User talk:Greglocock/Archive 2

Captive Pulse Engine
...in a hurry....on the subject of captive pulse, more information is pending....it(the article) should be labeled "under construction".....i worked for T.A. Graves in ATX and i'm going to add some references when i have time.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel of abyss (talk • contribs) 10:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, but don't remove tags without supplying a reference, in future. Greg Locock (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

...greg locock, ...sorry, i'm not very familiar with the protocols....i hope to become more proficient....there are references pending, but some effort and a little learning will be required to link the references to the article....the article is being placed at this time because the captive pulse machines are sceduled to hit boat shows and races in the summer....the inventor is going to assist in finishing the article asap....feel free to call for elaborations and/or make corrections... the infancy of such technology renders a general search more or less futile...however because the inventor is rather esoteric and young further information may eventually become extensive...thomas a graves is the youngest son of carlos talamantes jr...........the engines are espescially applied to hydrogen fuels by the way....split cycle technology is simply a copy of captive pulse, probably the only reason scuderi sounds so bold in their statements....c scuderi was a visitor to thomas' lab in the early to mid 90's in austin texas,,,,the engines were running far before c scuderi ever caught wind of them, it is doubtful whether his children were aware of the origins however....c scuderi is no longer with us......it would be a shame to assume the scuderi engine is original...like i said thomas is esoteric,,,,he hasn't been a good businessman, but he is considered to be the most advanced worker in the history of reciprocating engines....he invented the reciprocating supercharger at 9 or 10 years of age...true captive pulse machines are much more advanced than anything scuderi has even proposed...i have personally witnessed about 20 years of the development myself,,,the technology is absolute physical poetry....

barry young m.e....assistant to t. a. graves....whether or not i get paid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel of abyss (talk • contribs) 23:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Great. It would be nice to see a good description of this engine. I will help you write the article where I can. It desperately needs references. It sounds like you know some interesting stuff about Scuderi. If you are discussing the engine use the Talk page for that article. Greg Locock (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Random Noise
$QUI$H ANT'$ ??? I couldn't. The magnifying glass left me nothing to squish or $qua$h. I'm SOOO mean .... as a kid. I killed SOOO many mosquito'z with my go-tooo-fast motorcycle. My snowmobile killed less. I prefered my Kawasaki KDX200 "street-legal" toy when it passed slowmobile'z on the frozen lake. Dirt hurt'z and ice iz nice ....... 1-08-2008AD 10:15am —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.99.32 (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Witness Bourke Engine Military Generals and Majors
Greg, I have copies of letters from military Generals and Majors that have witness the Bourke Engine operation. In their letters they have stated observations of (felt) low exhaust temperatures, light weight engine, and few moving parts. Would you like me to fax you copies of the letters. Also, I have copies of the Hot Rod magazine engine journalist article(s) that have witness the engine run continuously for hours, light weight, few moving parts, high power, and low fuel consumption. Would you like me to fax you copies of the articles?

Both Roger Richards and Bob Ziegler have done nothing but tried to get a creditable organization to evaluate, test, and certify the engine performance. Someone or a group(s) has hurt their effort by publishing miss information about the engine operation and overstating its performance. This has cost them $100,000s of their own private funds, and time. Their websites mainly provide video of the different Bourke prototype engines running and photos of the engine parts; they make no claims to the engine performance on their site, nor are they trying to sell stuff.

Henry Ford produced one of the first opposing piston engines, before Bourke. When I find the article on his engine I’ll forward it to you. B MW manufactures an opposing piston (boxer) motorcycle engines. Opposing piston engines are very balanced, and as you can see used for motorcycles engine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_motorcycles

Someone has published Paul Niq account (link) of an engine that someone (or he) claims to have been a Bourke Engine or replicate. His account doesn’t reflect any of the accounts I have read by military leaders or of the engine journalist. But, sounds like an account of other type of opposing piston engine. He does not represent a creditable agency for engine testing. His information needs to be removed from this web-site.

The Bourke is a unique engine no engine in the world runs like the Bourke engine. If you can provide information that differs, or of other engines that run like the Bourke please forward links. What is your definition of constant volume? Greg, I would like to see this web-site corrected to reflect the Bourke engine operation and history; neither performance data nor claims of performance are required. Also, all the links for video should be made to Bob Ziegler website; there are no claims of performance on his site. If you need more information, let me know.

I’m sorry if I may have offended you. I’ve spent a considerable about of time on finding funds and a government agency to test the engine. Last year I had a group willing to test the engine but backed out, I’m not sure why. Please work with me to correct this web-site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.29.228 (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Bourke Critique Questions #2 Alex
Greg,  I've been working with Roger Richards and Bob Ziegler for the past 2 years to have independent government testing perform on the engine. They have proved me great deal of information about the engine and its history. I'm government DoD engineer and have evaluate this engine, and I have had university professors engine specialists, and other professionals review the engine merits. We are confident that many of the claims on the engine high fuel efficiency and low green house gas emission are worth evaluating. Please do not edit the Bourke critique or the Bourke Engine page. If you are directly involved with the some development aspect of the engine or would like to be involved I would like to hear from you. Otherwise, please refrain from making editorial changes to the website unless you can prove and justify the changes. Thank You, --Alexfine (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not the way it works. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I am a professional automotive engineer, which doesn't mean much in wiki, but it sure means a lot elsewhere. I am an Assocate Member of the Institute of Mechanicsl Engineers, have a very posh degree, and have worked for car companies for 20 years or more. I have also designed a crankshaft that was in production, and spent several years working on engines. You are asking the world to believe some very odd claims for an engine that has some very fundamental problems. Therefore, unless you can provide documented evidence for those claims I will persist in deleting them. At the very least review WP:OR and WP:RS. Can I ask your qualifications, and which professional bodes you belong to.. your writing style is not what I'd expect from an engineer. Cheers Greglocock (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Bose link
UKP has spawned a new debate at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. His debate tactic in general is to make enormous dumps of text in response to every single comment in a discussion, and to spread debate across a large number of pages. Following this will be difficult and I thought I'd let you know that he'd opened another front. &mdash;ptk?fgs 22:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ta, I'll watch and wait. Forum shopping might be a useful comment to throw in at some point. I must confess I find the motivation of these creeps is beyond my understanding. also []. Greglocock 12:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. One wonders whether he's being paid by an advertising firm. &mdash;ptk?fgs 14:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Despite the inconclusive response to his efforts on this, he continues to lord over the article and has now basically taken to rejecting virtually all edits that are not his own. Just recently he removed a line on THX that I had added after soliciting comments on the talk page for two weeks. We're now at a point that he's basically reverting most changes that don't present Bose as a wonderful, top of the line, component maker. Think we should make a case of WP:OWN on this? Mattnad (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Guys I didn't make a comment about this before hand but please Be civil I just don't like being dissed for honest edits or opinions. Please remember Assume good faith, no personal attacks and simple Etiquette. I have never held any ill will to any of you and have thought that our edits have actually improved the article. Mattnad after all you were the one who originally said Not sure the lack of a THX certification qualifies as a fair criticism - after all, there are many great systems without that label. I do not do tactics or try to do anything disingenuous, and Ptkfgs saying that I'm being paid to do this is a real low shot! I was going to comment on that a while ago but I thought that it would look rather aggressive. I always try to do the right thing with my edits on wikipedia and I have found that many people have a rather slanted skew when it comes to Bose. There has to be someone trying to be objective and to try to keep down the POV to make an honest page. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The evidence is that you don't make good faith edits, so I will not Assume Good Faith when it comes to you. Quit polluting my talk page UKPhoenix, you are not welcome. Do I make myself clear? Greglocock (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The accusation of Bad faith editing is VERY serious. Bad faith editing is defined as Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. So if you think that I have done vandalism done sockpuppetry or lied you need to bring this up to me or an admin... Other wise please do not say so! Just because you do not agree with another editor does not mean that they don't make good faith edits. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There you are, at it again. YOU are the one who said bad faith, I did not (accusing you of an absence of good faith is not the same as an accusation of bad faith). So you put words into my mouth in order to be able to act indignant, a typical UKP trick (how can I take in good faith a direct attempt to misrepresent what I wrote?). I haven't involved an admin because I look after myself. The reason I don't want you posting on my user page (which you see fit to ignore, much to my amusement) is quite simple. Almost every one of your arguments fills me with loathing. Do you understand? Frankly I would rather step in dog-shit than argue with you, and by and large I'd hit my thumb with a hammer in preference to reading anything you write. Do you understand? I don't want you posting on my talk page. Do you understand? Is that clear enough for you? In order to reduce the complexity of this dialogue, although I don't want to read your boring twisted irrelevant tripe, I will do so, on this page, in the short term, if you insist on posting. But I'd rather you didn't. Greglocock (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No trick you said just above The evidence is that you don't make good faith edits, so I will not Assume Good Faith when it comes to you. So your saying that I don't make good faith edits and I don't make bad faith edits... I think that is contradictory don't you? Just say I make one or the other. These are your words not mine and i cannot help but take what you say as what you mean. If you do not mean that I make bad faith edits then please do not say that The evidence is that you don't make good faith edits. If there is no evidence of this and you do not believe that yourself then please do not accuse me of such a dishonourable thing. I have not tricked you and I have never tried to, please do not say that I have done such a thing or accuse me of something so disingenuous. Please remember Civility and Etiquette as I have done for you and I would like to thank you for not attacking me personally or yourself, I've hit my thumb with a hammer before and it makes it hard to edit wikipedia :-) Read through our past conversations and you will see that I have never held any grudge against you or have talked low about your edits. You might be surprised to read that I have actually agreed with you a couple of times. I have noticed that you have a general disdain for contradictory opinions to yours. And I hope that you will re-read what others have said in your past discussions and see that not everybody has ill intentions. If I am mistaken about that then I apologize, truly I do, but I hope you will realize that I am not out to get you nor to make your life harder here. I just don't want to be falsely accused of something or to have my name run through the mud. So please can we talk like two regular wikipedia editors that are just trying to make this encyclopedia better? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Check out the fallacy of the excluded middle. Then reconsider the discussion. Greglocock (talk) 07:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not following. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 07:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I get your point. I chased the THX issue because it was such a small point, and that the crew was blocking it no matter what other editors thought. A matter of principle. Mattnad (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My point was you did not believe that it was fair criticism so you did not want it in the criticism section but you wanted it in the competitors section instead. It just did not make sense. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Scotch yoke displacement.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Scotch yoke displacement.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Solar car racing page
Thanks for your assistance on the Solar car racing page. You're right; for some reason Preview wouldn't display the to-do list the way that I wanted. It looks ok now. Cheers. Bry9000 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nutating disc engine
I don't quite understand why the new category - "proposed engine designs" has been applied to a clearly already designed, built and tested & demonstrated engine. Whilst there may be a proposed specific commercial engine design, it is no longer a proposed engine design.

Furthermore, the concept for the engine was demonstrated & actually in use 200 years ago and is still used in millions of water meters today. I would have thought that a proposed design would apply more, for example, to an "ion drive", "Quark drive" or similar untested technology that is applying some new (& as yet unproven) concept.

The list of engine types under internal combustion engines article seem to me to be a suitable categorization (i.e. rotary & demonstrated) Kdakin3420 (talk) 09:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest you reread the definition. Until it is available off the shelf with measured performance, it is a proposed engined, not a production one. And frankly if you read the actual test report, it scarcely ran. Specifically they make claims for its performance that have not been demonstrated to a third party. That is the key. Greg Locock (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You are, of course, referring to the later incarnation of the nutating disc engine, not its original use (see history). The article is essentially about the concept of the nutating disc engine, not a particular later development of it. If you wish to make relevant comments about the McMasters engine or any other derivative of the concept, perhaps that later derivative should have its own article. The original nutating hydraulic engine had no sophisticated technical description - but has now been referred to (albeit retrospectively) as a "nutating disc engine" - which nevertheless seems perfectly reasonable. Kdakin3420 (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Greg


 * Good point. Yes it is confusing to have an article that covers both a hydraulic engine and an internal combustion engine. However the bulk of the article and especially the intro are about the IC engine. Why not split the article into Nutating disc hydraulic engine, and Nutating disc internal combustion engine? Greg Locock (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fast battleships
Hello, Greg!

This is to let you know that I have just posted a response to your recent post on the Fast battleship Talk Page. If you are agreeable, I suggest that we continue discussion there.

Regards, John Moore 309 (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User Talk Archives
Your user talk archives belong at User talk:Greglocock/Archive... vs Talk:Greglocock/Archive.... I have moved Talk:Greglocock/Archive 1 to User talk:Greglocock/Archive 1 and changed the link above. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 19:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Bourke Engine
Thanks for cleaning it up. I cleaned little further. since I know you're watching, I took it off my watchlist. DGG (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. HalfShadow (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, ocifer, I was speeding. It's a fair cop. Greg Locock (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just in case any other peabrain decides that this is prima facie evidence of an unreasonable approach to editing, I would point out that the editor who I was reverting was permanently banned for his behaviour on this article and a couple of related ones. Greg Locock (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

LEnV

 * This user has some engineering problems - he divides relative percentage by number of seats ;-)

--carefree (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is still a valid comparison. I'll change it to % of Insight if you like. The story is the same. Greg Locock (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Jutland
Well not suprisingly its been put up for feature article review I'd prefer your imput on this one Tirronan (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Bilge Keel
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Bilge Keel, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Battery electric vehicle ? Electric car
No one other than the misguided has suggested that electric airplanes be moved into the article about electric cars, which has the odd and unfamiliar title battery electric vehicle. Please review your opposition to renaming the article. It would be as if the article airplane was called fixed wing heavier than air motorized vehicle (yuuck). 199.125.109.98 (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

External links on Lotus Esprit
Greg, thank you so much for ending the discussion regarding those external links. I wanted it to be over long ago, but I also didn't want to back down. I just hope that everyone else sees it the same way we do :-). Zach4636 (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That was hilarious what Dan wrote. He just can't give it up. I offered to contact someone uninvolved (probably an admin.) to get an outside opinion, but he could not have that because I think that he knows he is fighting a losing battle. Thanks for pointing me to what he wrote; it gave me quite a good laugh. Zach4636 (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA
I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 21:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:ACID Nom
Hello Greg, I have nominated the Ford Falcon (Australia) article for WP:ACID, for reasons such as improving the general Australian car category (because that both you and I know it is an important article) and others. If you believe that it should be improved to FA, could you please cast a vote for it? Much appreciated HarrisonB - Talk 05:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Low Energy Vehicle
I realise that GerfriedC's edits usually are OR soapboxing editorials with huge POV problems, and that he is incapable of working in a normal Wiki way, but compared with his usual standard those changes you twinkled were actually an improvement. So if you zapped them just because they looked like vandalism, then you might reconsider. If you zapped them because they read like the ravings of a madman that is fair enough. My real problem with him is not the stuff he puts in, it is his habit of deleteing requests and referneced counter statements that are inconvenient to his POV. Greg Locock (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I edited 5 of GerfriedC's contributions yesterday, 2 of which were rewrites of text, not simple deletions. Those two articles would not have survived simple deletion, as there would be more or less no article left. The other three articles, however, are able to stand on their own without GC's seemingly insane ravings, and his bits were just so bad that I zapped them. To my mind they were hindering rather than helping the article. True, I may have been less inclined to revert his tripe if I hadn't looked around at some of his other comments and found him so wanting in civility. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

makr

Compressed air car?
Were the External links in the Compressed air car? article all unsuitable? if so, why did you leave the "External links" headline? V (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I just Undid what looked like a spamming edit. If there were good links in there then they did not stand out. If you undo my undo I'll weed them out more carefully. Cheers Greg Locock (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. The links have been in the article for quite some time before the true vandal 69.207.114.116 deleted them (and various other sections). I don't particularly care for any of the links, so instead of undoing your undo I'll remove the "External links" header. V (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

When I made my first edit, there were 3 youtube videos already listed (unless I'm confusing it with Motor Development International), so the bot removal looked like an automated thing, not an edit by a person. Then I removed a duplicate youtube link and added a link to a video for the Air Car that wasn't listed. I assumed the robo-messages I received weren't done by a person, so I kept adding the link, changing the style of the link. Now, all the links to Air Car videos are gone, which is the worst thing possible, since the articles referring to a car that runs on compressed air, no longer have videos from reliable news sources (BBC, CNN, etc) that prove that it does exist and works. Since many people I talk to don't believe that the car is a "real car", having the video from the news agencies is very important. So in trying to improve the article, it got over-edited and made worse imo. If you want to totally revert to the point before my first edit, that would be far better than what it is now and i'll just stay away from it.

Plus, the air car and mdi articles have to be re-edited and the reference links to www.theaircar.com/* no longer go to their original file location, they all re-direct to the /acf/ index page. I'm not confident enough to make those kind of edits.

tks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Development_International 5. # ^ http://www.motordeaire.com/Img/SalonParis.jpg -- 404 error 6. # ^ http://www.theaircar.com/onecatsEN.html -- redirect 12 # ^ http://www.motordeaire.com/mascerca.html#Eng -- redirect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_car 1. # ^ http://www.theaircar.com/faq.html -- redirect

Pablo70 (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no point in adding youtube videos, they WILL be deleted, either by myself, or more usually by a bot. So if I were you I would work on adding useful content to the article rather than adding links that will be deleted automatically. If you think youtube links should be allowed take it up with the admins. You won't win. I agree about the other links. Greg Locock (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

kk, fair enough. do you want to fix those links I mentioned above? I'm still not used to this interface and would rather not mess anything up more than I already have. tks. Pablo70 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Posting personally revealing information about pseudonymous contributors
is against the rules. I have deleted those revisions from this talk page. Don't do it again. Hesperian 12:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Another logical reason why wiki will fail. Greg Locock (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So presumably you have also edited said user's comments where he reveals his full name, and left him a bossy note? The lack of logic and real world common sense is hilarious. (a) the user posted to wiki a website where the information is available (b) google identifies several places where the same information or better is available (c) I specifically used only his forename. Greg Locock (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Hart
I wondered if I could prevail upon your goodwill to consider weighing in on the following dispute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Kevin_Hart_.28poet.29 I notice you may also have had problems with Hesperian throwing around his Wiki muscle. Sorry I don't have a username. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.14.119 (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well to be honest the current state of that article is not unreasonable. It seems to me that with BLP you are probably wisest to stick to facts and links. Critical opinion (either positive or negative) can be researched by the interested user. Frankly I could wish that some of the more controversial articles about companies eg Bose were rather less gushing, then I would be tempted to take some of the negative criticism out. Greg Locock (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The semi-protection of this piece will expire soon, so we'll see what transpires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.14.119 (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The body electric
Thanks for the revert here. I was a bit soapboxy, true, but the page is for EVs.... And you're not wrong; it's against courtesy (I'm not sure if it's an actual guideline) to delete from article talk pages (& considered rude even from your own, I hear). Trekphiler (talk) 05:10 & 05:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind that Talk pages are not supposed to be debates about the article's subject, they are supposed to discuss the article itself. So soapboxing is innappropriate. I'd admit there are few talk pages that really manage this distinction. Greg Locock (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Six Sigma
Hi Greg, I have had a go at restructuring the Six Sigma article as per your suggestion (Permalink of revised version here). Please have a look over it and comment on the Talk:Six Sigma page. It is nowhere near a good article yet, but I hope to have alleviated some of its worst failings. Jayen 466 19:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

BSFC
Hi Greg, Re: BSFC article Revetec have confirmed since the orbital tests they have repeatably achieved back to back 207g/kwh and better BSFC. GTM —Preceding comment was added at 03:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * so when they publish a report saying as much then we can put it in. 212 is the only reliable number I know of. You still have not explained why uniquely of all the conventional engines revetc needs any mention at all in the body of the bsfc article Greg Locock (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The VW, Toyota etc. figures quotated are all from their internal test results and not indepedant. Revetec have confirmed they have now achieve back-to-back 207's and better, why can't we quote their own internal results like the rest?


 * The Revetec engine report shows indepth how an independant test lab conducts a BSFC test and I think this is very appropriate for readers to review as their is very little public information available on how auto companies conduct BSFC tests.
 * The Revetec quote is just as a appropriate as the turbo-prop and GE Jet engine post.


 * I won't update the article again until we complete our discussion. GTM


 * No, they are there because some explanation is required as it is not entirely straightforward to compare a jet or turboprop's power output with that of a normal engine. There is nothing remarkable about the way the revetec is measured, its result does not need further elaboration. Greg Locock (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How about the BSFC figures?


 * I think the Revetec result is very remarkable considering its is the lowest BSFC from a gasoline engine in its range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtmnetwork (talk • contribs) 05:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * They have yet to demonstrate to the outside world that they can run lean burn reliably for long periods, until they do that, this figure is not especially surprising. It is is a good place to start, I agree. It does not need to be discussed on the BSFC page, there is plenty of room for it on the Revetec page, where it is already mentioned. Incidentally you probably need to clarify your connection with Revetec. see WP:COI Greg Locock (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding COI, our company has the worldwide rights to the Revetec engine for our trikes. We supplied several trikes to them. GTM

Electric cars talk page
Greg, could you please cool down a bit when discussing. You're treating everyone else as an idiot. Read Civility, the part about "persistent rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress". It is perfectly allright to have differing opinions here, that's what talk pages are for. Nobody has done any harm, so there's no reason to react in such a way. Piet | Talk 09:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed my personal comments as it is against Wikipedia policy. We can continue our chat here. Well, I won't. Piet | Talk 13:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fabulous communication skills, by the way. You will go a long way in this world. Piet | Talk 17:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "You will go a long way in this world". Grins, already have. Try a google search. And if you are quick try www.eng-tips.com Greg Locock (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Grins not needed, I was not being ironic. I know it's an attitude that goes a long way. I'd rather you comment on the cleanness of ICE cars. Piet | Talk 07:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Greg Locock (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Russia GDP per capita data is lie!
Please revert your edit.--93.80.101.39 (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

response to your message on my talkpage
OK Greg i got your message, and thanks for the info. However i still believe you cannot just edit or change the article if its properly sourced. Your edits and even your posts in certain forums (yes i googled you), are biased and more towards constantly bashing these alternative techonlogies. It just makes you wonder why? Why are you so biased towards it greg? Let me know so i can understand.

Oh and as for solar car racing.. Who do you think funds those? They are small, slow and only work in the sun which ensures the public will not be interested in replacing their conventional combustion engine cars anytime soon. So dont give me that excuse. Wikipedia users are too smart for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercury888 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't like lies and I don't like liars, and I don't, to be honest, much like inventors who steal other people's money. I have worked in the field of fuel efficient vehicles and alternative energy, of various sorts, for 30 years, off and on. MDI in particular bear all the hallmarks of a company that is much keener on generating a nice lifestyle for the inventor than any serious intent to get reasonable returns for his investors, or change the world. Unrealistic claims for performance, eg MDI, quasiturbine, the split cycle engine, aptera early on, etc and most electric car fanboys just annoy me because they assume that if they spout crap no-one can see through it. Well, I can, and I tell them. You might regard this as a quixotic task, but in at least two cases companies I have been critical of have sorted themselves out (I'm not claiming becasue of what I said necessarily). If journos want to recycle this stuff due to laziness, they look at wiki. At least if the articles are balanced there is a vague chance that they might be a little critical of the claims made. In particular in order for the air car to work it has to be super light weight, hence have no airbags, crash resisitance or ABS. If they start burning fuel then it is no longer an aircar, they can afford to beef it up. An air/IC hybrid is an interesting proposition, but I doubt Toyota are quaking in their boots.


 * As to solar cars, I have never claimed they are practical. I have persisitently criticised them as well. I see no sign that wiki users are especially smart, clueless fanboy would be the average level. If you are so smart how come you can't understand those test results?Greg Locock (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Greg, i am not trying to stir resentment towards you at all. I am just trying to voice an unbiased stance on the topic. If i see something that has been mentioned on a reputable media brand like the BBC or other websites that claim its true then i think people deserve to see it and make up their own mind. Ive been doing a lot of research on these and the world is more than capable at producing alternative fuel cars but every year its the same story. We will produce it next year or in a few years. hen will they actually release these concept cars that people sorely need. NOt only is it causing an economic downturn for majority of the countries around the world but people are suffering greatly because of it. And i am not just refering to the 3rd wordd countries. Infact people in the 3rd world countries are getting away with more alternative fuel vehicles and they seem to enjoy the bbenfis greatly. So my main concern is why would America out of everyone else in the world be having problems with alternative energies. It just makes you wonder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercury888 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Six Sigma
Hi, could you have a look at the Talk:Six_Sigma page? The article has been stable for a good while, but an editor has been edit-warring recently, wishing to argue his own WP:OR against what WP:RS say. Thanks. Jayen 466 14:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

mark

V8 Source
It doesn't meet it since it's not a third party source! WP:RS "Wikipedia articles should use reliable,  third-party , published sources. " Bidgee (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you reread that guideline it is not a policy. Then apply some common sense. I repeat who is the best source for factual data, once a subject's notability is accepted? I really think you should discuss this on the article's talk page, my past dealings with you have not led me to trust you in the least. Greg Locock (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there would be other sources to back it up then if not it questions the reliablity of the source no matter how well known it is. Trust me? Maybe you need to look at WP:assume good faith. Bidgee (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why don't you discuss the article in question on that article's talk page rather than displaying your tedious mastery of wikilawyering? I really don't want to have anything to do with you that is not in public, do you not understand that? You've played the AGF card once too often in my book. Greg Locock (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're the one making the whole thing personal not me! Thats your problem if you think I'm wikilawyering not mine. Bidgee (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Shrugs, please continue this elsewhere, I really am not even slightly interested. Greg Locock (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Chevy Volt
I must differ with your opinion about the nature of the site GM-Volt.com, a fansite does not imply journalistic and factual integrity nor the highly meaningful and relevant nature of GM-Volt.com. Not to mention the site has had something to do with GMs effort to build the Volt.

The site has been widely recognized for its merit including by GM itself who had invited the GM-Volt community to meet with the executives in the Volt Nation meeting.

The external link to GM-Volt.com has been on this page for many months and was only recently removed by you because of a new site called Chevroletvolt.org which offers no original information and is purely for advertising attempting to insert istslef.

There are many of us highly supportive constituents of GM-Volt.com/Volt Nation who believe strongly in the sites purpose, mission, integrity, and quality.

If you do not agree with my appeal, I believe this should be brought to a higher level of dispute resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.130.209 (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine. Do that thing. Stop whining. Or carry on whining. Frankly I don't give a monkey's about what you think, I only actually care about what you do. Is that so hard to understand? Call it existentialism. Jeez, the whine-bots round here are worse than the mozzies. Greg Locock (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Aptera Motors
I just explained why in the talk page. EdgeOfEpsilon (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll notice I also did much more than undo your edits – I completely restructured the article, added up-to-date information, wrote a summary section on the Typ-1, and factored out the Typ-1 infobox into its own sub-article. I accidentally submitted at around 6 pm EST, and you can see the progress I'd already made re-orging this. EdgeOfEpsilon (talk) 05:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)