User talk:MichaelSchoenitzer

Compact fluorescent lamp
Hi Michael. I reverted your changes to the table in this article. You asked the question in your comments "what sould the table be used for? The values are very different between diffrent models - so it dosn't make any sense to use values like 865 lm or 2140 lm." - I'll try to explain:

The table uses published figures on lamp performance from the manufacturers' own websites, carefully chosen so that the same 'family' of lamps are used for CFLs, incandescents, and halogens so that differences due to differences in design and manufacturing techniques are minimised. The table shows the increase in power consumption as lamp luminosity increases, and general trends that show that halogens are more efficient than standard incandescents; and CFLs are more efficient than both halogens and standard incandescents.

While it would be nice to use rounded off figures for luminosity, lamps don't work that way - they are sold (and presumably designed) to work off a particular power rating e.g. 15 W or 40 W or 50 W or 100W and so on, and give as much light as possible at that power dissipation - this leads to different luminosities.

It has been extensively discussed as to whether a graph should be used to show this information instead, but the point was made that drawing lines between the points is 'original research', and making unjustified statements, so a graphical approach was rejected.

I agree that the table is confusing, but it is properly backed up by the cited sources. Changes to the figures should also be backed up by cited sources.

One point to note is that it is not a competition - I have not attempted to find the most efficient standard incandescents, halogens, or CFLs when compiling the table - only the families of lamps with the most members. If is not difficult to find better individual examples (as somebody did), but the table is there to illustrate overall trends, not the ne plus ultra example for each lamp (which would change on a monthly, if not weekly basis anyway).

Regards,

WLDtalk 12:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Alwine
I am trying to understand why the media seem to know the price if it will be auctioned. Do you understand how this works? I thought that if you will auction something you will not know the price till after the auction. Or do auctions work differently in Brandenburg? Thanks im Voraus if you can and will explain this. Regards. Charles01 (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Because the action already ended. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Obvious, now that you tell me!  Thank you.   Charles01 (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Your mass messages to user talk pages
Please stop mass-spamming the user talk pages of other editors, such as what you've been doing just now... this is disruptive and is not the way to get the word out about events and meetings. Continuing to do this will result in being blocked from editing. Thank you :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hallo Michael, ich sehe Deine Einladung nicht als Spam und finde es auch nicht "disruptive". Ich habe dazu auch in User_talk:Oshwah geschrieben. Würd mal gerne wissen, was denn dann der korrekte "way to get the word out about events and meetings" sein soll. Viele Grüße, --Berny68 (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Danke für die Einladung!
Hallo Michael,

vielen Dank für die Einladung nach München, aber ich lebe in Wien. Ich komme aus Bayern, genauer aus Schnaittach bei Nürnberg, wie man auf meiner deutschen Seite sieht. Bitte schreibt mich auch dort an, da kriege ich es schneller.

Und des is fei widder echd dybbisch, dåss di Minchner maana, Bayern häierd ån der Donau aaf!

Bei der Gelegenheit kann ich gleich einmal fragen, ob es für einen kleinen Korrektor wie wich auf der WikiDACH was Interessantes gibt. Da könnte ich gleich bei Mama übernachten...

Viele Grüße, Curryfranke (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)