Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:43, 5 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 - 20 May 09)

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)

editing

Hello- I reviewed your courteous ediing post on vega talk- I'm going to try it today. subpage onto user page. How long have you been with Wiki? are you an administator? seems like there isn't too much you don't know. Happy forthVegavairbob (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad to read you will be trying some editing methods different than what you've been doing up to now. I've been a Misplaced Pages contributor since early January 2005. I'm not an administrator. There's plenty I don't know…including how it can possibly be that despite a giant chorus of editors and admins telling you you are violating WP:OWN, you continue to insist there's no ownership issue, and that you're right and everyone else is wrong. You seem to feel that the AN/I case was opened to harrass you. In fact, it was opened to prevent much worse consequences (such as your being banned from editing Chevrolet Vega, or from editing at all) down the line. I tried — as did many others — to help you understand the problem. You flatly refuse to do so, and for that reason I have great difficulty taking this present friendly chat of yours at face value. You've got an awful track record to rectify, and as of just a few hours ago you were still building that bad track record. Perhaps that's just face-saving bluster, and your behaviour really is going to change quickly and substantially. I hope so, because you obviously have a great deal to bring to the project. But your long record of crummy behaviour makes that hope extremely thin. Please prove me wrong. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C14:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving stuff

Could you stop moving my comments, to wrong places, thank you --Typ932 16:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Add your comments to the end of ongoing discussions in accord with WP:TALK instead of interspersing them, and they won't need moving. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C17:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"Thread your post: Use indentation as shown in WP:TP (or, more specifically, Misplaced Pages:Indentation) to clearly indicate who you are replying to, as with usual threaded discussions. Normally colons are used, not bullet points (although the latter are commonly used at AfD, CfD, etc.)." simple , so dont mess others posts --Typ932 17:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving improperly-placed comments to their correct sequence so the conversation is kept orderly and comprehensible is not considered refactoring. Please coöperate.—Scheinwerfermann ·_C17:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop moving my comments which are in right place, whats the problem with you? --Typ932 17:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, looks like you're right — I was misremembering WP:TALK's statement on the matter. Sorry 'bout that! —Scheinwerfermann ·_C18:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay --Typ932 19:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

qwerty

Meatpuppetry

Wdl1961, meatpuppetry is not permitted on Misplaced Pages. You've made it clear you don't like me, and that's your prerogative, but you are not helping anyone or anything by acting in Vegavairbob's stead to revert legitimate edits to Chevrolet Vega. If you continue to do so, I will report you for meatpuppetry. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C22:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

what is meat puppetry??

is that the same as qwerty??

there must have been a spelling mistake in what ever is bothering yo mnow agian.

or checl th dictionayry befoer or your own ooutputt

checkk below & aboove prevous KMA kijk maar aan

Wdl1961 (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"Puppet" usage 

The 1996 U.S. patent semi-cited as support for modern usage of "puppet valve" as an alternate term for "poppet valve" is not reliable. If you , you'll notice that while its title contains the word "puppet", its text refers to poppet valves (except where it erroneously refers to "popper" valves). Given the proximity of "u" to "o" and of "r" to "t" on the QWERTY keyboard, and the vagaries of OCR, Occam's razor suggests the most likely explanation for the anachronous appearance of "puppet valve" is simple typographical error. We'd need to see the original patent application or file to check for sure, and unless or until we can do that, I think we have to consider that particular source unreliable. If there is other, more reliable evidence for modern usage of "puppet valve", let's find it and incorporate it, but for now it looks like "puppet valve" is quite obsolete.

(I say that patent was semi-cited because it was added in halfway fashion. "See for example patent number such and such" is not a citation. Please properly format your citations. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C21:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

ref

onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/puppet+valve - 6k - Similar pages

Wdl1961 (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Puppet valve, a valve in the form of a circular disk, which
       covers a hole in its seat, and opens by moving bodily away
       from the seat while remaining parallel with it, -- used in
       steam engines, pumps, safety valves, etc. Its edge is
       often beveled, and fits in a conical recess in the seat
       when the valve is closed. See the valves shown in Illusts.
       of Plunger pump, and Safety valve, under Plunger,
       and Safety.

KMA kijk maar aan

Sadly, it's going to end...

...badly for VVB. Writegeist (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)