User talk:Scheinwerfermann/Archive 1

Headlamp
Hey, thanks for the great edits to the automotive headlamps page. I especially appreciate your improvements to the "Care" section I added. --Lenehey 18:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, Lenehey. Sorry to take so long responding to your kind comment here! Automotive lighting is not only my profession, but one of my passions as well. Scheinwerfermann 20:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That was an amazing fast response to my post on FA status for Headlamps! As I mentioned in my notice, I have never submitted a nomination for FA status for an article before. I also am interested in headlamps -- I was an Examiner at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and examined a large number of patents related to automotive headlamps (class 362). If you look at headlamp patents issued between 1991 and 1996 (the years I worked there) you can probably figure out my real name, since the Examiner's name is listed on the patents. :) I think the article is great as is.  I will expand my comments as to the inconsistency in the peer-review notice i put up, but it is basically at one point, the article states that pop-up headlamps provide pointy-front cars with better aerodynamics, at least during the day (than non-pop-ups) while at another point, the article says that they aren't as aerodynamic as the standard type of headlamps.  (I may have read it wrong, and I need to go back and check).  --Lenehey 15:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Howdy again. I will look through some patents when I get back from the V.I.S.I.O.N headlamp congress in France—I was invited by a guy whose name would've crossed your desk a great deal in the '91-'96 timeframe, on patent applications from a major European automotive lighting concern whose corporate name begins with "V". Meanwhile, you're right, that aerodynamics language was kind of ambiguous. I've reworked the syntax and it should be more easily understandable now. Please check and let me know your thoughts. BTW, does the name Jack (Jacob) Rabinow ring a bell for you? --Scheinwerfermann 16:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Images
Scheinwerfermann, well done. But after tagging, please try to remove "no license tag", one more thing, there is no requirement to add the date information to the image with GFDL tag. If you have uploaded other images which do not have appropriate tags, please place them to the images. Thank you, Shyam  ( T / C ) 06:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there
Hi, since you seem to be very knowledgable about Chrysler engines and transmissions, I was wondering if you could help me sort out articles that simply list the TorqueFlite without actually giving the part number. Thanks. --ApolloBoy 03:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You bet, as time allows. I've been working lately to whip the Torqueflite article(s) into shape and consolidate them. I'm sure there are lots of articles that link generically to Torqueflite without going to the right section. Which ones have you got in mind?


 * Another project that really needs doing is the consolidation and rectification of the four(!) different Chrysler minivan articles. There's one for Dodge Caravan, one for Plymouth Voyager, one for Chrysler Voyager and one for Chrysler Town & Country. Great deal of sketchy and questionable info in each, grossly insufficient info and photos in the Chrysler Voyager article, and a large amount of duplication. This would be much better as a single "Chrysler minivan" article. Bigger job than it first appears, though. The infoboxes are giving me fits!

Scheinwerfermann 04:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, all of the Chrysler minivan articles were once merged together, but as the merged article grew, it became messier and not very comprehensive on each model, so as a result they were separated. --ApolloBoy 01:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Lancer edits
I have reverted "didn't sell very well" with "didn't meet expectations" again. In this instance "didn't sell very well" is POV - according to whom didn't it sell, who is the authority? The "expectations" comment is more neutral.

Secondly, I also want to ask that if possible, please start citing references at the end of the article so that others can verify your added content.

Finally, I know that we have "butted heads" on topics before (over headlights), but I don't want that type of relationship with you. Evidently you know your stuff and I respect that. I also want to ask that in the future, lets discuss our differences on each others talk pages or the subjects talk pages, not in the edit comments. Thanks, Stude62 15:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Stude62, I'm of much the same mind. I certainly don't aim to get in a reversion war or pissing contest with you. I'm sure we both strive towards the same thing: Maximum veracity, clarity and thoroughness in all the articles upon which we work. I agree discussion pages are the right place to talk things out, and will make an effort to take any "Hey, wait a sec..." discussion to that venue. References, no problem, though you may not like some of the ones that I use, for reasons aired in our debate over rectangular headlamps on '67 Darts: Many of the published resources to which I am fortunate to have access are extremely difficult to find. Most of them are not in the local public library (unless you happen to live in Detroit, and in that case they're very deeply archived), many of them are internal engineering reports, and some of those that are generally accessible to the public at large are only available on a for-fee basis (examples of this latter category include e.g. SAE papers, which can all still be bought from SAE, but they have grown rather proud of them in recent years).


 * I happen to have a bit of a documentation fetish for my fields of interest. My collection of automotive lighting-related literature covers two 7-foot-tall, 5-foot-wide bookshelves, fills a large file cabinet and there are several boxes besides. My collection of Chrysler Corp. literature covers two more of those bookshelves, a similar file cabinet and fifteen or twenty banker's boxes besides. Even so, there are documents that remain on my shopping list because I haven't got them yet. I will, but it's a long process that involves a lot of waiting.


 * I enjoy having this material in my collection, but it's of little use to the world if it just sits on my shelves waiting for me to read it again, so I try to make use of my collection of published-but-in-limited-distribution information to the maximum possible extent here on Wiki. The issue, of course, is veracity checking. It can be extremely difficult. If I quote from Chrysler Corporation internal engineering report number 67-983 or whatever, and give the title, year and author, what's to stop someone from saying "Nope, not good enough, that contradicts what I read in a Popular Mechanics article from the June 1987 issue, and since I've never seen that Chrysler report you quote, I'm replacing your info with what I got from the magazine."?


 * Now, regarding Lancer sales figures: I don't have documentation of Chrysler's expectations for Lancer sales. Do you? This is a different issue than the Battle of the Warring Documents described above. Did Chrysler 'really' have high hopes for the Lancer, and the sales they dreamed of just never materialised? Or, was the Lancer a hurry-up stopgap to appease US Dodge dealers, who after a year of selling Valiants had that car taken away from them when the Plymouth name was applied for MY61, just to hold the line until the new-for-'63, genuinely-Dodge's-own Dart could come along? I rather suspect the latter is closer to what actually happened, given the leadtime involved in model development and release, but it's certainly possible that Dodge Division really thought the Lancer was going to instantly double Chrysler Corp's overall compact-car sales. Chrysler was in turmoil in '60-'61, reeling from supplier problems, leadership scandals and a reputation for poor quality earned by the '57-'59 models. A lot of hasty and expedient decisions were made in that timeframe. The difficulty lies in finding reliable documentation for corporate decisions like this. The motoring press have always taken it upon themselves to declare what was going through the decisionmakers' heads. When doing so, they're frequently guessing, and they often guess wrong. Without going through my collection of period car magazines (including Popular Mechanics!), I bet I could easily find three or four articles about the '63 Dart that say "Lancer sales didn't meet Chrysler's expectations" somewhere in their first three paragraphs. No documentation for those alleged expectations, but It's printed, it's in more than one source...and the question remains, is it correct! I think in cases like this, compromise language is probably the best "out", pending retrieval of a definitive answer. Everyone agrees the Lancer sold slowly compared to the '61-'62 Valiants, and compared to the '63 Dart. The only disagreement is whether Chrysler viewed this as a failure to meet expectations. Perhaps in this case, we'd be best to state that the Dart sold much more briskly than its predecessor, the Lancer.


 * Oh, and I haven't let the rectangular-headlamp matter drop. I believe I'm narrowing in on the origin of the rumour. Chrysler was big on "show cars" in the mid-'60s and early '70s timeframe. These weren't concept cars as we usually think of them (i.e., previews of coming attractions and distractions). They were dressed-up versions of standard production vehicles with styling features not necessarily intended for compatibility with prevailing laws, but rather to generate interest in the production versions of the car and get potential owners dreaming about how they might customize (or, in period terminology, "kustomize") their own car once they bought it. There appears in the book Chrysler Chronicle (James M. Flammang and the Auto Editors of Consumer Guide, © 1998 Publications International, Ltd., ISBN: 0-7853-2901-3) a photo of a 1969 Dart show car fancifully equipped with Cibié 240mm x 130mm rectangular headlamps as also featured on the 1970 Plymouth GTX factory show car covered (and documented!) some months ago in Mopar Action. (Trivia: That headlamp started life as a Renault 12 item)


 * Obviously, many of the same stylists who worked on the production versions of whatever which car, would also have worked on the special show versions. Now we're back to a question of intent, which is very difficult to document! Did Chrysler stylists really design rectangular headlamps into the '67 Dart in anticipation they'd be permitted for road use? Most of the evidence suggests they didn't. But there's ample evidence they used rectangular headlamps in show cars in the US, and that they used rectangular headlamps in similar-to-US vehicles sold in countries where standardised round headlamps were not required.


 * Thanks for your comments,

Scheinwerfermann 19:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My edits
I'm sorry if my edits offended you, but there was absolutely no need to call me immature and egotistic. I only want to help Wikipedia better like everyone else, not get my last word on an edit. Please don't attack me anymore... --ApolloBoy 04:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * When you behave in an immature and egotistical fashion, I will call you on it. I do the same for anyone else behaving likewise, and I'd expect no different treatment were I to behave in such a manner. No need for melodramatic hystrionics, there, bud, I am not "attacking" you. I am simply holding you to account for your behaviour. To avoid feeling "attacked", you need only behave to a high standard of maturity and judgement. Behave extra-well, and I'll comment favourably on that, too. Scheinwerfermann 21:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not acting melodramatic. I try my best not to act egotistical or immature; I'm not known for that at all here or in real life. I don't even know why you think I'm immature or egotistical... --ApolloBoy 00:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I explained my perception to you in fairly complete detail early in this discussion. Instead of kicking and screaming and going "Am not! Am not! Am not!", you may want to think about it for a minute ("H'm...somebody else perceives my behaviour in such-and-such a way. Could he be right? Maybe even just a little bit right?"). That would be the grownup thing to do. I have no interest in carrying this conversation further. Scheinwerfermann 02:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Constructive criticism
Scheinwerfermann, whilst I was interested to read your candid opinion of my language skills, I wondered: Thank you. -De Facto 10:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * a) Why you chose to express it on the discussion page of another user rather than on mine
 * b) If you would provide an example of how the content should have been written to make it easily readable (if you cannot actually understand what I was trying to say ask and I will try to explain)


 * Greetings, De Facto. I chose to make my comments in the discussion on JzG's page so that it would be obvious I was offering a critique. Had I appeared from nowhere on your talk page with my comments, it would've seemed too much like a random attack, as it seems to me. There are many examples on Wikipedia of how to write cogently; I don't see that it would be beneficial to either of us for me to rewrite your content for you. I think I provided sufficiently detailed comments on the problems that you should be able to clean it up and fix it by yourself. Can you explain what you were trying to say in no more than three sentences of no more than 25 words each? Scheinwerfermann 16:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Dodge van
It seems that someone basically took the Dodge A100 and Dodge Sportsman articles and clumped them together into this big mess. Can you help me separate the articles again and fix them? --ApolloBoy 01:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Eegads. Yeah, I'll go take a look and see what kind of a cleanup job is needed. Scheinwerfermann 02:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, it looks like the same user went and did the same thing with General Motors van... --ApolloBoy 03:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Page moves
Please use the "move" button at the top of your page to move pages. This way, it preserves the history of edits that is in the article. To fix the page history now, I need to delete the article to make room for the move. It will be back up in a minute. --HappyCamper 03:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Should be able to edit the page now. --HappyCamper 03:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I forgot about that handy move tab! Scheinwerfermann 03:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. Sorry for the wrong capitalization...I see you fixed that too :-) Well, I'm going to move on to other topics, I don't know too much about these things. See you around the Wiki! --HappyCamper 03:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, just got your message. I'll stay around. Do some pages need deleting now? --HappyCamper 03:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, please don't do anything. You mention you're not familiar with the subject matter at hand here, and that shows. I will redo the work I already did. I'm not pleased about it and wish you had confined your fixing to the actual page move procedure. Editing article content you aren't familiar with is a dangerous game; you will usually wind up making extra work for someone. Me, in this case. Scheinwerfermann 03:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. Well, in the recent changes log diffs, it certainly looked like some cut and paste moves were being done. I was a bit surprised that the antivandalbot kicked in, which was why I came over here to begin with. --HappyCamper 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm glad you found the reversion. Sorry for interrupting what you were doing. --HappyCamper 03:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

image:CarbNomenclature.jpg
>I've reverted your deletion of the nomenclature from image:CarbNomenclature.jpg
 * That was a silly thing to do. Putting (English) text in pictures makes it impossible to use them inother language carburetor articles. I was planning to do that. You may have made the original pic, but you do not own it!
 * See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy Rules of thumb #7 MH 17:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I never claimed to own it; let's be grownups and leave the namecalling and putting words in others' mouths out on the playground where they belong. The image with nomenclature is used in the English-language carburetor article right now, and that's appropriate. If you want to use it in other-language articles, that's terrific...use image:CarbNoNomenclature.jpg, which has the lettered arrows without the English nomenclature. Scheinwerfermann 18:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Headlight/Headlamp
Excellent! Feel free to revert back to your version, but there are a couple things to take care of. What you should do now is place an appropriate reference as an incline citation in the text to source the claim about headlamp being technically correct. Also, a quick glance at your edits showed fractions like 5¾ being changed to 53/4, which of course, is 13¼; that's the primary reason I reverted you. Please check to be sure you repair any such changes that get inadvertanly introduced. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A very good question. First, I'd be sure to reword the sentence to precisely match what your references say. Unless you actually have a source stating that headlight is technically incorrect as such, it would count as original research to draw that conclusion from the search results and such. Consider something like "While headlight and headlamp are both used in casual speech, headlamp tends to be preferred [in technical/formal contexts] [by automotive engineers]..." or something like that. Then, using a cite.php-type footnote, I would leave a note saying something like "See, for instance,, , and ." Choose a couple representative links. Search results would probably represent original research here too; perhaps it would be best to include prominent entities using the headlamp terminology. Feel free to solicit others' opinions on this as well. What would be ideal, of course, would be a good authority discussing the difference between headlamp and headlight and why the former is preferable. I am certainly reconsidering my vote; I'd like to a bit of additional research of my own. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

AOL Block Issue
Short answer: No. It's an AOL IP, and blocks of that range generally have a huge amount of collateral damage to innocent users. The original block (see here was only for 15 minutes. Admins are generally advised to avoid blocking AOL for any extended length of time. If the vandalism persists, warn him with the test1-test4 warnings (find the templates of WP:TT and don't forget to subst them). If he keeps going after t4 or t3, report him to WP:AIV. AOL is one of our biggest problems here on wikipedia. alpha Chimp  laudare 18:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

My user page
Thanks for removing the vandalism to my user page, I see the same IP decided to vandalize my talk page as well... --ApolloBoy 19:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Taillight
As Scheinwerfer are your passion, perhaps I should bring this article on Rücklichter to your attention ;-) (You may have something to add or revise my cumbersome description.)  Signature brendel  20:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the improvments and help!  Signature brendel  23:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Referencing - quickie reply
Hi! I keep the automotive lighting on my watchlist, so I can see all the wonderful work you are doing there! I would have to find some time to digest the whole article, but as concerns the first question you raised, I believe the answer is: if you introduce a reference like, than you can "reuse" it as by just typing in like (the tag alone, with a slash at the end). I hope this was what you were looking for :D

As concerns the citing of standards thing, I can't think of a solution for that, as I have never encountered such problem. I would raise the issue on the talk page accompanying any of the Wikipediaspace pages refering to citing resources you would find most relevant. Excuse me for not being helpful here :(

Regards, Bravada, talk - 21:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. My gut feeling tells me Zilog might be terribly wrong here - most of such gadgets debuted very early (my guess would be 50s or even 30s), but were then forgotten. I still remember how surprised I was to find out that old Imperials came with a VINYL PLATE changer mounted in the trunk - and we would think we are so modern with those CDs :D

Template:TechReg
{copied} Thanks for pointing me to the template page. I took a pretty good look and I'm afraid I don't understand the syntax for crafting a new template. I was not able to find a how-to page. Have you any suggestions? Thanks! --Scheinwerfermann 03:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you take one of those and copy and adapt it by giving the fields you need? Or, if not, can you identify the one that comes closest to your needs, and say what would need to be added and removed, so someone else can do this for you? Either way, if you can then put that information on the talk pate where this conversation started, I'm sure someone will help you with any "rough edges". - Jmabel | Talk 03:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are asking for something pretty complicated. It is beyond my knowledge of the syntax. Way beyond. I suspect there are not more than about 20-30 people in total who would know how to do this. I suggest that you look through who have done some of the more complicated templates and then canvass for an individual to help you. The chance of one of the few people who can do this simply coming across your request is relatively small (although I suppose that's not the least likely page for them to be watchlisting). - Jmabel | Talk 05:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Fuel injection
I see that you have rearranged the paragraph to eliminate sentence fragments right after I added the information to the fuel injection article about the first attempt to market the Electrojector system. However, putting back the sentence of what happened in 1958 and the subsequent sale of the patents does not logically precede the information of events that occurred in 1957.

In other words, the paragraph should be structured as follows:
 * 1) Start with the name and developer of the system.
 * 2) What happened in 1957 with AMC's attempt at offering EFI as an option in the Rebel.
 * 3) State that the 1958 Desoto offered the first full production EFI system (as an option).
 * 4) End with Bendix selling the patents to Bosch.

The current paragraph with your change does not have proper time sequence because it goes: 1 - 3 - 4 - 2.

Just my $0.02 - Thanks - CZmarlin 08:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestion to provide more information on the early fuel injection systems. I am on the road and thus do not have access to the original source material. However, the following web page has some excerpts from the 1957 Rambler Rebel owner's manual -- including engine power ratings for carb and EFI versions. Moreover, the following page has more on the problems faced by AMC as well as Chrysler with the Bendix system . As far as the actual number of '57 Rebels produced with EFI, the AMC's 327 section notes that of the handfull made, all were reportedly converted to the 4V carb before being sold. It seems the same fate was shared and most of the EFI MoPars were recalled. I hope this helps in the upgrade of the article for now. CZmarlin 16:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not know how the Allpar.com website works. Their description of AMC's attempt of fuel injection in the 1957 Rebel seems to be similar to that found in standard sourcebooks. In any case, I think it should be mentioned that not only the 1980s Chrysler 318 with EFI had problems! The "baby" Cadillac Seville (introduced late in 1975) had an Oldsmobile 350 fitted with EFI run by a crude analog computer. This was a system made by .... Bendix, Bosch, and General Motors! Although it was a smooth engine producing 180 horsepower, most of these were also converted back to ordinary carburetion before the factory warranty ran out! I am not sure if GM had an "official" service package with the parts necessary to retrofit with a carburetor. There were plenty of these engines around for any backyard mechanic to quickly perform the switch and thus avoid the high cost of EFI replacement parts! Therefore, the early attempts at computer control of engines were "baby" steps. Some, like in the Rambler Rebel, made it into the owner's manual. Yet, even the ones that got to the hands of individual customers were most often yanked out because they were so trouble prone and expensive to maintain! CZmarlin 20:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi! You might be interested in this original AMC factory brochure describing the 1957 Rambler Rebel Bendix Fuel Injection that is available on eBay right now! Here is the link:  - The system was not only included in the owners manual and specifications, but AMC had special sales information flyers to help sell this advanced model. I hope you will be able to fix the "reference" or "footnote" needed notes in the EFI article concerning AMC's attemps to introduce EFI in 1957. I also hope you bid on this historic item and thus will be able to enjoy this unique sales brochure in your collection!  (BTW: I have nothing with this seller, but I have purchased several items from them before.)  CZmarlin 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

NHTSA/Federal Register linkspam
I would normally completely agree with your edit summary, but for the fact that The Federal Register is a blog, and a horribly ugly ad-filled one at that. This is the real Federal Register.--chris.lawson 03:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, ye gods, lookit there. You're right. Good catch. --Scheinwerfermann 15:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Headlamp/Headlight
I dare say you'd have noticed it anyway, but I just thought I'd alert you to the recent, bold (sic) page move which has occurred. I've posted a note on the user's talk page to alert them to the issue, but a simple revert or page move is now impossible because of the subsequent edits to the headlamp page.

I don't know if the easiest thing might be to move the headlamp page to "headlamp (caving)" or similar, and then redirect headlamp back to headlight until an administrator can sort the page histories, then the content can be moved back to headlamp again? Regards, --DeLarge 16:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. Yeah, what a mess, eh? Looks like the reversion has been handled, and Pjbflynn has been reminded that he needs to read the talk page before summarily deciding to move an article at whim. I think the setup as it exists now is fine. Those looking for the caving variety of headlamp have their link right smack at the top of Headlamp. --Scheinwerfermann 19:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha-ha, read your response, then wondered where it disappeared to when I clicked to reply. Good timing, though -- I was about to start reverting his many related edits that very minute. Nice of User:Duk to do the donkey work without anyone having to follow the usual process, though. --DeLarge 19:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I found and reverted all the related edits Pjbflynn changed from "headlamp" to "headlight". I have left a comment on his talk page regarding protocol for significant changes (e.g. article moves). --Scheinwerfermann 20:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Acclaim, LeBaron, & Spirt
This is the second time now that you have deleted what I had wrote about the main market placement of these cars. Just as their respectable successors and brand's market placement, the Acclaim was the low-mid level version, the Spirit was the mid-level & sportier(R/T model) version, and the leBaron was the higher-end/luxury version. These cars (like most other rebadged Chryslers, Dodges, and Plymouths) overlapped in market placement, but they still had their target position, and I beleive that is important. That's why I wrote all of that. Remember whenevr you write something, you should always pretend the reader is an airhead, that they have no knowledge of what you're saying. Now I don't know if you have some kind of grudge against me or somthing, but can you please stop deleting what I wrote. I'm going to re-write what I did before; I'll re-word it if that helps. I'm honestly confused right now about what you have against me or what I write. Bavaria 01:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have nothing at all against you, and I am aware of your many valuable contributions to Wikipedia. I do try to seek out and zap unencyclopædic contributions, though, and that's what's going on here. We're writing an encyclopædia here, not a press release or a sales brochure or a coffee table book. Fact is, there were many stripped LeBaron sedans with the base 2.5 TBI engine, auto trans, and just about nothing else (most but not all of them got power locks and windows and the "deluxe" instrument cluster with tachometer). I owned such a vehicle for years; it had originally belonged to a rental fleet. And, most Spirits sold were the base version not sportier in even the slightest detail than an Acclaim. And, there were Acclaims delivered from the factory with a great deal of the "sporty" equipment available for these models. It may be at odds with how the cars were advertised or marketeered or how Chrysler Corporation wanted the public to perceive them, but our mission here is to write what actually is and was. Saying the Spirit was sportier, the Acclaim was value-priced, and the LeBaron was luxurious just simply does not square with the facts, so it does not belong in the article.


 * Now, if you were to write that this was how the cars were marketed or advertised, and include the fact that how the cars were actually built and bought didn't square with the advertised differentiation amongst the three, that could easily be written so as to stand up to factual scrutiny. There is a stylistic issue as well. Writing "The overall differences between the three, were very minimal though." is not only ungrammatical, but also vague and unencyclopædic. This isn't a book report for a school class, it's an historic article, so it should be written in an appropriate style. Please write something factually correct and in an appropriate style, and I'll have no reason to edit or delete it. Hope this helps you to understand what's been going on. --Scheinwerfermann 05:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A Matter Arisen
The following exchange, now italicised. is presently on the Carbureter - Discussion page under "Why do we need an accelerator pump?"


 * ''At the risk of sounding snippier than I actually intend, Cuddlyable3, let us remember you were the one creating schematics of carburettors with the venturi labelled "jet" and the air filter labelled "fan-assisted air intake". This, together with your thoroughly confused interpretations in your first question in this thread, and your partially confused claim directly above regarding evaporation in the manifold not influencing fuel/air ratio, make it seem quite doubtful you've enough knowledge to be critiquing the veracity of carburettor operational theory. IOW, just because you don't or can't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong. That said, the search for a single reason for the need of an accelerator pump is futile; there are several reasons why such a pump is called for, and they've been covered in this discussion thread and in the main article. Your guess above is correct: When the throttle is opened, manifold absolute pressure rises. As you (should) know, increased pressure tends to cause vapourised liquids to condense, and atomised droplets to agglomerate. It is also correct that the liquid fuel, having greater mass than the gaseous air, has greater inertia and therefore fuel flow does not increase as quickly as airflow when the latter is abruptly increased. Your "hole in the thin wall of a large fuel reservoir" idea is without merit, for it would not significantly alter the inertial difference between the liquid fuel and the gaseous air, and it would preclude the use of most of the fuel distribution aids that contribute significantly to the carburettor's ability to provide good starting, running, and driveability characteristics. Accelerator pumps are quite simple, dependable, and adjustable; it would be thoroughly disadvantageous to replace them with your idea. As to the accelerator pumps delivering a straight jet of liquid fuel with no design to atomise it: Yes, correct, that's how they work. And work they do! I'm not sure what your point is here. --Scheinwerfermann 14:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Scheinwerfermann, your first sentence is a false accusation and I am unwilling to respond further to your disparaging ad hominem tone.Cuddlyable3 11:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)''

Some options available now are:

1. You after proper consideration withdraw your first sentence. That can be done by editing, and you will then have my permission to delete also my response above. (Alternatively I will delete it from Carbureter immediately I am made aware that the cause for it is removed.) I recommend we take this option. Please note that I do not demand that you revise any of your opinions expressed about myself, and I will in this one instance swallow disparagements without protest.

2. You propose any other option that is consistent with Wikipedia principles. I shall listen carefully.

3. I find - eventually - a resolution of this matter between us impossible, and - eventually - your false accusations to be intolerable, and we then have a dispute for - an eventual - Request for arbitration.

Sincerely, Cuddlyable3 17:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To clarify this for everyone I believe that it was actually me who originally created the diagram based on another similar piece on another site which had some errors in it. They carried over to my version here (as I know nothing about carbs, I'm just an illustrator). I then corrected those versions at scheinwerfermann's request. I then later corrected them at your request to cuddlyable3. This isn't really a dispute as wikipedia goes and I don't very much that a single mistaken comment by scheinwerfermann would go before the arbcom cuddleable3. I also doubt very much that it would go before arbcom when your link to the requests for arbcom above is broken. Best way to deal with these kinds of things is to just forget about them and not take it personally, I'm sure scheinwerfermann didn't intend to mix us up and also that he didn't mean anything personal. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 23:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Cuddlyable3, I have removed the objectionable first sentence. WikipedianProlific, you're right, and I apologise to you for my misidentification. --Scheinwerfermann 02:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

LEDS
Scheinwerfermann, you removed the following addition to the LEDs


 * ''Some vehicles detect missing or broken bulbs by measuring resistance or current, to alert the driver of the problem. The generally lower power requirements of LEDs may trigger this mechanism even if the LEDs are working as intended. In this cases it may be necessary to add additional load resistance to avoid this problem.

While I am no expert, LED conversions (not only for any running lamps, indicators but also for interior lights etc) are very common, and as can be seen from sites such as [] are available and in some cases also claimed to be legal. Instead of removing the section, maybe add a paragraph detailing the legality/illegality of such conversions? the legal situation may also be much different depending on country. That conversion of headlamps (whose optics often depend on the specific type of bulb used) is illegal in more places than eg conversion of indicators/repeaters etc can also be mentioned. Sejtam 06:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The retrofitment of LED clusters in place of filament lamps in exterior lighting and light-signalling devices is prohibited by all three of the world's prevailing automotive lighting regulatory systems (Internationalised ECE Regulations 37 & 48, North American FMVSS/CMVSS 108, and Japanese JIS/JASIC D-5500), as well as in jurisdictional regulations incorporating same. The load regulators mentioned in the deleted section have one purpose only: To correct the flash rate of a turn signal system that has had its bulbs removed and illegally replaced by LED clusters such as those to which you link. Remember, there are many illegal automotive devices and components available on worldwide markets; the ability to buy a device does not imply its legality. Load equalisers are not used when retrofitting commercial vehicles formerly equipped with bulb-type lamps, for such retrofitments involve the fitment of entirely new type-approved/certified lamp assemblies with appropriate circuitry built in, not the installation of LED clusters in place of original bulbs in an existing lamp assembly.


 * I agree with you that the article could do with a section on modifications and updates, as there is a great deal of commercial presence of (mostly illegal and unsafe) "upgrades". This section should be written with care, to avoid it becoming excessively preachy on one hand or commercial on the other. --Scheinwerfermann 15:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Caprice images
Just wanted to be sure you noticed that the discussion was continuing on the WikiProject Autos talk page. IFCAR 01:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your post at Karrmann's talk page
Hi! I couldn't help to notice your post at my friend Karrmann's talk page. Let me know if the spam problem continues; I'll be happy to warn this particular user and see that our policies are followed. Best regards,  P h a e d r i e l  - 04:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandal
Hmm, I didn't remember the guy until I saw the dicussion on the Ford Explorer talk page. He kept adding a section called "Enthuisast Resource". and all it did was boost this site called "Serious Explorations". Although he was blatantly trying to boost his site, he tried to defend his actions and caused a small amount of ruckous on the talk pages of both Ford Explorer and the project. I put the Explorer page on my watchlist and just kept reverting him, and he finally stopped. What is the name of this site that heis trying to boost now. Is it a new site, or still "Serious Explorations"? Also, is he just adding the link, or is he doing like he did on the Explorer page and putting in a whole section advertising it as well? These are a few things that I just want answered. I will watch the pages you mentioned and hopefully we can stop this guy before he becomes another problem. And if it gets too out of hand, we might have to report him to AIV. Karrmann 10:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I left him a notice on his talk page. Hopefully that will be enough. I also explained why it is inapproiate. Let me know if he keeps deleting external links on articles. Karrmann 15:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly suggest taking this to ANI. This has moved from spamming to intentional disruption. I hope that the end result will be that user's site being blacklisted.
 * Also, if the need arises, the proposed WikiProject Automobiles standards explicitly state that no forum-only links are allowed, period. That provision is universally agreed upon at this point, I believe. --Sable232 17:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. ANI is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Sable232 00:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Dodge Dart
Thanks for your work with car articles. By the way, I wanted to mention the reason I wrote "One Seventy" rather than "170" was it is spelled out that way on the side of the 1963 car I photographed. (If "170" is the prefered designation, that is fine by me.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation 12:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, note I licenced Image:DodgeDartOneSeventy1963SideHouse.jpg under GFDL and cc-by-2, atttribution required, which is not quite the same thing as "public domain" as you stated and licenced your crop under. I have fixed the attribution of your derivitive image.  Thank you for paying attention to licences in the future. -- Infrogmation 13:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion of my edits
Look, mabey what I recently wrote on Plymouth could have been phrased better, but thats why Wikipedia is open for all to edit. Over time people (including myself) will change a few words here and there, and it will become better. What I wrote was not redundant, if you read the article, "Financial/marketing struggles" ends with 1979, and "Final years" starts with the late 1990's. Nothing is written about the 1980's and early 1990's, as well of the importance of cars like the Reliant and Voyager to Plymouth. It wasn't like I wrote 3 paragraphs about the interior of the Turismo. So with that said, you had no right to just delete my contribution to the article, and I hope you can realize my point. I plan on reverting your edit, replacing what I wrote, and I will rephrase it, so it is better. Bavaria II 17:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you're right. I shouldn't have deleted your edit, I should've edited it. I overreacted to the superlatives ("wildly popular"/"wildly successful", etc.). You put in some good material today, and I've gone in and cleaned it up for grammar, syntax, and chronology. Any chance you can provide a citation for the tidbit about the never-released Plymouth Accolade? --Scheinwerfermann 20:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

RFA concern
No thank you, I won't go back and change what I've already written. If my "vote", as you call it, is under the Support header, then it is a support. Considering the amount of time that has passed since I participated in that RFA, I believe I would have found my error and corrected it, or someone else would have notified me of my error, as they have done so in the past. However, there is no ground rule that blatantly states that I must make my "vote" extra obvious by sticking a bold Support rather than just signing my name. It's become common practice, however, I don't do it for every RFA that I participate in. – sebi 05:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Erm...OK! You're right there's no rule, and you're also right it's common practice. Guess you dislike common practice or something. *shrug* --Scheinwerfermann 17:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't dislike common practice, but in RFA I prefer not to go with the in-crowd. However, if I was to have just signed like I did on an XFD (because XFDs have no separate sections) without making it clear if I was supporting deletion or not, then your message to me was perfectly valid. – sebi 21:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I also find it very odd that you leave a message on my talk page, and then expect replies here, because apparently it keeps the conversation together, when you are missing the initial message.  Sebi  ( talk ) 06:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Valiant In Culture
Thank you for being so swift in restoring the "Valiant in Culture" section of the Plymouth Valiant page. I believe the fella that deleted it did so 'cause it had nothing to do with foreign shit boxes.

Anyway, keep up the good work.

Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.5.43 (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

On page 278 of "The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage" in the section "PUNCTUATION WITH QUOTATION MARKS," it states: "Periods and commas, in American usage, always go inside the closing quotation marks, regardless of grammatical logic." Now if Wikipedia states that the opposite is true and disregards this common usage, it leads me to understand why teachers and professors refuse to let students reference Wikipedia; it promotes illiteracy.

Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.5.43 (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Steve, US English is just that: US English. It is not the world's gold standard of rectitude in grammar, syntax, or style. You've been directed to the relevant provisions in WP:PUNC twice, now. Those provisions don't make Wikipedia wrong, nor its adherents illiterate. Suggest you find a better use for your NYT Manual of Style and Usage, such as learning why "Christian name" is an outmoded, discouraged usage. Furthermore, you need to start signing your comments on talk pages. Continued failure to do so will not endear you to the community here. --Scheinwerfermann 03:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The NYT Manual of Style and Usage does not mention the usage of the term "Christian name", but I did find it in several English-language dictionaries sans archaic denotation, so I'll use it however I want. As far as not signing my comments, I believe I've all ready identified myself as "Steve." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.46.17 (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Steve, I fear you're overlooking the relevant section of the NYT Manual of Style. Nevertheless, the more important issue is signing your comments here on Wikipedia. Ending a comment with "Steve" is not signing your comments. Please take a moment and read this link which will explain what you're doing wrong and how to do it right. Thanks. --Scheinwerfermann 22:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science
If you are around and willing, someone could use your help at Reference_desk/Science. --Duk 00:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Done! Thanks for the pointer. --Scheinwerfermann 03:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Chrysler Hemi engine
I iconified the protection notice, look for a tiny padlock in the upper right corner. east. 718 at 19:05, 11/4/2007

Non-free/non-fair image
I included a fair use rationale for the 1961 Valiant in "Pohjanmaa." Good film, though.--MachoCallahan (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Dodge Spirit
The templates in question should never be substituted. The bot was unapproved, and it was likely just a vandal. The bot accounts have all been blocked from editing. Thus, I wasn't edit warring; please undo your reversion. -- RG2 20:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I went to bed after blocking and reverting last night, but since there's been a bit more discussion for further reading, here's the incident report, here's more discussion over the alleged bot operator (though it was exceedingly likely that it was just an impersonator), and here's the policy that explains why your reversion was inappropriate. -- RG2 20:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Gotchya! Sorry for misreading the situation. I've reinstated your cleanup of the pseudobot's changes. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Chrysler Hemi Engine
All I am trying to say is the 5.7L Hemi has alot in COMMON with the old 345 inch Hemi from the 1950's. They are both 5.7L/345 cid engines which develop one horsepower per cubic inch. I will be the first to say the commonality stops there because I am well aware of that fact. I own a 2004 Ram with the 5.7 Hemi and am a big Dodge fan so I do know a little about the engine. I see that I just mis-wrote what I was trying to say, and now reworded it with the fact that producing one horsepower per cubic inch is a familiar formula which most Chrysler Hemi's share. I think that is an important fact most people should know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwess (talk • contribs) 20:01, 2007 November 22


 * Your latest revision is considerably less problematic than what you posted before. However, I fear you're going to continue to run into trouble (i.e., your contributions will frequently and quickly be deleted) because you don't seem to be aware of the standards of information quality here on Wikipedia. Please take a few minutes to read this, which explains the basic standards to which everybody's contributions are held. Your ownership of a 2004 Dodge and your being a "big Dodge fan" is fine, but in no way does either of those things support or qualify your contributions to Wikipedia. In addition, it's important (and good manners) to sign your posts on talk pages. This is as easy as just hitting the tilde key ~ four times in a row at the end of your post. Doing so automatically "stamps" your comment with your user name, time, and date of posting. If you don't do so, you force others to go in and sign your post for you, which gets tiresome. If you'll please take just a short time to familiarise yourself with how things are done around here, you'll get a lot more mileage out of your contributions. Thanks! --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Cake
Please see cake talk page. --Zeamays (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)