User talk:Ridge Runner/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

ECU or Engine ECU

• I have renamed/changed the Engine control unit page in good faith as it would still be linked to correct page even if typed /searched under ECU. The acronym ECU primarily stands for Electronic Control Unit. Just in case you wonder about EECU here it is and for good measure TECU as well .To be fair yes it can stand for the the above mentioned but today it is no longer accurate perhaps it was sufficient back in the days of the only electronic control unit found in the vehicles being the engine unit. Today one would perhaps be inclined to correctly specify which component is in question particularly in the multiple ECUs (Electronic Control Units) enviroment so EECU is the Engine ECU , TECU is a Transmission ECU , VECU is a Vehicle ECU and so on, no confusion there is it? or could I just make something up and than understand TECU acronym as a "Transmission Engine Control Unit" perhaps not. Have look here --> Engine ECU development paper @ SAE.org that might be a good read. I do recognize that a page move should be discussed and consensus needs to be reached first however it seemed like simple correction at the time, obviously not for you. So revert has been made and hopefully not many readers got confused. Have a nice day.Stonufka (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. First of all, the reason I reverted your move is because ECU is a fairly heavily read article and you moved it without discussing.

As for adding the extra "E" to ECU, TCU, etc, this is incorrect. It's commonly understood that the control units are computers and thus electronic. The funny thing about Wikipedia's article, though, is ECU is no longer used to describe a vehicle computer, and hasn't been since around 1996. The preferred term now is "PCM", meaning powertrain control module, since all vehicle control systems are now housed inside of one computer. I need to add something about that on the ECU page, but haven't had time yet.--Flash176 (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Corolla categories

I noticed that you put all the individual Corolla generation articles into Category:Toyota_vehicles . Unfortunately this means Corolla now has 12 entries when one would do. Also notice that most other Toyota models do not have separate generational entries in Category:Toyota_vehicles . My original intention was for most other articles to link to the main Corolla article and then the user could jump to a particular generation article. Regards, Stepho-wrs (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't think about it classifying them that way. I was just hurrying and adding them into a category so they weren't uncategorized. Guess that's what a person gets for rushing.--Flash176 (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I made the same mistake myself last year. The entire Category:Toyota_vehicles is a dog's breakfast but we'll slowly get it organised :) Stepho-wrs (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

lol--Flash176 (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ship infoboxes

That infobox is deprecated. All of the different types of ship infoboxes are being combined into just one. The correct one is listed on that template: {{Infobox Ship Begin}}. Accordingly, all existing infoboxes need to be converted to the current standard. There is a backlog listed here. -MBK₀₀₄ 07:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hood

I'm wondering about your removal of neighborhood from the disambiguation page Hood. The other removals I agree with, but neighborhood seems a likely usage. Also, would you enter an edit summary for such edits, please? —EncMstr (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the neighborhood one because it was redundant. There's already one under "Places" saying hood refers to neighborhood or ghetto, except it links to ghetto instead of hood. Good watching out, though.

As for edit summaries, I usually leave them, but sometimes do skip it if I'm in a hurry (or admittedly lazy). Looking at your contributions, I believe you're the only person on here I've ever noticed that always fills out the summaries.--Flash176 (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Good catch on neighborhood. As for edit summaries, maybe you're hanging out in the wrong pediahood? Check out any of my fellow WikiProject Oregon collaborators. Frequent contributors include: Katr67, Aboutmovies, Finetooth, Esprqii, Peteforsyth. —EncMstr (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool, good on you guys. I'm impressed and thanks for raising the bar on my standards. :) --Flash176 (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Burn Notice

No problem! It was an easy mistake, and I've made more than my share! Drmargi (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Engine displacement units, templates

I did not change any units to CID; that was Oilpanhands (talk · contribs)' change out of compliance with convention, which I was laboriously repairing. All the English engine displacement units in Dodge Ram — and in an increasing number of the other articles Oilpanhands arbitrarily changed to CID — are now expressed as in³, in accordance with convention. Please go read the article and see for yourself; there's not a CID to be found. As for the conversion templates, they are the correct way to express English and Metric units. Oilpanhands has already noted conversion issues with Template:Auto L, and (arbitrarily, but workably) signified the issue with a tilde to indicate approximation. Further work is needed on the template in question to fine-tune the conversion math. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's no worries. Hope my response wasn't too snippy. I was annoyed at Oilpanhands having turned his personal preference for CID into a horrendous mess for others to clean up. There are still a whackload of articles he's thus thrown out of compliance that I don't have time right now to fix...see his contribs if you feel like lending a hand. As for mistaking the CID templates in the edit summaries, that's completely understandable — I just earlier today went through fixing templates like Template:Auto CID and Template:Auto L so they'd spit out in³ rather than CID!

The question of whether to do the conversions manually in the event of a not-quite-right template is a matter of philosophy. It's to be hoped that someone (like you and me) noticing the incorrect output from the template will go and fix the template. If we hide the broken template with manual conversions each and every time we don't like the template's output, then it'll never get fixed. I'm not sure this kind of template can be fixed satisfactorily, because of the rounding involved in the marketing of the engines vs. their actual physical piston displacement. I don't know a whole lot about templates, but I'll go take a look at Template:Auto L and see if anything obvious can be done. If not, I'll ask for help. If the answer comes back that we can tweak and tune the template to give us back our 318 but it'll call the Chev 305 a 304 or something, then we may well have to fall back on your plan of manual conversions where necessary. But let's expose the malfunctioning template and get some eyes looking and brains working on it! —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Figured out a fix!

I played around with the litre conversion factor and sure enough, there's no factor that can be used that'll make all engines convert correctly. When I bent the conversion factor to make the 318 convert correctly, it broke the Ford 351. When I fixed the 351, the 318 broke again. (I actually ran a couple dozen known conversions through it; the 318 and 351 are only examples). Clearly that approach wasn't going to work (and fudging conversion factors is an ugly way to do things anyhow), so I took a hard look at Template:Auto L and Template:Auto CID and figured out a workaround. I've created a new template Template:Auto Lrev. This is specifically to deal with the problem of engines engineered in cubic inches, but later redesignated in litres (or for articles about American vehicles sold in Metric markets back in America's cubic-inch days). It's essentially the Template:Auto CID template with inverted output. You input the known CID, and you get a correctly-converted, litres-first, dual-units display. Like this:

{{Auto Lrev|318}} yields 5.2 L (318 cu in)

I'll go put this template in Dodge Ram and a few other articles I worked on earlier today. Interested to have your feedback before I announce this template to the auto project in general. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Nice work.

The only two things I noticed are when you put something in that will convert to 5.0 liters, it shows as 5 L instead of 5.0 L (i.e. 5.0 L (305 cu in)). The other thing, and this is likely due to Ford rounding up, is when you punch in a 302 engine, it comes up as a 4.9 L instead of the 5.0 L as seen on the Mustang. Unless you think these pages need to be accurate (4.9) instead of following Ford's marketing (5.0), I think the 302 V8 will have to be manually listed instead of converted.--Flash176 (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Beware that the Ford 302 Windsor engine was marketed as a 5.0 L engine in the US while the same size Ford 302 Cleveland engine was marketed as a 4.9 L engine in Australia. In reality it is 4940 cc, so the Australian version is more accurate but that would lose sales in the US. To me this implies that cc is a better indicator than L . Stepho-wrs (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Ridge Runner. You have new messages at Scheinwerfermann's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Automotive lighting classification

Greetings, Flash176. I have over the last couple years put in a great deal of effort on Automotive lighting, and I'm curious about your "C" quality rating for this article. My extensive involvement with the article probably biases me, but it nevertheless seems to me that the article currently meets all six B-class criteria, and may in fact verge on A-class. Can you please explain? Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I just felt that the article was very lengthy and at first glance it seemed a little cluttered. If you think it should be B class (or higher), then please, by all means, change it. I'm just trying to classify all of the unrated project articles and (when I started) there were over 1000, so I'm not spending a whole lot of time reviewing each article. Like I said, if you see something you disagree with, by all means change it.--Flash176 (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hope I didn't overreact — we all know we're not supposed to take article ratings personally, but of course my brain went "Gaaaah! What do they want, blood?!!". The article is indeed long, but that really goes with the territory of a multifaceted topic; one cannot have a complete and brief article on such a topic as this. Thanks for explaining! —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

lol No, you didn't overreact. I understand how you felt. Like I said, though, there's so many articles to be rated that I'm just giving them a quick scan and moving on to the next, so please fix any you feel are rated incorrectly. After you asked me about that, I did go back and look at the article, and I do agree with you that it deserves at least a B rating and maybe higher.--Flash176 (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Columbine High School edit

I would ask that you consult the talk page before removing things that have caused quite a bit of controversy in the past, mostly with people not taking into account the actual definition of the word "alumni." While I doubt anyone likes to see these two idiots get more publicity than their due, there is no doubt that they are notable for the very fact that they shot up an entire high school. If they have their own Wikipedia page, they are notable, which they most certainly are. Not everyone on Wikipedia is notable for good things, remember. And yes, by definition they are alumni. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I said it was arguable that they weren't alumni. As far as being notable because they have their own Wikipedia page, in that case Rachel Scott, Cassie Bernall, and William David Sanders should be listed as notable alumni.--Flash176 (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If it were "arguable" then we should have discussed it first before taking action, yes? And indeed Rachel Scott, et al were listed as notable alumni, but they were removed somewhere along the way. I have absolutely no objections to their addition to the page. What I do object to is removing the killers because of editors' personal agendas. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no personal agenda. I honestly don't believe that they're notable alumni, nor do I believe that the other examples I provided are that notable. Two of them are mass murderers and the other three (that I listed) are murder victims/martyrs. I'm not trying to be callous, but I don't feel that these people are notable compared to the others in the list. The others actually did something with their lives while the people we're discussing were simply victims or murderers.--Flash176 (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You're still not seeing my point though. Contributing something worthwhile to society is not the definition of notable. If that were the case you could also say that Hitler isn't notable, either. I dare say that if you went to his page and made the argument that he wasn't notable because he didn't do with his life what you thought he should, you would be laughed off the talk page. Being a worthwhile person does not make you notable. If that were the case we could delete Ted Bundy's page tomorrow. Do you see what I'm saying? Doing noteworthy, and indeed newsworthy things most certainly does. Kids who went on a killing spree in their high school--one of the worst in U.S. history--does in fact make them notable. I wish that weren't the case, and obviously you do, too. But wishing doesn't make it so. They're notable and they're alumni. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as much as I hate to admit it, I guess you're right. Sorry for causing you extra work.--Flash176 (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

2ZZ-GE

Hello. I've redirected this article (which you created and worked on) to Toyota ZZ engine because the content is not substantially different from the section in the main article. If you want to keep it separate, I suggest changing the article title to something like Toyota 2ZZ-GE engine and rewriting the lede so that it's clear that the 2ZZ-GE is one version of the ZZ. If you do that, you should probably also cut the section in the Toyota ZZ engine article and use

Main article: 2ZZ-GE

to direct readers. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted your edit before I saw your message here. I actually plan on redirecting the 2ZZ section like you suggested, but I've been trying to rework the article using engineering and designer reports/specs, and unfortunately, I've been too busy doing other things lately to finish.--Flash176 (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Auto Project Templates

I'm not sure I'm familiar enough with the importance levels, and being Australian, the Australian market is relatively isolated from the motoring world at large, making assesments even harder to adjudge. Is there an easy guideline with which I might be able judge while keeping in mind the localisationof some of these cars? --Falcadore (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Uh, you're supposed to actually follow the procedures at WP:GAN, not just say that it looks good and pass it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I did follow the procedures.--Flash176 (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You're supposed to leave an explanation of how the article meets the standards. Here you show little evidence that you thoroughly read the article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

From WP:GAN: Ensure you have provided a detailed review of the article, giving an overview of how you believe it fulfills the Good article criteria, with suggestions to improve it if you can. Please also encourage the successful nominator(s) to review an article themselves. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I stand corrected. It would appear that there's a conflict in instructions, because here it only mentions leaving a note twice: If you pass the article, it says, "A brief note of congratulations, or opportunities for further improvement on the review page or talk page is also appreciated." The only place I see it asking you to leave an actual summary is in the third section where it says, "Whether you fail an article or put it on hold, you should always leave extensive notes on the review page, and notify the nominator...Your review should be extensive enough to allow the article to be improved and renominated, so that it will pass in the future."--Flash176 (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Date format

Hi,

With respect to Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes, Illinois, I don't mind too much whether an article is 'dmy' or 'mdy' format. However, there appears to be a consensus for US military articles to use dmy and as you probably know, many contain inconsistencies. I was running through US military articles making them consistent to the format of the consensus. That has been documented in wp:mosnum which says:

• In certain subject areas the customary format may differ from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern U.S. military often use day before month, in accordance with usage in that field.

I don't mind your revert. Nor do I care if the guidance at mosnum is challenged and changed. All I need to know is which of the two formats to apply to military articles. I just wanted you to know the reason for my choice lest you think I was making a personal choice. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe I was wrong. Sorry if I confused you, I'm not a member of the military project, so I wasn't aware of any consensus. I just watch that particular page since I was there a few years ago. I guess I just believe that unless there's a good reason, there's usually not a need to change the way things are originally written in articles. You/Wikipedia are right that the military uses the dmy format, but then again, this is an encyclopedia, not the military. I guess just do what you think is the correct way. Thanks for fixing things in these articles, though. I know how tedious it can be.--Flash176 (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Glad to have encountered you. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. :) --Flash176 (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Chevrolet TrailBlazer

See Template:Infobox Automobile. According to the guidelines on that page, "Production" refers to production calendar years, not model years. Yes, it can be confusing when model years are given too, but, it is production. If you disagree with that guideline, maybe you can get it changed. --Vossanova ^o< 14:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. I don't know how, probably from this discussion, but somehow I got it mixed up in my head that all the years in the article were supposed to match. Thanks for correcting me.--Flash176 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that discussion out. I personally would like to see either production years or model years in the info box, but unfortunately it seems the European user base can't be convinced that model years are more significant to North American models and buyers. I'm a bit late to the discussion, but maybe I can make a new case for both. --Vossanova ^o< 16:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. When you brought this up to me, I went back and read most of the discussion, and it looked like there was a consensus to at least introduce model year to the infobox, but it looks like nothing ever came of it. I really don't understand why some people seem to believe that just European standards should be followed in Wikipedia.--Flash176 (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Chevrolet Cobalt SS

How is the Cobalt SS related to the Opel Astra? What do they share? -- Phoenix2 03:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

They're built on the same platform.--Flash176 (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Seems the work is endless... --— Typ932^{T | C}  21:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Flash176 (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hey, thanks for the barnstar! Now is this aka a gold star, or is it similar to a gold star? ;-) I've been thinking about having a go at adminship...perhaps if I can carve out some spare time I'll look into nominating myself. Not sure how that'll go over, though; last time I looked there was some controversy over whether it was appropriate for one to nominate oneself. Keep the greasy side down, eh! —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned the adminship. I saw in your archives that you had inquired about it before and was going to ask what came of it, but forgot. I think you would make a good admin. Out of all the project members, I think you have the most of my respect because of the way you conduct yourself in discussions and help to come up with compromises. Oh, and you're welcome.--Flash176 (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your respect and confidence! I haven't yet decided if or when to stand for adminship — I want to look over my contrib history and talk to some existing admins and see if there are any significant deficits in my experience that could prevent a successful RfA. Not only that, I'm still not entirely sure how self-nominations for adminship are generally regarded. Seems as though some people have no problem with it, while others see it as a red flag. Please stay tuned, and thanks for your interest and support! —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I just want to see you become one because I think we need an admin for the car project and you're probably the best here for the job. If you like, I don't mind nominating you for it whenever you're ready. I can understand how some people don't like self-nominations, but it seems like sometimes on Wikipedia, if you don't toot your own horn, no one notices the work you've done. Take the barnstars for example. A lot of people in this project deserve them, but IFCAR's the only person who ever got one because of all the pictures he's uploaded.--Flash176 (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You've both done good work, so I'd be happy to second the nomination. Stepho-wrs (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Stepho-wrs! One thing I'm currently struggling with — quite apart from the question of whether to stand for adminship — is how best to deal with intransigence and myopia in the project. It seems like we've got a fair number of editors more passionate about their preferences than interested in coöperatively building consensus. I've certainly been guilty of that very same thing myself; I'm not trying to sound sanctimonious or superior or anything. What I'm trying to do is figure out how to get more people to see, appreciate, and adopt a more coöperative approach to this project. If we could get a critical mass of editors thinking that way, I think it'd probably snowball and eventually the project as a whole would work better. We've got dozens upon dozens of endless wars. AKA vs. related, model year vs. production date, image standards, the Ford 5.0 vs. 4.9 thing never dies...we could get more articles into better shape more quickly if we could move beyond dug-in heels and endless bickering. I don't know if it's even possible. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we managed to get the ft-lb fiasco and cubic inch issue taken care of, so I wouldn't get too depressed. ;) I would say thank goodness for small victories, but those two issues were a lot more than small. There's hope yet. :)--Flash176 (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

ETA - One thing I do wish, though, is that we could all get together and work on all the minor issues of this project, such as (re)assessing articles, adding conversion templates, etc. There are a lot of pages related to this project that aren't even tagged as such on their talk page. It would be nice if we could get all of that done and running smoothly and then concentrate on the substance of articles.--Flash176 (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As a software engineer, I've found that a consistent framework always improves things. Individual items may call for special treatment but they should be in the minority and the need must be proven for each and every deviation because deviations cost a lot (money for my job, confusion for Wikipedia readers). I'd say develop a reasonable framework first (i.e. templates, article layouts, etc) like we've already started on, then go back and change the articles to match. Easiest to pick individual points to work on first, i.e. develop a consensus on AKA/related, then change articles, then consensus on CID, then change articles, etc. pretty much what we've been doing. If we have a good framework then the other contributors can fill in the actual data. By the way, you've probably noticed my preference for working on Toyota articles but I'm also happy to work on the framework. Luckily(?), Toyota articles cover nearly every example of contention ;( Stepho-wrs (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Torsion bar/beam

They are not the same thing, that terminology is incorrect, your edit is wrong. Greg Locock (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

From looking at your user page, are you an engineer?--Flash176 (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a suspension engineer. A torsion beam is a twist beam and is used in a twist beam suspension to provide the anti roll bar function, a torsion bar is a round or hex or square bar used as a torsion spring to take the full weight of the car as the main road spring. Looking at it again, the main problem is that sentence and the title of the article, the rest of the article gets it right. The article should be called torsion bar, and the terminlogy torsion beam for a torsion bar should be marked incorrect. Greg Locock (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, of anyone here, I would think that you would know, so I've moved the page from torsion beam to torsion bar suspension.--Flash176 (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ta Greg Locock (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You havent moved the page, youve copy-pasted it and wrecked the page history. Please go to Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen and follow the instructions. An administrator can then fix your error.

Also if a torsion beam and torsion bar are not the same thing, why is one redirecting to the other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14days (talk • contribs) 22:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Still not fixed this, eh? Must be someone else's job to clean up after you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14days (talk • contribs) 00:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

NCIS episodes

The individual episode articles consisted entirely of plot summary and trivia. A core policy is that Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. Also note that it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available. Individual episode articles should not be created unless the notability of that particular episode can be established through independent, reliable sources, e.g. the episode was nominated for an Emmy or there was significant coverage of a controversial element of the episode (e.g. a particularly violent scene, gay kiss, etc). Even then the plot summary must be kept to a minimum and articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance. McWomble (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

CJ

Stop removing this from the disambig page. The character "CJ" is a notable 1970s character from British television (even if you have not heard of him in the USA). Youtube Clip Daily Telegraph: "John Barron, the character actor who died on Saturday aged 83, was best known for his portrayal of CJ, the maniacal head of Sunshine Desserts in The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin." BBC: "A brilliant satire, the programme will also be remembered for its catchphrases including Reggie’s boss CJ's "I didn't get where I am today by..." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, when I clicked the link before, I wound up on the bottom of the page where it only showed that there were 7 episodes. Had I seen that the series was around much longer than that I would have left it alone.--Flash176 (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

List of G.I. Joe franchise in media

I would like to add another film called G.I. Joe: Ninja Battles The line I edited would be like:

• G.I. Joe: Ninja Battles, a 2004 22-minutes short-story on DVD included in a Hasbro figures pack

This is my first edit, so would you please mind to check these out and approve it? Hermano101 (talk)

Hi, Hermano101. I'm very sorry for taking so long to get back to you. Been pretty bust the last little bit. You bring up a good point, because there have been a few cartoons released with toys that fit neither under film, nor TV. Let me think about it and get back to you tomorrow night, ok? Thanks.--Flash176 (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what. For now, why don't you create a section between Film and Comic Books? You could title it "Toy Releases" or "In-Toy Packaging." I'm honestly not too sure. Let me know if you need any more help and I'll try to get back to you faster.--Flash176 (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Toyota Matrix section

Sorry I didn't realize the article has received good status. The links are in Toyota's pressroom. http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/toyota/news.aspx?ncid=12066 2007 model:http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/toyota/TYT2007102409592.aspx?ncid=12066 2010 model:http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/toyota/2010-corolla-matrix-pricing.aspx?ncid=12066

if you don't want to use the press release statements it's likely in worldcarfans.com, if you still can't find a link let me know and I'll try to find them. Feel free to edit my grammar and sentence structure, I know I'm not the most impressive writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. zedy (talk • contribs) 22:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ducati Motor Holding move

I notice that you were involved with the requested rename of Ford Motor Company. The same user who requested (and failed) to get that rename done is doing the same (and using the same arguments) at Ducati Motor Holding. Perhaps you'd like to review and add your opinion (for or against). See Talk:Ducati_Motor_Holding#Requested_move. Thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Neckpost.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Neckpost.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Swivelarm.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Swivelarm.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Breaker.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Breaker.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --J Milburn (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Toy image copyrights

If I'm honest, I don't know why they're different, as I don't write the law. This page explains that cars are "fair game", while further down it is clarified that toys are not. I've been on the wrong end of this too; I uploaded some photos of some miniatures to illustrate a Dungeons & Dragons article that wound up deleted. J Milburn (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the Commons talk page would be your best bet if you're looking for legal clarification. J Milburn (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

While I'm here- the link to America on your userpage leads to a dab page, if you want to fix it. J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Rename Snake-Eyes

I have started a discussion on the Snake Eyes Page, would like your input. Thanks. Sgetz (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Nemesis Enforcer Nominated for Deletion.

Someone has nominated Nemesis Enforcer for deletion. Can you comment on that? Sgetz (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

re: GI (military)

If it's not a disambiguation page, then the content may well need to be deleted since Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Encyclopedias do not normally have articles about words as words. There are a very few exceptions where the word generates significant social controversy or has impact merely by being that particular word. Certain pejoratives come to mind but they are quite rare. None of those exception rules seem to apply in this case.

Purely lexical content, on the other hand, belongs at our sister project Wiktionary. Lexical content includes meaning ("GI is a term describing ..."), etymology (the galvanized iron discussion), false and folk etymologies (the government issue discussion) and usage examples (the GI cans line).

The lexical detail belongs at Wiktionary and, in fact, is already there. There's nothing wrong with having a few lexical notes on a more encyclopedic page like a disambiguation page, which I thought was a reasonable compromise. But I do not see how the current page can be maintained in that format and still be compliant with the "not a dictionary" policy. Rossami (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary already has the core of a page on the term so we can't simply transwiki the page. We can copy-paste the better text over, though. I agree that the sources on the wikipedia page are superior to theirs. If you have time, be bold. (Unfortunately, I've got some off-wiki commitments that are going to keep me away from heavy editing for a week or two.) In the meantime, I believe that disambiguation pages can stand to include a definition as part of the list. This would be a little more detailed than most but probably within the acceptable range.
Thanks for your understanding. Rossami (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

GI Joe

The release dates focused too much on non-English speaking countries, and excluded the UK. The grosses have no ref (only the 22.3m number is shown on BOM). The plot edits added nothing, the Black Eye Peas is trivia and the reviews had blown out of proportion, there wasn't anything worth keeping. Sometimes a mass revert is the only way to improve a page, otherwise you end up with this. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Except the UK release was the 6th not the 7th. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite that, please? I believe you, but the only source I found had it as the 7th and since it's wrong I need to change it.--Ridge Runner (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I can scan my film ticket if you like, take a look at the time I wrote the plot, and I'm in the UK. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, thanks. Like I said, I believe you. I was just wanting a link to add a reference to the page since apparently my source is wrong.--Ridge Runner (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Something about permanent bans....

Hi, Ridge Runner! I was just browsing around Wikipedia trying to search for some administrators to assist me. I'm still new to Wikipedia, and I need more information on their policies. Since you seem to be a very experienced administrator (or an experienced user, at least), can you tell me a thing or two about permanent bans? Please tell more about it on my talk page. Thanks!--ROT9 (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Again...

Basic laws of paragraph structure indicate that statements in a paragraph relate to the topic. It would be related if you changed the title. Without renaming the title of the paragraph your addition doesn't belong due to it being unrelated. If including "liberty locking" is absolutely necessary then I suggest you make the long-needed change to the title. If you don't, I will have to revert the edit. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, the section is about more than just Freedom Fries. It would appear that you're well aware of this since you said yourself that a change in the section title is long-needed. Freedom fries are simply the most recognizable term of that movement. There's nothing wrong with the section title, but if it bothers you that much, how about changing it yourself? Working together with other editors is what Wikipedia's about, not trying to make others change things in articles that you don't like.--Ridge Runner (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin

Hey there! Just letting you know that I am an admin, in case you need something restored, protected, etc. :) BOZ (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I had forgotten, thanks for reminding me. :)--Ridge Runner (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

For example, I could restore something like File:Flash gi joe.jpg if you could get a decent FUR for the image - if you don't recall, it looked like an early Marvel Comics era image. BOZ (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

2004 Toyota Matrix

Assuming this is your car, do you happen to know the dimensions of the internal cargo area? I'm considering buying this car but all I can find is the cargo volume. If you don't have this information, no worries. Cheers, Vectro (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry.--Ridge Runner (talk) 11:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:G.I. Joe - A Real American Hero (logo).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:G.I. Joe - A Real American Hero (logo).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)