User talk:Ebikeguy/Archives/2011/May

Arithmetic Fixing
I saw that the Volt had a better mpg-e rating than the Leaf and thought something was wrong. so using the data that was already there (Conversion 1 gallon of gasoline=33.7 kw-hr), I recalculated and fixed the numbers. No extra source was needed since I used the numbers on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.57.122 (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See Mariordo's comments after he set things back to the way you had them as an excellent example of how to explain edits like this. Thanks for your help on the article!  Ebikeguy (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

842U
I am not lashing out, I am stating facts. This editor has caused many problems, both on the article, and on the discussion page. I'm just stating facts to level the playing field. (Barnstarbob (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC))
 * You are not simply stating facts. You are engaging in personal attacks that are prohibited under WP:PERSONAL, such as when you state "You just don't get it, do you?"  If you do not stop, I will bring your behavior to ANI.  Ebikeguy (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine it was deleted...(I knew what you were referring to)..I hope you also consider what really is important here, because it's not helping the article or the site. Read through the useful and productive previous discussions and you'll see the current one offers no real useful suggestions, only biased opinions, which is what (only a few-4) Users would like to turn the article into. I worthless, biased blog. Their contributions were not deleted, however, the delivery of some of it was clearly featuring User point of view. Facts and Reviews should be presented with Neutrality, according to Wikipedia standards. The article surly does not require a re-write. It is probably the most complete, and neutral auto article on the site. It took long enough too, with many User suggestions carried out, in addition to many User changes, not to mention, much research done. (Barnstarbob (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC))
 * I understand your position. I encourage you to take a break from editing for a few hours.  You appear to be in a highly emotional state, and you might be more persuasive if you continue editing when you are calmer.  I know I am going to bed...  Good night.  Ebikeguy (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your concern. I wish I could be spending time improving articles lately...(Barnstarbob (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

Talkback
You have  new messages ( last change ). / ƒETCH COMMS  /  17:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Reception (Chevrolet Vega)
First of all Reception section I made, other than the non-auto sourced Criticism added by 842U. The auto press praise and auto press criticism subsections had quotes from the same articles put into the separate subsections. All I did was combine the individual praise and criticism quotes from each auto magazine review into one section. For instance the first entry Motor Trend August 1970 had several quotes in auto praise and several in auto criticism (from the same road test) These were combined in the first entry in auto press reviews." In summary, nothing was gutted. The auto press praise and auto press criticism was combined for each review used in auto press reviews. The actual criticism of the car (not road test reviews from auto mags) was kept as Criticism'' because it is actual criticism, not reviews (road tests) of a car. There is a difference between Criticism and a Review. Reviews have both praise and criticism now listed together from each auto-sourced article. (not really needed to separate the reviews into two sections) The Criticism section has (only) Criticism of the car (not reviews or road tests) from non auto sourced articles. Nothing was gutted, just organized.(Barnstarbob (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC))
 * As you will see Barnstarbob's gutting of the article has now been reverted by an admin and the article has been locked down again. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

New Brunswick Curling Association
Look at User talk:Dthomsen8/Draft articles/Linkrot for more inline citations created from bare URLs for the NBCA article, and work out which ones may be used in the article. It seems to me that some of them can be used to document facts, or to add new information, such as the Executive Director information I added myself. Rescue is good, improvements are better. When you are done, the stub tag can be removed, and the templates can be changed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking for an Uninvolved Admin to Close RfC
I'm not sure if the "adminhelp" tag is the correct one to use here. Forgive me if I used it incorrectly. I started a highly charged RfC at Chevrolet Vega. We held it open for an extra week so that a blocked editor could participate. At this point, it seems to have run its course. I am hoping an uninvolved admin can close it now, with a note stating that the discussion is now over and no further edits should be made, making the expressed editor consensus official. Perhaps the "Proposed Closing Language" subsection could be renamed "Results" or something similar. I don't think that having an admin close the RfC is strictly necessary, but having an admin do so could reinforce the validity of the consensus derived from the discussion. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have read the discussion and will close it now. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Fuel
Today we mostly use petrol and diesel from crude oil, but this is running out in resources within 30 years. Do you know what we will be most likely to use as an alternative? Pass a Method  talk  18:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a difficult and complicated question. Nothing available to us now has anywhere near the energy returned on energy invested as does oil.  This could make for leaner times ahead.  Ebikeguy (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words our children will be in deep sh*t? Pass a Method   talk  18:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are certainly lots of people who espouse that theory. I am hopeful that catastrophe will be diverted through changes in lifestyle, new energy sources, etc.  Ebikeguy (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Its certainly strange how our politicians seem more interested in a potential climate change disaster rather than this obvious and fast-approaching issue. But i have a feeling there's something our politicians are not telling us. Pass a Method   talk  19:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:
 * Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
 * Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
 * Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
 * Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
 * Please read Help:Reverting and Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
 * You can test Rollback at New admin school/Rollback
 * You may wish to display the User wikipedia/rollback userbox and/or the Rollback top icon on your user page
 * If you have any questions, please do let me know.

Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your trust. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome! As I said on your RFA, you know what you're doing and you can use it. Just take care not to accidentally rollback things when you're scrolling through your watchlist, as I do far too often...  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 22:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Your RfA
Hi Ebikeguy. I noticed you withdrew from your RfA, so I did the "paperwork" of closing it. I'm sorry it turned out the way it did; hopefully you will be able to use the constructive criticism and set aside the criticism that wasn't so constructive. Just because this RfA didn't succeed does not mean you're not thought of as a good editor, so please keep up the good work. Best, 28bytes (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing the closing paperwork. I was not quite sure if I was supposed to un-transclude my RfA, or let someone else do it.  I thought the vast majority of the criticism expressed was constructive, and I learned a great deal from the process.  Ebikeguy (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Speaking from experience, an unsuccessful RfA isn't a lot of fun, but I agree, they can be a valuable learning experience. (And many of our most respected admins had to get an unsuccessful first attempt under their belts before eventually getting the mop.) 28bytes (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)