User talk:Scheinwerfermann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Headlamp

Hey, thanks for the great edits to the automotive headlamps page. I especially appreciate your improvements to the "Care" section I added. --Lenehey 18:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Lenehey. Sorry to take so long responding to your kind comment here! Automotive lighting is not only my profession, but one of my passions as well. Scheinwerfermann 20:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That was an amazing fast response to my post on FA status for Headlamps! As I mentioned in my notice, I have never submitted a nomination for FA status for an article before. I also am interested in headlamps -- I was an Examiner at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and examined a large number of patents related to automotive headlamps (class 362). If you look at headlamp patents issued between 1991 and 1996 (the years I worked there) you can probably figure out my real name, since the Examiner's name is listed on the patents. :) I think the article is great as is. I will expand my comments as to the inconsistency in the peer-review notice i put up, but it is basically at one point, the article states that pop-up headlamps provide pointy-front cars with better aerodynamics, at least during the day (than non-pop-ups) while at another point, the article says that they aren't as aerodynamic as the standard type of headlamps. (I may have read it wrong, and I need to go back and check). --Lenehey 15:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Howdy again. I will look through some patents when I get back from the V.I.S.I.O.N headlamp congress in France—I was invited by a guy whose name would've crossed your desk a great deal in the '91-'96 timeframe, on patent applications from a major European automotive lighting concern whose corporate name begins with "V". Meanwhile, you're right, that aerodynamics language was kind of ambiguous. I've reworked the syntax and it should be more easily understandable now. Please check and let me know your thoughts. BTW, does the name Jack (Jacob) Rabinow ring a bell for you? --Scheinwerfermann 16:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Scheinwerfermann, well done. But after tagging {{GFDL-self}}, please try to remove "no license tag", one more thing, there is no requirement to add the date information to the image with GFDL tag. If you have uploaded other images which do not have appropriate tags, please place them to the images. Thank you, Shyam (T/C) 06:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there

Hi, since you seem to be very knowledgable about Chrysler engines and transmissions, I was wondering if you could help me sort out articles that simply list the TorqueFlite without actually giving the part number. Thanks. --ApolloBoy 03:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You bet, as time allows. I've been working lately to whip the Torqueflite article(s) into shape and consolidate them. I'm sure there are lots of articles that link generically to Torqueflite without going to the right section. Which ones have you got in mind?
Another project that really needs doing is the consolidation and rectification of the four(!) different Chrysler minivan articles. There's one for Dodge Caravan, one for Plymouth Voyager, one for Chrysler Voyager and one for Chrysler Town & Country. Great deal of sketchy and questionable info in each, grossly insufficient info and photos in the Chrysler Voyager article, and a large amount of duplication. This would be much better as a single "Chrysler minivan" article. Bigger job than it first appears, though. The infoboxes are giving me fits!

Scheinwerfermann 04:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, all of the Chrysler minivan articles were once merged together, but as the merged article grew, it became messier and not very comprehensive on each model, so as a result they were separated. --ApolloBoy 01:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lancer edits

I have reverted "didn't sell very well" with "didn't meet expectations" again. In this instance "didn't sell very well" is POV - according to whom didn't it sell, who is the authority? The "expectations" comment is more neutral.

Secondly, I also want to ask that if possible, please start citing references at the end of the article so that others can verify your added content.

Finally, I know that we have "butted heads" on topics before (over headlights), but I don't want that type of relationship with you. Evidently you know your stuff and I respect that. I also want to ask that in the future, lets discuss our differences on each others talk pages or the subjects talk pages, not in the edit comments. Thanks, Stude62 15:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Stude62, I'm of much the same mind. I certainly don't aim to get in a reversion war or pissing contest with you. I'm sure we both strive towards the same thing: Maximum veracity, clarity and thoroughness in all the articles upon which we work. I agree discussion pages are the right place to talk things out, and will make an effort to take any "Hey, wait a sec..." discussion to that venue. References, no problem, though you may not like some of the ones that I use, for reasons aired in our debate over rectangular headlamps on '67 Darts: Many of the published resources to which I am fortunate to have access are extremely difficult to find. Most of them are not in the local public library (unless you happen to live in Detroit, and in that case they're very deeply archived), many of them are internal engineering reports, and some of those that are generally accessible to the public at large are only available on a for-fee basis (examples of this latter category include e.g. SAE papers, which can all still be bought from SAE, but they have grown rather proud of them in recent years).
I happen to have a bit of a documentation fetish for my fields of interest. My collection of automotive lighting-related literature covers two 7-foot-tall, 5-foot-wide bookshelves, fills a large file cabinet and there are several boxes besides. My collection of Chrysler Corp. literature covers two more of those bookshelves, a similar file cabinet and fifteen or twenty banker's boxes besides. Even so, there are documents that remain on my shopping list because I haven't got them yet. I will, but it's a long process that involves a lot of waiting.
I enjoy having this material in my collection, but it's of little use to the world if it just sits on my shelves waiting for me to read it again, so I try to make use of my collection of published-but-in-limited-distribution information to the maximum possible extent here on Wiki. The issue, of course, is veracity checking. It can be extremely difficult. If I quote from Chrysler Corporation internal engineering report number 67-983 or whatever, and give the title, year and author, what's to stop someone from saying "Nope, not good enough, that contradicts what I read in a Popular Mechanics article from the June 1987 issue, and since I've never seen that Chrysler report you quote, I'm replacing your info with what I got from the magazine."?
Now, regarding Lancer sales figures: I don't have documentation of Chrysler's expectations for Lancer sales. Do you? This is a different issue than the Battle of the Warring Documents described above. Did Chrysler 'really' have high hopes for the Lancer, and the sales they dreamed of just never materialised? Or, was the Lancer a hurry-up stopgap to appease US Dodge dealers, who after a year of selling Valiants had that car taken away from them when the Plymouth name was applied for MY61, just to hold the line until the new-for-'63, genuinely-Dodge's-own Dart could come along? I rather suspect the latter is closer to what actually happened, given the leadtime involved in model development and release, but it's certainly possible that Dodge Division really thought the Lancer was going to instantly double Chrysler Corp's overall compact-car sales. Chrysler was in turmoil in '60-'61, reeling from supplier problems, leadership scandals and a reputation for poor quality earned by the '57-'59 models. A lot of hasty and expedient decisions were made in that timeframe. The difficulty lies in finding reliable documentation for corporate decisions like this. The motoring press have always taken it upon themselves to declare what was going through the decisionmakers' heads. When doing so, they're frequently guessing, and they often guess wrong. Without going through my collection of period car magazines (including Popular Mechanics!), I bet I could easily find three or four articles about the '63 Dart that say "Lancer sales didn't meet Chrysler's expectations" somewhere in their first three paragraphs. No documentation for those alleged expectations, but It's printed, it's in more than one source...and the question remains, is it correct! I think in cases like this, compromise language is probably the best "out", pending retrieval of a definitive answer. Everyone agrees the Lancer sold slowly compared to the '61-'62 Valiants, and compared to the '63 Dart. The only disagreement is whether Chrysler viewed this as a failure to meet expectations. Perhaps in this case, we'd be best to state that the Dart sold much more briskly than its predecessor, the Lancer.
Oh, and I haven't let the rectangular-headlamp matter drop. I believe I'm narrowing in on the origin of the rumour. Chrysler was big on "show cars" in the mid-'60s and early '70s timeframe. These weren't concept cars as we usually think of them (i.e., previews of coming attractions and distractions). They were dressed-up versions of standard production vehicles with styling features not necessarily intended for compatibility with prevailing laws, but rather to generate interest in the production versions of the car and get potential owners dreaming about how they might customize (or, in period terminology, "kustomize") their own car once they bought it. There appears in the book Chrysler Chronicle (James M. Flammang and the Auto Editors of Consumer Guide, © 1998 Publications International, Ltd., ISBN: 0-7853-2901-3) a photo of a 1969 Dart show car fancifully equipped with Cibié 240mm x 130mm rectangular headlamps as also featured on the 1970 Plymouth GTX factory show car covered (and documented!) some months ago in Mopar Action. (Trivia: That headlamp started life as a Renault 12 item)
Obviously, many of the same stylists who worked on the production versions of whatever which car, would also have worked on the special show versions. Now we're back to a question of intent, which is very difficult to document! Did Chrysler stylists really design rectangular headlamps into the '67 Dart in anticipation they'd be permitted for road use? Most of the evidence suggests they didn't. But there's ample evidence they used rectangular headlamps in show cars in the US, and that they used rectangular headlamps in similar-to-US vehicles sold in countries where standardised round headlamps were not required.
Thanks for your comments,

Scheinwerfermann 19:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My edits

I'm sorry if my edits offended you, but there was absolutely no need to call me immature and egotistic. I only want to help Wikipedia better like everyone else, not get my last word on an edit. Please don't attack me anymore... --ApolloBoy 04:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

When you behave in an immature and egotistical fashion, I will call you on it. I do the same for anyone else behaving likewise, and I'd expect no different treatment were I to behave in such a manner. No need for melodramatic hystrionics, there, bud, I am not "attacking" you. I am simply holding you to account for your behaviour. To avoid feeling "attacked", you need only behave to a high standard of maturity and judgement. Behave extra-well, and I'll comment favourably on that, too. Scheinwerfermann 21:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not acting melodramatic. I try my best not to act egotistical or immature; I'm not known for that at all here or in real life. I don't even know why you think I'm immature or egotistical... --ApolloBoy 00:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I explained my perception to you in fairly complete detail early in this discussion. Instead of kicking and screaming and going "Am not! Am not! Am not!", you may want to think about it for a minute ("H'm...somebody else perceives my behaviour in such-and-such a way. Could he be right? Maybe even just a little bit right?"). That would be the grownup thing to do. I have no interest in carrying this conversation further. Scheinwerfermann 02:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constructive criticism

Scheinwerfermann, whilst I was interested to read your candid opinion of my language skills, I wondered:

  • a) Why you chose to express it on the discussion page of another user rather than on mine
  • b) If you would provide an example of how the content should have been written to make it easily readable (if you cannot actually understand what I was trying to say ask and I will try to explain)

Thank you. -De Facto 10:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, De Facto. I chose to make my comments in the discussion on JzG's page so that it would be obvious I was offering a critique. Had I appeared from nowhere on your talk page with my comments, it would've seemed too much like a random attack, as it seems to me. There are many examples on Wikipedia of how to write cogently; I don't see that it would be beneficial to either of us for me to rewrite your content for you. I think I provided sufficiently detailed comments on the problems that you should be able to clean it up and fix it by yourself. Can you explain what you were trying to say in no more than three sentences of no more than 25 words each? Scheinwerfermann 16:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dodge van

It seems that someone basically took the Dodge A100 and Dodge Sportsman articles and clumped them together into this big mess. Can you help me separate the articles again and fix them? --ApolloBoy 01:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Eegads. Yeah, I'll go take a look and see what kind of a cleanup job is needed. Scheinwerfermann 02:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear, it looks like the same user went and did the same thing with General Motors van... --ApolloBoy 03:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page moves

Please use the "move" button at the top of your page to move pages. This way, it preserves the history of edits that is in the article. To fix the page history now, I need to delete the article to make room for the move. It will be back up in a minute. --HappyCamper 03:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Should be able to edit the page now. --HappyCamper 03:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I forgot about that handy move tab! Scheinwerfermann 03:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Sorry for the wrong capitalization...I see you fixed that too :-) Well, I'm going to move on to other topics, I don't know too much about these things. See you around the Wiki! --HappyCamper 03:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, just got your message. I'll stay around. Do some pages need deleting now? --HappyCamper 03:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
No, please don't do anything. You mention you're not familiar with the subject matter at hand here, and that shows. I will redo the work I already did. I'm not pleased about it and wish you had confined your fixing to the actual page move procedure. Editing article content you aren't familiar with is a dangerous game; you will usually wind up making extra work for someone. Me, in this case. Scheinwerfermann 03:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Well, in the recent changes log diffs, it certainly looked like some cut and paste moves were being done. I was a bit surprised that the antivandalbot kicked in, which was why I came over here to begin with. --HappyCamper 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm glad you found the reversion. Sorry for interrupting what you were doing. --HappyCamper 03:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image:CarbNomenclature.jpg

>I've reverted your deletion of the nomenclature from image:CarbNomenclature.jpg

That was a silly thing to do. Putting (English) text in pictures makes it impossible to use them inother language carburetor articles. I was planning to do that. You may have made the original pic, but you do not own it!
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy Rules of thumb #7 MH 17:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I never claimed to own it; let's be grownups and leave the namecalling and putting words in others' mouths out on the playground where they belong. The image with nomenclature is used in the English-language carburetor article right now, and that's appropriate. If you want to use it in other-language articles, that's terrific...use image:CarbNoNomenclature.jpg , which has the lettered arrows without the English nomenclature. Scheinwerfermann 18:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Headlight/Headlamp

Excellent! Feel free to revert back to your version, but there are a couple things to take care of. What you should do now is place an appropriate reference as an incline citation in the text to source the claim about headlamp being technically correct. Also, a quick glance at your edits showed fractions like 5¾ being changed to 53/4, which of course, is 13¼; that's the primary reason I reverted you. Please check to be sure you repair any such changes that get inadvertanly introduced. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A very good question. First, I'd be sure to reword the sentence to precisely match what your references say. Unless you actually have a source stating that headlight is technically incorrect as such, it would count as original research to draw that conclusion from the search results and such. Consider something like "While headlight and headlamp are both used in casual speech, headlamp tends to be preferred [in technical/formal contexts] [by automotive engineers]..." or something like that. Then, using a cite.php-type footnote, I would leave a note saying something like "See, for instance, [1], [2], and [3]." Choose a couple representative links. Search results would probably represent original research here too; perhaps it would be best to include prominent entities using the headlamp terminology. Feel free to solicit others' opinions on this as well. What would be ideal, of course, would be a good authority discussing the difference between headlamp and headlight and why the former is preferable. I am certainly reconsidering my vote; I'd like to a bit of additional research of my own. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AOL Block Issue

Short answer: No. It's an AOL IP, and blocks of that range generally have a huge amount of collateral damage to innocent users. The original block (see here was only for 15 minutes. Admins are generally advised to avoid blocking AOL for any extended length of time. If the vandalism persists, warn him with the test1-test4 warnings (find the templates of WP:TT and don't forget to subst them). If he keeps going after t4 or t3, report him to WP:AIV. AOL is one of our biggest problems here on wikipedia. alphaChimp laudare 18:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My user page

Thanks for removing the vandalism to my user page, I see the same IP decided to vandalize my talk page as well... --ApolloBoy 19:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taillight

As Scheinwerfer are your passion, perhaps I should bring this article on Rücklichter to your attention ;-) (You may have something to add or revise my cumbersome description.) Signaturebrendel 20:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvments and help! Signaturebrendel 23:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing - quickie reply

Hi! I keep the automotive lighting on my watchlist, so I can see all the wonderful work you are doing there! I would have to find some time to digest the whole article, but as concerns the first question you raised, I believe the answer is: if you introduce a reference like <ref name=sumfink>{{cite sumfink parameters and whatnot}}</ref>, than you can "reuse" it as by just typing in like <ref name=sumfink/> (the tag alone, with a slash at the end). I hope this was what you were looking for :D

As concerns the citing of standards thing, I can't think of a solution for that, as I have never encountered such problem. I would raise the issue on the talk page accompanying any of the Wikipediaspace pages refering to citing resources you would find most relevant. Excuse me for not being helpful here :(

Regards, Bravada, talk - 21:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. My gut feeling tells me Zilog might be terribly wrong here - most of such gadgets debuted very early (my guess would be 50s or even 30s), but were then forgotten. I still remember how surprised I was to find out that old Imperials came with a VINYL PLATE changer mounted in the trunk - and we would think we are so modern with those CDs :D

[edit] Template:TechReg

{copied} Thanks for pointing me to the template page. I took a pretty good look and I'm afraid I don't understand the syntax for crafting a new template. I was not able to find a how-to page. Have you any suggestions? Thanks! --Scheinwerfermann 03:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Can you take one of those and copy and adapt it by giving the fields you need? Or, if not, can you identify the one that comes closest to your needs, and say what would need to be added and removed, so someone else can do this for you? Either way, if you can then put that information on the talk pate where this conversation started, I'm sure someone will help you with any "rough edges". - Jmabel | Talk 03:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You are asking for something pretty complicated. It is beyond my knowledge of the syntax. Way beyond. I suspect there are not more than about 20-30 people in total who would know how to do this. I suggest that you look through who have done some of the more complicated templates and then canvass for an individual to help you. The chance of one of the few people who can do this simply coming across your request is relatively small (although I suppose that's not the least likely page for them to be watchlisting). - Jmabel | Talk 05:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuel injection

I see that you have rearranged the paragraph to eliminate sentence fragments right after I added the information to the fuel injection article about the first attempt to market the Electrojector system. However, putting back the sentence of what happened in 1958 and the subsequent sale of the patents does not logically precede the information of events that occurred in 1957.

In other words, the paragraph should be structured as follows:

1) Start with the name and developer of the system.
2) What happened in 1957 with AMC's attempt at offering EFI as an option in the Rebel.
3) State that the 1958 Desoto offered the first full production EFI system (as an option).
4) End with Bendix selling the patents to Bosch.

The current paragraph with your change does not have proper time sequence because it goes: 1 - 3 - 4 - 2.

Just my $0.02 - Thanks - CZmarlin 08:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for the suggestion to provide more information on the early fuel injection systems. I am on the road and thus do not have access to the original source material. However, the following web page [4] has some excerpts from the 1957 Rambler Rebel owner's manual -- including engine power ratings for carb and EFI versions. Moreover, the following page has more on the problems faced by AMC as well as Chrysler with the Bendix system [5]. As far as the actual number of '57 Rebels produced with EFI, the AMC's 327 section notes that of the handfull made, all were reportedly converted to the 4V carb before being sold. It seems the same fate was shared and most of the EFI MoPars were recalled. I hope this helps in the upgrade of the article for now. CZmarlin 16:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not know how the Allpar.com website works. Their description of AMC's attempt of fuel injection in the 1957 Rebel seems to be similar to that found in standard sourcebooks. In any case, I think it should be mentioned that not only the 1980s Chrysler 318 with EFI had problems! The "baby" Cadillac Seville (introduced late in 1975) had an Oldsmobile 350 fitted with EFI run by a crude analog computer. This was a system made by .... Bendix, Bosch, and General Motors! Although it was a smooth engine producing 180 horsepower, most of these were also converted back to ordinary carburetion before the factory warranty ran out! I am not sure if GM had an "official" service package with the parts necessary to retrofit with a carburetor. There were plenty of these engines around for any backyard mechanic to quickly perform the switch and thus avoid the high cost of EFI replacement parts! Therefore, the early attempts at computer control of engines were "baby" steps. Some, like in the Rambler Rebel, made it into the owner's manual. Yet, even the ones that got to the hands of individual customers were most often yanked out because they were so trouble prone and expensive to maintain! CZmarlin 20:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/h/User_talk%7EScheinwerfermann_72a8.html"