpetrators' cat from the Charles Zentai webpage
   * 25 Possibly unfree File:Ericsson videophone -color image w-licence- GetImage.ashx.jpg
   * 26 First Telephone Central Office photo
   * 27 Notice: Use of Holocaust template on Zentai bio
   * 28 Improper warning of 24.173.92.65
   * 29 WP:AIV
   * 30 Videophone / Video phone
   * 31 Re: ISP Followup
   * 32 Fonts – Inability for browsers to render all characters or ligatures within an article
   * 33 File:Ericsson videophone -color image w-licence- GetImage.ashx.jpg
   * 34 In regards of external link-spam. Yes or no? That is the question ;)
   * 35 approaching 3rr 
   * 36 Barry Fox as RS?
   * 37 Meucci
   * 38 V-mail
   * 39 False vandalism report on IP address
   * 40 Which Britannica editions are Public Domain and available for inclusion into Wikipedia?
   * 41 Your warning on User talk:76.206.249.101
   * 42 User :115.117.8.5
   * 43 Bell Postage Stamp
   * 44 CSI
   * 45 Elisha Gray and Alexander Bell telephone controversy
   * 46 Personal Attacks
   * 47 RE:Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Camgirl.
   * 48 Formatting unique to Video Relay Service
   * 49 Rank bias and inaccurate POV against Meucci's contributions to invention of telephone by editors...
   * 50 Japan–Korea Undersea Tunnel
   * 51 Michaëlle Jean
   * 52 Japan–Korea Undersea Tunnel
   * 53 Sign language
   * 54 Whitespace
   * 55 TIN CAN PHONE
   * 56 Re: Removal of section heading blank lines and spaces
   * 57 No offense was intended
   * 58 Georg Rosen
   * 59 Grammar and Michaëlle Jean
   * 60 Jesus Christ
   * 61 AT&T
   * 62 Refspam in Pragmatics article
   * 63 William James Wanless GA review
   * 64 Telectroscope 
   * 65 Selection of Today's Featured Article (TFA)
   * 66 Bell Telephone Memorial
   * 67 WikiLeaks 
   * 68 Pedro II and Bell 
   * 69 Merry, merry 
   * 70 Happy, happy 
   * 71 Please Explain (American Telephone and Telegraph) 
   * 72 Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia! 
   * 73 Food for thought, knowledge for change 
   * 74 thank you Mr. Zilber 
   * 75 BTMC History 
   * 76 Meucci and Telecommunication 
   * 77 a level 4 warning to User talk:198.38.68.5 
   * 78 divs 
   * 79 Jewish settlement in Imperial Japan 
   * 80 Harvey Fletcher 
   * 81 Chernobyl disaster 
   * 82 Volta Laboratory 
   * 83 WP:AIV 
   * 84 Airspeed  
   * 85 Thank you 

[Small toolbox: {reply|User_talk:Harryzilber#topic} .....]


CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


Hello Harry, a belated thank-you for your greetings before Xmas! (At the moment I'm only occasionally logged in.) I'm pleased with your wishes. I wish you a Happy New Year! Henrig (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Photos on Optical telecommunication page

Hello. Please refer to the following text to back up my note about the accident site of Saint-Exupery in 1935 :

Le C630 F-ANRY du raid Paris-Saigon qui se posera dans le désert Libyen (MA6088, avec l'aimable autorisation de la Succession Saint-Exupéry-dAgay).

S

Hello. Please refer to the following text to back up my note about the accident site of Saint-Exupery in 1935 :

Le C630 F-ANRY du raid Paris-Saigon qui se posera dans le désert Libyen (MA6088, avec l'aimable autorisation de la Succession Saint-Exupéry-dAgay).

Saint Ex descend dans le noir le plus complet. 1.000 mètres … 500 mètres … l’avion descend toujours. L’altimètre indique 300 mètres lorsque le F-ANRY accroche le sol fait de cailloux et de sable, à la vitesse de 270 km/heure. L’appareil est détruit mais, premier miracle, l’équipage est indemne. L’auteur décrit alors les angoisses des hommes perdus dans le désert, loin des routes commerciales, sans pouvoir espérer le moindre secours avant plusieurs jours … pour autant qu’on les retrouve. La situation est d’autant plus grave que les réserves d’eau se sont répandues sur le sable lors de l’impact. Commencent alors plusieurs jours d’errance où l’équipage, tour à tour, s’éloigne de l’avion et y revient. L’écrivain nous fait part de ses réflexions lorsque, parti à la recherche de quelque chose qui puisse étancher leur soif qui devient de plus en plus intense, il découvre que les fennecs, ces petits renards du désert à grandes oreilles, gèrent avec parcimonie et intelligence les colonies de petits escargots dont ils font leur nourriture. C’est sans doute à cause de ce paragraphe qu’est née la légende

Le C630 F-ANRY du raid Paris-Saigon qui se posera dans le désert Libyen (MA6088, avec l'aimable autorisation de la Succession Saint-Exupéry-dAgay).

Saint Ex descend dans le noir le plus complet. 1.000 mètres … 500 mètres … l’avion descend toujours. L’altimètre indique 300 mètres lorsque le F-ANRY accroche le sol fait de cailloux et de sable, à la vitesse de 270 km/heure. L’appareil est détruit mais, premier miracle, l’équipage est indemne. L’auteur décrit alors les angoisses des hommes perdus dans le désert, loin des routes commerciales, sans pouvoir espérer le moindre secours avant plusieurs jours … pour autant qu’on les retrouve. La situation est d’autant plus grave que les réserves d’eau se sont répandues sur le sable lors de l’impact. Commencent alors plusieurs jours d’errance où l’équipage, tour à tour, s’éloigne de l’avion et y revient. L’écrivain nous fait part de ses réflexions lorsque, parti à la recherche de quelque chose qui puisse étancher leur soif qui devient de plus en plus intense, il découvre que les fennecs, ces petits renards du désert à grandes oreilles, gèrent avec parcimonie et intelligence les colonies de petits escargots dont ils font leur nourriture. C’est sans doute à cause de ce paragraphe qu’est née la légende de Saint Exupéry élaborant le projet de son prochain roman du Petit Prince en attendant les secours qui tardent tant à venir. (Ce n’est peut-être qu’une légende mais tellement belle, qu’on a bien le droit de la considérer comme vraie). Finalement, deuxième miracle, le quatrième jour deux bédouins retrouvent l’équipage exténué mais finalement sain et sauf.

From a text on the airplane Caudron. de: handcuff36@gmail.com VE2NIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.171.82 (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm floating a comment to you (hoping to spark curiosity) re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor directly to you because I'm not sure where to put it, and it relates to a difficulty that must affect many articles. The meteor article irritated me for drifting between using "ton" and "tonnes" even in the same sentence. I'm an American with a scientific bent left wondering which system is being referenced. A metric ton (tonne) is about 10% larger than the short ton" Americans intend. In many places the article attempts to give metric/English equivalents, so I have no way to know if I can safely change ton to tonne without actually altering the number. Regardless this must be a frequent problem. Articles on scientific issues should always be in metric, but a lay audience expects conversions and, well, it's confusing.

I appreciated your comments on deducing the meteor's altitude from its recorded shadows. (see, e.g., http://ogleearth.com/2013/02/reconstructing-the-chelyabinsk-meteors-path-with-google-earth-youtube-and-high-school-math/ ) I am very perplexed by the attempts to estimate the explosion and/or kinetic energy of the meteor in kilotons. (Now, would that be a metric ton?) It is evocative to compare it to a nuclear weapon—got my attention!—I dont think it communicates the effect of the shock wave. An atomic bomb would of course have produced a lot more radiation damage, not just ionizing radiation but the thermal radiation that caused so much of the fire that really destroyed Hiroshima. So ... as long as I'm on units, where is the kinetic energy estimate in something like joules(?) useful for describing events as large as earthquakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug123w (I appreciated your comments on deducing the meteor's altitude from its recorded shadows. (see, e.g., http://ogleearth.com/2013/02/reconstructing-the-chelyabinsk-meteors-path-with-google-earth-youtube-and-high-school-math/ ) I am very perplexed by the attempts to estimate the explosion and/or kinetic energy of the meteor in kilotons. (Now, would that be a metric ton?) It is evocative to compare it to a nuclear weapon—got my attention!—I dont think it communicates the effect of the shock wave. An atomic bomb would of course have produced a lot more radiation damage, not just ionizing radiation but the thermal radiation that caused so much of the fire that really destroyed Hiroshima. So ... as long as I'm on units, where is the kinetic energy estimate in something like joules(?) useful for describing events as large as earthquakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug123w (talkcontribs) 17:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your recent changes to Chevrolet Volt. The normal style for WP is to make a claim and tag it with a reference - there is no need to say 'magazine xxx says ...' unless it was particularly significant that magazine xxx said it (ie a prestigious magazine vs the opposite claim in some two-bit magazine). Also, that article does references with the {{cite web}} family of templates - all your additions are in a completely different style. It would be appreciated if you could use the same styles that are already in use in the article. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  22:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stepho, if you look at the History log and edit summary you'll see I didn't write the text that you're referring to. What I did do was to reinstate the text that another editor had previously deleted. However if you've tidied it up, good on you. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake and my apologies.  Stepho  talk  10:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hiroo Onoda

Thanks for the link to the new photo of Onoda. It's interesting. Evenrød (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggest you tweak it

Hi, I appreciate your effort to reach BoundaryLayer. I haven't studied your comments so I neither agree nor disagree with the content. I am stopping by to suggest you might wish to consider tweaking the section heading, since the talk page guidelines say "Don't address other users in a heading: Headings invite all users to comment. Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user. (Some exceptions are made at administrative noticeboards, where reporting problems by name is normal.)" Cheers, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Point noted, thanks. HarryZilber (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Bat image caption

Although the image and the report in the reference are both about Croatia the link between the two is tenuous. If you want to include that reference (and I cannot see why you should not) then it should either be placed appropriately in the article text, or you should upload one of the images from the reference and put the reference on that. It is not logical to put the reference on any arbitrary image of a dead bat. I hope you understand why I have removed the reference again. Djapa Owen (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Cite

I commend the {{cite}} template to you. While it may look complicated, it's easy to fill in the bits that apply and it then does all of the formatting for you. Please take a look sometime. It really does make the job easier. :) -- 212.139.96.122 (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but sorry, :-[ I prefer a style without bolding and I believe that the Cite template bolds journal volumes/issues, which is visually annoying. As

Thanks for the link to the new photo of Onoda. It's interesting. Evenrød (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggest you tweak it

Hi, I appreciate your effort to reach BoundaryLayer. I haven't studied your comments so I neither agree nor disagree with the content. I am stopping by to suggest you might wish to consider tweaking the section heading, since the talk page guidelines say "Don't address other users in a heading: Headings invite all users to comment. Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user. (Some exceptions are made at administrative noticeboards, where reporting problems by name is normal.)" Cheers, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Point noted, thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Point noted, thanks. HarryZilber (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Bat image caption Djapa Owen (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Cite

I commend the {{cite}} template to you. While it may look complicated, it's easy to fill in the bits that apply and it then does all of the formatting for you. Please take a look sometime. It really does make the job easier. :) -- 212.139.96.122 (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but sorry, :-[ I prefer a style without bolding and I believe that the Cite template bolds journal volumes/issues, which is visually annoying. As well, the copy/paste/trim-unused-fields routine is tedious, whereas a quick unbracketed Chicago cite is a no-brainer -just a 'do

Allen3 talk 16:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. That's fine work. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I second that. A superb piece. Well done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks and please contribute to the article if you can as sources on M.P.W. Boulton are rare, unless you have access to his writings and documents in the UK. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

da Vinci???

Thanks very much for the awesome da Vinci Barnstar and the kind words. I'm always hesitant to "be bold" and do that sort of ploughing through others' material, especially when dancing near the edge of my very limited technical competence (I'm a complete dunce when it comes to electronics), but a score of little incremental edits is an even more daunting prospect and usually produces a much less coherent result. The obvious downside of Wikipedia is the designed-by-committee, too-many-cooks hodgepodge that often results from an accretion of what are, in the main, individually perfectly good smaller contributions. An occasional major overhaul seems to be the only effective treatment.

Clarity is tough—lots of rewriting and fussing trying to get there and it's hard to be objective about the success of the results, so your positive review is very gratifying.

I've long been meaning to dive into the Photophone article, if only to insert some mention of the early completely non-electronic version of the system. It is almost always entirely overlooked but I find it intriguing. Bell waxes whimsical and mentions a singing cigar in one of his accounts. As you are evidently interested in Bell, you might be interested to know (if you don't already) that he also found lampblack could serve, less efficiently, the same purpose as selenium—in addition to sounding, its resistance varies in modulated light—and that it would "speak" if electrically stimulated. Soot,

Thanks very much for the awesome da Vinci Barnstar and the kind words. I'm always hesitant to "be bold" and do that sort of ploughing through others' material, especially when dancing near the edge of my very limited technical competence (I'm a complete dunce when it comes to electronics), but a score of little incremental edits is an even more daunting prospect and usually produces a much less coherent result. The obvious downside of Wikipedia is the designed-by-committee, too-many-cooks hodgepodge that often results from an accretion of what are, in the main, individually perfectly good smaller contributions. An occasional major overhaul seems to be the only effective treatment.

Clarity is tough—lots of rewriting and fussing trying to get there and it's hard to be objective about the success of the results, so your positive review is very gratifying.

I've long been meaning to dive into the Photophone article, if only to insert some mention of the early completely non-electronic version of the system. It is almost always entirely overlooked but I find it intriguing. Bell waxes whimsical and mentions a singing cigar in one of his accounts. As you are evidently interested in Bell, you might be interested to know (if you don't already) that he also found lampblack could serve, less efficiently, the same purpose as selenium—in addition to sounding, its resistance varies in modulated light—and that it would "speak" if electrically stimulated. Soot, the Wonder Substance. When I first discovered those dusty facts, I indulged myself in mentally tinkering together a video transmission system employing lampblack-based pickup and display elements. Not only did Bell come very close to inventing a sort of phonograph, but had he been more visually inclined he might have ended up amusing Queen Victoria with a demonstration of television. AVarchaeologist (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You obviously have a knack for good writing, much as Saint-Exupery who cou

Clarity is tough—lots of rewriting and fussing trying to get there and it's hard to be objective about the success of the results, so your positive review is very gratifying.