User talk:Tbrittreid/Archive/2010/June

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

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

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Green Hornet revision
If you take a moment to look at Imperial (automobile), you will see that Imperial was indeed a separate brand in 1966. The source was right here on Wikipedia and if you wish to investigate further, may be easily verified with a simple Google search. I would also respectfully suggest that you use a bit more of a civil tone in your edit summaries. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The car is a 1966 Imperial Crown. It is not a 1966 Chrysler Imperial because technically there is no such thing as a 1966 Chrysler Imperial.  Two other anons reverted the edit and correctly so.  I have taken the time to do the same.  The claim is accurate based on this site's own article on the subject as well as personal experience.  I contributed to three automotive-realted feature articles, one of which was an original.  I also used to drive a 1969 Imperial LeBaron two-door.  Nowhere on that car was it badged a Chrysler.  Here are a few other sources based on a Google search for "1966 Imperial Crown:"


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

I hope this settles the matter. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Template talk:UNIT stories. Thank you. U-Mos (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I place this here for the record, as what was actually said on the mentioned talk page indicates that dealing directly with U-Mos is pointless: I did "assume good faith" until the evidence otherwise was conclusive. As I have said several times in my years on Wikipedia, it is irrational to so assume in the face of such evidence, and I will not do so. Ever. In fact, I do not believe that whoever created this rule ever intended it to be taken to that unreasonable extreme, as a careful reading of the page linked-in above reveals no such suggestion. (BTW, I removed the "i" image as my navigation windows preview revealed no relevancy whatsoever, but it looks like something significant, perhaps some sort of warning, and I don't want some other editor[s] visiting this page to get any wrong ideas from it.) --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Continued Green Hornet contention
This has to stop, please. Kindly review the links I sent you which verify the fact that the Black Beauty was a 1966 Imperial Crown. If you revert this once more, I will have little choice but to block you. Yes, there are numerous sites which refer to this and other Imperials as Chryslers, but if you don't accept a source like Automobile magazine as both verifiable and accurate, I don't know what else to do. I don't want to get on a bully pulpit as an administrator, but this has gotten out of hand. I've been polite, pointed out multiple instances regarding the proper name of the car and still you insist on rolling it back. Please don't do so again. Thanks. Regards, PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: To be fair, I've asked for intervention by other administrators:


 * I hope that we've reached an agreeable compromise here per the message left at the noticeboard by a user whom I deeply respect. Please take a look at the article and tell me what you think.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: re
My apologies for the belated response, but, as I'm sure you probably noticed, my activity on this site has been little to none for almost a year now. If I may say so, I'm happy to report that, thanks to time and effort I devoted to my school work and community involvement, I have lately been awarded a plethora of scholarships and financial aid to further my education into college. :) My only regret is that I have not been able to contribute much here as a result.  I've been aware of the conflict you've been having with the powers-that-be here, though, for a while now, and I am truly sorry it has all come down to this.  :(  I have no doubt in my mind that you conducted yourself accordingly as your own conscience guided you, and I see nothing in your actions that you should feel shame for. Evidently, you feel the same way. :) I may not have been as active here as I was once, but even I recognized the trouble brewing within this community back then.   I am sad to see you go.   You are one of many I heavily collaborated with over the years on projects for this encyclopedia who have since been run off.  This reflects badly on the encyclopedia itself to be responsible for the loss of so many clearly qualified members.  I have contemplated several times on returning to my formerly frequent contributions here; this, and several similar scenarios with a similar outcome, have convinced me to think otherwise.  To paraphrase Jesus Himself, "What is important is that you follow the spirit of the Law, not the letter."  The lack of common sense and good naturedness amongst editors here in regards to the guidelines is proving detrimental to the Encyclopedia itself, and, despite what you or I or anyone else does to combat it, will only continue. Maybe it's best that you are leaving, so that you don't have to be a part of it &mdash; a cog in the machine. =/ You aren't the first to leave because of something like this, and you definitely won't be the last. :(

But it has been fun with you, my friend. I'll admit that. :) I've enjoyed collaborating with you, and I wish you the best on your departure.  Thanks for being so willing to collaborate with me in return; you've really helped me out around here, Ted!  Goodbye, and God Bless Your Life!!  :)  &mdash; Cinemaniac ( talk   •   contribs ) 21:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)