User talk:Ebikeguy/Archive 2

tesla roadster
The tesla is an elise with a powerpack and some motors instead of an engine rofl LightSpeed3 (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

they are only making like 100 car for LEASE for ONE city in the US. They will make this one car and disappear off the facxe of the planet for being so crappy. they dont deserve a mention in the article. LightSpeed3 (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

wow are you serious? first off my edits are neutral, the only reason i was taking out tesla is because it isnt significant enough of a company to be in articles that are much more specific. Example: If tesla roadster can be in the electric car article, then why cant 1,500,000 models of gas cars be in the "gasoline-powered vehicle" article? LightSpeed3 (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Electric car
undefined

I encourage you to create an account with a user name, as this will lend more credence to your impartiality and your commitment to make Wikipedia better. Also, I encourage you discuss your proposed changes, such as the ones you recently made on electric cars, on the articles' talk pages before reverting edits made by other editors. Thanks! Fbagatelleblack (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Obvious changes don't need to be discussed before they get reverted, but you will note that I do always point them out on talk so that they are properly discussed. And no thanks I have no interest in registering an account. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "And no thanks I have no interest in registering an account." I am sure you understand that this will lead people to question your motives in the edits you make, and will tend to bias admins against your edits when they are disputed.  Fbagatelleblack (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reasons for registering are as varied as the reasons for not registering. Questioning motives is beyond anyones scope. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've warned Lightspeed3, keep me informed. With regard to the above message, registering is purely voluntary, and failure to do so should not be taken on its own as an indication of bad faith. Jimfbleak (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Volt Charging
YOU WROTE: 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. Also hope I'm not explaining something you already know well.

PS Is that how you should reply to a message?

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

Secret Identity
You wrote: Hmmm... You sound more and more like someone I know, a gentleman who prefers to remain anonymous in many different circumstances. I wonder if you are whom I think you might be, in which case much would be explained with regards to why he was miffed at me a few months ago... Fbagatelleblack (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Fbag... no, we do not know each other, and no, I am not miffed about our edit war in December. I was new to Wiki and just needed to learn the rules. I do prefer to remain anonymous.Xchange (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruption?
I've been having a long term issue with user 199.124.109.xxx and I see you've had a run in as well. Would you characterize this user's contributions as purposely disruptive or just tedious? Recently I noticed the IP began using named accounts such as Apteva and Oakwillow. Do you suspect any other identities? Mrshaba (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. Mrshaba (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

ZAP-X
First, two minor points which you may or may not want to fix. The article doesn't mention a country, although I assume it's the US, and the currency probably should be US$. As it stands, it could be Canadian dollars or Nicaraguan cordobas.

I'm not sure that the article can be speedy deleted. It's not an advertisement, copyright infringement or vandalism, and it has references other than the company site, so it at least asserts notability. I think the best thing would be to list at Articles for deletion so that interested parties can comment. It would be a courtesy to let the creator of the article know that you have done so. Hope this helps jimfbleak (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Bogus reasoning on GM Volt deletion
There is no requirement that sources display the details of their calculations. I suggest you revert your deletion of the CO2 para, your reasoning is invalid. OR cannot be used to suppress external references, sadly, otherwise it would take but seconds to dismantle many articles. Greg Locock (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Problems with upload of Image:IMG_0835.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:IMG_0835.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Plug-in hybrid at FAR
nominated Plug-in hybrid for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Encumbrance of Automotive NiMH Batteries
I think it does make sense to pull this section out of the plug-in hybrid articles and create a new article, which can be summarized and linked in related articles. (See my comments in the PHEV discussion page.) Would you mind helping to do that? Xchange (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.Xchange (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The main article is 96K, which is pretty long, but none of the individual sections is massive, and as a non-expert I can't see anything that should obviously be moved and summarised
 * The "patent" bit is long enough to be a separate article, and is referenced adequately, so it could stand alone if necessary.
 * It's therefore up to the contributors to reach a consensus, avoiding WP:OWN. Why not put it to a vote, and go with the majority?
 * I note that the article is at FAR. If you are trying to keep FA, it might not be good time to make major changes, particularly if there is any hint of edit warring, since the article must be stable.
 * If you decide to leave as is, you can, of course, address Xchange's concern about linking to this section from other articles like this
 * No idea if the above helps, jimfbleak (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I was just looking over the related discussion pages. It looks like you have been a good steward of the article. Thanks.Xchange (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Advertisement
First, you should not remove tags yourself - that will be seen as a bad faith edit, better to have asked me or another admin to take a look. Although the article is not blantant advertising, it seems to rely uncritically on what the manufacturers claim. Company executives are not an independent relable source. Your only reference doesn't work for me either. Better to use a sourced independent description and/or review  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Userpage
Redesign here. Res Mar 23:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok I'm glad you're happy. If you have any issues, ping me. Res Mar 20:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

206.180.85.7
Thanks for the note, but I'm not an admin, just a humble commoner gleaning in the fields, so I didn't do any blocking. I'll keep an eye on the IP, tough, and we can always send it back for review at WP:AIV if necessary. Best, --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you comment on General_Motors_EV1
Thanks for your comment. You actually know personally "one of the most outspoken proponents of the concept "? Impressive. Really, this seems to be the crux of the entire of the entire argument regarding the EV1. GM says there was no demand, proponents say there was. Unless one can point to something really solid that says there definately was demand, we're going to be stuck with meaningless "he said, she said" statements. NickCT (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re "We all end up believing what we want to believe" Yes indeed. One of the sad facts about the human condition.
 * On this point though, there are two things that make me lean towards the "There was demand" camp. 1) The WKtEC interview with the actual Saturn sales people. If anyone should be an authoritative source as to whether there was or was not demand, they should be.  Of course, there comments might be colored by POV, but my recollection of thier comments was that they were so definitive, that unless you believe they were lying outright, there must have at least been some demand. 2) There are a wide range of sources (reliable and otherwise) regarding the notorious interview/interrogation given to potential leasees before they got the car.  Most people described it as an attempt to dissuade them from purchasing.  Frankly, if GM had in its heart of hearts really wanted to sell the car (and foster demand for it), I can't imagine that these "interviews" would have taken place in the manner they did.
 * Then again, niether of these points are definitive. I don't see how one would go about proving demand did or did not exist beyond GM publishing information about waiting lists.
 * Anyways, thanks for your comments. NickCT (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm away for a couple of days, I'll have a proper look when I return. Looks OK, I fixed a couple of mos things.  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  06:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Checking hits
You might love this. I sure find it interesting. I don't know when they added it, but when I view the history of any page now, in the space between "browse history" and "compare selected versions" are External tools to show "Revision history statistics" "Revision history search" "Number of watchers" and "Page view statistics ". Maybe it is because of some option I selected in preferences, but I don't see which one it might be. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Electric bike
Text is OK, referencing is a mess. Much of the text has no references, the existing references are mostly incorrectly formatted, and there are direct links like the patents which should be replaced with in-line refs  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

EVs
Hi Ebikeguy, and thanks for the barnstar. It is good to know someone appreciates the work. See you around.--Mariordo (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Plug-in hybrid
I took the liberty to undo your edit. As you will see, I had not deleted the PHEV Research Center, and also, I think people should be informed the United States Council for Automotive Research aims to to further strengthen the technology base of the U.S. auto industry through cooperative research and development. Btw, I like you userpage. :-) --Lotje (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Toyota Camry Hybrid
Hi again Ebikeguy. I though you might be interested in participation in this discussion Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid. There is a user that wants to merge all hybrid model specific articles with the main article of the main model.

And by the way, it is nice to have a discussion with you guy., not many editors listen patiently to the arguments of the opposing side. I really hate wasting time in discussions lead by passion and not by reason. I thought it was a good idea to bring someone with experience to the discussion. See you around and continue the good work.-Mariordo (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I think it is fine to restore the merge tag, but the discussion link goes to the other page while the discussion was taking place in the Hybrid page. Is there any way to redirect so we have just one discussion and avoid further confusion?---Mariordo (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for considering my explanation for the changes at the Camry Hybrid article. I am not here to trash the article, I'm here to make it better. The only difference between you and me is that I would like to include all the information at the Toyota Camry (XV40) page. In fact, I have made some substantial improvements to it in the past week or so, meaning that 50 percent of the article is fully referenced now. Compare this version to the current revision. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

reverting articles
Hi, if you are reverting artilces to earlier stage, you should take care of all edits, you cant blindly just revert--Typ932 T&middot;C 15:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, twinkle is good for handling vandalism, not much help for reverts/undoings. --Typ932 T&middot;C 19:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)