User talk:SamBlob/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers such as yourself:


 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nice with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you


 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! &mdash; M ATHWIZ 20 20  T ALK 20:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Guitarists
Saw your contributions to the Les Paul pages. Would you be interested in joining the WikiProject Guitarists? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving articles related to guitars, guitarists (including bass/bassists) We could certainly use another editor to help out. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 19:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Glad to have you aboard. Anger22 (Talk 2 22)

Albert Lee
Good Job, SamBlob! Best wishes, Lion King 19:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Respectfully, SamBlob 19:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Black Beauty
Was it you that made the comment that the Black Beauty article should be re-named to the proper "Custom" title? I am thinking that now would be a good time to do that. Thoughts? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 13:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC) I think the "proper" name would be better for the article. Also, Wiki-commons has a higher quality pic of a Studio model over what's currently available in the article -. A better promo pic from Gibson.com would be even better but I am not sure how it'll meet WP:FU since an obvious "free" version is available. Good work on all the Gibson articles! Take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 13:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Heritage Guitars
Good work on this article! We might just save it yet. :) Bubba hotep 23:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I hope we can!  The article for Guild was just as bad. Respectfully, SamBlob 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize for having failed to reply sooner to your query apropos of the deletion review undertaken relative to Heritage Guitars; the issue, I regret to say, simply slipped my mind. In any event, the discussion endorsed the closure of the AfD as keep (or, perhaps more accurately, no consensus to delete), with the provision that a second AfD might be essayed in the future should no further substantial works of which the company is a principal subject be presented (there is, as you will recall, some disagreement regarding how the multiple non-trivial works criterion of WP:CORP is to be construed).  I'll surely alert you should I encounter a second AfD, but you might also do well to watchlist Heritage Guitars in order that you might partake of such discussion.  Once more, I'm altogether sorry for the belated nature of my reply; should you have any further questions, you should, of course, feel free to leave me a note on my talk page.  Cheers, Joe 06:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Will comply.  I have put it on my watchlist now.  Respectfully, SamBlob 16:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Gibson Blackbird
Nice work on merging the Gibson Blackbird article into the Gibson Thunderbird article. Very professional, in my opinion. Very nice work. I'm glad I noticed you did that. I'll have to think about that if I ever make a new guitar-related article, whether or not it should get it's own article or be incorporated into another. Thank you. I might be reading some other articles of yours to help me more to become a better wikipedian, as well. Bsroiaadn 12:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies from CS
I apologize I didn't mean to vandalize in any way —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Commiessuck (talk • contribs) 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Lamborghini‎ Article Vandalism
User 68.60.238.188 does nothing but vandalize. He appears to be a student at Northridge prep, whose article he also vandalizes. Christmas break is coming up and he will likely have a lot of timnme on his hands, so you may want to watch the article for subtle vandalism. Good luckTheteachersson (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Nieuport" discussion
This brought neither of us any credit - we were both rude, unnecessary, and I suspect did not read each other's posts properly before reacting. Exactly why I don't know - perhaps it was something we ate - as neither of us seems to be that way as a general rule. The other reason I deleted our exchange was that it added absolutely nothing to what the point of a discussion page should be - i.e. improving the quality of the article concerned - and got in the way of the latest addition to the page.

I felt the "record" might as well be deleted - however if you said something you feel in retrospect to have been constructive, or that you are proud of (heaven deliver us!) then by all means let it stand.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Lamborghini of Latin America
Why did u delete the part about the Lincoln Mark VIII?? I think that is a good way to show how this people is doing a mess with the Lamborghini brand. Do u have another way to show that? This people look desperate for money; if you can read all the documents in the Official site, you will see that (Sorry, they are in spanish), but I cant find a better way to show that. Any ideas? --Anothercountry (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hubert Latham
thanks for starting this article on Hubert. I had his name linked to outside information in the 'persons named Latham' section. Don't know if it's still there. But I appreciate your starting his bio.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koplimek (talk • contribs) 20:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * thank you for your reply. If you're interested, there are two books out about Hubert Latham. "Windkiller" by Stephen H King(not the horror writer) and "Forgotten Aviator Hubert Latham" by Barbara Walsh. Both of these are available on Amazon or Alibris.com Koplimek (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

NSU Quickly post to new article table
You recent additions of NSU Quickly and Heinkel Tourist to WikiProject Motorcycling made a right mess of the table format. I also saw that your entry to the DYK nomination page also messed up some formatting there too. I fixed them all but perhaps you will take a little more care with tables in future as they can be a little tricky, so using the preview button will help you saving badly formed tables. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the problems caused by my poor formatting of my entry of the NSU Quickly article in the New Articles table. I also thank you for correcting the problem at DYK. I probably should not edit tables and lists when I am this tired.  However, I looked in the history of the project page and I did not see a similar problem occurring when I entered the Heinkel Tourist article in the New Articles page. What did I do wrong then? Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Indian 101 Scout (and Heinkel Tourist)
You asked about source for the 37 cu in version of the 101 scout. Well, I've seen a few of them. Not many were sold in the USA, but here in Sweden I'd guess half of the 101's sold were 37". See "The Iron Redskin" by Harry V. Sucher side 323 for an extra validation. Serial numbers for 37" 1928 101 Scouts were DG100 and up, serial numbers for the 45" version were DGP100 and up (but the crankcases were almost identical on both series, to install 45" cylinders on a 37", you just need to do minor machining. A 45" crank is also needed, of course. Interesting you are writing articles on both my motorcycles - besides my '28 101, I've also got a '59 Heinkel Tourist. Just inserted a comment on the Tourist's most uniue feature compared to other scooters back then, as having a four stroke engine. It sounds lovely on slow idle. Hepcat65 (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Moved this addition into a new section
Hi been in discussion with Real libs on this now you, whats with all the bogus neumonics? The Byrdland article is pretty lame IMO. RogerGLewis (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

seat crossing obstacle
FWIW, I think what was meant by "nor is it possible to rise from the seat crossing obstacles." is this: "nor is it possible to rise from the seat while crossing obstacles." Of course, it isn't entirely true, just thought I'd translate :-) tedder (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I believe the editor meant too, but it can very easily be interpreted as I had put it. The "while" would have been most worthwhile.  However, the inclusion of ""Easy Rider" position" and "maximises poser value" clearly introduces a derisive view toward cruisers and, as the rewrite doesn't introduce anything of identifiable value, I reverted it rather than trying to fix it. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is some benefit for writing to the target audience - are there any lovers (or haters) of cruisers who would object to "maximise poser value" and "EasyRider position"? Some might think both phrases are important additions to an article on motorcycles.
 * Examples abound of this effect in vehicle-related articles - for instance, it seems sad to remove the whole point of a politically barbed skit that Jeremy Clarkson carefully crafted and hurled at his bosses in the BBC by replacing "Clarkson attends an enormously long and boring meeting on political correctness while still sitting [in the car]" with "Clarkson arrived at the meeting, about environmentalism, and remained in the P50 during the meeting". Clarkson (or his script-writers) was/were using the P50 to demonstrate the suffering (and contortions?) that PC imposes on his working life. That kind of thing is the reason 50,000 people petitioned the government to make him Prime Minister. (Another example of missing the target audience in the same section - "seen squeezing himself into the car" was better than "demonstrated that it was possibile(sp), although difficult, for tall people to get into the P50"). MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What do the terms formal tone and neutral point of view mean to you? If I am to judge by the ramblings, the irrelevant material, the aside statements in parentheses, and the colloquialisms and perjoratives that you add to articles, those terms don't mean much to you, if anything.


 * The requirement for formal tone includes a request that the language be businesslike, and they give a link to a definition of the term: Wiktionary definition of "businesslike". Which of these terms apply to the edits you propose, or have made? Methodical? Systematic? Practical? Unemotional? ("Certainly not," I state in my user talk page where parenthetical asides are more acceptable than in articles) Earnest? Purposeful? Not distracted?


 * One they have not included, but which should definitely be considered, is "concise". An economy of words in getting an idea across is appreciated.


 * Regarding the Peel P50 article: The "target audience" of the Peel P50 article are people who want information on the Peel P50, not people who want to know why Jeremy Clarkson is popular. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform, not to entertain.


 * Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Having taken the decision to feature the show, it's ridiculous to take out the fact that Clarkson was leveraging this car-test (as he does practically everything else) for something either non-PC or attacking PC - or in this case both of those things. Formal tone and NPOV wouldn't justify a deficient article even if they arose (and they don't).
 * Ditto for phrases such as "maximum posing value" and "EasyRider effects", they're vital to explain certain parts of motorcycling (and they appeared where everyone would expect them to appear, a section on motorcycling seating positions). I'm sorry if my use of language irritates you, that doesn't make it pejorative and it doesn't make the article POV. Article bloat (eg "squeezed into" becoming "demonstrated that it was possibile, although difficult to get into") is not my doing. The concepts I'm talking about mostly (and certainly in these cases) belong in the articles where I'm trying to put them. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you not know that figurative language is generally not part of formal tone? Do you not know that the term "poser" is perjorative?  Do you know what a businesslike tone is?  Or is your idea of a "businesslike tone" the kind of sales rhetoric that used-car salesmen use in their TV advertisements with their checkered coats and pet alligators?  Your pulling the "fuel tank position" out of a concise sentence showing the similarity of the underbone to the scooter and made an all new sentence afterward saying that the fuel tank position is the "only difference" between the underbone and the conventional motorcycle, so don't say you're not bloatinig articles.


 * Somehow, I get the general feeling that our interchange is going to end up in arbitration.


 * I am not going to sign this, because my standard signature would not be honest in this situation.


 * SamBlob, whatever time and date it is.

(intentionally deindenting). I'll try to sort this out when I have time later, okay? You guys aren't very far off from each other, so please take a deep breath, we can figure it out. tedder (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a little strange that I haven't been following this thread, considering I created it. Both of you have been making great contributions to the WPMoto project, which is really nice considering it is generally quiet without the three of us and TimTay. I'll reply with a combination of bullets and prose, which is why I'm not indenting it.
 * '"maximises poser value" clearly introduces a derisive view' this is true. "maximizes poser value" has bad connotation, at least in the United States. It's synonomous with poseur since we can't spell (see the wiktionary entry). "Easy Rider" position seems to have less baggage attached to it, but certainly there's a better way to write it to avoid those phrases. So I agree, these phrases violate NPOV.
 * Peel P50: while humor (humour) is a good thing in life, it doesn't always translate well. Perhaps articles aren't the best place for cunning linguists. But the older version of the P50 page had relevant information about the context of the TG feature that is currently missing. It's unfortunate to see the current version without that. The details (and humor) that were there are not inconsistent with WP:TONE as far as I can tell.
 * P50 again- in regards to your pricing spat, I'll side with SamBlob- the price of the shell/kit/whatever isn't relevant.
 * I can't find enough context on the underbone/scooter/fuel tank thing to comment. Does someone want to fill me in?

How does the above sound to both of you? SamBlob, MalcomMcDonald, can you agree to the above for the articles, or at least be civil on these topics? I hope my opinions and reasoning above is enough to show you that I'm not biased towards or against either of you. Let's move on, okay?

(Having said the above, please contact me if you guys get into a discussion. I'd rather not find out you guys are sparring after it goes to RFC or arbitration or elsewhere.) tedder (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I've waited 3 days for an approach to discuss or defend the current state of the article, and I'm bound to suppose it's undefendable. This edit on the 26th Apr pointlessly bloated the article (see what "squeezed" has turned into), introduced a mis-spelling (possibile) while removing the highly Clarkson & Top Gear-typical and "important" political skit. (It even managed to mis-describe the purpose of the skit, calling it "environmental"). Two days later this edit this edit removed more significant content (the amusement of the TG office staff, John Humphries joyriding), re-introduced the mis-spelling, and badly (+ wrongly) re-titled the section. I propose I go back in and fix it. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Do whatever you want. It's not like you have the capacity to understand reason anyway.  Eventually better and calmer heads than mine will rein you in, and hopefully ban you, but I don't even want to think of the damage you'll have done to Wikipedia by then.  Maybe Wikipedia is doomed and the future lies with Citizen Dumb, but that's not for me either.  Goodbye. No signature (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Scooter
I wish you'd not do things such as insert "wheels proportionally smaller than those of conventional motorcycles" into scooter, deleting all the careful explanation of the two quite distinct designs covered (unfortunately) by the same name. The Honda Super Cub design is quite distinct from traditional scooters, and uses proper wheels, with real advantages in road-holding, braking, tyre-wear and the rest of it. Leaving out such vital distinctions makes articles look like blog entries from (in this case) a "traditional" scooter fan. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The distinction between the two designs is still in the introduction. In fact, the introduction mentions that underbones are sold as scooters in the West.  The introduction continues to state that there is a distinct difference between the two.
 * The "real advantages" of conventional motorcycles and underbones over scooters that you keep harping on about are not stated in the main body of the article, and I am certain that when you include them it will be with your usual informal tone and lack of cited sources. The article has too few citations as it is.
 * I have always tried, in articles at least, to maintain a formal tone with a neutral point of view. Scooters have small wheels.  Small compared to what? Small compared to the wheels of regular motorcycles, so I state this.
 * You, on the other hand, seem to define scooters by their shortcomings with respect to conventional motorcycles, with no thought to formality or neutrality, and with little interest in verifying what you add with reference to published material.
 * One last thing: While Vespas had their engines mounted on the swingarms, Lambrettas had frame-mounted engines with either chain or shaft drive to the wheel. There goes that distinction between a scooter and a conventional motorcycle. No signature (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Lambrettas (all the ones I've ever came across, anyway) have all-in-one engine/transmission units driving a rear-wheel which, perforce, can only be small. It suited, and still suits, a lot of people, who never notice the considerable unsprung weight and small brakes. Nevertheless, it's a completely different machine from, for instance, the Cub, which might as well be a regular motorcycle other than the tank being out of the way. All subsequent machines in the 60 or 50 years since those inventions, respectively, follow one or other of these two distinct designs.
 * I've conceded that, for marketing purposes, manufacturers of the step-throughs call them "scooters", making our life very difficult, but that's no reason for us to confuse these two types as novices are wont to do. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And what, exactly, have I done to cause confusion between the two when I edited the introduction to Scooter (motorcycle)? No signature (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You've introduced "and wheels proportionally smaller than those of conventional motorcycles" which is false in the case of traditional scooters (where they're much smaller) and false in the case of cub-scooters, where they're the same size everyone would expect for the size of engine. I'm starting to think you're laughably confused about Lambrettas too. Incidentally, I'm still waiting for you to take out the worst that you did at Peel P50 - so far, even the spelling mistakes you introduced and re-introduced are still in there. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * <-Indent moved back

Right. In what sort of logic does "smaller" become false if it's "much smaller"? The bigger the motorcycle is, the bigger the wheel is. Also the bigger the scooter is, the bigger the wheel is. However, a small scooter's wheels will be smaller than a small motorcycle's wheels, and a big scooter's wheels will be smaller than a big motorcycle's wheels. If, by "cub scooter" you mean "underbone", this has been addressed. My main source for this argument came from this: The Lambretta's two-stroke engine was mounted in front of the rear wheel, which resulted in better weight distribution than the Vespa, and final drive was by shaft. The machine shown here is a 1957 LD125. - Hugo Wilson, The Encyclopedia of the Motorcycle p.119, Dorling Kindersley Ltd., London, 1995, ISBN 0 7513 0206 6 After looking at another source, however, it seems as if Lambretta eventually fell in line with Vespa: While the Lambretta was no less unique, it started with shaft drive and no rear suspension and then went through a number of design changes before settling on a sprung, combined engine and rear wheel unit with chain drive. This new engine unit powered the classic TV175 and the late 1960s slimline models like the SX. - Gary Johnstone, Classic Motorcycles p.79, Tiger Books International PLC, Twickenham, 1995, ISBN 1-85501-731-8 I admit, I have done wrong by the Peel P50 article, by adding the trivia about Fiona Bruce being a newsreader and Dermot Murnaghan being the man who turned the car around, but I've already taken that out and all the other stuff in the section that wasn't relevant to the P50 itself. I've also looked through my edits with my trusty Oxford Paperback Dictionary and I fail to see the spelling mistakes to which you refer. I shall take another look, however. No signature (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. You've introduced "and wheels proportionally smaller than those of conventional motorcycles" which is false in the case of traditional scooters (where they're much smaller)...
 * 2. ...and false in the case of cub-scooters, where they're the same size everyone would expect for the size of engine.
 * 3. I'm starting to think you're laughably confused about Lambrettas too.
 * 4. Incidentally, I'm still waiting for you to take out the worst that you did at Peel P50 - so far, even the spelling mistakes you introduced and re-introduced are still in there.

P.S.: I found one spelling mistake and corrected it. Where is/are the other(s) to which you refer? No signature (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * These problems are all arising because you're out of your depth in so many ways. It's not my business to teach you the basis of (motorcycle) engineering, and the particular motorcycles we're writing about, and how to spell, and how the British feel about British made vehicles. Laughable mistakes in this last category impact on your judgment and competence writing even about vehicles that you presumably should know about better than me. But you were never likely to catch me out on HDs or Buells because I try and show respect to and defer to and cooperate with those who know much more about these subjects than I do.
 * So, while I could explain to you why the wheels of Vespa-style scooters (or the rear-wheel, anyway) have to be small, and why they're completely and totally different in construction and size and fixing from motorcycle (ie cub) wheels, I'm not going to. Nor will I apologise for drawing your attention to several other things that were pretty glaringly obvious. You'll just have to trust me and stop doing what you're doing. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not my business to teach you the basis of (motorcycle) engineering, and the particular motorcycles we're writing about, and how to spell, and how the British feel about British made vehicles.
 * That's all well and good, because you're just about the last person in the world I'd want to learn any of that from, especially spelling.
 * Laughable mistakes in this last category impact on your judgment and competence writing even about vehicles that you presumably should know about better than me.
 * Mistakes impact on everyone's judgement; hopefully for the better so that they don't make them again. Please tell me what impact they have on my competence, though.
 * But you were never likely to catch me out on HDs or Buells because I try and show respect to and defer to and cooperate with those who know much more about these subjects than I do.
 * If you have factual, documented information relevant to Buells or HDs then please, by all means include it. Just don't talk about "poser value" regarding cruisers.  A "poser" is generally a jerk trying to look cool.
 * So, while I could explain to you why the wheels of Vespa-style scooters (or the rear-wheel, anyway) have to be small, and why they're completely and totally different in construction and size and fixing from motorcycle (ie cub) wheels, I'm not going to.
 * I don't want you to explain anything to me, except maybe why you have no interest in having articles retain a formal tone, and you probably can't explain that. What I would like you to do, since you are so interested in including this in the article, is find some documented sources for these and state and explain them in the article, with citations to the documented sources.
 * Nor will I apologise for drawing your attention to several other things that were pretty glaringly obvious.
 * Nor will I apologize for acting on what is to be acted on and ignoring what is to be ignored.
 * You'll just have to trust me and stop doing what you're doing.
 * I have seen very little reason to trust your judgement so far. As for you getting me to stop doing what I do, the only way you can do that is to kill me. I live in Kingston, Jamaica.  Good luck.


 * I used to assume that those I communicate with here deserve respect, but you have cured me of this fallacy. Hence my signature no longer says "Respectfully, SamBlob" but now says:


 * No signature (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

?
Hello, SamBlob. Nice to meet you. I'm Airplaneman. What's up with this edit summary?

WILL YOU ASSES PAY ATTENTION? PRODUCTION HAS NOT ENDED! WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A CRYSTAL BALL! IT IS STILL IN PRODUCTION! DO NOT PUT AN END DATE!

Please explain? Thanks. Airplaneman talk 02:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to vouch for Sam here; anonymous editors continuously (almost daily) edit the article to show the Murcielago as having ended production, when there is no verifiable or reliable source that contains an announcement of the end of production. Discontinuation of the Murcielago is expected this year, as is the release of a new model next year, but there is still no official announcement. I have left a hidden text instruction at the top and bottom of the list of cars stating not to list an end date for the Murcielago without providing a source, but the instruction is outright disregarded and often deleted. I can only assume that the situation is even worse over at the Murcielago's own article, which I have yet to pay a great deal of attention to. Some sort of protection may be called for in this situation. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, Airplaneman. As AniRaptor2001 has stated, editors, usually anonymous editors, keep putting in a speculative end date for production of the Lamborghini Murcielago. This despite several detailed edit summaries and notes within the text stating that such speculation is not to be included.  One particularly brilliant editor overwrote one of these notes in order to include the very speculation the note is warning against.  The edit summary is directed at these extremely thick-skulled people, although, in hindsight, I'm not sure how many of the thick-skulled actually *read* edit summaries. No signature (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

T-top (boat)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of T-top (boat), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: T-top. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hubert Latham
Hello Sam, Nice work. I originally tripped over 'HuLa' because
 * Circa 1909 Dorothy Levitt attempted to qualify as a pilot at the Hubert Latham School of Aviation in Chalons near Reims France. (Before Amelia:Women Pilots in the Early Days of Aviation by Eileen F Lebow)

There is no mention of this school in the article, ... yet.

Even more intriguing, to me at least, is "What happened to Dotty Levitt?" she was an 'IT' girl until 1910ish, the Fastest girl on Earth, then nothing. Marriage? Death? Penury? Do you have any information? Regards. Autodidactyl (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind remarks.


 * I had never really heard of Dorothy Levitt before, although I remember hearing about a woman who gave motoring advice in the pioneer years, including the recommendation to female motorists that they arm themselves with revolvers. The article on her here is quite vague on where she came from and, as you mentioned, has no clue at all as to where she went.


 * I first heard of Latham in the book Flight: 100 Years of Aviation, which featured the Daily Mail prize and the Reims Aviation Week of 1909 in one of their later chapters on pioneer aviation. I have since found, however, that the book confused the Speed Prize with the Gordon-Bennett Race, claiming that Bleriot came second in his attempt at the Speed Prize.


 * I am intrigued by the School of Aviation, as I have never heard of it before.


 * Respectfully, SamBlob. No signature (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ernest Archdeacon
Hi Sam, I have to apologise for not thanking you for star earlier, unforgivably rude, I was confused in a sea of other edits, but .... Sorry and thanks.

I have just started an article on Ernest Archdeacon which could do with your knowledge and oversight. I know almost nothing of pioneering aviation and have no sources other than French Wiki and Google. Thus it could do with your editing and viewpoint. Regards Autodidactyl (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are most welcome, and it's no problem.


 * What would be a problem would be me contributing anything about Ernest Archdeacon, as I have never before heard of the man. I could probably help in general editing and searching for references, I guess...


 * Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hubert Latham
Hello Samblob,

I have recently reorganised the references section for Hubert Latham and it has highlighted that several of them are incomplete - See below. As I don't have access to these sources, and I assume they were added by Shallerking, Samblob or Autodidact, can I ask you to do a tad more work and clarify any that you added.


 * ref name="Elliot, pp.109-37">Elliot, ????????????   pp.109-37  What is the book title?


 * ref name="Harper p132">Harper, ????????????  p. 132.  What is the book title?... Who is the publisher?
 * ref name="Harper 1936 p56">Harper, Harry Riders of the Sky p. 56. London, UK: Hodder and Stoughton Ltd. OK.
 * ref name="Harper 1956 p121">Harper, ???????????????    p. 121. London, UK: Morrison and Gibb. What is the book title?


 * ref name="Walsh, Barbara 2007  ???????????????  pp. 12-15">Walsh, pp. 12-15  What is the book title? Forgotten Aviator, Hubert Latham?
 * ref name="Walsh 2007">Walsh, Forgotten Aviator Hubert Latham, pp. 59-60." OK
 * ref name="Walsh, pp. 68-72">Walsh,  ???????????????  pp. 68-72 What is the book title? Forgotten Aviator, Hubert Latham?
 * ref name="Walsh, pp. 93-97">Walsh, pp.  ???????????????  93-97 What is the book title? Forgotten Aviator, Hubert Latham?
 * ref name="Walsh, pp. 215-217">Walsh, pp.  ???????????????  215-217 What is the book title? Forgotten Aviator, Hubert Latham?

I see from the page history that you created the article, so you must be pleased with your baby's progress. Regards. Chienlit (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have just fixed the Elliot and Walsh questions, plus one of the Harper questions. But the Harper p.132 still stands - which book? Chienlit (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Samblob, I've received a nice note from Sturmvogel,...
 * ..."I've added cite needed tags in places that kept Hubert Latham from getting a B-class rating for what was a very nice article. Add cites for those statements and I'll be happy to upgrade your article to B status.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC).
 * I hope that you are able to furnish these two citations, and get your article promoted to a deserved B class. Regards Chienlit (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not replying earlier. I returned today from a vacation during which I had no internet access.  I have added a reference for one of the statements, and have deleted the other statement.  I deleted it partly because it was unreferenced and partly because it was more about the Antoinette company than it was about Latham himself.
 * I thank you for undertaking the mammoth task of reworking and deciphering all those references. I did not take into account just how dynamic this article is and, where there was only one book attributed to an author, I just put the author's name.
 * The article is a far cry from the stub I submitted initially. Most of what's there has been contributed by Shallerking and Autodidactyl.  Shallerking in particular is dedicated to this article and is trying to make it as comprehensive as possible. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Sam. FYI Shallerking has added some intriguing comments about Latham etc at my Talk page. Regards. Chienlit (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read his statements on your page and your replies on his page. Personally I know nothing about Latham except for what I have read in a book on aviation or have found in online archives. At least two references to a foreign object in the engine (the later reference referring to that object as a wire) have been made in those archives and I have cited those references.  It is up to the project as to whether they consider FlightGlobal's online archive of Flight magazines to be a reliable source or not.
 * I also read Mr. Sjöberg's article. I suppose the reaction to "Randy from Boise" would depend on the reliability of his source. If Randy cited no source, it would be very easy to just undo his contribution.  If Randy cites some TV show or movie then it will either be reverted or be moved to that controversial "In popular culture" section.  If Randy cites something by an ancient historian, however, then the scenario of discussion and consensus would ensue.
 * OTOH, if the 40-year student of the Peloponnesian War has really "[advanced] the body of human knowledge" then he has probably published papers in journals, and even if the use of these as sources causes reversion by those who claim conflict of interest, the journal articles are still there and others can use them as sources.
 * If there was really an ancient "sword-wielding skeletons" myth about the Peloponnesian War from ancient times, though, the scholar would probably have heard of it. Woe betide if Randy's source of the myth turns out to be one of the scholar's papers! That would make things interesting... Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Léon Levavasseur
Hello! Your submission of Léon Levavasseur at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Adolphe Clément
Hello Sam, I have recently started an article about Adolphe Clément who, among other things, latterly pioneered planes and airships. Your aviation knowledge and sources in these areas are so superior that any contribution would be most appreciated. Regards. Chienlit (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Chienlit,
 * I will look into it. However, what little knowledge I have in the area comes from a single book on aviation and the ability to search the archives of Flight magazine online.  Those archives are a mine of aviation information from 1909 onward and, with their "10 Years Ago" feature in the mid-late 'Teens, they cover some of Autocar's old coverage of aviation before Flight was spun off from Autocar.
 * Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Air Jamaica
Is Kingston convenient to where you are?

The Air Jamaica article needs a photo of the airline headquarters. Would you mind taking the photo? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Kingston, Jamaica is where I am.


 * I'll see what I can do, although Harbour Street is not really a place where I'd want to hang around to take a photograph, as there are others there who might want to take my camera, or even my life.


 * Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you in advance, SamBlob. Part of the reason why I asked is that Air Jamaica's closing in about a month, and I don't know how the apprance of the building will change afterwards. In regards to going around Harbour Street, all I need is one photograph, so just get the front of the building with the logos visible - something like this File:ExpressJetHQHouston.JPG - So hopefully it shouldn't take too long to get one photo. If you have an automobile you can drive in front of the building and photograph from your car window. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If I remember the Air Jamaica building correctly, it's about ten or twelve stories tall and has the logo on the side of the building. I figured this would need two photos, one of the entrance, which could possibly be done in the drive-by shot you suggest, and another of the side of the building, which would be more time-consuming and more likely to attract the attention of those whom I would rather not meet. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I decided to look at Google Maps to help examine some possibilities. In regards to the side of the building, if the logo turns out to be on the side facing east, on Google Maps it looks like there is a vacant plot of land bounded by Port Royal, East, Georges, and Harbour, adjacent to the Air Jamaica building. If this is the case, you could drive down Georges and get the east-facing side from there. If the side with the logo faces west, it may be possible to take the photo while driving eastbound on Harbour as you are getting to the intersection of Harbour and Johns. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the photo! If there are any other markings around the actual entrance, it would be nice to have additional photos too. At the same time, I am glad you got that photo, and I will put it in the Air Jamaica and the Kingston, Jamaica articles :) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. What makes me think I took the entrance to the wrong building is that there are no signs or markings at that entrance whatsoever.  I didn't notice this until I got home; I just snapped the photos and rode out of there.  I'll try again next weekend; unless I'm mistaken, they're not closing until mid-April. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Air Jamaica
Is Kingston convenient to where you are?

The Air Jamaica article needs a photo of the airline headquarters. Would you mind taking the photo? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Kingston, Jamaica is where I am.


 * I'll see what I can do, although Harbour Street is not really a place where I'd want to hang around to take a photograph, as there are others there who might want to take my camera, or even my life.


 * Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you in advance, SamBlob. Part of the reason why I asked is that Air Jamaica's closing in about a month, and I don't know how the apprance of the building will change afterwards. In regards to going around Harbour Street, all I need is one photograph, so just get the front of the building with the logos visible - something like this File:ExpressJetHQHouston.JPG - So hopefully it shouldn't take too long to get one photo. If you have an automobile you can drive in front of the building and photograph from your car window. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If I remember the Air Jamaica building correctly, it's about ten or twelve stories tall and has the logo on the side of the building. I figured this would need two photos, one of the entrance, which could possibly be done in the drive-by shot you suggest, and another of the side of the building, which would be more time-consuming and more likely to attract the attention of those whom I would rather not meet. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I decided to look at Google Maps to help examine some possibilities. In regards to the side of the building, if the logo turns out to be on the side facing east, on Google Maps it looks like there is a vacant plot of land bounded by Port Royal, East, Georges, and Harbour, adjacent to the Air Jamaica building. If this is the case, you could drive down Georges and get the east-facing side from there. If the side with the logo faces west, it may be possible to take the photo while driving eastbound on Harbour as you are getting to the intersection of Harbour and Johns. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the photo! If there are any other markings around the actual entrance, it would be nice to have additional photos too. At the same time, I am glad you got that photo, and I will put it in the Air Jamaica and the Kingston, Jamaica articles :) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. What makes me think I took the entrance to the wrong building is that there are no signs or markings at that entrance whatsoever.  I didn't notice this until I got home; I just snapped the photos and rode out of there.  I'll try again next weekend; unless I'm mistaken, they're not closing until mid-April. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is so cool. What Wikipedia is all about. The world and Wikipedia needs more people like SamBlob.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃   (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Russian embassy in Kingston
Hi SamBlob, I am in need of a photo of the Russian embassy in Kingston, details are at User:Russavia/Required_photos. as you are in Kingston, would there be any possibility of you being able to take this photo for me for the articles I require it for. Jamaica–Russia relations is an article I will be working on in the nearest future as well. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 11:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two problems with taking a picture of the Russian Embassy in Kingston. One is that I do not have any private transportation at present.  This should change tomorrow or next week when my car is back from the garage.  The other is a bit more daunting: Not only do I not know where the Russian Embassy in Kingston is, I am also unable to find any reference to such an institution in the local Yellow Pages.  Are you sure that Russia has an embassy in Jamaica? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is a Russian embassy in Kingston - there has been since 1978 when the USSR opened one. It is located at 22 Norbrook Drive, Kingston 8. Their website shows a small image of the embassy building. The Google map of the address shows it is located in "Constant Spring" - however Norbrook Drive seems to fork into several different directions. The Jamaican Ministry of Foreign Affairs gives the same address. I can't find any further photos of the embassy, apart from what is on their website as the small image. As to transport and the like, I don't expect a special trip be made, but if you are in that area at any stage a photo would be great. It appears to be in the same area as the Panamanian and Honduran embassies as well. If you need anything else, just let me know, and I can see what further info I can give if needed. Cheers, --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 02:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Jamaican Civil Aviation Authority
Hi again! In regards to Kingston photographs, if/when you go to get the embassy photos, would it be convenient to stop by 4 Winchester Road, Kingston 10? That is where the offices of the Jamaican Civil Aviation Authority are located. If you don't mind, would you mind getting a photo of that place? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That might be easier; it's in Half-Way-Tree, near where I work. I'll see what I can do.


 * The Russian Embassy, on the other hand, is in Norbrook, a residential area that's not really on the way to anywhere.


 * Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you in advance :) WhisperToMe (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Lamborghini
I'm pretty sure that the IP that's continuously reverting back to the biased mentions of the 400GTs superiority has now become User:CHARLES400GT. He seems to be content to keep edit warring with established editors to plug his love of the 400GT. I don't really know what to do at this stage. Rodface (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Scooters and underbones
Hello SamBlob - I'm pretty near certain that scooters and underbones are fundamentally different. If a powered two-wheeler has a swinging engine then it must be a "scooter" per the definitions you've provided, it cannot be an underbone. Scooters must have small pressed-steel wheels bolted to a hub, since the swinging engine construction doesn't leave enough space for a big wheel, nor is it compatible with double-sided suspension and a spindle (axle) mounted rear wheel.

Similarly, it is possible to precisely identify an underbone, which will have a frame-mounted engine in all cases. Loosely speaking, underbones can be said to have bigger wheels though there may be some exceptions I don't know about and "large" is too loose a word to be part of a definition.

Furthermore .... wheels bolted to a hub used to be a scooter-only feature but cannot be depended on, it is now a fitting on some regular large wheel motorcycles. Spoked wheels were once an underbone-only feature but I doubt if that's a rule anymore.

The only reason there's any confusion is that so many two-wheelers have a lot of bodywork concealing the fundamental difference between them. Is that correct in your experience? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Photographer's Barnstar
Also, thanks for finding and inserting a pic of the Mazda B360.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the effusive praise. This makes me a bit more embarrassed about being so late with the photos of the Civil Aviation Authority building (several months late) and the Russian Embassy (requested before the CAA request and *still* not taken!  I need to get to that... if someone else hasn't...) Sincerely, SamBlob (talk)

Two new photo requests
Thank you very much for taking photos! Thanks for getting the Civil Aviation Authority photo!

Here are two more requests in the Kingston area:
 * Department of Correctional Services, Jamaica head office: 5-7 King Street, Kingston, Jamaica W.I.
 * Ministry of National Security head office: North Tower NCB Towers 2 Oxford Road Kingston 5

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I will see what I can do. Both of these sound *very* tricky, however.


 * The Department of Correctional Services is in the middle of downtown Kingston, and traffic is very tight there. Moreover, no-one on either side of the justice system wants photographs taken of them or anyone related to them, and both sides of the law have the particularly bad habit of shooting first and asking questions later. I am also not greatly convinced that obtaining a photo to be published in Wikipedia is an answer to their questions that they will find reasonable even if I am still alive to give that answer.  Disappearing into traffic is not an option as I no longer own a scooter and my van is more likely to get stuck in traffic than to disappear into it.


 * The head office of the Ministry of National Security might pose a bigger problem, where I am less likely to be killed but more likely to be arrested. The NCB Towers, which, unless I'm mistaken, were originally the Mutual Life Building, is a tall office complex with many offices in it. If I am to get anything meaningful I would probably have to photograph the sign on their door.  I have no official business that will get me into the NCB Towers much less to the door of the head office of the Ministry of National Security. The buildings are most likely guarded by both property guards and the police.


 * On top of all this, my camera is large and bulky and is probably a magnet for security guards/police and thieves/robbers alike.


 * On the other hand, I should have some vacation leave coming up, so I might be able to figure something out.


 * Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Loan
"Loan" is a standard verb in US English - see here. Since the Pratt & Whitney Measurement Systems is a US-related topic, US usage should not be changed per WP:ENGVAR. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

101 Scout frame "stronger" vs "different"
(cur | prev) 21:43, 9 July 2011 SamBlob (talk | contribs) (6,522 bytes) (Reformatted references, restored cited information previously deleted, added a citation tag for information not stated in cited reference, copyedit. Removed "See also", with link in body of article.) (undo)

Hi Sam, I do not think that the AMA website can be relied upon as a source that the 101 Scout frame is "stronger" than the earlier Scout frame. That source has other errors too, e.g. that the 101 was the first Scout to have a front brake. I have viewed both types of frame in-the-metal and can see that the lugs and tubes are all of same gauge and construction, the only difference being very minor changes to tube angles, and the 101 having slightly longer tubes in some places, which in theory would make the 101 frame slightly weaker (the shorter the tubes, the stronger the frame). Can we agree on a wording for this to reflect the reality of both frame types? It was for this reason that I had replaced "stronger" frame with "different" frame.

Also, the 1932-on Scouts did not adopt the Chief frame. In fact the Scout, Chief and Four in this year all received the same (or very similar) frame. So it can equally be argued that in this year it was the Chief that received "Scout looks", having been an ugly duckling up to this point. Period Indian advertising did indeed argue that the Chief had now been given "Scout looks with Chief power". The 1932 Scouts were not as awful as history makes out. They stayed in the range until 1937 despite the appearance of the Sport Scout in 1934, so must have been selling okay. I have ridden one and it is a very pleasant motorcycle. History's view of it is nowadays changing (see for e.g. Jerry Hatfield's "Indian Scout").

Interested in your views, as always.

113.20.65.155 (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Since the AMA Motorcycle Hall of Fame does not state any case to back up their claim that the 101 frame is actually stronger than the original frame, I will remove the statement from the article. It's not worth fighting for.


 * As for the statements made regarding the '32 Standard Scout, if you can cite documentary evidence that states that the '32 Scout was based on a new corporate frame instead of a variant of the old Chief frame, go ahead and make the corresponding changes. If not, please don't. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I've seen your edits and I'll leave them as they are. If you wish to remove the AMA-cited statement that the 101 frame was stronger, I won't oppose you. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your understanding. If you concur, I'll replace "stronger" with "different".  I will also re-write the 1932-on Scout paragraph, but I will first place my proposed new wording here for you to critique before I attempt to make any further changes to the 101 Scout page itself.

113.20.65.155 (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I am looking forward to seeing it. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi SamBlob. I propose amending this paragraph "The 101 Scout was replaced in 1932 by a model that used the contemporary Chief frame.[2][5][6]  There was a widespread negative reaction to this. It is speculated that this was done to reduce costs by rationalizing production, which became necessary " to read as follows:

"In 1931 the decision was made to drop the 101 Scout because, although it was a very popular model, it was as expensive to produce as the 74-ci Chief and this made its margin for profit very slim ["Indian Scout" p.48]. To reduce costs by rationalizing production, which became very necessary during the Great Depression[5][6], Indian designed a single new frame that (with some detail variations) was used across the entire new-for-1932 Indian model range of Scout, Chief and Four. This new frame suited the Chief very well because the factory could now promote the hitherto utilitarian Chief as having "the looks and handling of a Scout" [Franklin's Indians" p. 306]. However the 101 Scout was sorely missed by its many fans because the new Scout (which continued to 1937 under the name of Standard Scout) was tame and placid by comparison. To again cater for the harder-riding element among customers, Indian released for 1934 a completely new model dubbed the Sport Scout which then became the focus of racing efforts ["Indian Scout" p. 54]." 113.20.65.155 (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Good, but the effect on the Chief would probably be better placed at the main Indian (motorcycle) article (and the Indian Chief article if and when it is ever written), and the eventual emergence of the Sport Scout would probably be better placed at the Indian Scout (motorcycle) article, or maybe in the "Legacy" section of the 101 article, as it happens after the end of 101 production.


 * May I offer this counter-proposal:

In 1931, Indian's management decided to rationalize production by designing a new corporate frame that, with some detail variations, would be used across their entire, new-for-1932 model range of Scout, Chief and Four.["Franklin's Indians" p. 306] The economic hardship of the Great Depression forced Indian to discontinue the 101 Scout,(ref name=ClassicScout /)(ref name=HallFame1932 /) since it was as expensive to produce as the 74 cuin Chief, and therefore had a small profit margin.["Indian Scout" p.48]. The 101's replacement, the Standard Scout, was not well received by fans of the 101, who found the Standard Scout to be slow and heavy by comparison.(ref name=ClassicScout /)(ref name=HallFame1932 /)


 * Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, that reads well, and more succinctly. The main point I was at pains to get across is that the Scout was not "given the Chief's frame" because equally the Chief (and the Four ) were simultaneously given the (new) Scout's frame.  It may seem nit-picky now, but in contemporary eyes the fact that the Chief now had the "same looks and handling as the Scout" was the more important marketing point, because this signalled the start of the Chief becoming "glamorous". I'll just add to the new para that the "Standard Scout had enough adherents to keep it in production until 1937 but ...).  Have a look at what I've added, and please check that all is okay with it.

Yes, we really should add a page for the Chief model. 113.20.89.44 (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Code 815
No thanx needed. I didn't do much. ;p But, seeing you've an interest in automotive things Italian, maybe you can help with Ilario Bandini & the associated product articles. (They appear to've been badly translated from Italian, for a start. : Also, input & aid with Hirohata Merc, custom car, & hot rod is welcomed. Ciao.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 04:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Kathy Chitty
Good afternoon! Some time ago you amemded the article on Kathy Chitty. It has been nominated for deletion. If youy have the time could you have a look at Articles for deletion/Kathy Chitty (3rd nomination) and add any comment you might have. Thanks. Regards Rickedmo (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

MX-3
Nice to see you managed to find another reference for the MX-3 V6. One minor problem is that the performance figures seem to refer to R&T's own test: I cannot find the relevant statements right now, but I believe that official manufacturer figures are always preferred. Otherwise, some guy will prefer the results achieved by Motor Trend or Car and Driver, and someone else will find another set of figures and eventually things will become very frustrating. I will leave the R&T numbers for now (I can't say that the previous figures were official Mazda ones, since there were no references to begin with) but hope to find better stuff at some point. Best regards,  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Leo Fender
Thanks, but that was a direct quote. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And thanks for the fix. That article totally needs help, BTW... Drmies (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just noticed this. I don't know if you're trying to make up for an earlier mistake, but more formality is not necessary, and direct quotes (as opposed to what you seem to call "normal text") liven up the writing. I'm not going to restore the quote, but I urge you to be more broad-minded, in more ways than one. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I added a Hispano-Suiza J12 reference
I don't have a copy of Graham Robson's "The World's Most Powerful Cars" so I'm curious if he left out the 150" wheelbase there. Also, do have any idea how many cars were built on the 158" wheelbase? I know there were approximately 120 J12s altogether but have yet to find a breakdown. This could matter for automotive superlatives. If 20 or more were produced it could be considered "production." Thanks. Sadowski (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me. Allow me to clarify. With respect to Bugatti only 6 or 7 Royales were made. I have listed it as "longest limited production wheelbase." Currently I have listed 1934-37 Cadillac V-16 as "longest production wheelbase" (200 made). My guess is about 20 158" wheelbase H-S J12s were built. In other words they may actually meet the necessary (arbitrary?) 20 threshold for "production." If so the H-S J12 158" should be listed in place of the 1934-37 Cadillac V-16. If anyone knows how many were actually made I would appreciate it. Thanks Sadowski (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

United States v. Ivanov
Hi SamBlob, I noticed my article had been nominated for DYK when I was submitting another classmates article. The first paragraph is paraphrases several pages (starting on page 4) of this document (http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/120601.AWT.Ivanov.pdf, heavily referenced in the article). Hope that helps. I also hope this right way of contacting you. This is my 2nd wikipedia article. thanks in advance! Sincerely, dsheffie  —Preceding undated comment added 01:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC).


 * Yes, this is the correct page to contact me, but new discussions on this page should go to the bottom of the page, which is where I have moved this section.


 * I read much of the link you included and I reread the article, and I think the article is a bit the wrong way around. The "appeal" mentioned in the article is not an appeal of a conviction but an appeal of an indictment, also known as a motion to dismiss. It seems as if this appeal was reviewed and rejected before the trial, not after.


 * Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Imme R100
The DYK project (nominate) 05:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's now also featured on Portal:Germany. If you have other DYK related to Germany, please feel free to add there yourself! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I before E ...
Thank you for correcting the spelling of "Riedel" in the Fend Flitzer article. You are correct, in this instance. However, spelling rules in English do not necessarily apply in German, and there are many instances of "e" before "i" in that language. This just wasn't one of them. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi SamBlob. Thanks for thanking me. :-) Of course you are generally correct that spelling rules in English do not necessarily apply in German. The problem is, however, that most speakers of English nowadays seem to think that you need the letter "e" in front to make an "e"-sound, and a letter "i" in front to make an "i" sound. In German it's exactly the opposite: the spelling "ie" is pronounced like English "ee", and the spelling "ei" like English "aye". Americans in particular tend to forget that a lot of the words in the English language are much older than modern American, or indeed derived from German, so often spelling/pronunciation rules may apply which are much more similar to German rules. People know how it's pronounced, but they get the spelling wrong, because they don't take word heritage into account. As a German this always bothers me, and instead of flying off into long rants like this one, I usually just point them to their own "I before E" rule as a small reminder. Best regards, BjKa (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Reflinks
no difference i don't think, just shorter, not really much point in changing so i probably won't do it any more Tom B (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

BMW E9
Hello SamBlob, thank you for editing my link to the production numbers and adding a title to the table "Production Numbers" on February 24, 2012! You are right, section titles should not contain citations.

I saw your edit of December 7, 2011. You note "The immediate predecessor of the E9, as stated in the article, is the New Class Coupé. The New Class Coupé's predecessor is the 3200CS." I tend to disagree.
 * The New Class Coupé is a middle class car, the BMW 3200 CS is a car of the luxury class. Just compare the prices: The Suggested Retail Price of the BMW 2000 CS was 17.500 DM, the 3200 CS was sold for nearly 30.000 DM. The BMW 3200 CS has a V8 engine, the New Class Coupé has only a four-cylinder engine. Thus, IMHO the BMW 3200 CS can not be the predecessor of the New Class Coupé. --Olli1800 (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can´t see that the predecessor of the BMW E9 is the New Class Coupé. The BMW E9 is powered by a six-cylinder engine while the New Class Coupé has only a four-cylinder engine. As stated above, the New Class Coupé is a middle class car, and the E9 is a car of the luxury class. In fact, the 2000 C/CA/CS and the BMW 2800 CS have been manufactured parallel over years. Please visit http://www.e9-driven.com/E9_Vins.asp. So the E9 is just related with the 2000 C/CA/CS and the E3 platform. --Olli1800 (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The New Class Coupé was a coachbuilt luxury coupé at the top of the BMW line, based on their biggest saloon car, just like the 3200 before it and the E9 after it. Nonetheless, I see your point; the New Class was not in the same class as the 3200.  I do wonder, though, if the New Six E3 was. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello SamBlob, thank you! We share the same opinion: The New Class was not in the same class as the 3200. The Six BMW E3 and the BMW 2800 CS were introduced in 1968 and share the same engine (BMW M30). Both are cars of the luxury class. Sincerely, --Olli1800 (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a note: I would recommend to put a space between the numbers and the characters of the specification ("BMW 2000 C", not "BMW 2000C"). That's common on BMW publications like manuals, brochures etc. --Olli1800 (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have just looked at my two main sources of information, and I find that one of them follows the convention you have stated while the other does not. I am inclined to defer to your convention because the one that follows it is the older, more detailed, and, in my opinion, more reliable one.


 * I have found some scans of old Road & Track articles on E9 cars, and I find they apply the convention inconsistently; there is a space before the CS in the 2800 CS test but not in the 3.0CSi test.


 * Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello SamBlob, I would like to bring to your attention that on BMW manuals you`ll always find a space between the numbers and the characters of the specification. Just google for picures of "Betriebsanleitung bmw 2000 CS" (Betriebsanleitung = manual). In my opinion, original BMW literature is the most reliable literature you can cite. Sincerely, --Olli1800 (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion
Hello, SamBlob. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Embassy Club
I can think of two Embassy Clubs - one was in London, although it was a haunt of Princess Margaret & friends during the disco era - bit late for Lady Docker, although it may have started earlier. The other was Bernard Manning's old Nissen hut in the North of Manchester. Classy place, I'm sure she'd have fitted right in. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from the the article itself, I couldn't find any documentation linking her to either of these Embassy Clubs, but I have since seen this, which was citing something else in the article: http://books.google.com.jm/books?id=kHx7hVRhKfYC&pg=PA231&lpg=PA231&dq=Lady+Docker+Embassy+Club&source=bl&ots=cMk6SblCX3&sig=KfxqBzZ-mhN8dhRgtmh8RToP3b4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GSGpT-OuNomItwer6-WhAg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Lady%20Docker%20Embassy%20Club&f=false . However, I found several saying that she worked at Café de Paris. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

French Riviera Fascinating! I love the detail of her cruising the coast in her yacht, but not being allowed to land 8-)  Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess their Shemara became the Flying Dutchman of the Riviera! Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Threat
This is a threat which you may take to any authority you wish to approach.

Please do not continue with your attacks of my work or I shall go direct to the powers that be myself. Eddaido (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Do your worst. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, this appears to be the "attack" to which Eddaido refers: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Wolseley_Sheep_Shearing_Machine_Company&diff=495351494&oldid=492821825 . I seem to be battering him brutally with logic. 13:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Mini Vote
Hey, I have proposed a vote for something to be agreed on once and for all regarding the Mini issues; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mini_%28marque%29#Vote Yellowxander (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

'WikiProject: BMW Motorcycle' Proposal
Dear SamBlod,

Having seen your edits with regards to BMW motorcycles, I would like to make you aware that I am currently proposing this new WikiProject would have the primary aim of creating and developing a page for each model (both old and new) of BMW motorcycle produced in the company's history. This would enable a highly valuable resource to be for both enthusiasts and restorers such as myself to be created, where extensive information about specifcations, development, modifications and the history behind could be found. Not only this, but it would encourage motorcycle enthusiasts, who would not normally have used Wikipedia, to both use its resources and to contribute to the project's pages, becoming part of the motorcycle fraternity which would be the driving force behind this community. Once this task has been completed of English Wikipedia, I, with help of other editors and members of the project, would like to then translate the pages into other languages (particularly German, in order to make the resources available in Germany, where many BMW enthusiasts and restorers are concentrated), and so contribute to the wider Wikipedia group. The WikiProject, would also contribute large numbers of pictures to Wikimedia, as part of its galleries.

In order to promote the group and encourage the growth of the articles in our scope, the WikiProject is not only being promoted to present editors who are currently active editing articles on BMW itself and motorcycles in general, but also notify groups such as the Vintage Motor Cycle Club and the BMW Club in the U.K., which would encourage members (20,000+) to contribute some of the extensive knowledge of the topic which is demonstrated by members of these clubs. Members of the WikiProject who are active in clubs outside of the U.K., would also be encouraged to promote the Project to their respective society, making the WikiProject multinational. Current, more experienced editors, would then help the 'new boys' to use Wikipedia and share their knowledge, which has often been built up during the course of a lifetime of passion for BMW motorcycles. This would enable us, together, to produce a resource which will help generations long into the future and help preserve and catalogue BMW's legacy in the motorcycle industry.

Currently, there are no such WikiProjects which would be dedicated solely to the BMW motorcycles (not even BMW itself) and the development of pages on each individual model, in opposed to the current situation where some models are briefly referred on a BMW related page. This WikiProject would allow this community of people who are highly knowledgeable about this specific topic to develop articles in extreme depth, something not possible with larger groups, which could then be published on the world wide web, available gratis, as with all Wikipedia articles, to the public.

If successful, the idea could serve as a blueprint and be replicated for other motorcycle manufacturers.

Please visit the project proposal page, in order to see more details of the project and to join. Any questions or queries can be posted either on the proposal page, or I can be contacted directly on my talk page.

Many thanks and any help from fellow enthusiasts on this project would be greatly appreciated.

DAFMM (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your invitation to participate in your proposed BMW motorcycle WikiProject. For personal reasons, I will not become an official member of this project, although I reserve the right as an active editor of Wikipedia to edit articles covered by the project where I have reliably sourced information to add, or that contradicts what has already been added, and to contribute to discussions on the improvement of articles covered by the project.


 * My reluctance to join this project is partly due to a general apathy toward WikiProjects (the only one I ever actually joined was WikiProject Guitarists and I haven't been active there in years) and partly due to previous experience with BMW motorcycle enthusiasm and enthusiasts on Wikipedia.


 * Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)