User talk:Glrx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Glrx, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! RayTalk 19:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Morse Code over IP[edit]

re: Morse code and my January 11 edit

Hello, I think it is a bad idea to remove cited stuff from wikipedia. I understand you point regarding relevance - nevertheless I doubt, that keeping tons of sound files and irrelevant learning methods, i.e. tree representations, while removing links to something somebody could nowadays use morse code is a good approach. de dg6fl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A4Fh56OSA (talkcontribs) 21:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Butler oscillator) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Butler oscillator, Glrx!

Wikipedia editor Damirgraffiti just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Seems that the article is good enough!

To reply, leave a comment on Damirgraffiti's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Concerning the "Gear" article...[edit]

Re 13 February revert Glrx (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

In the Gear article, you reverted my description of "sacrificial" plastic gear teeth, saying "Unsourced; clutches and torque/current-limited motors are a better design choice than breaking teeth". Such designs do sound better, but evidently came about later than what I was relating, which was closely paraphrased from the words of a technician who worked on such systems (such as the IBM 3800 series of high-speed laser printers). I could supply a "personal conversation" type of source/attribution, if that would help; as well as a notation that the sacrificial design is not the current/preferred version.

Please do not just delete something that may not be wrong, but merely outdated; add the more modern information.

Silverhill (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Distillation revert[edit]

Re my revert at Distillation


Just wondering why you thought the KLM Book was not worthy. I have about 40 published articles on Distillation - 5 in Oil and Gas Journal, 1 in Hydrocarbon Process and 1 in CPE - I would think I am what they are looking for to write on Distillation

Thanks Karl Kolmetz

Karlkolmetz (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The link to the KLM book was added three times and reverted three times at Distillation. An Indonesian IP added the link as a reference even though it was not used as a reference, and Materialscientist reverted. Then Mela widiawati inserted it as further reading; once again, Materialscientist reverted. Mela widiawati then reinserted it, and I reverted.
Neither Materialscientist nor I have the final say around here. If you want the link in the article, then follow WP:BRD and bring the matter up on the talk page. If there is a consensus to add the link, then it will go in the article.
I don't know why Materialscientist reverted the addition.
I looked at the KLM book and thought it was inappropriate for the article. The article is about distillation, but the book is Distillation Column Selection and Sizing (Engineering Design Guideline). That's a narrow aspect of distillation. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a design resource. WP is WP:NOTHOWTO design and build something. Even if WP were for that, the book would belong in an article about distillation columns rather than a general article on distillation. As I stated in my edit comment, the book has some interesting details. Although interesting, I don't think it is at the right level for the article. I would think a chemical engineering text on unit operations would be a more appropriate further reading item.
KLM may be the place to go for expertise on distillation columns. That's not the issue. WP is not the place to go to find chemical engineering consultants.
The book also has problems because it does not sufficiently reference sources. (There was a footnote labeled 1 in the history section, but I did not see the source. There was a URL ref for some design advice. The text does not strike me as sufficiently sourced to be a good reference.)
The book format also bothered me; it sounds in advertising for KLM Technology because the company puts its name in large letters on every page.
The book also says "Checked by Karl Kolmetz". That suggests that you have a conflict of interest about the book. See also "Kolmetz Handbook of Process Equipment Design".[1]
If you want the link in the article, bring it up on the article's talk page.
Glrx (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


Just checked this post. AC/DS of Afghanistan, India and Pakistan falls under WP:ARBIPA, not WP:ARBPIA. Thank you. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 11:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I got the heading right.... Half-credit? Glrx (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
No doubt, they are still WP:AC/DS Smile.svg OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 17:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)