User talk:Scheinwerfermann/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with Scheinwerfermann. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

< Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5 >

All Pages:

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - ... (up to 100)

Re:Talk page

I left the editor a message on his talk page. jj137 (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Hi,

   I would like to know a few things about automotive interior lighting. Can you help me on this?

I would also like to know the types of light sources used in instrument clusters in different cars and also I would like to know the illumination mechanism of instrument clusters/instrument dials in different. --Ankithreya! talk 11:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Images needed

Template:Images needed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — GregManninLB (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD

It would appear here that user:ais523 beat me to it. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 10:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your third opinion on Talk:French spacing. As I'm sure you saw from my contributions I'm just getting started on the editing side of Wikipedia and am still getting used to the way things work (or don't, as the case may be). As you say, it's really a minor issue in the grand scheme of things. Indeed, I have since decided to focus my energies on other, more gnomish areas. What I find most disappointing about the situation is that I am willing to discuss whether I was reading too closely or finding things that conform to my own implicit biases that aren't actually there (certainly I can be as guilty of that as anyone!), but such a civil discussion doesn't really seem to be in the cards right now. (I also feel that I share some blame for that by not explaining my reasoning before the other editor reverted.) But again, thank you! I really appreciated getting your opinion. — confusionball (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinions in General

First of all, very good job on the Talk:French spacing discussion. You were to-the-point and noticably articulate. Since I delayed, you adderssed the major issues, and confusion has graciously stepped aside, I see no point in continuing the "discussion" there and so do not intend to personally contribute anything further unless specifically asked. But I want an opinion from an experienced editor on the nature of third opinions in general.

I was going to provide a somewhat in-depth analysis (e.g. that the mention of profit motivation has contextual significance to the article and that "regression" is polysemous both with and without POV connotations) make recommendations for changes to the article, and provide individual advice to both editors. This is different in nature and of a much more substantial scope than what you provided. So I wonder: have I entirely missed the point of third opinions? —Latiligence (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there. You're welcome! Glad you find my 3rd opinion to have been of some value and coherence. I don't think you've missed the point of such exercises at all. Rather, I think you might've assumed that your intended contribution wasn't germane simply because my 3rd opinion in this particular case was centred around matters of Wikipedia policy and protocol (and, erm, editor behaviour). I think your proposed rubrics would've made a very valuable and relevant addition to the discussion, and I'd encourage you to take part in the process of improving Wikipedia by adding your thoughts to the article's talk page — or, preferably, by incorporating your insight and recommendations into bold edits to the article itself. Please feel free to continue this discussion if you want to bounce any more ideas around. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Block

Done. Blocked for 31 hours. jj137 (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

photo discussion currently taking place on "Talk:Subaru Forester"

I wasn't sure if you were aware of what brought this topic up, but it shows the same issue taking place. I've had similar discussions with IFCAR on the Subaru Tribeca image as well, and just gave up on that "debate".

Thanks for providing a place to discuss issues that contribute to reverting.(Dddike (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You're welcome. Thanks for participating (and please continue to do so!), even though I disagree with one of your preferences. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You and IFCAR both have done a tremendous disservice to the community in rushing through the disucssion on the photos. I've never experienced such a chaotic discussion. I had my comments edited by someone else at one point, and had the basic thrust of my comments misinterpreted both by you and IFCAR. I argued explicitly for flexibility. And here it is, minutes after IFCAR is satisfied the discussion went his way, and he's already changed the Subaru Forester lead photo. You have handed control of all photographs in the project to one person. How un-Wikipedia. Good luck. 842U (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was far from rushed, and anything but chaotic. The individual who edited your comments admitted having done so and apologised for it. Me, I prefaced my interpretation of your position with "I could be wrong, but...", so I really feel I did the best I could on that. Instead of taking the opportunity to correct me, you chose to lash out and rant at various Wikipedians and the process in general. Nobody has handed control of anything to anyone; consensus developed — and it developed on the side of codifying flexibility, not rigidity, in the selection of lead images. You got what you claim to want, and yet you continue to complain for reasons that still don't seem very appropriate or cogent to me, it is what it is for now. As has been repeatedly and explicitly explained to you, Wikipedia provides effective channels for you to address grievances with another editor's behaviour. Ranting and hitting out at me or IFCAR or anyone else will simply not get you anywhere you want to be. Please try to keep perspective on the relative importance of which picture leads the Subaru Forester article: there are hundreds of thousands of desperate, homeless, starving people in Burma right now. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Own photos

Just FYI: I think I'm consistent on advocating what I feel is the best photo. I took both photos involved in the Subaru Forester discussion, so it's not as if I'm favoring mine over someone else's. And in a previous image question, I was accused of favoring my own photo when I reverted someone putting my own instead of someone else's, mixing up who took what. It's been long-standing precedent recognized by the long-time WPA members that an article's best image should be at the head, not "updated" to be the latest model. I support that whoever's image is involved. IFCAR (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that a significant part of the perception of your behaviour is down to nothing more than the large number of images you contribute, but even though that's not entirely fair (compare the general perception of Microsoft), it is a reality and you will likely experience a good deal less friction and resistance if you will thoughtfully recognise this perception, acknowledge it, and work to ease it. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]