User talk:Scheinwerfermann/Archive 2

Flyweight
Hi,

The "article" was deleted through the proposed deletion process after being transferred to wiktionary. It was a simple one sentence dictionary definition: I could restore it for you, but you might as well start fresh in writing the article. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam
thank you for that reminder. I'll be more careful now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autobahnned (talk • contribs) 03:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Move of Driving on the left or right - double redirects
Hi Scheinwerfermann,

Just a reminder that when you move a page, you should alter all the redirects to point to the new title, otherwise they no longer work as redirects.

In this case there were 31 redirects to Driving on the left or right, which I have corrected using AWB, but in general it is the the job of the person moving to do the job.

Cheers! &mdash; SteveRwanda (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Traffic
Well, I was being bold and removing the links that I did not seem fit; I did that based on guidelines, not just my gut feeling or whatever. "Linkspam" does not mean that the site is just a Viagra spam - there are many sites that have content but are inserted in articles just to increase traffic there. I.e., I just removed dozens of links to an Arthur C. Clarke site that was all over Wikipedia. "Linkspam" is just a general way to write on the edit summary, not saying that the links are "spam" in the strict sense, but that they are not specifically useful to the article. I did not mean any offense with that, and you look like the only one taking offense. Not putting a complete rationale in the edit summary does not mean I do not have one, as you can see. Your edit summaries were ''Fix overly-zealous deletion (only one of the external links was linkspam). Please be more discriminating. and 3 of 5 links restored. Unilateral removal of all external links is _not_ OK. See talk page and obtain consensus before you remove them again''. You said "it isn't helpful or productive to assert that yours is more correct than mine or vice versa" -  I see that's exactly what you did with your edits, and on top of that you did not evaluate all the links after the first edit, just wrote a snarkier summary.

I ask: why did you not get consensus before restoring the links? That's what I am trying to do there, and so far I got only generic answers from you. "There is ample precedent all over Wikipedia for including links to the professional societies and associations relevant to the topic at hand" and "it seems to me directly relevant to some of the newer ideas and practices in traffic engineering and management" do not seem like NPOV and WP:RS reasons. Again: I do not doubt those are fantastic institutions, but who says that? Are there prizes, newspaper articles, polls regarding them as the best in the field above all others? Why should they be here and not others? You just said that you like the sites and I have to live with it. About the "traffic waves", you did not say who came with that idea, which experts agree with it, who wrote about it? It is just a personal page. Please, let's keep the discussion to content and forget about the rest. --Legionarius (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Summary wholesale deletion of an entire section is not being bold, it is being autocratic. Reverting an unwarranted deletion done without consensus does not itself require consensus. It is evident from your contribs page that you are on some kind of a mission to delete what you personally consider "linkspam". I fear your personal definition of the term is rather wider than accepted standards on Wikipedia; please take a few minutes to read and understand the relevant provisions. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your affirmations, but it does not matter. Looking forward to read your justifications re:links--Legionarius (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have spoken my mind and have no interest in a pissing contest with you. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Page protection
Not a problem, and I was just reading over that request now! (I'm going to protect it, if you were wondering.)   jj137  ♠ 21:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on it as well.   jj137  ♠ 22:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Duster
To complete the Duster subsection, I suggest you move the remaining Duster paragraphs down to it. Oh, and using unmistakably British words (like "bespoke" and "fortnight") to describe an affordable American car is very effete. Though I think these words add a unique flavor to the article, to your average Mopar freak, they sound limp-wristed.

Well, this is where I sign off. I've mostly finished work on things I have a passion for, but being locked out of the Valiant article cut that short, though the descriptions you've replaced mine with aren't necessarily better, just different.

Prosit Neujahr, Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.243.203 (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Duster material will be consolidated. Your homophobic perspective is noted. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

+rollback
You should have the button now :) --Duk 17:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Dodge Dart
Would you consider all of the edits by Semi Gloss and that IP vandalism/disruption?  jj137  ♠ 03:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't know much about this article, so I ask you. What do you think the best course of action here would be? I left Semi-Gloss a warning on their talk page to remain civil. I don't think it is worth the effort (it could take a while) to accuse them of suspected sock puppetry, but something needs to be done.   jj137  ♠ 02:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I semi-protected Dodge Dart for a month. I was hesitant to indefinitely semi-protect it, because then the IP would probably move on to another car-related article, and Dodge Dart could be forgotten (a month is enough time, though). On Plymouth Valiant, I won't protect it again yet, but if the IP continues to disrupt under multiple IP addresses I will.   jj137  ♠ 20:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think they might get it at this point. :)   jj137  ♠ 23:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)