User talk:Morcus

Fighting beer

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Fighting beer, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oli Filth 17:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

United Nations Investigations

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article United Nations Investigations, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Citation Barnstar
		For great work in finding citations for Quad bike Ahunt (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hessians

I read your comments on the article Hessian (soldiers). I have a lot of the same concerns about the article, but it seems like such a mess that I don't even want to deal with it. Instead, I started a new article from scratch. If we can write the article as it should be written, maybe we can just redirect or ignore the Hessian article. Any help would be greatly appreciated! The article is Germans in the American Revolution. Mingusboodle (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Saloon/Sedan

Before you revert the redirect from Saloon (car) to Sedan, please cite references to prove your claim that they are sufficiently different for two separate articles to exist. Alastairward (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Morcus, I am discussing this here because the matter does not need to clutter the talk pages of the articles on Sedans. I have reverted your edit to the Saloon (car) article as the material is replicated at the Sedan (car). As for your reference from the OED, I challenge you to repeat what it says in this talk page, I can quote for you the Collins English Dictionary, 2005 edition. "sedan n 1 US, Canada, & NZ a saloon car." This rubbish about not being able to easily access the luggage compartment is irrelevant. I have driven in enough saloon cars to know that you can easily pop forward the back seats and access the boot. When my Dad buys another saloon this month, I'll even take pictures for you! Alastairward (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that, I was able to get some references from the Chambers English dictionary for saloons and sedans and from Collins the same (although they don't allow linking to individual articles, you'll have to do that little bit yourself and look it up.) Alastairward (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is deleting your work on the Saloon (car) article, its simply redundant and a simple redirect will suffice.Alastairward (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sedan

Did you read my comment on Talk:Sedan before undoing my edit? I'm not disagreeing with you about the ambiguity, but this is a potentially disruptive change that needs to be discussed first. You need to use the {{move}} template (technically, the correct proposal would be to move Sedan (disambiguation) to Sedan), and then go through a discussion to make sure there really is a consensus for the move. Then you and others supporting the change can update the 1,400 (or more) other articles that currently link to Sedan as an article about a type of car! After all that, feel free to change the redirect. --Russ (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Brabourne re Facel Vega

'Yes' is the answer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.10.199 (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Referencing

Hi Morcus! An article you have been involved with has been tagged as being in need of further sources to avoid being deleted. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Double-barrelled name.

RWD layout

Hey, I saw you replied on the talkpage on engine layouts, perhaps you can help me out here. I can understand that a transverse (? - opposite of longitudinal) engine in FWD would work or when it's mounted in the front for RWD, and even that a transverse engine would work for RWD when mounted in the rear. Something I don't understand however, is how a "Rear Longitudinal" engine would work. It is fitted in the LP versions of the Lamborghini Murciélago (you can search for the 'Rear Longitudinal' in that article, I quoted from there. I'm not sure if there are any non-LP versions of the Murc) for instance. Do you know how it works or at least redirect me to something else that can explain. I thank you :) 81.68.255.36 (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've not logged in for awhile so this is probably too late. Basically with a rear mid mounted longitudinal engine it works the same as a Rear gearboxed front mounted one but with the engine bolted directly to it. I can't explain precisly how it works but its basically how any kind of transaxle works. The advantages are balance, greater size capacity (You can only build a car so wide) and Transaxles built for this set up are manufacturered for higher powers.(Morcus (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

Overdrive (mechanics)

I've written a new lead for this, to try and explain the what and why of it. Hopefully that's clearer now. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2011 (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) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)