User talk:SamBlob/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Stop moving the page

Stop moving the page Sam.

Yes, it was not the right way to do so but it was the only way I knew how.

It creates too many problems with shortcuts and duplicate talk pages if you do what you have just done.

Please address the question on the discussion page

Let's sort out which title is best, and then ask an admin to sort it out if required.

I think you will find consensus is parallel twin --Bridge Boy (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I should not move the page back. You should. You created the problems, you should solve them.

You now know all the hard work I went through to try and put your impetuous move right. It's your turn.

I will reply later, when I am not quite so bloody furious; right now, anything I would say there would violate WP:CIVIL

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate you might know tonnes about Wikipedia, but do you know anything about engines?

Given how influential the Wikipedia is, I guess I put common sense and accuracy above arcane policies that no newcomer could possibly be expected to know.

It would have been more economical of effort just to fixed it properly, or raise the issue without someone who could rather than expect me to.

It is just not logical to revert it to being wrong, --Bridge Boy (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Violation of WP:OWN, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. The thread is Bridge Boy.The discussion is about the topic Straight-two engine. Thank you. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Inline-twin engine for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Inline-twin engine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inline-twin engine until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Square engine

I notice here, back in 2007, you used "straight two" for your re-working of Square engine (which I basically agree with).

It is unreferenced, so what was your reasoning or what were your influences for doing so? Were they external to the Wikipedia or just from the Wikipedia itself?

Thank you. --Bridge Boy (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That was the name of the article. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Source for info on McKenzie 8-Litre Bentley specials

Dear Sam

In relation to the 8 Litre Bentley "specials" modified by McKenzie. I have a source for you now that is in print "Bentley 8 Litre by Clare Hay"

Clare is a Bentley specialist and covers the 3 cars I had originally edited the article with.

If you let me know how to proceed, I can send you .pdfs of the pages of the book.

The McKenzie Bentleys were specially modified with triple carbs, lower chassis and modified radiator. Their performance is over and above those of a "standard" 8 Litre and they are an important part of 8 Litre history.

I didn't want to edit the article before writing to you and get a response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.145.218.228 (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear concerned editor:

I have found an online review of Bentley Eight Litre by Clare Hay. Congratulations to you for accessing a book that costs almost 300 quid! As much as I would love to see those .pdfs; I would not love to have my e-mail address fall into the wrong hands. You can probably contact me about that at Flickr where I go by the name "grockbuster".

You can reference the book by using the reference tags: <ref name="nameofyourchoice">information on the book</ref>. It would be best if you format the information on the book using Template:Cite book.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sam

I'm very much a technical numpty (symptom of my age perhaps!)! What I'll do is try the flickr thing you mentioned and see if I can contact you there.

Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.145.218.228 (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I think I sent you an e-mail. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hiya, we've made contact on Flickr nice and anonymously! I'm not sure how to send you the .pdf or to edit the article in any way but extremely basically! Email me back at Flickr and I can send you the .pdf you want with a little introduction if you don't know that much about the McKenzie specials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.145.218.228 (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Will do! I actually know nothing about the McKenzie specials. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

can I help ?

I've opened a discussion at Talk:Frank Costin, I see you have made improvements, but Eddaido undid them, I get the feeling that you are both making valid improvements, so please if you have time, help me to help Eddaido (he is not as nasty as he seems) :) Penyulap ☏ 10:15, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Infobox images

Hi, why you are formatting infobox images with frameless or upright parameters? we are having the default system as 250px on the box, we should follow same system in every article. Or is there some specific problem with those? -->Typ932 ^T·C 10:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I am following the guidelines given in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Image syntax for forced image sizes, where the use of upright parameters is preferred over the use of fixed pixel widths. Does WikiProject Automobile have a different guideline? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

'upright' isn't always ideal here (a MediaWiki limitation - 'upright' doesn't mean what you might expect), but I support anything that gets us away from hard-coded pixel sizes. Nor is 250px some rigidly agreed default for masthead images. Many articles use 300px instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should use the same system on every page, that we dont end to have dozen different infoboxes, it can also confuse some new editors, if there is not strick rule. If there is problem with the current 250px "default", I think we need to discuss on the project page. Im not sure if the wp:cars have guideline , but our layout example has 250px and its used in 99% of automobile articles -->Typ932 ^T·C 11:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's what the link in the earlier reply has to say about using fixed pixel widths, 250px or otherwise: "Alternatively, a fixed size can be specified in the form |XXXpx, where XXX is replaced by a number of pixels, although this should be avoided where possible, since it overrides the users default."

The term "should be avoided where possible" suggests to me that this should probably not be used as a "default system".

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

maybe but before we make such changes, it would be good to discuss it, because it concerns thousands? of articles -->Typ932 ^T·C 13:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If the lead image size was set correctly in the first place, no more than 300px, then changing it to upright=1.35 will be unnoticeable by everyone using default parameters. For the small numbers of users whose default images are small at 180px, or are large at 300px, the change to a ratio of their default image is an improvement. We have no idea what their display looks like, but we do know that they've told us what they think looks good, 180, or 300, or whatever. Following a ratio of that rather than hard coding is clearly better.

I know it's been discussed on a great many occasions, and I don't see a need to get even more approval; unforcing image sizes already has broad consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: DYK nomination for article "Destinee Hooker"

Thanks for the review. What should I do so that the hook can be approved? - PM800 (talk) 01:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I just added a source. - PM800 (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Harley-Davidson Model W

Hello! Your submission of Harley-Davidson Model W at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC) ps: It's a really good article, I only found one tiny thing !!

DYK for Harley-Davidson Model W

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome!

Hi, and thanks for the welcome message :). Thank you also for the tip on the online vs. print versions of articles. I wasn't sure how to deal with that - I thought being able to confirm some of the facts at least online might be valuable, but didn't want to link to it for information that's only listed in print. I'll try the journal template if I run into that again in the future, and maybe just stick to the print version. Thanks again! Runinthegrass (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Imme R100

Hello there, I reviewed the article on the Imme R100 that you nominated for GA. You can read my comments here - please address or discuss as appropriate. Take care, Moswento ^talky 12:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. Thank you for responding to my comments - I now believe the article meets all of the Good Article criteria, and have promoted it as such. The outstanding comments in my review are optional extras in case you want to improve the article further. Congratulations! Moswento ^talky 16:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)