User talk:Scheinwerfermann/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with Scheinwerfermann. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

< Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 >

All Pages:

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - ... (up to 100)

Dart

Aw hell, you're just being vindictive. I've been closer to these cars than you'll ever be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semi-Gloss (talk • contribs) 07:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a coöperative venture, not a competitive one. It is not a forum for credentials-wielding oneupsmanship. The image guidelines, the verifiability and reliability criteria for information sources, and all the other protocols and regulations exist to facilitate the improvement of the project, not to foment the aggrandisement of one editor over another. Please also observe the rule against personal attacks, remember to keep your behaviour civil, and properly sign your comments. Thanks for striving to be a coöperative Wikipedian. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valiant

I think we both created one of the most interesting-to-look-at, well-written articles. None of the information seems superfluous yet it's never dull, in fact it's very pithy. As you scroll through the page, it radiates something that's expertly crafted and got that way with a hell of a lot of hard work. It makes other automotive articles read as interestingly as a refrigerator manual.

And please forgive my pompous rants, I frustrate easily and am prone to take things too personally.

So here's to you, my invisible collaborator. I'll drink an Augustina beer in tribute.

Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.35.100 (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, good to see from you. I agree, Valiant looks terrific. It's chronological, very detailed, well-linked, full of high-quality images (the tan '65 Canadian Valiant was one of the many A-bodies I've owned...wish I still had it!). I'll see your Augustina and raise you a Fat Tire. I understand completely about frustrating easily and taking things too personally; I struggle with similar characteristics.

May I cordially invite you again to register here on Wikipedia, and ask you to please properly sign your posts? Thanks! --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cars

That would make sense. Yes, we'll see... jj137 ^♠ 00:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

talk:Chrysler Hemi engine

Hi Scheinwerfermann. In general, I don't like semiprotecting talk pages, but this might be an exception. I'll look it over during the next day (I'm short of time at the moment). In the mean time, feel free to remove the "NAZI" and otherwise abusive comments. --Duk 01:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the next time he makes an abusive post he's blocked. If he keeps coming back with new IP's I'll semi-protect the talk page. --Duk 01:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fiat 500

Jeez, if only the Valiant article could be as comprehensive as the Italian Fiat 500 article. I know only a smattering of Italian but you get rolled over with detail. Too bad Americans don't take as much pride in their compacts.

-Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyno Tested (talk • contribs) 07:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

No, only in extreme circumstances are talk pages protected (retired editors sometimes, blocked IPs trolling, etc.) but we usually don't ever protect an article talk page. Anything inappropriate that happens just has to be handled, unfortunately. jj137 ^♠ 17:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

aggrandisement

Thank you for teaching me a new word aggrandisement 'the act of increasing the wealth or prestige or power or scope of something'; "the aggrandizement of the king"; "his elevation to cardinal"

Yes we as editors are not here for aggrandisement of ourselves. Igor Berger (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valiant

I guess I take an artist's approach of making an adjustment, stepping back, making another adjustment, etc. I'll make an effort to consolidate.

-Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyno Tested (talk • contribs) 19:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing double redirects after page move

Hi Scheinwerfermann,

You asked me back in December how to fix double redirects when moving a page. Sorry for the delay responding! I think the help pages at Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages#How to rename a page and Wikipedia:Double redirects are the ones you could look at. There is also a brief help page that appears after you have completed the move.

Basically, you need to go to the "What links here" for the old page name, and in the list that appears, anything marked as "redirect page" needs to be altered to point to the new page name. The number of entries could be quite large (this was the case for the Traffic directionality article) so it could be easier to use Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser, which would allow you to make those changes much more quickly.

Hope this is of some help! SteveRwanda (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ft.lbf

There was a long flame war about this about four years ago here, with the ft.lbf proponents drowning out us realists who believe we should use units that people recognize. I was totally opposed to ft.lbf, but was outvoted. Please feel free to take on this cross/windmill and win one for the world of sane people. In the mean time, I'm going back to the beach! :-) --SFoskett (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: How to request block?

A system of warnings is in place on Wikipedia: if, after receiving a final warning, this editor continues, then he can be blocked. Unfortunatly, though this editor's contributions look dubious as a whole, my warning was the first he received. Feel free to contact me if his behaviour continues in this way; I will warn him appropriatley, and block if necessary. If you'd like to go through the central 'channel', for want of a better description, blocks can be requested at WP:AIV. _Talk Islander 19:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!

I was no problem getting rid of unnessesary images in the Plymouth page. I am trying to be nominatted to be an administrator, so I'm trying really hard to make articles look attractive. If you have any tips on how to be an admin, please post them on my page! Thanks! 68DANNY2 (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

Thank you for your advice. I'm glad you appreciated my edits; no one else seems to care and are accusing me of vandalism (which I didn't!) Again, thank you for the good advice. Have a great day! 68DANNY2 (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, but I'm still seeing a problem. Fact is, in your eagerness to dive into Wikipedia, you very well might have made some edits that are considered vandalism. The Wikipedia vandalism policy makes a distinction between willfully disruptive edits and good-faith edits that happen to contravene Wikipedia policy, but the demarcation isn't necessarily as clearly defined as it might seem. An editor who consistently refuses to learn the rules is being disruptive just as willfully as an editor who knows the rules and chooses not to follow them. In short, ignorance is not a valid excuse. I repeat myself: Slow down. Stop, look, and listen. Hang back. Read up on policy. Watch what more experienced editors are doing. And think about articulating your reason(s) for wanting to be an admin. (this message will also be placed on your own talk page) —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those Pesky Voyagers

Looks to me like the best thing to do right now is to let the AFD run it's course. I could have 68DANNY2 do a {{db-author}} on it, but I think that would just cause even more confusion.Kww (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

I am very happy to look through your edit record; I will get back to you as soon as I have done so. Best wishes. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked through your contributions; I would consider that you are well on the way, and more or less in the right direction. You have a reasonable number of mainspace edits, and enough contribution in image and template areas. At present you have a little over 2,200 edits. By the time you reach 3,000, which many editors see as a magic number in WP:RfA - though actually it is no such thing - it would be helpful if there were a markedly greater number of contributions in admin-related topics, such as WP:CSD, WP:AfD, WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:AN/I and so forth. Taking part in questions in WP:VP is also helpful, as is indeed contribution to any other Wiki-talk or Wikipedia pages. The essential objective is to be able to demonstrate to the community that you have acquired sufficient knowledge of wikipedia procedures and policies to be an asset as an admin, while at the same time being trustworthy. If you would like to message me when you feel that you have achieved this, I will come back and re-assess things. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's anything a small-time user can do to help you get admin, let me know. You kept your cool while helping me deal with a very rude (mean-spirited, really) person who somehow also insists on playing the victim.Originalname37 (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of stirring things back up, it's right here.

Originalname37 (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images needed

OK I have added the template to the substitution lists (more or less). What is needed is a category which takes the undated articles. SB then patrols this category and looks for templates to date. This should be emptied, the dated cats can be sub cats. You will see the dated cats are all using the same template. The undated cat needs to be aa sub cat of Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month. Rich Farmbrough, 00:09 13 February 2008 (GMT).

I've made "all pages" into such a category, but you will need to tweak something in the template, and possibly the name of the parent category. Also the "if exist" may cause problems, as the system relies on things getting categorised even when the catdoesn;t exist. Rich Farmbrough, 01:06 13 February 2008 (GMT).

OK should be done. Rich Farmbrough, 01:31 13 February 2008 (GMT).

P.S. which template did you copy? Rich Farmbrough, 01:35 13 February 2008 (GMT).

Re:IP causing disruption

All right, I semi-protected it indefinitely. jj137 (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Let me know if the guy keeps it up on some other car article (I wouldn't doubt it). jj137 (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way he intentionally goes back and deletes the autosignatures is just silly. Obviously, anyone can just check the history and see it was him. I wasn't at all surprised when I saw his comment on the Wikiquette alert. It is how he has been acting all along. jj137 (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a message. jj137 (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foot pounds vs pound feet

I've reverted your edit to {{Convert/ftlbf‎}}. If you want "lb·ft", please use lb.ft, e.g. {{convert|165|lb.ft|N.m|abbr=on}} will give you 165 lb⋅ft (224 N⋅m). J ɪ m p 16:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Ford Windsor engine edits

Hello. Your recent vandalism reverts on the article Ford Windsor engine are being discussed at the Cleanup project talk page here, should you be interested in the conversation. -- Michael Devore (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your remarks are an excellent example of follow-up and explanatory remarks. Thank you. -- Michael Devore (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]