User talk:Dana60Cummins/Archive 1 2009-2011

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to above statement
I haven't really noticed that there is not that much info on the world wide web. But remember, even though your not helping, any little bit of new info helps! :)Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 19:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How am I not helping?--Dana60Cummins (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, mistype
I haven't really noticed that there is not that much info on the world wide web. But remember, even though your not helping, any little bit of new info helps! :)Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 19:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)"

lol Ment to say I haven't really noticed that there is not that much info on the world wide web. But remember, even though your adding small pieces of info to the web, any little bit of new info helps! --Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 13:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Locked Differential
Your change to revert my edits was unconstructive. Please look at the description in the discussion page in Locking Differential under the sub-heading LSD Left/Right Function.121.218.77.253 (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

124.183.92.167
I don't understand where User talk:124.183.92.167 is coming from. User talk:124.183.92.167 and User talk:124.183.92.167 also made contributions to Locking differential in the same fashion. Talking about "Torques" and what-not. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also started: Sockpuppet investigations/121.218.77.253 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dana60Cummins (talk • contribs) 15:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm also baffled by some of the stuff this person is adding, and their persistence in reinserting their errors. RB30DE (talk) 07:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:124.183.92.167 and User talk:124.183.92.167 and User talk:124.183.92.167 stopped editing all at the same time.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

SRW Fords
Apparently in 2005, an F350 with single rear wheels had a GVWR of 10,600 or greater, typically it was 11,500 lbs. The previous year it was 9,900 lbs. and I believe the same was true in previous years to 2004 back to probably the 98 or so. I am guessing that all new F350s are will be Class 3 from 2005 on up. See http://www.fordf150.net/specs/05sd_specs.pdf It's hard to put all of that in the Truck classification article.

Note also that the F250 was at 10,000 lbs. for the diesel, so the F250 will likely "cross over" to "medium duty truck" at some point, too. I like to saw logs! (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What about the Ton rating section? I'll brainstorm about that for awhile. It might be while, 2010 maybe, until I add something about that in there.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: Your tagline on my guestbook
Yep, I love 'em both. But alltime, my two main favorite bands are Tool and Underoath. • GunMetal Angel  00:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thank You
I guess I'm just naturally gifted. Well, either that, or I happened to be looking at the Recent Changes page at the time. You decide :) Anaxial (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rename/move of Medical cannabis
Hi! I wonder whether you'd be willing to revisit the move request discussion you participated in for the article that's currently named "Medical Cannabis"? Just a day or two ago I came across a naming policy statement that I imagine none of us who have participated in the discussion and !voting so far knew of previously. I certainly didn't know of it. The policy can be found at WP:UCN, and it appears to prohibit the proposal from being adopted. I'd be grateful if you'd have a look at it, and if you agree then perhaps you'd change your !vote in the discussion? No hard feelings, of course, if you disagree that the policy applies or must be adhered to. But I did want to let you know of it, and invite your further participation in the move-request discussion. Please note, by the way, that this request to reconsider, in light of the policy, doesn't constitute improper canvassing since I'm sending it to everyone who has !voted on the proposal. Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits to EGR Article
I understand your perspective on the EGR article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas_recirculation ) but your continued reverts to the section aren't helping enhance the clarity on EGR removal. Obviously you feel that EGR doesn't have a place on an engine, whereas there are several other editors trying to clarify the pros/cons of EGR yet you revert any changes to the section. Use the discussion page for the article to dispute the article section before completely reverting sections. You can't present your thoughts on a subject without adequate justification through citations/inline references. There are many resources out there specific to the effects of EGR on an engine, citing two generic books on engine repair probably isn't the best source of information.Waterppk (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC) please see Identifying reliable sources before makeing more changes or reverts to the section as everything on Wikipedia must be properly referenced. Kateweb (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"Obviously you feel that EGR doesn't have a place on an engine" - You Incorrect. Never once did say anything like this.

"There are many resources out there specific to the effects of EGR on an engine" Incorrect. Not only is it incorrect, web searches bring up mostly articles on how to delete diesel EGR, by pass, etc.

I saw the source you added...I'm surprised to see you removed "wear-inducing contaminants" When is acid not wear-inducing in a engine?

I have not even touched what Diesel EGR does to power or fuel economy. What do you think it does for power and fuel economy?--Dana60Cummins (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

More on the EGR talk page.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Semen
I loved your edit summary, it really made me smile. I just had to see who did it, and as it turns out, I suspect it was a bit of a mistake on the author (User:Preslethe), as he actually typed  - maybe he was trying to emphasise that it was a fact. Anyway, along comes SmackBot and changes it to a "citation needed"... Still well spotted, as it had been then since February, and no one else noticed.  Ron h jones (Talk) 20:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

GT5 locked?
Hi there, the article for Gran Turismo 5 appears to be locked, and nobody on the talk page is paying any notice at all. This looks to be one of the biggest videogames of the year, and there is lots lacking in the article - any chance you could do something to get it editable again?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.71 (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Already got a solution do your problem on your talk page. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A statement
I have learned for myself that your beliefs are not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.181.128 (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * great--Dana60Cummins (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ford Super Duty, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Sable232 (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've worked on hundreds of these things. 1999 SD's with 1998 build dates are very common.  Sorry.  I will continue to revert.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jacopo Godani
I removed the prod tag you placed on Jacopo Godani because the article was discussed at AfD in February 2010 and the discussion closed as keep, thereby making this article permanently ineligible for prod. Compliance with policy/procedure is the only reason I did this; I have no prejudice against opening another AfD. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stephen H. Burum
I sourced Stephen H. Burum and removed the prod you had placed on it. He is unquestionably and obviously notable (for instance, due to the awards already mentioned in the article at the time you nominated it); the proper thing to do in such cases is not to attempt to delete such articles for lack of sources, but to find the sources yourself. In addition, it is very bad form to make major edits such as the one in which you added the prod without using an edit summary to describe what you're doing. Thanks for your attempts to improve Wikipedia, but please do better next time. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Improper template
Hi, Dana60Cummins. I have reverted your application of the "neutrality disputed" template to Exhaust gas recirculation, because it was improper and unwarranted. That template is for POV disputes that remain intractable despite discussion on the article's talk page. You seem to feel the article lacks a section elucidating disadvantages of EGR. The appropriate thing to do is not to slap on an inapplicable template (or otherwise complain about what you feel is missing), but rather to go ahead and add the section you feel is missing, supporting your assertions with reliable sources. It's conceivable some other editor will take issue with the material you add or the sources you use to support it, and both s/he and you will be intransigent and stubborn, and a tendentious POV dispute will develop, and that is when the "neutrality disputed" template would be appropriate to add to the article. But that's neither a goal to shoot for nor a foregone conclusion, so let's not jump the gun. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 20:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

KAISER LOCKER
Dear Dana60Cummins,

the KAISER LOCKER is not related to the Detroit locker or Truetrac in any way and the method and way of operation of the Detroits have nothing to do with how the KAISER LOCKER operates.

We have tested the KAISER on the rear axle of a Discovery 2 4.0 and will be fitting KAISERS very shortly on the FRONT axle of the same vehicle and also on the front axle of a Range Rover Classic 3.9 so as to further test how it operates also on front axle applications.

Up to now the KAISER has returned excellent results with none of the problems that we have experienced with the Detroits, such as extreme noise, clonking, vibration and harshness on the transmission on tight turns etc.

The only comment from actual end users is a slight noise generated which is rarely generated when the car is rolling downhill and the driver lifts his foot from the accelerator pedal or when accelerating hard from a standstill. In any case though this is just a noise and not something that results into actually feeling as some sort of jerking motion or vibration.

The KAISER LOCKER has started being commercialy available in the USA, Canadian and European markets about nine months ago and is gradually gaining its share on the market since people who have used it are very happy with it. There was only one reported case of an end user not being satisfied with it and experiencing lots of noise but we strongly suspect that the actual problem lays with his center differential which, based on the symptoms he described, may have been stuck in the diff-lock position or may be internaly damaged resulting into the noises and the harshness he is experiencing. Unfortunately he is not willing to test his center diff unit so we can not be sure of what has happened with his case. In any case though the people who have sold him the two KAISER LOCKERS have agreed to refund him so this again says something about the proper support this products and its resellers provide.

---

I was not trying to advertise the KAISER LOCKER but only to add this new alternative to the WIKIPEDIA topic of locking differentials.

I am very sad that you have removed my entry without a prior notice or even discussing this subject with me, as the original poster. My post was not trying to convince anyone to buy a product but only to inform the general public of the availability of a new product.

If you have any questions about the KAISER LOCKER please feel free to contact me directly at  pantg@otenet.gr

Best regards from Greece Pantelis Giamarellos LAND ROVER CLUB OF GREECE Pantg (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Look at the history again. I didn't remove it someone else did.  I turned the website as a reference.  Got the wrong user there.  But the article did look a bit like a ad.  Regardless I did what I could not to have it deleted.   I haven't seen any dif like this before so this is interesting to me.  Like I said before I didn't delete the bulk content.   I just tried to not make it as much like a ad as you did.  I suggest you upload the exploded dif view on the website if you can access rights to it.  Then start adding content. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

F150 Raptor
I'm not sure I understand your query. What seems to be the problem? Please reply here. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 15:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the "Gas Mileage" & "Future problems" sections are unbiased. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Good grief. That entire article is a crapmess. I've cut out some of the worst of the rot. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 17:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My edits were the same as yours. A new user kept on reverting my edits.  So I asked for your help.  Thank you.  I imagine the user might revert your edits as well.  FYI.  --Dana60Cummins (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup and yup. The newbie doesn't seem to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, not a car-enthusiast web board. One way or another, sooner or later, s/he'll have to learn. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 22:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Diesel Particulate Filter
I'll leave it to you to justify the revert. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ecoboost weight
Hi, you asked me about weight of the engine few week ago:

here's explanation:

this is from inside line: The 3.5L ecoboost engine, with turbos weights 449 pounds. That is far lighter than even an aluminum V8. It's hard to compare specs because trim levels vary, but it's lighter. The ecoboost adds ~40lbs to the V6.

now you see that regular V6 weights 40lbs less

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/08/29/2012-ford-explorer-ecoboost-first-drive-review/ here it says 2.0 L Ecoboost weights 80pounds less than V6.

so V6 weights 409 pounds - 80 pounds = 329 pounds

that's it!

here's link of my version of ecobbost page with references

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_EcoBoost_engine&oldid=457129203

ZunaOFP (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)ZunaOFP

Speedy deletion
When an administrator declines a speedy deletion request, please don't revert the administrator without explaining why, as you did at Medium duty truck. By the way, it's always good to consider redirecting a title that qualifies for A10 speedy deletion. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You meant to say:

When an administrator declines a speedy deletion request, please don't revert the administrator without explaining why, as you did at "Medium duty truck." By the way, it's always good to consider redirecting a title that qualifies for A10 speedy deletion.

Linking it makes it look like the article still exists. When it got deleted very quickly. I spend most of my time reverting edits. Whether it's IP or admin, it doesn't matter. "Medium duty truck" was just more clutter Wikipedia does not need. Truck classification had medium trucks covered better than the deleted page did.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Reverting an administrator's decision as vandalism is inappropriate and a violation of our admin shopping policy — you may not repeat it.  Moreover, the title should not have been deleted — as the deleting admin now believes, as you can see by checking his talk page.  The existence of a redirect for a likely search target is in line with our standards for redirects, as is linking to those redirects: by removing those links, you're making it more difficult for readers to use our articles.  Nyttend (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. I agree with the redirect part. 2. I never said anything was vandalism, just redundant and a waste of space.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did. Read the message that appears when you click the "undo" button — "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only."  Nyttend (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. Next time I'll make an edit summary.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ford Ranger
I'm not seeing a dispute as you describe. Please point me to some diffs or a page section or something that will let me see what you're talking about. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 18:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * When you take a look at the edit history it has a history of edit reverts. An edit war? Maybe?  If there is nothing wrong with it I'll let it go too, I just wanted a second opinion.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, I see it now. H'mm. Looks like a good old-fashioned edit war. I'll see what can be done; thanks for the pointer. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 19:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)