User talk:Scheinwerfermann/Archive 10

Nice work on the H1 article
Thanks for the help on the H1 article. You did a GREAT job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PedroDaGr8 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:ForwardLookPatch.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:ForwardLookPatch.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. This image isn't free. It's a logo owned by Chrysler. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up; that's a bit of an oldie. I've added a full fair-use rationale. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 06:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hazard warning indicators in the UK
Greetings, Johnkenyon. Have you some reliable support for your edit-summary assertion that hazard flashers weren't mandatory in the U.K. until 1987? —Scheinwerfermann T·C21:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

My assertion of 1987 is not 100% correct - the rules changed in 1986, along with other changes. (side direction indicator repeaters)

However since legislation only dictates what's allowed going forward, the only evidence that hazard warning indicators were not required before then requires a different angle of attack....

In the UK, for vehicles over 3 years old there is an annual roadworthiness test - the MOT. The accepted internet reference for this test can be found at motuk.co.uk

In this case http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_150.htm states that for vehicles first used before April 1st 1986 "A hazard warning device is not required by Regulation, but, if one is fitted, it must be tested."

As an aside (and I left this off the post on my talk page), the new rules in 1986 (apart from Dim-dip) were probably down to an EU Directive (and hence therefore EU wide)

Johnkenyon (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I mistakenly put the pic I took of the Slant-6 engine in the wrong section at first and though someone deleted it. I didn't look at the whole article and didn't see that it had an aftermarket performance section to it. Thanks for correcting that and thanks for letting me know as using Wikipedia is somewhat new to me. -Gerald :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slant6guy (talk • contribs) 20:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem — it's a terrific picture and a great addition to the article. How's the truck run? Please remember when commenting on talk pages (of a user or an article) to sign your comments correctly. It's really easy, you just type four tildes ~ and Wikipedia's software does the rest for you automagically. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 20:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The truck has yet to be run as the old induction & exhaust system is needed to help properly break-in and time the motor. The pic I took was a rough mock-up of how it'll look in the fall when it's fully operational with EFI (not shown) and more aggressive camshaft. I have a pic of the truck in the Dodge D series section in the 1981-1993 section and also the Dodge RAM (first generation) section B4 it got painted to black. Take care & thank for your interest + help. Slant6guy:) (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop changing my work
Why do you insist on making my life miserable. Stop changing my work around and write something on your own.Vegavairbob (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no interest in making your life miserable, nor anybody else's. Please remember that once you make a contribution, it ceases to be yours. It becomes a part of the encyclopædia and is subject to editing and improvement by any other editor. Editors don't individually own even those articles we spend a great deal of time and effort on. Again, please try to move toward a more coöperative, less combative approach to participating here. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 01:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood, just remember not all of your edits are corrective. Some are just substitution of words that effect the style of my work. Funny, there wasn't much interest in it until I made an article out of it. If you choose to do corrective editing instead of actual content, maybe you should stick to the corrective edits like spelling and grammer instead of trying to change the tone or style of an article to suite your tastes, after all you didn't write it, so use care when changing it. I'm not being combative. I'm just being straight and honest with you. By the way, discontinued vehicles are to be in present tense as per discussion on tense. ie Vega has a large trunk as apposed to Vega had a large trunk. ThanksVegavairbob (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in a pissing contest with you, here or elsewhere. I appreciate your sharing your thoughts with me, though I also have no particular interest in submitting to your notions of how I shall and shan't edit. Articles here are neither mine nor yours. They belong to the community, and every editor has an equal right and opportunity to improve any article. Please remember that adding your particular style to an article is not one of the goals in this project. That's not what we do here. That's for single-author venues like blogs and magazines. Here on Wikipedia, edits that progressively clarify and improve articles are the name of the game, no matter what they may do to a previous editor's stylistic idiosyncrasies. There are appropriate uses for both the present and the past tense when writing about vehicles and other items no longer in production. The vehicles still exist, of course, so when speaking of them in general terms we use the present tense. However, when discussing manufacturing operations, advertising campaigns, features of particular marketing emphasis, equipment changes, facelifts and suchlike, we use the past tense, for those happenings happened in the past. Thanks for editing thoughtfully. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 03:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If it helps the article earn FL why would I change your corrective edits? but if you aren't contributing to this article's content you should keep your edits corrective, no offense but you don't own the articles either. It requires more work to write the article and provide the images than tweak it in fifteen minutes switching words to ones that you prefer, so have a little consideration for the content provider(s) in an article which is easily referenced. Your knowledge, corrective edits, and conversions are valuable and appreciated. Vegavairbob (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks as if you're having some difficulty understanding how editors work coöperatively to improve articles. Editors may, at their own option, confine themselves to particular kinds of edits. Some editors, for example, go around fixing punctuation errors or reformatting improperly-configured references. But there is no extrinsic division between "content providers" and "corrective editors", and no editor has the right or authority to dictate how other editors may and may not contribute to an article. When an editor fixes ungrammatical or awkward wording, or helps move an article towards encyclopædic tone is not a matter of switching to words that editor happens to prefer. It's a matter of article improvement. I would ask—again—that you take a very hard look at your behaviour with respect to WP:OWN, for your persistent, overt ownership of Chevrolet Vega is reaching a level at which I will soon feel I have no choice but to request scrutiny of your actions. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 16:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Complete_knock_down
Hi, you took down my whole bicycle section, due to what you call "inappropriate external links". I was trying to have the references 'you' seem to like. If you don't like the links (not my companies!) and if it makes you happy / protocol, then sure, take them down. However, I'm not sure why you removed the whole thing? Cheers, Merlin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin Matthews (talk • contribs) 14:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Merlin Matthews. Your "whole section" was one sentence about bicycles with two commercial links that ran afoul of WP:ELNO. Whether you're affiliated with the companies or not doesn't matter; commercial links aren't okeh, and that's why the "whole thing" was removed. It is debatable whether bicycles can really be considered CKD; they're meant to be taken apart for shipping—whether by an individual owner moving far away, or by a company manufacturing over here and selling over there. Not so with cars, which are intended to remain put together once they're put together. That would be a discussion for Talk:Complete knock down. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 17:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

editing
Hello- I reviewed your courteous ediing post on vega talk- I'm going to try it today. subpage onto user page. How long have you been with Wiki? are you an administator? seems like there isn't too much you don't know. Happy forthVegavairbob (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to read you will be trying some editing methods different than what you've been doing up to now. I've been a Wikipedia contributor since early January 2005. I'm not an administrator. There's plenty I don't know…including how it can possibly be that despite a giant chorus of editors and admins telling you you are violating WP:OWN, you continue to insist there's no ownership issue, and that you're right and everyone else is wrong. You seem to feel that the AN/I case was opened to harrass you. In fact, it was opened to prevent much worse consequences (such as your being banned from editing Chevrolet Vega, or from editing at all) down the line. I tried — as did many others — to help you understand the problem. You flatly refuse to do so, and for that reason I have great difficulty taking this present friendly chat of yours at face value. You've got an awful track record to rectify, and as of just a few hours ago you were still building that bad track record. Perhaps that's just face-saving bluster, and your behaviour really is going to change quickly and substantially. I hope so, because you obviously have a great deal to bring to the project. But your long record of crummy behaviour makes that hope extremely thin. Please prove me wrong. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 14:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving stuff
Could you stop moving my comments, to wrong places, thank you --Typ932 T&middot;C 16:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Add your comments to the end of ongoing discussions in accord with WP:TALK instead of interspersing them, and they won't need moving. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 17:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Thread your post: Use indentation as shown in WP:TP (or, more specifically, Wikipedia:Indentation) to clearly indicate who you are replying to, as with usual threaded discussions. Normally colons are used, not bullet points (although the latter are commonly used at AfD, CfD, etc.)." simple, so dont mess others posts --Typ932 T&middot;C 17:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Moving improperly-placed comments to their correct sequence so the conversation is kept orderly and comprehensible is not considered refactoring. Please coöperate.—Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 17:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop moving my comments which are in right place, whats the problem with you? --Typ932 T&middot;C 17:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, looks like you're right — I was misremembering WP:TALK's statement on the matter. Sorry 'bout that! —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 18:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay --Typ932 T&middot;C 19:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry
Wdl1961, meatpuppetry is not permitted on Wikipedia. You've made it clear you don't like me, and that's your prerogative, but you are not helping anyone or anything by acting in Vegavairbob's stead to revert legitimate edits to Chevrolet Vega. If you continue to do so, I will report you for meatpuppetry. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 22:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Long Island IP unsigned comment
keep it neat! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.61.206 (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Greetings, 71.167.61.206. I hope the weather is lovely in Long Island today. Please remember always to start a new section when you add a new comment to a talk page that is not in response to an existing conversation. I've gone ahead and put your comment into its own section so it doesn't disrupt other conversations already in progress. It's also polite to sign your comments on talk pages. Also, just for your information, sockpuppetry is not allowed on Wikipedia, and it is quickly and easily detected and dealt with. Have a fabulous day! —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 20:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, it's going to end...
...badly for VVB. Writegeist (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry Schweinwerfermann, I was a little too cryptic. I thought you might not have seen VVB's post (it was gone the next time I looked), and I just meant that its tone and content again point to the inevitability of sanctions sooner or later. IP shenanigans (and IP location) also noted. Thanks. Writegeist (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, comprendo. Yeah, it's hit-or-miss whether anything VVB touches will remain visible for more than the seven nanoseconds that typically elapse between his edits, so it becomes necessary to pull on a set of hip waders and slog through his contribs to count up how many different ways he said "Gentalmen you're all poopooheads!" before shedding a few crocodile tears and deleting the comment altogether. It will be interesting to see what our new friend does now that he knows he is being watched by those who have an idea who he very likely might just happen to be. Correlation, so the old axiom goes, doesn't demonstrate causation. However, correlation has been known every now and then to waggle its eyebrows in a conspicuous manner, elbow you in the ribs, and go "Psst! Psst! Look over there!". Keep the buttered side up, eh! —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 19:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Forward Look D100.jpg
Hi, you might want to upload this file to the commons. I have tagged it with and. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 04:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought I was probably overly cautious with my original licence term selection. Your revision seems a much more appropriate fit. Now to go and refresh my recollection of how to move the file to Commons! —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 04:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion
There is an interesting merge discussion going on at Talk:Cupcake. You might want to poke your head in on it. --Jeremy (blah blah) 08:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merges for Food and Drink
Based on your recent participation in several Food and Drink related merge discussion, I would like to point out several open discussions that might interest you:
 * Proposed merge of Jumbals to Jumble (cookie). Discuss here.
 * Proposed merge of Kerala porotta and Malabari paratha. Discuss here.
 * Proposed merge of Maple spice cake to Spice cake. Discuss here.
 * Proposed merge of Patty melt to Cheeseburger. Discuss here.
 * Proposed merge of Butterfly cake to Cupcake. Discuss here.
 * Proposed merge of Majboos and Kabsa. Discuss here.

--Jeremy (blah blah) 05:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: RFC
Hi, thanks for the heads up on my talk page. I've co-certified on the RFC. Certainly it seems this editor has no intention of working co-operatively or productively at Wikipedia. &mdash; \`C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE `/ (talk &bull; contribs) 16:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Automotive lighting: sequential turn signals.
Hi, I added the note about the 2010 Ford Mustang sequential turn signals. I would like to bring up a couple issues. I just don't have the authoritative knowledge to settle the issues I know about.

"Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, which regulates automotive lighting, was amended to require that all turn signal lamps operate in synchronized phase, thus prohibiting sequential turn signals."

One thing I wanted to mention is that this reference--though all that is available online--is somewhat useless: anything really specific is in an SAE standard you have to buy. For instance, the exact turn signal rules.

I think it's possible that "synchronized phase" is being over-interpreted by the author(s) of the sequential turn signal section. (The term "simultaneous flashing" is also used.) My evidence is the future and after-market availability of these.

A little history of US turn signals may be useful. To keep things brief and marginally readable without special table formatting, I'm going to use the notation Ff rR for front turn, front repeater, rear repeater, rear turn; I'll add numbers for the sequential segments and - for lights out. For sequentials, a typical sequence would be: Clear, I hope? For non-sequentials, which only have two part sequences, I'll just do something like Ff rR/-- --.
 * 1) Ff rR1
 * 2) Ff rR2
 * 3) Ff rR3

Note: My father had one of the equipped Thunderbirds--mechanical activation, I think--which had the interesting property that putting hazard and turn signals on (either direction) would get the sequential turn signals firing in both directions in synchronization with the hazard lights.

Older US cars just do F R/- -. Simple. I believe some, I expect to lower maximum power usage, do F -/- R.

When side reflectors, markers, and repeaters were added (bit by bit, I think), they were stuck on the side of the fenders and given separate lights. (This was typical poor US engineering of the late 1960s/70s/80s, perhaps to make things so bad--especially in the case of shoulder harnesses and pollution controls--that the US public would demand Congress revert the rules. Instead the public bought foreign cars.) These side markers looked shoddy but functionally were similar to the Corvette's in the article pictures. The point is that these lights sometimes sequenced F- r-/-f -R (which I just saw recently) or I think, Ff --/-- rR. This doesn't require existing wiring to carry more power, but it produces a distracting oscillating blink, and in fog can eliminate change of brightness as the number of lights lit stays constant, especially from corners where you may just see F-/-f or -R/r-.

Point: I think this is what, "amended to require that all turn signal lamps operate in synchronized phase" prohibits. I believe, but cannot reference that turn signals can be within regulations by being both sequential and synchronized, thus: A violating system would be: or perhaps, but not necessarily:
 * 1) Ff rR1
 * 2) Ff rR2
 * 3) Ff rR3
 * 1) -- rR1
 * 2) -- rR2
 * 3) -- rR3
 * 4) Ff ---
 * 1) Ff rR1
 * 2) Ff rR2
 * 3) -- rR3

The only real evidence I can offer, not having access to the critical SAE spec, is that after market sequential systems are available with no prohibitions listed. Usually California would prohibit such modifications.

As a last note, the seemingly predominant system in the US for distinctive flashing indicating a turn signal malfunction is fast blinking. (I presume this is just using the change in resistance to alter the circuit timing.) This information might be more prominent, but I don't have the authoritative sourcing needed.

Thank you for your time, and I apologize for the long post. --Laguna CA (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Greetings, LCA. Your long comments are no problem; in fact, I welcome them, though Talk:Automotive lighting may be a better venue for this discussion. No matter, I can move it there if that seems appropriate by and by.


 * FMVSS 108 incorporates provisions from various SAE documents, directly and/or by reference, but it's important to keep in mind that SAE standards and technical documents do not have legal force in or of themselves. There are many instances of FMVSS 108 incorporating only some of the provisions of an SAE document, or incorporating provisions from an older version of an SAE document even after such a document is replaced or cancelled by SAE. There are also many instances of FMVSS 108 incorporating modified provisions of SAE documents, and of incorporating provisions not sourced from any SAE document. My main point here is that access to an SAE document doesn't necessarily definitively answer questions about what FMVSS 108 allows, requires, or prohibits. Unfortunately, neither does access to FMVSS 108 itself. Not only is that standard poorly written and difficult to penetrate, but it also relies heavily on "interpretations", i.e., decisions by NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel as to what particular pieces of language in FMVSS 108 mean. These interpretations are neither consistent nor immutable, and some of them aren't even written down. That makes problems for those trying to follow the rule, and it makes problems for those of us trying to write about the rule here on Wikipedia where documentation is required for questionable assertions.


 * Aftermarket availability of lighting devices does not imply the devices are compliant with Federal standards. This is a very important point. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are limited in their applicability and scope. Vehicle owners, for example, are not Federally regulated, and neither are vehicles in use. Those people and those vehicles are regulated at the registrar level (i.e., by each individual state). NHTSA does have authority over aftermarket replacements for items of regulated vehicle safety equipment, which includes most but not all of the lighting devices, sources, and systems on motor vehicles. Devices like CHMSL blinkers, turn signal sequencers, and bunch-of-LED replacements for incandescent bulbs aren't directly regulated by NHTSA. However, that does not mean there's nothing the agency can do about them. A device which "renders inoperative" a mandatory item or system of safety equipment can garner enforcement action from NHTSA if it is being imported, introduced into interstate commerce, sold, or installed by a regulated party (i.e., manufacturer, distributor, professional mechanic…anyone but the vehicle owner him- or herself). A device is considered to "render inoperative" a regulated item or system of safety equipment if it makes it stop working, or causes it to work in a manner not compliant with the applicable Federal standards.


 * State laws do not trump Federal standards; states are free to regulate the use of safety devices—they can stipulate when headlamps and turn signals are to be used, whether it's legal to remove or disable an airbag, and so on. States can also regulate devices or systems not Federally regulated, so for example it's up to each state to stipulate if, when, and how fog lamps may and may not be used. But any state regulation on any Federally-regulated aspect of motor vehicle equipment performance must be identical to the applicable Federal standard, and any state regulation not identical to the Federal regulation are null and void. For example, the Federal standard says rear turn signals can emit red or yellow light. A state, therefore, may not enact a regulation requiring that rear turn signals emit only red light. More practically, they can enact whatever they want, but automakers are still allowed to sell cars with yellow rear signals, even in a state with a regulation saying they have to be red. This works in both directions; just as a state can't make turn signal colour requirements more stringent than those of the Federal standard, they also can't make them less stringent; a state can't permit, say, green turn signals as an option to yellow or red. Now, on the practical level, many states' vehicle equipment codes are poorly written and/or badly out of date, and many of them contain numerous provisions that do not accord with the Federal standard. NHTSA's budget is not unlimited, and they obviously must prioritise their enforcement activities. That's why California's code contains a provision, successfully lobbied for by a vendor of CHMSL blinkers, permitting the centre brake light to blink several times before it comes on steadily. This directly contravenes FMVSS 108, and it's unsafe, but it's unlikely the Feds are going to swoop in and withhold Federal highway funds until California withdraws that provision from their code. However, it's not inconceivable; there was a pitched fight between Oregon and Washington state legislatures and NHTSA in the 1970s when those states wrote provisions into their vehicle codes permitting ECE (European) headlamps, and the Feds did flex their muscle over that one. The distribution of authority and enforcement is rather complicated in matters like this. The takeaway point is that a particular state's vehicle code is not a reliable indicator of what is allowed, required, and prohibited by the standard that counts (the Federal one).


 * Okeh, with all that background out of the way, let's look at sequential turn signals. I have a few calls in to a few particular NHTSA engineers, and with any degree of luck I should soon have some reliable backing for improved coverage of sequential turn signals in Automotive lighting. The unofficial-so-far (but most likely) answer is that sequential signals are allowed if—and only if—each individual segment by itself meets the illuminated-area and photometric requirements for a turn signal, and the segments are sequentially illuminated in such a manner that the longest- (innermost) and shortest-lit (outermost) segments, and all segments in between, comply with the flash cycle duration and on-time/off-time requirements. Stay tuned; I'm trying to document this.


 * There are no vehicles that do F-/-R, that's definitely not allowed. I'm not sure how you reckon that separate sidemarker lights set into the fenders and quarter panels are "poor US engineering". As with all other lighting functions, the sidemarker light and reflector provisions in FMVSS 108 permit a range of performance. There are poor separate sidemarkers, and excellent ones. There are good sidemarkers integrated with park/turn or brake/tail lamps, and poor ones. Good lights are better than bad ones; there's no inherent advantage or disadvantage to separate or combined sidemarkers. Turn signal repeaters are permitted but not required in North America, and that has long been the case. Sidemarkers are permitted but not required to flash in phase or in opposite-phase with front and rear turn signals. They are not permitted to have their own rhythm wholly out of step with the front and rear signals. This is North America only; under ECE regulations it is explicitly stated that all lights functioning as turn signals must flash in phase, full stop. No opposite-phase, no sequential.

There are requirements in all three of the major worldwide regulatory systems for audiovisual indication (rapid blink or nonblink) of a failed turn signal lamp. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 21:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the detailed response! I thought a dialog was best before commenting on the article page, since you seem invested in it.


 * I do understand the scope of law vs. SAE standard vs. state law. I was mostly bemoaning the nailing-Jello-to-a-tree nature of trying to answer any of these questions when the federal law references a somewhat unavailable and ephemeral standard. My point in mentioning CA was that CA has traditionally been quite strict on disallowing variance from fed standards--CA law might offer a hint, but I agree it has no US authority. I agree that CA is unlikely to go out of step with the feds on such a point, though constitutionally it can. My value judgments on the quality of US manufacture during the transitional phase of the 70s are irrelevant. :)


 * I thank you for working to authoritatively clarify the sequential turn signals. I think I misinterpreted "repeater signal". I meant the side markers flashed in (rarely opposite) phase to the longitudinally aimed signals, not for example, the mirror-mounted repeaters. I think a remaining question is with the F- r-/-f -R signals: my (perhaps mistaken) understanding is that side marker lights, which I've used f and r for, are blinking to comply with side visibility standards. From memory, these lights are then considered part of the main light for rule compliance purposes. Should they not then fall under the synchronization rule?


 * Laguna CA (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I like your "nailing Jell-O to the wall" analogy. It's just about perfect! Maddening, isn't it? That said, some phone calls with NHTSA engineers actually bore fruit (4th paragraph), and I've amended the relevant text in Automotive lighting. It does raise some interesting questions about the '10 Mustang's signals, but that's beyond the remit of encyclopædia construction.


 * CA's vehicle code actually contains several significant departures from Federal code, including the aforementioned CHMSL blink allowance, an allowance for pre-1979 vehicles to have amber brake lamps instead of red(?!), and others. I'm not sure what Constitutional provision you have in mind. There were in fact some excellent sidemarker lights produced by U.S. makers in the first few years of that requirement. The sidemarkers are allowed but not required to flash, full stop. They have their own visibility angle requirements, but they are not considered with respect to turn signal visibility angle requirements. The decision of whether to flash the sidemarkers is based wholly on manufacturer whim. Opposite-phase flashing of the sidemarkers has been quite common for years; whether the sidemarkers flash in phase or in opposite phase depends on whether the parking and headlamps are turned on or off. There's a ref in Automotive lighting that points to circuit illustrations and descriptions of how and why it works this way. There was Federal intent to mandate side turn signals in 1969 ("repeaters", those devices that have historically been mounted on the front fender generally near the aft edge of the front wheel well but sometimes mounted near the traditional U.S. front sidemarker location and lately incorporated into sideview mirrors), but this obviously didn't make it into law; it probably was shouted down on grounds of no proven safety benefit. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 13:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Programming computers is often compared with nailing Jello to a tree. ;) The Baldwin letter is even more specific than the Sassoon/Maxxim letter, which seems to leave an opening if each segment alone was fully qualified in area. Not only does this cast doubt on the 2010 Mustang but also the normal stop/panic stop behavior of the BMW(?) CHMSL light--but perhaps this isn't imported to the US. One possibility is the code allows random lights like taxi signs or advertising as long as no light is above a specified wattage. Because of the dramatic efficiency of LEDs, it's possible they fall below this wattage, so Ford could simply designate the first segment as the official turn signal and dismiss the others as below the wattage limit. This letter seems to make this theory feasible: LED Message Panel Laguna CA (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Baldwin letter is a good ref. I don't know that it's better than the Sassoon ref (which makes specific mention of turn signals), but it looks like the two of them together make better support for the relevant assertions in Automotive lighting than either of them individually — I'll go add the Baldwin letter.

There is no such wattage exemption or threshold below which lamps are disregarded as you have in mind, nor is there any equivalent in terms of relevant measures (e.g. candela). Taxi signs and suchlike are not regulated items of safety equipment, so the only (Federal) stricture on their installation is that they must not interfere with the function of mandatory items of safety equipment. Mercedes requested (twice) and got (the second time) from NHTSA a specific, narrow exemption for their flashing-CHMSL Emergency Braking Display from the requirement that brake lights be steady-burning; BMW's EBD makes the left and right brake lights grow "larger", and I don't know if that system is being imported to North America. There is doubt on the '10 Mustang's compliance, but whether anything will be done about it is an open question. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 14:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to July 24 message
You certainly needn't abandon your views, though you will often have to figure out how to incorporate elements of your views with those of others to arrive at a consensus all interested parties can live with. One thing: it's best to keep discussions in one place. If a discussion is started on your talk page (such as this one), reply on your talk page, not on the user talk page of whomever you're replying to, and definitely not on that party's user page as you inadvertently did on my user page—as you can see, I've moved your comment ↑here↑. In most cases, a user participating in a discussion will keep track of changes to that page where the discussion is located. Keeping any given discussion on one page makes it much easier for everyone to follow and participate, and makes your future reference much easier. —Scheinwerfermann T·C02:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Forgive me for the copy and past to your talk page (you can delete after you read), but I just noticed your post on my talk page and it's been a few days and so thought you might not check back for a reply. First of all, sorry for my bungling edit to your user page, it will not happen again, it was a mistake. I completely agree with you regarding keeping the discussions on one page to make the conversation flow easy to follow. However, everyone does not seem to agree, which is why I did what I did to you. Another user had just chastized me for trying to keep the back and forths on one page and I had just apologized for that.(That's the appology that Dottiewest1fan was accepting on my talk page) Anyway, you see the confusion. I want to thank you again for taking the time to assist me in learning the ways of the Wikipedia community. I truly appreciate it.(Cindy10000 (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

Small Timestamp?
How to you make your timestamp (time & date) in your signature small, like you have it setup? 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』¤ 18:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the code for that portion of my signature:
 * —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 20:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"Grammatical pissing match"
Re this, I don't want to either. The way I see it, proper grammar, usage, syntax, punctuation, and all the other minutiae of good writing aren't optional niceties. Rather, they facilitate clarity of expression, make ambiguity impossible, and reduce the chances of confusion. The reason I objected to the point about delisting was because it didn't make sense the way you'd written it. Considering that your wording was careful (and pretty damn good, actually) elsewhere in the lede, I considered that an anomaly, but still well worth fixing.

Btw, I was going to stop by here soon anyway to offer kudos for facilitating the revision process. We pretty much made it through without drama or hard feelings, and the entire exercise helped renew my faith in the possibility of collaboration and consensus. If you'd like a barnstar or a cookie or whatever, I'd be happy to hunt one up. If not, please just accept my thanks. Rivertorch (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You've got me bang to rights on the pissing-match comment; it was uncalled-for and I shouldn't've posted it; my having done so is most likely down to the onset of process fatigue — I'm still holding my breath a little given BB's recent comment about having many quibbles with the new lead. Of course I agree with you that structure is equally important to content and tone. Thanks for your kind words about my wording and project coördination. The sequential-revision discussion framework with each new rev in its own quotation box is something I've been trying lately. I've watched many discussions go irretrievably off the rails with bickering, confusion, and distraction rooted in the inability to keep track of progress toward the goal. Barnstars are nice. Cookies are lovely. Barnstar-shaped cookies are proof that we're meant to be happy. Onward and upward, eh! —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 02:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Well, I actually wasn't offended, just puzzled (and, to tell the truth, maybe a little amused). I'm sure I've waxed way more reckless than that in my time here. Striking it was above and beyond the call. I wouldn't worry about BB; he's a good contributor and probably will provide some useful insights. I couldn't find any barnstar-shaped cookies (or cookie-shaped barnstars, for that matter), so it had to be one or the other. Since cookies can attract vermin, I decided on the latter. Here it is:


 * Thanks! I will affix this barnstar to my cookie jar, thus accomplishing most of the overall goal. I'm not too worried about BB, just sort of interested to see what he brings up. I am, however, a little concerned about Phoenix of9, who just unilaterally made rather substantial changes to the lead with an edit summary bordering on MPOV. I've reverted and guided discussion back to the talk page…what do you think? —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 18:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked Po9 for clarification on the talk page and didn't get any. Sorry it's deteriorating. Real life keeps intruding—need to go offline now. Good luck. Rivertorch (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

On the Ford Superduty section, it seems Bull-Doser has got a little carried away with uploading to pictures to the article. It seems completely cluttered in my honest opinion. I've been working on cleaning up that article as best as I can with out upsetting anyone. I'm just wanting your opinion on the direction the article should go as far as pictures wise. Lots of other editing still needs to be done I will continue to sort and organize info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dana60Cummins (talk • contribs) 19:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Help!
Help!

I need to update a web page listed in the "Okay" page (my server name changed), so I signed up as a Wikipedia editor. And I am completely lost.

Eventually I will read all the helps and tutorials, but for now I would just like to get the correction made. Could you help me? Or direct me to someone who would help out with this?

The new reference is:

In a Nutshell: The Etymology of "OK" http://www.illinoisprairie.info/NutshellOK.htm

That is a briefer, less scholarly one than the one listed now: The Choctaw Expression "Okeh" and the Americanism "Okay" http://www.illinoisprairie.info/chocokeh.htm

If both could be listed that would be terrific, but perhaps a little overkill. I would definitely like the Nutshell one to be listed, with the correct server.

Thanks

JPFay (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done! —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 03:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Would you be willing to post or help me post an introduction to the Choctaw etymology? I'm afraid I am kind of intimidated by the whole thing. Thanks again for your consideration.

JPFay (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your request is perfectly reasonable, but I'm on self-imposed hiatus from Wikipedia right now; real life is very busy. I'm not saying "no", but I can't jump on it straightaway, so you may want to be bold and give it a try on your own. I'm happy to help to the extent I can right now, and I can certainly understand the intimidation. May I point you at my quick guide to getting started? All best! —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 01:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your considerate response. Yes, real life can get that way. I felt a little sheepish about asking you. Yes, I have been playing in the sand, but still really don't know what I am doing. And if I do this (and I have decided to) I want to know it cold. (My journ students used to complain that they wanted to be creative and all I was interested in was minutiae of style, grammar, etc. And then by the end of the term they would admit that the most liberating thing they could achieve was to get the mechanics down cold so they never had to think for a moment about it.)

Thanks again. And your guide to getting started looks, well, like a good place to start,

JPFay (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)