User talk:Scheinwerfermann/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10


K&N Engineering, Inc.

Let's discuss your text removal on the article's talk page. You removed all of the references from the article, including a newspaper, and then added the unreferenced tag. "Any material that is challenged, and for which no source is provided within a reasonable time (or immediately if it's about a living person), may be removed by any editor.", so you exercised your right to challenge. My point is "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources", and these are non-exceptional claims. I have indicated other points of contention on the article's talk page. Royalbroil 13:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and for not revert-warring. The article was blatantly commercial and wholly biased before my cleanup. Now it is considerably less commercial and only moderately biased, and can be built up in a more neutral and balanced manner. There is no provision in Wikipedia protocol for "weak references"; all assertions that are reasonably questionable must be verifiable by dint of reliable and appropriate references. Please take a few minutes to refresh your understanding of the standards of verifiability and source reliability. If you can find reliable and appropriate support for the assertions you want back in the article, by all means please reinstate them and add the relevant citations. The links were removed per Wikipedia's policy on external links. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Reversion: Volcano Vaporizer

Dear Scheinwerfermann, In regard to your reversions of the Volcano Vaporizer page, I question several changes. (Remainder of discussion removed to article talk page) Respectfully Yours, RidingLessons (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

RidingLessons, the best venue for this discussion is the article's talk page, where you also posted your view. I'll take it up with you there, OK? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Image wanted

I transfer your message from my page to yours.

Greetings, CA3. Another user recently placed

in a great many vehicle-related articles (image since removed from all of them). As you can see, this image does not depict anything, least of all an internal-combustion engine. It is a poor-quality attempt at a schematic, wholly dependent on extensive labelling to convey its nominal image. There's nothing wrong with the concept of an image such as this, showing the various parts through which air flows on its way into, through, and out of an IC engine, but a poor-quality, random image such as this what I've linked just won't do, as it seems to me. An animated image would be most preferable, I think, since we are dealing with airflow induced by the operation of the engine. I am thinking of your previous images along this general line and wondering if you might want to tackle the present need. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Since an animation needs considerable work I suggest you first solicit ideas from users. Can we create a "wish list" for a new image here on your page? Let's invite:

You can think of others. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ooh. I hadn't seen this animated 4-stroke engine image. I agree, it's grand. Thanks for pointing to it. A wish list or shopping list...h'mm. Well, I suppose we ought to decide what we're after. Something between a representative schematic and an illustration, with elements of both, possibly centred around this 4-stroke engine animation? To add would be the intake tract (air cleaner, intake manifold) and the exhaust tract (exhaust manifold, catalytic converter, muffler, pipeworks). I would think it best to gloze over the fuel system to avoid the decision of carburettor(s) or fuel injection; the point of the exercise is to have an illustration of airflow through the engine as installed in the vehicle. Do you agree? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
My main beef with this image (apart from aliasing) is that the air fuel mixture is compressed to zero volume. Leave some space above the piston. --Dschwen 12:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
You're right. This would be easily solved by removing the triangular crown from the piston, leaving it flat-topped. No peep from the image's creator yet; it looks like he's been inactive for some months. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The 3D model source for this animation is on my wish list but sadly WikiMedia doesn't allow 3D model source files. Alternatively, a higher resolution animation would allow me to solve the aliasing without trashing the visual quality, but if the original auth is unavailable, no luck. What a bummer - this is beautiful and could be significantly better. Dhatfield (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the new image at right. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This appears to build on the image above. It fixes the glaring technical issues — the piston is now flat-topped, which is an improvement, and the inlet and exhaust tract gas flow is nicely animated (though I'd like to see the exhaust plume outside the tailpipe animated somehow, too). I'm not sure why the backsides of the inlet and exhaust valves are illuminated by the ignition spark; they're wholly sealed off from where the spark occurs, when it occurs. I like the scintillation of the original image's spark better. The image overall has something of a grainy quality I imagine is caused by having to import and manipulate an already-completed animation. And we have here the odd and very scarce combination of DOHC with a carburettor. This is certainly a step in the right direction, but I wonder if we can't take several more steps. It's a pity the original animator seems no longer active. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
PEEP! You are right, I wasn't very active the last years due to my job. But here I am. It's funny to see the changes on the GIF. Poor quality, but a good idea. What happened to the camshafts? The problem with the infinite compression is - if I remember my design well - only in 2D, in 3D was enough space left. Your wish list: I can look for the 3D-model (done in Inventor) - but I will not have the time to make a new animation. --92.229.210.129 (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC) UtzOnBike
UtzOnBike it is good to have you with us. I converted your .gif animation to 47 .bmp files to allow direct pixel addressing. I wonder what you see at the camshafts which I have not changed. I reflected the block to give left-to-right airflow. (Hence the crankshaft turns clockwise.) I tried to remove the HUGE spark but some trace remains on the valves as Scheinwerfermann noticed. I am happy to e-mail the .bmp files for further work to anyone who agrees to acknowledge your GFDL rights. The 3 colour stripes at top left can be deleted or text added to them to make a key to the flows. Deleting would keep the picture independent of language. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The cams disappear sometimes. I do not know where I have the original model, I will look for it. When I have it, I will offer it (Inventor, STEP, IGES) to anyone who agrees to GFDL. UtzOnBike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.181.209.247 (talk) 08:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, finally I found the model. So - who want to finish the work? If you like, I will add intake and outlet system in 3D - but I have no time for animation work. --92.227.20.249 (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC) UtzOnBike

See a revised image at right. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is better, but the intake cam lobe still disappears at roughly the 7:00 to 9:00 rotative position, and we still have the odd combination of carburettor + DOHC. The latter isn't a complete dealbreaker AFAIC, it's just not especially representative of engines in actual service. As the main engine animation is DOHC, it'd be well to replace the carburettor with a fuel injector shown spritzing fuel, phased properly with the piston cycle. There also appears a strange little white speck in the exhaust tract. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
So, Cuddlyable3 got a link to my original files. He should now be able to fix the problems with his animation. @Cuddlyable3: Thanks for improving the project!--UtzOnBikeEN (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

See 3rd version of the image at right. Thank you everyone who helped. Now you can decide where to use this in Wikipedia. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Eureka! Looks terrific. Thanks, Cuddlyable3 and UtzOnBike. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be censorious - there are still remains of "my" gas (blue and brown) around the valves. But, the main problem is the disappearance of the valve discs when valves are opened. There was a file "ALLE.BMP" in the package with raw pictures (frames) - it is better to use them for setting up a new animation.--UtzOnBikeEN (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, hemi engines have prominent/non-flat piston-heads to better fill the chambers and aid combustion...I would think you knew that. And many DOHC pentroof engines use a shaped piston crown as well. As for a carb / DOHC combination I immediately think of the DOHC Jaguar I-6 with triple carbs, and I'm sure there are other examples. I think maybe OR is sometimes a good thing if only to put a check on these kinds of shenanigans and fudgey designs being perpetrated in an 'encyclopedia'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.58.130 (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

69.136.96.119

God ... you know you've been on Wikipedia a long time when you're asked to revisit someone you've blocked for a year (among the earliest administrative blocks I made).

It seems they're trying to tread carefully, giving their edits the appearance of legitimacy. What I've looked at wouldn't stand out to an admin unfamiliar with the user immediately as vandalism. But it's obviously not working with users in the know.

I think I will give him one final warning for disruptive editing and block for another year if this continues. Or maybe just block again ... it's not like this hasn't happened before. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This is getting interesting. I've found what looks like a pretty clear-cut sock account (Kennedy & Co. (talk · contribs) — currently blocked for two weeks due to vandalism and set up around the time the block expired, but check it out, very similar interests, many times editing the same article right after each other. These two edits — anon's, and Kennedy's — are practically quacking.

I'm going to open an SSP. Daniel Case (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I don't need to ... this edit is more or less a confession. Whoops! Who ordered the year-long with the indef on the side? Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! Blocked indef. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

He's already been declined twice, including once by Josh Gordon (to me, any unblock action taken by an Arbitrator is really significant).

As for the admin thing ... tell you what. Let me look over your contribution history and see if you would be a worthy candidate. Is there anything in there that you would probably have to explain? (Or another way of putting it: what's your most embarassing moment as a Wikipedian besides this (which was long enough ago that you wouldn't have to worry about it)?)

Also, look over some current and recent RFAs and get a feel for the process. Consider how you'd answer the questions, and if you can stand it in case there's a pile-on over some minor issue someone tries to make a big deal of. Daniel Case (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

ft-lb-f

Re: [1] at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. Thanks! Clearly even the "regular" WP article on the subject does not do a good job of explaining what each part of the unit abbreviation stands represents. Or I am just easily confused. Either way, thx  :) — MrDolomite • Talk 19:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks on Mercury Sable discussion page.

I noticed you asked a user to hold namecalling before on auto images. The user is again namecalling - called me an asshole on the discussion page, I tried to improve the page, and it gets reverted and no one will comment on the discussion I tried, except for swearing at me. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on the discussion at Talk:Mercury Sable. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Change to Lightmouse script

Hello, I see you are using User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js developed by Lightmouse (talk · contribs). This is to let you know that the script commands are now located in the toolbox at bottom left beneath: What links here. If you have any questions or comments please make a note of it at User:Lightmouse/wishlist. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

monobook

Hi

I notice that you are using a very old version of my monobook script. Have you considered updating it? Lightmouse (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be glad to consider updating. What can you tell me about the current version vs. the one I'm using? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the differences, all I know is that I have made many changes. Most have been improvements of detail and bug fixes. There are/were versions out there that added deprecated or no-longer-functional templates to articles. The user interface has changed so that the tabs are no longer there, the commands are now in the toolbox on the left below 'What links here'. Plus there are additional options to delink full dates to day/month/year format or to month/day/year format. It is possible to just add the line: 

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');

and after clearing your cache, you should see the commands in the toolbox at the left below 'What links here'. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply re 273

Though the parts are indeed pretty much all different, the basic design is very similar - the main difference being the lightweight casting and the much better packaging (including smaller heads!). I've spoken to both Willem Weertman and Pete Hagenbuch, and they both said the 273 (LA) was based on the A-series engines.

"All-new" indicates to the layman a complete, ground-up design - like the original Hemi engines, or the original A engines, or as you say the slant six. I think it would be a stretch here.

I realize this is a gray area -- we could for example argue over whether the Dodge Charger's rear suspension was all-new or derived from the Mercedes E-class, though they share very few, if any, parts -- but have a very similar design.

If I've convinced you, let it stand without all-new. Otherwise, I will respect your opinion on this. Davert (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.159.130 (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Debrecener

bacon" and "boar" both qualify as pork; debreceni generally aren't smoked),


I am not sure, of course, but my mom said they were smoked. She gave some recipes,

Yes "Debreceni páros" is unsmoked. It complicated the whole thing that some recipes recomend smoking for Debrecener sausage. It took a while to research, a lot of translations and some phone calls to Hungary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrington (talk • contribs) 10:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


Debreceni kolbász 1. 10 kg zsírosabb hús, 2,5 dkg őrölt fekete bors, 11 dkg paprika 5 dkg fokhagyma, 25 dkg só. A húst nagy lyukú darálón ledarálom. A zúzott fokhagymát beáztatom a vízbe. Sózom, fűszerezem, összekeverem a zúzott fokhagyma leszűrt levével, majd alaposan összekeverem. Vékony kolbászbélbe töltöm. A jól ismert debrecenipárokat készítem belőle. Egynapi pihenés után füstre teszem és szép pirosra füstölöm. 2 nap után fogyasztható.


Debreceni kolbász 2. 10 kg zsírosabb hús, 5 dkg őrölt fehérbors, 6 dkg paprika 5 dkg fokhagyma, 25 dkg só, 1 dkg salétrom, 1 dkg majoranna. A húst nagy lyukú darálón ledarálom. A zúzott fokhagymát beáztatom a vízbe. Sózom, fűszerezem, összekeverem a zúzott fokhagyma leszűrt levével, majd alaposan összekeverem. Vékony kolbászbélbe töltöm. A jól ismert debrecenipárokat készítem belőle. Egynapi pihenés után füstre teszem és szép pirosra füstölöm. 2 nap után fogyasztható.


Or Debreceni kolbász 3. 10 kg zsírosabb hús, 2,5 dkg őrölt bors, 7 dkg paprika, 5 dkg fokhagyma, 25 dkg só, 5 dl víz. A húst nagy lyukú darálón ledarálom. A zúzott fokhagymát beáztatom a vízbe. Sózom, fűszerezem, összekeverem a zúzott fokhagyma leszűrt levével, majd alaposan összekeverem. Vékony kolbászbélbe töltöm. A jól ismert debrecenipárokat készítem belőle. Egynapi pihenés után füstre teszem és szép pirosra füstölöm. 2 nap után fogyasztható.


Debreceni kolbász vaddisznóból 10 kg kicsontozott vaddisznóhús, 8-10 dkg törött bors, 20 dkg paprika, 25 dkg só, 1 dkg salétrom, 10 dkg fokhagyma. Tavalyi süldő húsából készítjük. A húst nagy lyukú darálón ledarálom. Sózom, fűszerezem, elkeverem a zúzott fokhagymával, majd jól összekeverem. Kolbászbélbe töltöm. Az ismert debrecenipárokat készítem belőle. Pihenés után füstre teszem és 2-3 napi füstölés után fogyasztható.

Warrington (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dodge Dart

The AKA field in the infobox is for alternate model names, not submodel names, which are fully covered in the article text.) (undo)

When is "Demon" an alternate name for ANYTHING automotive? A Demon is a Demon. No other car is a Demon. "Dart Sport" and "Swinger" are not 'submodels', unless you consider Demon a submodel. This is a discussion that comes up quite often. Sometimes Dodge's use of the term "Sport" as teamed with "Dart" is confused with the ubiquitous use of the term "sport" as applied to almost anything on four wheels if the bumpers are body-colored, or if it has a stripe, or a lot of other things. Jimpatnmatt (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I've replied in depth on your own talk page. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Let me try this again...using civility...
AKA: also known as.
I looked for another auto listing that had this, and I found Dodge Colt. The cars listed as AKAs: Plymouth Colt, Vista, Mitsu Mirage, Summit, etc. What I didn't see was (for example) Dodge Challenger, a badge-engineered Mitsubishi product with a different body style. I guess I'm confused- when I see a Dart 4-dr sedan, I don't know of anyone who would also refer to that as a Demon. So, is the Dart whatever Also Known As a Demon? I'm not being uncivil- I'm just going by what the words 'also','known' and 'as' mean, individually and together as a phrase, and I don't understand how Demon can be used here. Now, I could see Demon being used this way under the category of Duster, or vice-versa, since there are people who confuse one with the other. I can see Demon being listed as a related item.
Also, I'm curious about your Wikipedia credentials. You mention a lot of dos and don'ts. May I ask if you have any official capacity with Wikipedia (again not trying to be uncivil).
My reference to discussing the difference between a Dart Sport and any other sport was not a reference to Wikipedia, but a reference to my decades-long interest in cars, specifically Chrysler products, and my many encounters with other people as a result of this interest, both in person and on-line. I am a big eBay fan, and frankly that is where I have found this situation many times. I didn't mean that I had seen this anywhere else on Wikipedia.
I am very new to Wikipedia, & I find it very interesting. I have done some minor editing, always attempting to keep it in the spirit of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimpatnmatt (talk • contribs) 02:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I'm responding in depth on your own talk page. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I guess my concern is fairly simple: Instead of "Dodge Demon" being listed under the heading "also called", it would seem more appropriate if the heading was called "related".(or something similar) "Also called" just doesn't seem to apply in this situation where no one I know has ever looked at a Dart-badged car and said "That's also called a Demon." Thanks and I'll be discussing some other concerns with you as time permits. Jimpatnmatt (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Good thoughts. I've responded on your talk page. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think your idea sounds good. Thanks. Jimpatnmatt (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Engine displacement units

Why did you change the in³ units in Dodge Ram to CID? You just told me here that in³ was the correct format.

Also, in the tables, why did you insert the conversion templates? The original conversions were correct, but not all of the new numbers are (see 5.2 L conversions, correct size is 318, not 317).--Flash176 (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

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) 20:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I'm sorry for saying you changed to CID. I saw the CID templates in the differences section and my mind replaced in³ with CID in the article. I don't know why I do that sometimes, but it ticks me off.
Nevermind on the second point. I was going to ask what you meant by me changing out of compliance, but I see you changed it. About the conversions, I understand that they're the correct way, but if a person can correctly do the conversion themselves and make it appear the right way in the article instead of using the tildas (for example, 5.2 L (318 in³) instead of 5.2 L (~317 in³)), wouldn't that be better until we get everything straightened out?
Again, sorry for falsely accusing you.--Flash176 (talk) 20:34, 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) 20:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Nah, you weren't snippy. That's a good point on leaving the templates in place in hopes that someone will see the flaw. I'm like you, I don't know much about templates, but I don't really think it can be fixed, either. It might work if a person could fix it to where in³ were converted to liters and then rounded to two numbers.--Flash176 (talk) 21:14, 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) 00:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

H'mm. That is interesting behaviour regarding 305/5.0. I had thought the template would default to "x.y" output even when "y" is 0, but evidently not. I bet it can be tweaked to do so, but I'm not sure how. More importantly, I'm not sure we want/need to make it do so. "5 L" conveys precisely the same information as "5.0 L", and nobody goes around saying things like "The 1963-'76 Dodge Dart was built on a 111.0-inch wheelbase". Note that Template:Auto CID behaves the same way: {{Auto CID|305}} yields 305 cu in (5.0 L).
Your question about the Ford 302 has one — and only one — right answer: The 302 displays as 4.9 because its actual, physical piston displacement is 4942 cc. That is a 4.9-litre engine, not a "5.0", Ford's marketeering lie notwithstanding. This what we're writing is an encyclopædia, not a sales brochure or starry-eyed retrospective, so we should tell the truth. In this case, that means calling a 4.9 a 4.9, no matter how upset it may make Ford devotées. I am sure this question/debate/war has been rehashed often. It's probably one of those that just never dies. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A727 Torqueflite

Can you give me the tranny fluid capacity for 727 small block, with and without the converter?

Jack Fallen Halifax, VA

mopar_jack_44@hotmail.com

If you could E me the info, as I am not a frequent visitor to this site

Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.1.103 (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scheinwerfermann/Archive_6&oldid=1038579654"