User talk:Scheinwerfermann/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Cornering lamp image

That would be great. I thought about doing that myself but I don't think I have a graphics program (or the skill) that could make it look reasonably professional so I used the picture as-is. —Olds 403 (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot about this. Good idea but it seems to blur the car itself out too much and it's a little difficult to see the lamp in relation to the car. Maybe just highlighting the lamp or drawing an arrow to it? --Olds 403 (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Lightmouse date scripts

• I see you operate date script written by Lightmouse: A discussion at Lightmouse's house may be of interest to you. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

LeBaron

(Discussion moved to Talk:Chrysler LeBaron)_C02:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Scheinwerfermann. You have new messages at Wdl1961's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RHD/LHD traffic

Thanks for your edit here, as I hope you see, I am no vandal but always helpful to have someone else adding in.

I don't know where those references came from, certainly not from me (except if by accident).

Thanks once again, or (assuming, from your name, you are German) Bitte.

SimonTrew (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know I added a reply at the talk page for this article. I know different users have different preferences for where to add replies, so just thought I'd drop you a note so you know it is there. Best wishes Gesundheit SimonTrew (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Airbags

I've started a thread to discuss the image you removed from this article here. Your input would be useful. Rklawton (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Efficacy

I edited the page on efficacy and I have a message from you saying that I am not allowed to delete parts of the article and then assert in the edit summary that the information that i deleted is incorrect. May i ask what more information you would like? A more detailed description goes as follows: the graph that i deleted was incorrectly labelled. It indicated that efficacy can be derived from receptor occupancy when i most certainly cannot. Efficacy is derived from maximal response i.e. EC₅₀. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.2.47 (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's right, it's not okeh to summarily delete content and give no explanation beyond "the content was incorrect". Please keep in mind that the standard for inclusion of information here on Wikipedia is not what we know, it's what we can prove. If you feel there's something wrong with an article, particularly when you're just starting out on Wikipedia, the correct procedure is to raise your concern on the article's talk page. A discussion of the issues and the best way to fix them will ensue, and once consensus has been reached, the changes can be made. Also, when bringing up a new issue on a talk page (a user talk page or an article talk page), you need to add a section heading to separate your new topic from previous discussions. I've added such a section heading above your paragraph here on my talk page, because you hadn't done so. Also, you need to sign your comments properly. Please click this link and take a few moments to get up to speed on how this project works and how best to add your contributions. That way, your efforts will be enduring and other contributors will be more inclined to work with you. Because you're new, I'm posting this reply both here and on your own talk page, in case you are not watching my talk page for a reply. However, it is best to carry on a discussion of this type wherever it originated. In this case, that would be your talk page where the warning appeared. I'll try my best to answer whatever questions you may have — welcome to Wikipedia! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Could you stop ur idiotism again? bored with you, and stop removing my edits and why you dont put this same message to other editors in same article, so could you stop this --Typ932 ^T·C 20:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please keep your comments civil or you will be reported for administrative action. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Selective enforcement

Changing my IP soon! actually, many of wikipedia's... well whatever it is you do, have targeted me. I don't believe I like it. 173.19.35.49 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC).

Changing your IP will not exempt you from Wikipedia's rules against vandalism and other damage to the project, nor will it help you evade those rules. It will be best if you behave here in a more coöperative manner. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel hounded

Please why are you having a go at everything I write? In the vote, there are plenty of people using the word vote. It is at the top of the article. It says "Please indicate your vote"... But you choose to have a go at me in particular. I have given up editing anything you look at just because I'd rather go and do something constructive. I try to have good faith but at the moment it seems you are just trailing anything I write to pick holes in it. Please tell me I am wrong. SimonTrew (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, heavens. Sorry, I don't mean to seem as though I'm picking on you. If I'm guilty of anything, it's being lamentably clumsy about trying to get you — as a new but apparently serious, engaged, and interested editor who's been at it in earnest for a bit over 3 months — up to speed in a hurry on Wikipedia convention, practice, and protocol. We seem to have two or three articles and one protocol discussion as common interests of varying degree, and so I've had more than just a one-off opportunity to see and comment on your edits. That scarcely constitutes having a go at anywhere near everything you write — your contribs page shows you to be active on many articles I've never looked at and likely never will — but I can see how my responses to your edits and talk page comments would be conspicuous to you against a backdrop of the more common sequence of one-off interactions with other editors.

Ruthless editing of one's contributions is a basic fact of life here. It can certainly be traumatic to see one's work altered in any fashion by somebody else, but that's the way it works — for me, for you, and for every other editor here. Every single edit page carries the note If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it at the bottom, and it's a very valid warning. That said, and without wanting to get into a did-not/did-too quarrel, I wonder if it's really entirely fair of you to suggest I'm scaring you away from editing any particular article(s). No editor owns any article — not me, nor you, nor anyone else; this is a coöperative project, not a competitive one. While I certainly acknowledge how you might come to feel singled out by dint of my close followup to a couple of your edits, and our discussions on a couple of talk pages, I'm sure you can appreciate my alarm at your having characterised Wikipedia users as "your readership". Likewise, proposing a major edit on a talk subpage rather than just making the edit is a wise and coöperative approach. You asked for its evaluation, so when I provided a factual, civil, content-based and specific such evaluation and you grew peevish and defensive, I felt suckerpunched.

That brings us to the protocol discussion that presumably led you to make the comment here to which I now respond. Fact is, we do not vote on Wikipedia. Not even if somebody has made the error of requesting a vote. Not even if some editors are not yet experienced enough with Wikipedia to know that we don't vote here. I'm sorry if you feel wronged by my pointing this out to you; it wasn't (and isn't) my intent to give you grief, and you'll know about !vote for next time. I still find your date autolinking/template:convert analogy unconvincing, but that's neither here nor there; the whole point of discussions such as that one is for a broad spectrum of views to be expressed, including metacomments. Perhaps other editors will agree with your analogy, and perhaps not; either way, please try not to take it personally. The primary main objective is the betterment of the project.

Interested in your thoughts by response, if you like. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you msy want to recheck the "primary main objective" wikilink above. In any case I apologise for this intrusion which you may delete. Cheers. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Scheinwerfermann, you have restored my good faith.

I think probably we just have different styles of editing-- you are more conservative and I more liberal-- and I think both are valid in the Wikipedia framework. Tonight I have collaborated on with another editor on a set of articles that really between us we have knocked into shape quite nicely, but any individual edit could be picked on as "not worthy" or whatever, you have to give them a chance.

To give you a little background: I am a software engineer who has had every document I've written peer reviewed for the last twenty years. It's a fact of life for me, I am not naive to the editing process. What I dislike is trigger-happy responses that have been far less considered than the edit itself.

I do check the guidelines and so forth, but my main one is just to say "what would this look like to someone reading it? Is it better or worse?". i.e. WP:COMMON. That is not to use it as an excuse. And that is what I meant by "my readership" or "your readership", whichever I put; I am not claiming ownership there at all, but trying to think, as I write, what will my reader make of this? Indeed, who is my reader? A casual browser? A schoolchild doing homework? Someone with a specialist interest in the subject? At that point, the point of writing, the reader IS my reader, an imaginary one of course. Certainly I do not claim ownership; but I consider "my" imaginary reader as I decide how to write. I am not saying I get it right all the time— that's where peer review comes in— but at least I am starting out in the right direction.

My disdain comes from removal, or change, without any discussion, when in good faith one should expect that the change was made for a reason-- and I always put a reason for change on the summary, i.e. WHY I made the change not just WHAT I changed, unless it is obvious e.g. a typo. In fairness, so do you. It is VERY frustrating to find a blank edit summary and first have to do a diff to find out WHAT has changed then sometimes to think WHY? So Be Bold can work in reverse-- if I can't work out why it's been changed, I undo it. I suppose in a way that's the pot calling the kettle black, but even when I undo I put a reason why.

To reiterate, I don't have any problem with you personally and with your response you have restored my good faith, and that you also have good faith. I do think, however, we have different editing styles and it's probably best to use article talk before we both attempt to edit the same article (as you suggest, that probably won't be too often). The difficulty with article talk is, and this is widely acknowledged (don't ask me to cite references please), nobody pays any attention until you Be Bold and actually make a change. Then you wonder who called the army.

If the person writing the poll has put "Vote for one of the following" (and I would imagine that was copy-pasted from another poll) then complain to them about their wording, not me.

About the date thing: I have done this enough in software to know (a) it's not easy (b) it is helpful (c) it falls under units of measure. Unfortunately that is all technically WP:OR, so I can't expand on it much (in user talk it would be OK). My argument is simple really: add a template and don't require anyone to use it. I can't see, beyond inspection of a user's preference, that it cannot be done with regular expression parsing-- in fact I know it can cos I did it, and you could have it backwards forwards standing on its head or whatever. I LIKE metadata and I think it is an editor's responsibility to add metadata, it adds value. Of course one can overdo it (WP:Overlink etc, and perhaps closer to home the date-linking thing which was before my time) but on the whole I think it a Good Thing. I don't think it should be compulsory and I think it can be done with a template. What's to oppose?

Also, the "date range" issue which has been mentioned a couple of times in the poll is subsumed into conversion of ranges generally (6 or 7 miles, 10 to 15 pounds, and so forth). The subject is rather malleable and one can do dimensional analysis and so forth—which Template:Convert explicitly states it doesn't— but in my experience that is rather pointless; especially as some common measures are not expressed in appropriate units but a multplier is assumed, e.g. pressure may be expressed in inches.

Very best wishes and thanks for taking the time to respond so considerately. SimonTrew (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't claim monopoly or exclusive rectitude in my editing style or interpretation and implementation of Wikipedia convention. As a longtime technical writer myself, I understand and appreciate your technical-writing background. One of the things that was hard for me at first here — perhaps you are having similar difficulty without realising it — was recognising that Wikipedia is not like the hierarchical editing structures that exist elsewhere, and it's substantially different to the peer-review processes in the academic publishing sphere. There are similarities, to be sure — in any of the three editing structures, you will be told that an em dash has a leading and following space, or it has neither, but it does not have a following space without a leading one ;-) — but such similarities are very limited. Things work differently here.

I share your distaste for thoughtless reactions to edits, for they are seldom productive. On the other hand, sometimes a fast shooter knows what s/he is doing and accurately hits a valid target. An edit made quickly is not necessarily made in undue haste. Changes are sometimes made with little or no discussion; this is a judgement call, for if absolutely every last change had to be held pending discussion of some arbitrary length of time, progress would halt. That's why we have If you consider the discussion inadequate or incomplete, by all means ramp it up. I agree with you that it's inappropriate to make or revert changes without a reasonably cogent edit summary.

You're also right that articles can go for long stretches with little or no substantive attention, then one makes an edit and suddenly the article seems to be swarming with editors. It's an artifact of BRDC. Your suggestion makes sense for us to take especial care to use the talk page before we make substantial edits to the content or style of articles we both focus on; I'm certainly game.

Thanks for your more detailed explanation of your position on date autoformatting. I still don't think it's necessary or desirable on balance, but I better understand your favour for it and the points of similarity and connection with the conversion templates. (NB on talk pages you don't have to worry about being speared for OR in your comments).

All best! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I did read this and I am glad we both have pretty much the same philosophy-- I probably overreacted just because of silly and harmful reversions etc elsewhere, so my apologies for that.

So, perhaps you could do me a favour. You'll see from my user page I've been doing my usual grazing and also had a stab at translating a few minor articles from French. They are very much backwater articles (I was hardly going to tackle "Paris" at a first attempt!) but if you could cast an eye and give me any advice, that would be helpful (they are listed on my user page). I don't particularly want changes to them at the momemnt, unless there is anything grossly stupid, but am struggling to find e.g. suitable templates for demographic info, and to know whether to anglicise names etc. or leave them in French. So, your general opinon of how you think the articles run, that would be very useful. Deliberately I have kept them as fairly literal translations (from French wikipedia), I realise they don't have to be, but I think that's the best starting point. Already a couple have more referenced sources than their French originals!

I'm not after a book of literary criticism but if you have any just general views on how to proceed, before I tackle something a bit bigger, I'd be grateful to hear it.

Very best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Polyurethane article

I noticed that you changed the polyurethane uses chart on the polyurethane page from a full sized image to a thumbnail. I would appreciate your consideration of undoing the edit, as the chart contains information immediately pertinent to that section of the article and looses its impact rendered as a thumbnail since the information contained therein is not recognizable in the same way a picture of photograph might be.

Best Regards, P Cottontail (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Vega

The information I provided in Economy cars on the Vega was factual, neutral, and unbiased. The article is about economy cars. its not a promo 'cause its neutral. only the facts have been provided, not opinions,and believe it or not, there is some positive. I'm sick of reading (all) negative articles on this car and others, based on someone's worthless, biased opinions. My contributions provide a two sided, neutal view. A promo piece is all positive and a bad article is all negative. It's very easy for someone to read an internet article and copy a quote out of context and plunk it down here, but the idea here is to provide a balanced view, as a reliable source of information. I do not think its appropriate to use the quote over and over again that the Vega's first prototype two years before the car was manufactured fell apart It shouldn't be the main content about the car in the economy car section or any other article. It is a fact and it is stated in the Vega article under pre-production problems. In context however, which Delorean left out of his Vega chapter is that most prototypes are strengthened instead of the reverse. So every article on the internet states deloreans comment the Vega fell apart. The vehicle that fell apart wasn't a Vega at that point so its useless and misleading information in a general article. The fact is HIS prototype was rejected by his boss at GM. Of course he is going be critical about the Vega in that book. His other comments, by the way, from Motor Trend 1970, nine years earlier, are the reverse. i include BOTH in Chevrolet Vega for readers to draw their own conclusions. I'd like to see some of his positive Vega comments on the internet. Point is, the economy car article isn't the place to have a forum of Deloreans comments so a general description with positives (sales figures) and problems of the production version should do the trick here.I also did not remove link to "Vega tagged un-reliable" further proof its not a promo. (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Economy car is not an article for a detailed accounting of the history of the Vega or any other particular car. The material you wish to include may belong more appropriately in Chevrolet Vega. By your username and your comments here ("I'm sick of reading (all) negative articles on this car") it is apparent that you are a Vega enthusiast, which is fine, though it will be well for you to take special care to make very certain that you are not allowing your personal opinions and preferences to creep into your contributions. When we are passionate about a subject — be it a particular kind of car or anything else — it's very easy to see our opinions as neutral facts. Avoiding this common trap is one of the important aspects of improving an article in bad condition such as Economy car. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If you read the piece you will find a general paragraph linking the Chevette and other GM economy cars so it also covers those models as well. all vegas problems are mentioned..briefly and in context. I think its neutral. My sick of comment refers to quotes and bits of information used out of context for negative impact and based on general perceptions from mis-information...

(VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

I spent an hour getting that information just right and you delete it twice?? The info you left in that article is worthless and contributes nothing to the article. Did you bother to read my contribution. Maybe you're being biased from my username. I can write about ANY car with neutrality,and have, but I'm not going to waste hours to have it deleted for no reason. I will not contribute to that article again (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing you have written has been deleted; your significant edit done without consensus has been reverted pending discussion on the article talk page. You think it's neutral…I do not. This is the "D" (discussion) stage of the BRDC, and the right place to have that discussion is at Talk:Economy car. I look forward to discussing the matter with you there. Also, as others have asked on your talk page, please stop making numerous edits to single pages in rapid sequence. It's unhelpful, discourteous, and uncoöperative behaviour even if we assume the best of faith, for it creates and worsens edit conflicts. Please use the sandbox and/or the preview function to get all your edits into shape and then save them. Given the comments on your talk page, it looks like other editors and administrators are growing impatient with what looks like persistent and willful refusal to contribute in accord with community norms and expectations. You may not intend to convey the appearance of a troublemaker, but you're in danger of gaining exactly that reputation; may I suggest you take a few minutes to review the basic fundamentals of coöperative, courteous editing? It'll make everyone's life here easier and more productive, most of all yours. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C06:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing to talk about. my piece has five citations and makes references to five other GM economy cars all linked to the Vega... If you think my paragraph is not neutral, just leave what's there then. What you left there is neutral? It lists a quote made 30 years ago, written out of context and provides no useful information and is negative biased.

Like I said, If my contributions are deleted for no good reason I will not continue to contribute.

(VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 06:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

There is virtually always something to talk about when two or more editors disagree over a chunk of text. It's very unfortunate that you continue to behave out of accord with how we do things here on Wikipedia. Threatening to discontinue participation is not an effective tactic, but taking a brief piece of time to understand and begin to follow the community standards and accepted practices is. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C07:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Fuel injector

Please say whether you will discuss improvements to the| fuel injector diagram. This is a WP:FP that you worked on together with another some 20 months ago. You may like us to have preliminary discussion here, or we can take this to the article talk page right away - you choose!

• No electromagnetic injector contains a tension spring with its difficult end anchoring. It is always a compression spring.
• Fuel shutoff is by a pintel that seats at the back of the nozzle.
• Fuel flows through the hollow plunger then over the outside of the pintel to the nozzle.
• The solenoid consists of a coil of insulated wire wound on a bobbin.
• The color change from red to grey is not an intuitive or conventional way to show electric current flow.
• The diagram can be expanded to show the voltage waveform from the ECU that drives the injector. The waveform has notable features of an elevated leading edge for quick opening and pulsewidth that increases as fuel demand increases. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, let's talk it over. Fine to get a start here and then bring it over to article talk once we've hammered out a preliminary action plan. I agree in principle with all of your points here, with the minor caveat that shutoff is not always by means of a pintle. There are ball-and-seat type injectors, as well, and probably some other variants of which I'm not aware ("disc type" comes to mind, though I don't know that I've ever seen one or, indeed, if such an injector actually exists). —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

We need a well sourced and easily visualized variant. Have you relevant diagrams or a sketch? You may send me e-mail if that helps.

Injector nozzles can be single-hole or multi-hole like a shower rose. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

headlights

It seems you know a lot about headlights and the differnce between US versus European headlights, what is the real difference in simple terms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosib (talk • contribs) 01:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello there. The differences are discussed in detail at Headlamp. If there's material in that article you find difficult to understand, please identify it specifically so that the article can be improved. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi What I am trying to figure out is we have a headlight that is E mark which is european standard and I need to know what it would take to make it US standard and pass the testing from FMVSS 108. I also need to find a testing facility that can do the testing, unless you can recommend someone? Thanks Sosi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosib (talk • contribs) 00:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This what you ask is fairly complicated and highly variable depending on what exact type of headlamp you have. You would probably do best to check with an automotive lighting consultant; try Dan Stern or Walt Kosmatka (for whom I have no e-mail or web address). —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture Quality

There are several Dodge Dart pictures on the metioned page that I would consider low-quality, like the sickly-yellow '69 pic for example, before I would dismiss and delete the '63 funny car pic for that reason. - Dyno Tested (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2009 (EST)

I agree with you there are more poor-quality pictures in the article, that need replaced with better-quality images. But some of them are presently the only images illustrating their particular aspect of Dodge Dart, so for now they should probably stay until better replacements can be found or made. The '63 funny car pic was superfluous and of poor quality and not in accord with project image standards, and it did not illustrate anything since it was a head-on shot. That's why I took it out back and "shot" it. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

about blocking me

Hello mister, just show your message about spamming. I didnt intend to do this, im new here and ive read that this doesnt affect page rank of course. Just show infos at company site, im new here and ill stop posting. I dont care if you remove a company from wikipedia or not, i only want to continue using your services. Im really sorry for any problems i made...really sorry... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxzal (talk • contribs) 00:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Scheinwerfermann, We argued in a bad way, sometimes i became rude and im sorry for this, but after reviewing all wikipedia policy and trying harder, im still learning. I have to admit in public that you were right to many points about notability/neutral etc... Sorry... Psikxas (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Psikxas, thank you for your note here. I appreciate that you are putting thought into how you interact with others here on Wikipedia. We do have a policy of assuming good faith on the part of all editors. However, your entire contribution history so far makes it extremely challenging to do so, and you are still creating a promotional advertisement for this K--rh--m company you seem to be involved with. That is not acceptable for a Wikipedia article, and it never will be. Your latest edit has introduced deliberate factual errors in a manner that confuses rather than clarifying, and elides the fact that K--rh--m's primary product is a line of aftermarket "HID kits". Perhaps you do not understand the purpose and point of a Wikipedia article, or maybe I do not understand the purpose and point of your efforts here. Are you trying to create an encyclopædia article for the general reading public? Or are you just trying to create a Wikipedia-style informational page that you can point people to, perhaps by means of a link on a page outside Wikipedia? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Dont know..really..i see links from many companies..not only one...from Osram to Mcdonalds...from Banks to TDK and sony...doesnt these companies have external links?

..and i want to write an article about something that it doesnt exist here, but something about i know it very well...maybe include less info at the beginning and let others complete it....everyone can modify it then, cant he? anyway...if you have any idea of an article about ligthing or in general electronics -cause thats what i study, is there a PM system here i could tell you who i am, we could talk further and solve you all your concerns if i have anything to do with companies, who is behind a nick etc- that doesnt appear here, please kindly tell me to start with... Psikxas (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Osram, McDonalds, Banks, TDK, and Sony are all notable companies. Yours is not. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Etobicoke

(Revert to accord with source. The parts facility is in Etobicoke, which is part of the greater Toronto area, but is _not_ Toronto per se.) (undo)

The article Etobicoke says it IS a part of the City of Toronto. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Barreiros

I am rather surprised to have had my edit labelled as vandalism. Oppose it for some reason, such as grammar or the content, if you like, but in what sense is it vandalism? I have revisited the edit I made and feel it is valid and pretty non-controversial. Can you explain why you feel that this edit is invalid? --Bcnviajero (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Your edit included a term ("dictatorship") which might be historically accurate, but makes problems for NPOV. It might be worth debating this point if the article were about that government in particular or Spain's politics in general, but it's not. It's about an automaker, so there's no reason or need to load up the article with irrelevant political text. Thanks for understanding. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. However, is the context in which things happen not relevant to the subject itself? If we create a wikilink to the Spain under Franco page from the word dictatorship would that satisfy you?

I don't think that it would, no. The Dodge Dart's popularity with members of the Spanish government is notable and relevant to the article (and should be properly and reliably supported). The makeup, philosophy, policy, and succession of the Spanish government at the time Darts were being made is not relevant to the article about Dodge Darts. So no, the word "dictatorship" has got to go. I have placed a link to Spain under Franco elsewhere in the statement about Dart popularity with government officials. Please go have a look; we can carry on this discussion at Talk:Barreiros_(manufacturer)|Talk:Barreiros]]. Please also remember to sign your comments on talk pages. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Use of the Euphemistic term 'Non-Heterosexual' in place of 'Homosexual'

There is no need for the Homosexual Agenda to "advocate" as you say, for the acceptance of asexual or the heterosexual side (the normal part)of the bisexual dysfunctional behavioral pattern. The "Homosexual Agenda" speaks only for the acceptance of a Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) based dysfunctional behavioral pattern referred to as "homosexual" behavior. Further, since a bisexual behavioral pattern also implies homosexual behavior, and this is the part that the homosexual agenda wants us to accept as a "lifestyle" choice versus recognizing it as a symptom of mental illness, the use of the term "homosexual" versus "non-heterosexual" corrects an inaccuracy in this article.

Since you seem to want to broker information placed on Wiki, I will leave your edit in place. It's people like you that are ruining Wiki as a valuable source of information and ruining our society in general. Shame on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.215.78 (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I am neither an "information broker" (whatever that might mean to you) nor an appropriate target for your apparent upset at being thwarted in an attempt to place your point of view over this project's adherence to the neutral point of view. By consensus, the introductory paragraph of Homosexual agenda contains the term Non-heterosexual. It is not a euphemism for anything, but — as you'll learn if you view the linked article — is an umbrella term with a wider scope than the term homosexual you wanted to substitute. Also, please remember to sign your comments on talk pages. Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Re. 85.119.112.235

Hi! The only reason I didn't block that IP right away was due to that particular IP not having really done much damage. However, based on your note to me, I've blocked it for a month. Please let me know if the guy comes back. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem. Yeah, the guy looks like he's on a dynamic dial-up IP in Scotland. I'll semi-protect the article for a month and see how it goes. Even if he creates an account, he won't be able to edit the article. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A9 speedy deletion criterion

Hi Scheinwerfermann, I have declined a couple of your A9 speedy deletion tags. The A9 criterion is only used where there is no claim of notability for the album/single etc and the artist's article has never existed or has been deleted. Blink-182 and Eminem have articles so the taggings of Family Reunion Promo EP and Beautiful (Song) were incorrect - I suggest trying proposed deletion or AFD. Somno (talk) 07:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Car Accident/Traffic Collision

Dear Scheinwerfermann, can you please avoid making personal attacks - and perhaps follow your own guidelines? Having watched editors expend lots of breath in fruitless past discussions on renaming at the Car Accident/Traffic Collision page for some years, I asked that - instead of choosing something that people liked - we set down some criteria on naming first. Then we could justify what the final name would be next time this discussion comes around. The discussion had clearly started off based on "lets do it like this 'cos we like it this way". You did not appear to note that I intentionally avoided expressing an opinion because I feel there are merits in settling on either a technically-accepted term or a common lay-term. (And ultimately all search terms should link there.) I find it ironic that when I tried to steer discussion towards finding something that could be justified on factual encyclopedic grounds, thus audaciously questioning some of the assumptions on a thread you started, you publicly threw it back at me a with ad hominem attack with a comment like: "it shouldn't change because Ephebi likes it the way it is" and denying AGF! I spent some years working with highways: in Transport Planning, highway maintenance & road design. It doesn't make me an expert in road safety but perhaps you might just credit me with AGF and accept that I just might have a little bit of exposure to this field, rather than just be expressing a wacky "opinion"? Thanks. Ephebi (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ephebi. Thanks for your comments. I'm sorry you feel attacked and wronged. That was not my intent; I always try to avoid personal attacks. I did — and do — look askance at the manner in which you were participating in the article name thread, i.e., your behaviour. It can be challenging to phrase comments on behaviour so they aren't ugly ad hominem personal attacks; since communication happens between the writer and the reader, and there's no tone of voice onscreen, all we can do is try our best. That's why we follow the AGF rule. You'll please note that I did not accuse you of acting in bad faith. What I said was that I was having an increasingly difficult time assuming good faith. Likewise, I carefully avoided accusing you of behaving badly, what I said was that it looked to me as though you might be doing something counterproductive. I was leaving the door open for you to show me my error in perception.

I think the objections you raised to changing the title were not very strong or well considered. Your dismissive tone didn't help your presentation, nor did deriding as "preposterous" the well-documented connotation of accident and its implications. The relevant and productive argument over this point is whether and how those connotations significantly affect how traffic collisions are studied and avoided, and we've got a section in the article dealing with that question. It could use some development, but it's there. I am glad you have experience in a field relevant to the article. So do I. It makes us both reasonably well equipped to contribute to articles like this one, but we don't engage in competitive credentials-wielding on Wikipedia, we build consensus. Consensus doesn't require unanimity, and sometimes we find ourselves disagreeing with the consensus. That's no fun — I've certainly been there plenty of times — but it is a reality of how this project works. We talk about the question at hand (sometimes several times), and we try and devise the best possible answer to the question. I look forward to working together with you and other contributors to improve the quality of this article. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Article issues template

Please note that the {{Article issues}} parameter named "date" is only used by the "expert" parameter. The "date" parameter should not be specified if the "expert" parameter is not also specified. Also note that the "date" parameter must be all lowercase, "Date" is not valid. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 00:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that. Awhile back, I had someone scolding me for omitting the "date" parameter when consolidating multiple individual templates with {{Article issues}}, so I started adding it. Looks as though you're right, which is fine by me; less typing! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

auto night vision

Thanks for the comment and edit on the automotive night vision article, but night vision came before AFS and I'm not sure how they are related. They are totally different technologies. About the only thing they share with headlamps is they are both primarily for nighttime use and active night vision uses a projector in the headlight housing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.224.246 (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether AFS predates night vision depends on how we define AFS and which market we look at. They are very definitely related, for they're both vision-related driver assistance systems and are increasingly integrated into a comprehensive driver vision system.

Please consider registering with a user name on here — see here for the reasons why — and please remember to sign your comments on talk pages. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10