Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:32, 3 July 2009

Archives of Past Discussion

• Archive 1 (21 Dec 05 - 23 Nov 07)
• Archive 2 (5 Dec 07 - 15 Jan 08)
• Archive 3 (16 Jan 08 - 19 Mar 08)
• Archive 4 (20 Mar 08 - 8 May 08)
• Archive 5 (9 May 08 - 6 Jul 08)
• Archive 6 (7 July 08 - 17 Sep 08)
• Archive 7 (17 Sep 08 - 9 Nov 08)
• Archive 8 (9 Nov 08 - 22 Dec 08)
• Archive 9 (26 Dec 08 - 10 May 09)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 ·_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. --Pascal 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 ·_C17:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Libro

Hi! Anyway, I'll see how to better state this - Libro is a Japanese bookstore chain like Barnes and Noble is in the United States. I'll see how to better state this while I contest the PROD. Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 19:07, 19 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 ·_C17:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Guidance Barnstar
		I hereby award you this barnstar for your Guiding Principles of Wikapedia Editing. Vegavairbob (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on the H1 article

Thanks for the help on the H1 article. You did a GREAT job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PedroDaGr8 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:ForwardLookPatch.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:ForwardLookPatch.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. This image isn't free. It's a logo owned by Chrysler. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; that's a bit of an oldie. I've added a full fair-use rationale. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C06:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hazard warning indicators in the UK

Greetings, Johnkenyon. Have you some reliable support for your edit-summary assertion that hazard flashers weren't mandatory in the U.K. until 1987? —Scheinwerfermann T·C21:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

My assertion of 1987 is not 100% correct - the rules changed in 1986, along with other changes. (side direction indicator repeaters)

However since legislation only dictates what's allowed going forward, the only evidence that hazard warning indicators were not required before then requires a different angle of attack....

In the UK, for vehicles over 3 years old there is an annual roadworthiness test - the MOT. The accepted internet reference for this test can be found at motuk.co.uk

In this case http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_150.htm states that for vehicles first used before April 1st 1986 "A hazard warning device is not required by Regulation, but, if one is fitted, it must be tested."

As an aside (and I left this off the post on my talk page), the new rules in 1986 (apart from Dim-dip) were probably down to an EU Directive (and hence therefore EU wide)

Johnkenyon (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I mistakenly put the pic I took of the Slant-6 engine in the wrong section at first and though someone deleted it. I didn't look at the whole article and didn't see that it had an aftermarket performance section to it. Thanks for correcting that and thanks for letting me know as using Misplaced Pages is somewhat new to me. -Gerald :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slant6guy (talk • contribs) 20:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem — it's a terrific picture and a great addition to the article. How's the truck run? Please remember when commenting on talk pages (of a user or an article) to sign your comments correctly. It's really easy, you just type four tildes ~~~~ and Misplaced Pages's software does the rest for you automagically. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C20:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The truck has yet to be run as the old induction & exhaust system is needed to help properly break-in and time the motor. The pic I took was a rough mock-up of how it'll look in the fall when it's fully operational with EFI (not shown) and more aggressive camshaft. I have a pic of the truck in the Dodge D series section in the 1981-1993 section and also the Dodge RAM (first generation) section B4 it got painted to black. Take care & thank for your interest + help. Slant6guy:) (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop changing my work

Why do you insist on making my life miserable. Stop changing my work around and write something on your own.Vegavairbob (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in making your life miserable, nor anybody else's. Please remember that once you make a contribution, it ceases to be yours. It becomes a part of the encyclopædia and is subject to editing and improvement by any other editor. Editors don't individually own even those articles we spend a great deal of time and effort on. Again, please try to move toward a more coöperative, less combative approach to participating here. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann ·_C01:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Understood, just remember not all of your edits are corrective. Some are just substitution of words that effect the style of my work. Funny, there wasn't much interest in it until I made an article out of it. If you choose to do corrective editing instead of actual content, maybe you should stick to the corrective edits like spelling and grammer instead of trying to change the tone or style of an article to suite your tastes, after all you didn't write it, so use care when changing it. I'm not being combative. I'm just being straight and honest with you. By the way, discontinued vehicles are to be in present tense as per discussion on tense. ie Vega has a large trunk as apposed to Vega had a large trunk. ThanksVegavairbob (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in a pissing contest with you, here or elsewhere. I appreciate your sharing your thoughts with me, though I also have no particular interest in submitting to your notions of how I shall and shan't edit. Articles here are neither mine nor yours. They belong to the community, and every editor has an equal right and opportunity to improve any article. Please remember that adding your particular style to an article is not one of the goals in this project. That's not what we do here. That's for single-author venues like blogs and magazines. Here on Misplaced Pages, edits that progressively clarify and improve articles are the name of the game, no matter what they may do to a previous editor's stylistic idiosyncrasies. There are appropriate uses for both the present and the past tense when writing about vehicles and other items no longer in production. The vehicles still exist, of course, so when speaking of them in general terms we use the present tense. However, when discussing manufacturing operations, advertising campaigns, features of particular marketing emphasis, equipment changes, facelifts and suchlike, we use the past tense, for those happenings happened in the past. Thanks for editing thoughtfully. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C03:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If it helps the article earn FL why would I change your corrective edits? but if you aren't contributing to this article's content you should keep your edits corrective, no offense but you don't own the articles either. It requires more work to write the article and provide the images than tweak it in fifteen minutes switching words to ones that you prefer, so have a little consideration for the content provider(s) in an article which is easily referenced. Your knowledge, corrective edits, and conversions are valuable and appreciated. Vegavairbob (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks as if you're having some difficulty understanding how editors work coöperatively to improve articles. Editors may, at their own option, confine themselves to particular kinds of edits. Some editors, for example, go around fixing punctuation errors or reformatting improperly-configured references. But there is no extrinsic division between "content providers" and "corrective editors", and no editor has the right or authority to dictate how other editors may and may not contribute to an article. When an editor fixes ungrammatical or awkward wording, or helps move an article towards encyclopædic tone is not a matter of switching to words that editor happens to prefer. It's a matter of article improvement. I would ask—again—that you take a very hard look at your behaviour with respect to WP:OWN, for your persistent, overt ownership of Chevrolet Vega is reaching a level at which I will soon feel I have no choice but to request scrutiny of your actions. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C16:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Complete_knock_down

Hi, you took down my whole bicycle section, due to what you call "inappropriate external links". I was trying to have the references 'you' seem to like. If you don't like the links (not my companies!) and if it makes you happy / protocol, then sure, take them down. However, I'm not sure why you removed the whole thing? Cheers, Merlin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin Matthews (talk • contribs) 14:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, Merlin Matthews. Your "whole section" was one sentence about bicycles with two commercial links that ran afoul of WP:ELNO. Whether you're affiliated with the companies or not doesn't matter; commercial links aren't okeh, and that's why the "whole thing" was removed. It is debatable whether bicycles can really be considered CKD; they're meant to be taken apart for shipping—whether by an individual owner moving far away, or by a company manufacturing over here and selling over there. Not so with cars, which are intended to remain put together once they're put together. That would be a discussion for Talk:Complete knock down. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C17:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)