User talk:Scheinwerfermann/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Thank You

I'd like to take the time to thank you for the notification of the speedy-deletion of some of my edits. Although I'm not sure if this is required by the rules, it's great to have an administrator involved in their job and concerned about making the Wiki more open. After seeing a lot of others degrade my additions and statements because of their experience, it's refreshing to have someone seem to care. Thank you. --MeatJustice (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't thank me just yet

You're welcome, but I'm not an administrator, I'm an editor like you. However, I must say that your contributions — readily visible to anyone who cares to take a look at your contrib history — make it very challenging to reasonably assume you are acting in good faith. You have suggested fatuous changes (e.g. to the title of Mathematics) that would degrade articles and reduce their compliance with Wikipedia protocols, rather than improving their quality and compliance. When asked to please cut it out, you have adopted a belligerent, defensive, dismissive tone. You have created deliberately-pointless redirects (recently and rightly deleted) and made bizarre, veiled, baseless threats of edit blocking against an administrator. If you're really approaching Wikipedia with a genuine desire to make legitimate contributions and improve the project, you're really not getting off to a very good start. I'd like to invite you to please take a few minutes to read this and think it over before making your next edit, thanks. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think sub-headings are cool too

I've decided to start grammar policing on the history articles, I know I can actually do something useful there. Thanks for the inspiration! --MeatJustice (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

about head lamp optics

hellow sir can u tell me about the history of head lamps —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.125.252 (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see Headlamp. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C

Image Formatting

Here is where your logic is flawed.

Layout Rules and Guidelines

Actually, what you are calling "my logic" is directly from Wikipedia protocol and policy. Please take a few moments to read and understand WP:IMGSIZE and MOS:IMAGES. Thanks for editing coöperatively, eh! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Potential article deletion

I see you got some responses on J.delanoy's talk page, but I wanted to make sure you knew I saw your message regarding the lists that survived AFD. I'd pretty much have to agree with the responses already given; the "Keeps" on the AFD seemed pretty solid, although I think the tables are a little excessive, perhaps they could be trimmed or broken into several tables. I don't have a lot of experience, though, at AFD. Useight (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Color Temperature Edit

I'm not sure why you object to my edits. They were written in my personal voice and were not intended as vandalism. Everything I wrote was accurate and improved the content of the page. The information as originally presented was fundamentally flawed and ultimately wrong. Reversion to the old page means a reversion to bad information and makes me suspect Wikipedia, as a social experiment, may indicate greater interest in tone than truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.90.89 (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, 69.230.90.98. A few things here: First off, I did not revert your edits, though I certainly would have done so had I seen them before Adoniscik (the editor who did revert them). I merely issued the vandalism warning that appeared on your talk page. If you feel the reversions were unwarranted, Adoniscik is the one to engage in discussion. This is best done on the article's talk page (Talk:Color temperature). Secondly, your edits were, in fact, very inappropriate. Your first edit to the article on 19 November consisted of adding Then again, this is wikipedia, so this paragraph is probably completely wrong to the end of an existing paragraph. Your second edit consisted of adding by people who don't know what they're talking about and whatever the hell that means. In your third edit, you spuriously added largely because the two concepts are completely unrelated and there's no reason to continually associate the two. A couple of minutes later, you added Because, you know, white is 'cool' and black is... No, wait, black is... Oh, wait, white is neither 'cool' nor 'warm' becuase it is all or no colors. 'Cool' and 'warm' colors are describing hue. Black and white have none, by definition. Nothing in any of these edits of yours even comes close to compliance with Wikipedia's requirements for contributions to be verifiable, reliably supported, and written from the neutral point of view (you assert above that you wrote the edits in "your personal voice", which is actually a significant part of the problem). Everything you added to the article falls easily within the definition of vandalism, and that is why your edits were reverted.

The Color temperature article is, of course, not perfect. There's room for improvement. That's the normal and natural state of most articles on Wikipedia. I urge you to spend a few minutes reading and thinking about this before you proceed with additional edits; it'll help you understand how to make contributions that will endure through the ongoing process of improving the article, rather than being wiped away in short order.

Finally, please remember to sign the comments you leave on talk pages. Thanks for being a coöperative contributor to the project! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"They were written in my personal voice..."

Well there is your first problem. Your personal voice does not agree with the tone of the article. Wikipedia does not accept personal opinions. Basically all we are supposed to do is to summarize reliable sources (and cite them). --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 20:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Volcano Vaporizer

Hi Scheinwerfermann,

You're on top of this shit like a fly.

I got lost learning about images and copylefts before I could complete my task, but there your were, cleaning up after me again.

I intend to create a proper image or receive permission to use an existing image shortly.

Thanks again!RidingLessons (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Howdy, RL. Terrific, glad to read there's an image in the pipeline; the article does need a good one. Coöperative contribution's what the project's all about, eh! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Please advise: Is it sufficient to delete the image command from the article, or must the image be remove manually from the wiki archive as well (perhaps this is automatic with unlinked images)? Thanks, RidingLessons (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

See here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

transport, car, sports car, supercar or hypercar?

Hi, I wonder could you give me the latest official line on the use of the word supercar. The automotive industry, designers and the race world still regularly use it...multi national toy manufacturers spend millions of dollars each year manufacturing repro branded supercars. But Wiki censure its use as non verifiable? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Being that Wiki is less about the truth and more about verifiability (your fine words not mine) and with the words car and transport themselves already becoming hard to separate with the appearance of the C5 and the likes, my point is that, while we can, we should celebrate the debate the use of words like supercar, supermodel, supercomputer all create as with similar continued censorship of established commonly used and recogniseable words the usefulness of Wiki as a enclyclopedia or platform will become obsolete as a victim of protocol. End of rant :)Redashhope< 19:12, 27 November 2008 (CET)

Greetings, Redashhope. This discussion is already underway over here, and that is the correct forum for it, so I have moved your query and my response. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Right and Left hand Traffic

You have been busy! I noticed in your recent (4-Dec-08) edit of this page, near the start of the changes made you changed "left/right-hand traffic" to "left/right-traffic", yet it looks like every where else in the article, and in the title as well, the terms used are "left/right-hand traffic". Any particular reason why you removed the word "hand" from just this one paragraph? - Pedrocelli (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

H'mmm, interesting. I was so busy reverting a bunch of degradation that I didn't notice. I'll go take a look and see how best to fix it. Thanks for the heads-up! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Pedestrian crossing

You re-instated the photo I removed from Pedestrian crossing with the comment "Reinstate valid image". I agree the image is valid, the problem was one of formatting. The three images in the first paragraph were pushing down the images in the following "Characteristics" section into the sections below. I have now moved two of the three images further down the page instead. I hope you agree.

I added an image of red and green man pedestrian lights, because I think these are more general (used in more countries) than the "Walk" / "Don't Walk" texts which I believe may be US-specific. TiffaF (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I agree, it's better now. I'm not too keen on the big "Walk/Dont Walk/Dont Walk" image. Not only is it too US-centric, but it's also out of date; the majority of pedestrian crossing signals in the U.S. now use graphics rather than words. Also, it's not representative of an actual signal, and the colours are wrong. Surely we can do better than this, if not from Commons then with our cameras out in the real world. What do you think? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C15:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Spirit R/T

I stand corrected.

Oh yes, I'm also sorry for the trouble I caused you, it was not my intent. Being a details oriented person, and staring at the tiny picture, led me to believe that the grille inserts were black, coupled with the clear lenses, made me dead set on it being a '92.

Bias versus vandalsim

I don't disagree with your reversion here,[1] but it does not appear to have been vandalism as defined by Wikipedia. In the future, it'd be better not to label good faith edits as vandalism, or to use tools to revert them. It only takes an extra few moments to write something like, "RV - unsourced POV." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

In general I agree with you, but we have here an editor with a clear track record of repeatedly inserting biased language against consensus, and disregarding all efforts at outreach and engagement to bring about increased coöperation — take a look at the user's contribs and talk page. That being the case, continued behaviour along that line after being asked and told to stop does constitute willful vandalism. NB I began referring to it as such only after repeated attempts to handle the situation under an assumption of good faith. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Even repeated additions of biased material doesn't qualify as vandalism. Bad faith means that the editor is intentionally seeking to harm the project rather than just trying to insert his POV (which may harm the project). I see no evidence of an intention to harm. There are other ways of dealing with problem users than calling them "vandals". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right that repeating the same inappropriate edit after warnings can qualify as vandalism, though I still think that it's unhelpful to label it that way in edit summaries. I've left an additional note on the user's talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

In less-than-blatant cases, intent to harm the project can be difficult to discern from e.g. ignorance or misunderstanding of the relevant project principles and protocols. As such, there'll always be a range of perceived demarcation lines between the one and the other. I think it most appropriate to approach the question on a contextual basis, so before applying a vandalism label to grey-area edits such as we're discussing, I carefully examine the editor's contribution history and user and talk pages to get a sense of where s/he's coming from. I invite you to take a look at my user page to get a sense of where I'm coming from. I'm not angling for (or interested in) a quarrel with you over whether this case is to be pronounced "toMAYto", "toMAHto", "poTAYto", or "poTAHto", but I do stand by my classification of the edits in question as vandalism. As for whether it's useful to label it as such, I feel this too is best determined on a case-by-case basis. It's my experience that problematic editors react differently to different responses to their problematic edits. Some are easily guided towards coöperative editing by thoughtful counsel. Some are bound and determined to post whatever they want, and screw everyone else. And there's a whole range in between, calling for different responses for different edits by different editors. I think you will probably see what led me to respond as I did when you take another look at the editor in question's whole talk page. Thanks for your thoughts! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering

Hello sir, I am just wondering why you use the deprecated spelling of cooperative in your comments. Even heady places like the Harvard/MIT Cooperative Society http://store.thecoop.com/coopstore/estore_aboutus.jsp dropped the diaeresis a long time ago. You and the New Yorker magazine seem to be the only folks hanging on to this. Respectfully, 167.102.224.45 (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good question. It's because the double o, with no diæresis, reads to me like a chicken house, i.e., a coop. That's an annoyance easily solved (I use Macs) by typing coöperate rather than cooperate, and I figure if it's good enough for the New Yorker, it's good enough for me...so I do it! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And I just thought he was trying to be like Mötley Crüe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_umlaut ! What's special about Macintosh? I had no problem typing those letters on my Windows machine. 72.85.44.180 (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Ît's hístòrïçålly béèn çøñ§iderably ëâsíér añd ƒästêr tø geñera†e speçial (e.g., acçeñtè∂) characterß ündər MacOS than undər Windos. ¿∏erhaps this has changed recently? If I were after a Heavy metal umlaut effect, I would emulate Deathtöngue long before I'd emulate Møtlëy Çrüé. ;-) —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Windows allows different keyboards to be used for ordinary needs of different areas, while a full set of 8-bit extended ASCII characters is accessible by holding Alt down while typing the 3-digit decimal code on the numeric pad. I have the norwegian keyboard with keys for ÅØÆöµ£õ€éá and the PC keyboards in France are another story. But things could be worse[2][3][4]. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Historically easier and faster? I disagree, see examples below. Recent change? Sorry no, typing accented characters in Windows is old news!

In 1992, Windows 3.1 worked just fine with various country or language specific keyboard layouts that included accented characters. For example the German (Germany) layout gives you ö ü ä and ß with single key presses, while other characters like é for those "borrowed" French (etc.) words are available through "dead keys."

One versatile layout available for Windows (and MS-DOS!!!)is the US International Layout (also called the English International Layout.) Depending on what you are typing it might be slightly more efficient than on the Mac. For example ö requires me to hit 2 keys in Windows (right alt+ P) and I think you need to hit three to get it in on Mac (option + u + o). (Perhaps the Mac method is more mnemonic for some characters, so easier yes, but not faster as long as you memorize the key location.) Just think of how many keystrokes Windows could have saved you for all the times you have urged people to cooperate!

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/97738 -- instructions on how to change the layout on ca. 1992 Windows 3.1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyboard_layouts#US-International -- an illustration of the layout, and instructions on typing MANY other accented keys that aren't shown on the key faces in the illustration
167.102.224.45 (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, as you like. I'm not interested in a Mac vs. Windows squabble on my userpage, thanks. :-) But may I ask...why are you using whole-URL external links to Wikipedia articles? That's not the right way to do it. Use internal links like this: [[Keyboard_layouts#US-International]] which yields this: Keyboard_layouts#US-International Or, better, use named internal links like this: [[Keyboard_layouts#US-International|The US International keyboard layout]] which yields this: The US International keyboard layout —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining how to do the internal link!
I definitely wasn't trying to start a squabble, but rather was attempting to provide an informative response to your question-- "¿∏erhaps this has changed recently?" Sorry, I should have been more direct and objective and simply said that "the change to Windows was made approximately 16 years ago."167.102.224.45 (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10