Difference between revisions of "Talk:Fluorescent Lighting"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Vadalism?) |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | '''Efficiency Section: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Phopshor?''' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Spelling? | ||
+ | |||
I'm quite interested in CFL; but have yet to understand how they might look in a standard halogen downlighter; even if that is possible - anyone know? | I'm quite interested in CFL; but have yet to understand how they might look in a standard halogen downlighter; even if that is possible - anyone know? | ||
Revision as of 10:26, 26 March 2008
Efficiency Section:
Phopshor?
Spelling?
I'm quite interested in CFL; but have yet to understand how they might look in a standard halogen downlighter; even if that is possible - anyone know?
-- (anonymous)
The place to ask is on the newsgroup - discussion pages here are really about development of the article. Besides you'll get a lot more responses on the group.
--John Stumbles 01:58, 22 February 2007 (GMT)
Vadalism?
Not sure if someone just made a cockup or actually wanted to nuke the page. The IP address in question checks out as what looks like Oman telecom. Their abuse contact is:
inetnum: 62.231.243.0 - 62.231.243.255
netname: OMAN-EXPN-2003 descr: PROVIDER country: OM remarks: FOR SPAM & NET ABUSE
person: Ali Abduwani address: P.O.Box 789 address: Ruwi 112 OM phone: 968 631881 fax-no: 968 695482 e-mail: ali@omantel.co.om
Not sent anything yet, but can wait and see if anything else happens.
--John Rumm 02:37, 1 July 2007 (BST)