User talk:Wdl1961

i would likemy old id Wdl24.146.23.84 back plsWdl1961 (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. You can use this template to describe your activity. Thank you--Gökhan 21:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops sorry I just realized what the problem is.--Gökhan 21:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop erasing my contributions at two stroke engine

Please stay away from my writings. You have no right to erase them. See also my answers. Thanks --Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 20:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inventor (talk • contribs)

List of economic systems by Name

An etymologist's approach to economic systems, this list attempts to sort all possible economic systems in alphabetical order, without any division or hierarchization.

• American School
• Anarchism
• Anarcho-capitalism
• Anarcho-communism
• Autarky
• Barter economy
• Buddhist Economy
• Capitalism
• Colonialism
• Command economy
• Communism
• Coordinatorism
• Corporatism
• Corporate capitalism
• Digital Economy
• Distributism
• Dirigisme

• Fascist socialization
• Feudalism
• Green economy
• Haydarism
• Hydraulic despotism
• Inclusive Democracy
• Information economy
• Internet Economy
• Islamic economics
• Japanese System
• Knowledge Economy
• Libertarian communism
• Libertarian socialism
• Market economy
• Market socialism
• Marxian economics
• Mercantilism
• Mixed economy

• Mutualism
• Natural economy
• Neo-colonialism
• Network Economy
• Nordic model
• Parecon
• Participatory economy
• Planned economy
• Progressive Utilization Theory
• Resource based economy
• Self-management
• Social market economy
• Socialism
• Socialist market economy
• Subsistence economy
• Traditional economy
• Virtual economy

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to User:Wdl24.146.23.84/xxxx has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. --[[::User:Unpopular Opinion|Unpopular Opinion]] ([[::User talk:Unpopular Opinion|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Unpopular Opinion|contribs]]) 19:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I was using an automated tool to fight vandalism, and I accidentally removed your changes. I told my tool to undo the revert and the warning, and it told me that it had undone both. Again, I apologize, and I will try to be more careful in the future. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Batu Lintang camp

I have removed it from the Dutch East Indies section of the List of Japanese-run internment camps during World War II. Batu Lintang was in Sarawak, which was not part of the Dutch East Indies. Thanks. Jasper33 (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No problems. I looked at the page on Tjideng camp you linked to - very interesting. There's a photo of Tony Rafty sketching children there - he was a war artist who came to Batu Lintang too, so I made a page about him here. Do you have family links to the camps? I hope you don't think I am rude for asking but I am researching Batu Lintang and am curious. Jasper33 (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing on Talk:hot bulb engine and various user talk pages.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Nancy ^talk 07:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Prosper L'Orange

A tag has been placed on Prosper L'Orange, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. tgies (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Prosper L'Orange. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. Also, when you place a "hangon" tag on an article, be sure to give a reason on the article's talk page. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

if i did it was not intentional.sorry, thanks Wdl1961 (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

fotograph ref

fotograph refs and drawings from multiple sources are not more reliable than third parties quotes and opinions under wiki rules ?Wdl1961 (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

editing

pls do not edit my talk page.
i want and have a backup record .
i can live with my mistakes.
Wdl1961 (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

some editors do not bother to read the quoted sources or remember more than one fact.some editing requires more than to recognize f--- and s--- and m------ but count is more important than quality especially if checks are hard to perform.
Wdl1961 (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Diesel-powered passenger cars

A tag has been placed on Diesel-powered passenger cars requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Quantumobserver (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

delete "Diesel-powered passenger cars" above please

working on new tile "Diesel-powered automobiles‎"
Wdl1961 (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC) anyone with a better title?? Wdl1961 (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Fuel injection. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


it is sourced in Hesselman engine invented by Swedish engineer Jonas Hesselman in 1925. Hesselman engines used the ultra lean burn principle and injected the fuel in the cilinder etc.
Wdl1961 (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

1: *Scania fordonshistoria 1891-1991 av Björn-Eric Lindh, 1992. ISBN 91-7886-074-1
2: *Volvo – Lastbilarna igår och idag av Christer Olsson, 1987. ISBN 91-86442-76-7

1: * Scania vehicles history 1891-1991 by Björn-Eric Lindh, 1992. ISBN 91-7886-074-1
2: * Volvo - Trucks yesterday and today by Christer Olsson, 1987. ISBN 91-86442-76-7

---

Supercharging and turbocharging

reliable sources "" turbo supercharging applied Wright Aeronautical Engines in 1937 ""

Wright Aeronautical Engines in 1937 - USA This version of the nine cylinder G Cyclone R-1820-G2, has a rating of 1000 ... More than 1000 of the 1300 engines sold were of the Wright Cyclone type, ... www.aviation-history.com/engines/wr-1937.htm - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

"The various G Cyclone models differ only with respect to the amount of supercharging applied. The G-1 has a blower gear ratio of 5.95 to 1; the G-2 a blower ratio of 7 to 1; the G-3 a blower ratio of 8.31 to 1 and the G-6 a blower ratio of 8.83 to 1. All the G Series engines are of the nine-cylinder radial aircooled type and have the following characteristics: bore, 6.125 inches; stroke, 6.875 inches; compression ratio, 6.45 to I; diameter, 54 1/4 inches; length, 43 1/4 inches; dry weight (geared) 1,163 pounds, (direct drive) 1,068 pounds."

refs dont help terminology confusion nicely 00000000
Wdl1961 (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

corrolation retencion capacity

how come the english wiki need way more ref s than any other language article??
corrolation retencion capacity??
one word
one sentence

Wdl1961 (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Table of ref frequencies

sub	diesel engine	fuel injection	ww2-----------
english	49	9	263
french	6	0	53
german	2	2	22
dutch	1	0	6
spanish	9	0	40
swedish	0	0	9

Wdl1961 (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

following copy from —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

---

the german (or any non english) approach does not seem to be like yours
i dont think the use of german "searchlight" is in agreement with that usage.
Wdl1961 (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're trying to convey to me in this and your previous comments; it is apparent that English is not your first language. I'm not sure if you're trying to use an online translator or if you're leaning too hard on a limited grasp of English, but in either event, it's not working. Please ask an English- or French-speaking friend for help if you require my assistance or attention. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

where is the bulb? copy to my talk page
Wdl1961 (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

later copy

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're trying to convey to me in this and your previous comments; it is apparent that English is not your first language. I'm not sure if you're trying to use an online translator or if you're leaning too hard on a limited grasp of English, but in either event, it's not working. Please ask an English- or French-speaking friend for help if you require my assistance or attention. —Scheinwerfermann T·C02:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC) bulb??qedWdl1961 (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Wdl1961 (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scheinwerfermann" Hidden category: Non-talk pages that are automatically signed

Ref language pref

Greetings, Wdl1961. Thanks for providing two reliable refs for your addition to Fuel injection. Obs: per WP:VUE, English-language sources are preferred, when they're available, for citations here on the English-language Wikipedia. It may be difficult to find English-language refs of good quality in some cases, and perhaps the information on Mr. Hesselman and his engine is such a case. But do keep your eyes open for English support for Swedish-centred assertions, won't you please? I'd also like to invite you to please take a look at Daytime running lamp, Dagen H, and Traffic directionality; I'll bet you probably can contribute significantly to the accuracy and detail of these articles and may be able to provide some quality refs, even if they are not in English. Tack så mycket! (Sorry, I have only perhaps 15 words of Svenska) —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

copy of/to

User talk:Tomas e

"". .Jonas Hesselman‎; 18:36 . . (+41) . . Tomas e (Talk | contribs) (iw, correction to engineer rather than "civil engineer", which is not the correct translation of "civilingenjör" - looks like he was a mechanical engineer) thank you . my knowledge of swedish i can spell "swedish".
Wdl1961 (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC) pls check Hesselman engine art also.Wdl1961 (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)""
Wdl1961 (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

diesel

Hi, it looks much better, there are still quite large sections without inline citations, I think the main refimprove tag can be removed and use {{fact}} if needed. --Typ932 ^T·C 09:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hesselman

Hello, Wdl1961. You have new messages at Tomas e's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Wdl1961. You have new messages at Scheinwerfermann's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Poppet valve, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. It is not okay to remove templates without addressing the needs that prompted the templates' emplacement. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

---

no originator

no problem stated

original vandalisme

read the refs

if you do not understand them call me on skype wdelang5 or email wdelang@cogeco.ca

Wdl1961 (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Communication among editors is carried out here on Wikipedia, not offline via Skype or email. The Poppet valve article does, in fact, require more references, so the template saying so needs to remain — no matter who placed it there. Emplacing such a template does not constitute vandalism. The template itself is the problem statement. I fear you are getting off to a rough start here on Wikipedia. Things will go better for you if you will please take the time to learn and understand how the project works, rather than guessing, assuming, or setting out to edit according to your own personal preferences rather than coöperatively in accord with Wikipedia protocol. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

read the refs. do you have specific wiki line refs for your assertions?Wdl1961 (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop, look, and listen

Wdl1961, your enthusiasm and eagerness to contribute is most welcome, but you are making messes that other editors need to clean up. We do not remove valid templates from articles without addressing the need that prompted their emplacement. We put maintenance templates in the relevant article, not in its talk page, we don't repeat wholesale somebody else's comments or text, nor do we paste as plain text the fiducial information from an edit summary on the discussion page 1, 2, 3. Instead, we link to the diff or edit in question. We don't routinely move blocks of text from one user's talk page to another, nor do we place abstruse tables of information with inscrutable random comments on users' talk pages. It is very difficult to make helpful edits to Wikipedia in a language you do not actually speak; if you wish to keep trying, please at this time take a break from editing, and spend some time learning and understanding Wikipedia protocols. If you're not sure how to do something, please don't guess or assume, but ask. There are lots of editors and administrators who will be glad to help you. If you carry on making improper edits, even if you mean well, you run the risk of being blocked or banned from editing. Thank you for your coöperation. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

---

this is the original text before selective editing

Table of ref frequencies

sub	diesel engine	fuel injection	ww2-----------
english	49	9	263
french	6	0	53
german	2	2	22
dutch	1	0	6
spanish	9	0	40
swedish	0	0	9

Wdl1961 (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

following copy from —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

---

the german (or any non english) approach does not seem to be like yours
i dont think the use of german "searchlight" is in agreement with that usage.
Wdl1961 (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're trying to convey to me in this and your previous comments; it is apparent that English is not your first language. I'm not sure if you're trying to use an online translator or if you're leaning too hard on a limited grasp of English, but in either event, it's not working. Please ask an English- or French-speaking friend for help if you require my assistance or attention. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

where is the bulb? copy to my talk page
Wdl1961 (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
above copy of privately saved original file.

+ bulb??qedWdl1961 (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

do you have specific wiki line refs for your assertions?Wdl1961 (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"first spark ignition engine with direct injection of fuel into the cilinder." as vandalism

Jonas Hesselman, a Swedish engineer, build in 1925 the first spark ignition engine with direct injection of fuel into the cilinder.

Revision as of 03:54, 14 February 2009 (edit) (undo)Scheinwerfermann (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted 1 edit by Wdl1961 identified

as vandalism to last revision by Scheinwerfermann. using TW)Next edit →

Scheinwerfermann

sehr geehrter Herr ??
how when where is this vandalism ??

pls replace bulb
Wdl1961 (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

copy from fuel injection talk.waiting for answere from Scheinwerfermann.Wdl1961 (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

do you have specific wiki line refs for your assertions?Wdl1961 (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Poppet valve, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

chck poppet puppet and Vegavairbob talk page

Wdl1961 (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann

copy of User talk:Typ932 Scheinwerfermann

Hello- How are you. This guy Scheinwerfermann..... In a discussion to change an article title I opened Straight-four engine he didn't like my comments on the talk page...he opened up a full page lecture right on the article talk page!!!!check it out (by the way I didn't know you couldn't message other editors to vote and i apologised on the talk page and in the discussion....then he proceeded to edit the Vega article from head to toe last night but I didn't revert anything that helps article....then he opens up a discussion incidents for adminstrators review. He is really out of control. Vegavairbob (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

chck poppet puppet article !!

Wdl1961 (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Poppet valve, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

references

hello, in Wikipedia internal references (wikipedia articles) are not preffered ones , try to find other sources --Typ932 ^T·C 16:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

Wdl1961, meatpuppetry is not permitted on Wikipedia. You've made it clear you don't like me, and that's your prerogative, but you are not helping anyone or anything by acting in Vegavairbob's stead to revert legitimate edits to Chevrolet Vega. If you continue to do so, I will report you for meatpuppetry. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

Scheinwerfermann please take a look at what WP:MEAT actually says. Wdl1961 was not recruited by Vegavarbob. As far as I can tell they have never had any contact. Your above post implies that Vegavairbob is engaging in meatpuppetetry which there is no indication of. On the other hand it is hard to tell what Wdl1961 was trying to do with his last couple of edits, they don't look helpful and he would be wise not to engage in wikistalking of Scheinwerfermann. --Leivick (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chevrolet_Vega"

what is meat puppetry??

is that the same as qwerty??

there must have been a spelling mistake in what ever is bothering yo mnow agian.

or checl th dictionayry befoer or your own ooutputt

checkk below & aboove prevous KMA kijk maar aan

Wdl1961 (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"Puppet" usage 

The 1996 U.S. patent semi-cited as support for modern usage of "puppet valve" as an alternate term for "poppet valve" is not reliable. If you [{{{url}}}], you'll notice that while its title contains the word "puppet", its text refers to poppet valves (except where it erroneously refers to "popper" valves). Given the proximity of "u" to "o" and of "r" to "t" on the QWERTY keyboard, and the vagaries of OCR, Occam's razor suggests the most likely explanation for the anachronous appearance of "puppet valve" is simple typographical error. We'd need to see the original patent application or file to check for sure, and unless or until we can do that, I think we have to consider that particular source unreliable. If there is other, more reliable evidence for modern usage of "puppet valve", let's find it and incorporate it, but for now it looks like "puppet valve" is quite obsolete.

(I say that patent was semi-cited because it was added in halfway fashion. "See for example patent number such and such" is not a citation. Please properly format your citations. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

ref

onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/puppet+valve - 6k - Similar pages

Wdl1961 (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Puppet valve, a valve in the form of a circular disk, which
       covers a hole in its seat, and opens by moving bodily away
       from the seat while remaining parallel with it, -- used in
       steam engines, pumps, safety valves, etc. Its edge is
       often beveled, and fits in a conical recess in the seat
       when the valve is closed. See the valves shown in Illusts.
       of Plunger pump, and Safety valve, under Plunger,
       and Safety.
       [1913 Webster]

KMA

Sadly, it's going to end

Sadly, it's going to end...

...badly [1] for VVB. Writegeist (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Schweinwerfermann, I was a little too cryptic. I thought you might not have seen VVB's post (it was gone the next time I looked), and I just meant that its tone and content again point to the inevitability of sanctions sooner or later. IP shenanigans (and IP location) also noted. Thanks. Writegeist (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, comprendo. Yeah, it's hit-or-miss whether anything VVB touches will remain visible for more than the seven nanoseconds that typically elapse between his edits, so it becomes necessary to pull on a set of hip waders and slog through his contribs to count up how many different ways he said "Gentalmen you're all poopooheads!" before shedding a few crocodile tears and deleting the comment altogether. It will be interesting to see what our new friend 71.167.61.206 (talk · contribs) does now that he knows he is being watched by those who have an idea who he very likely might just happen to be. Correlation, so the old axiom goes, doesn't demonstrate causation. However, correlation has been known every now and then to waggle its eyebrows in a conspicuous manner, elbow you in the ribs, and go "Psst! Psst! Look over there!". Keep the buttered side up, eh! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Correlation, so the old axiom goes, doesn't demonstrate causation ??

the word "puppet", its text refers to poppet valves (except where it erroneously refers to "popper" valves). Given the proximity of "u" to "o" and of "r" to "t" on the QWERTY keyboard, and the vagaries of OCR, Occam's razor

meatpuppetry Correlation, so the old axiom goes, doesn't demonstrate causation

puppet [[popper}} IP shenanigans (and IP location)

qwerty

where and what dictionary applies

this and all the rest above

pseudonim KMAs

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bumper (automobile), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

globalize tag is illogical and insulting to other cultures

{{Globalize}} bumber checking other languages bumper articles only the German seems to have something extra' i would suggest that no other language has the wiki nonsense that the English wiki has. most non English contributors will not be willing to put up with the stuff that some english editors deal out . so it is largely an cultural issue. if here was a global interest to contribute some one would have done it by now. my contributions have been criticized having been written in my second or third or fourth language. the globalize tag is illogical and insulting to readers from other cultures because of several implications .KMAs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdl1961 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 2009 July 11 (UTC)

Wdl1961, the globalize template points to a genuine shortcoming of this article. We don't remove templates like this without fixing the problem they indicate; doing so is considered vandalism. There is no real way in which this template is "insulting to other cultures". It's not a call for "global interest to contribute", it's an indication that the subject matter is globally applicable — cars all over the world have bumpers — but the implementation differs by country, and the article deals with only certain countries' implementations. That's still the case, and that's why the template needs to stay. It's been replaced, and it will need to stay until the problem is fixed.

Also, please remember to sign your comments correctly on talk pages; that's the polite thing to do. Thanks for editing coöperatively. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

what is the problem and be specific with the wiki refs putting stuff in without a reason is vandalisme refer to wiki common sense etc.KMAs

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bumper (automobile), without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles, as you did to Bumper (automobile), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

48 hour block. Let's see, edits to own preference only and dismisses consensus - oh, and edits Bumper (automobile). Keep this up and you will be blocked for as long as the User:Vegavairbob account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello

If you would like to communicate with me please do so in normal fashion. Copy and pasting threads to my talk page without explanation does not really do the trick. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Staatburgerschap

What were your intentions with this because i do not understand. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What happened

What happened to the diesel electric drive page? Lattefever (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Lattefever

Diesel-electric transmission article covers most of it already .Wdl1961 (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"it would not be advisable to delete anything"

You seem to have added the same chunk of text twice at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy - if this was an error, can you remove one of them?  pablo_hablo. 10:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: australian_fuel_label

You just left a rather cryptic message on my talk page about this image (File:Australian fuel label.gif). Please note that my bot does not tag images for deletion; it merely flags that someone else has done so. This is done so that people like you notice the impending deletion of the image and are thereby able to do something about it. If you look at the image information page, you will see that it is tagged as "needing information on its copyright status". As this copyright notice makes clear, the page is not under any kind of free licence and as such could not be included in Wikipedia without a convincing fair use rationale; I find it difficult to imagine such a rationale. My best wishes, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 12:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Sea Shepherd Conservation Society talk page

Hello fellow wiki editor. Recent comments you've made in the SSCS talk page such as "International agreements to discontinue whaling should be enforced by the navy. Whale killing is terrorisme" do not help us in determining which sources are reliable or how we can make the article more professional. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_page_guidelines thich states, "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article." The talk page is not the place to dsicuss politics or personal views. Incidentally, I agree with you that the governments should enforce the laws protecting whales and humans and that no violence should be tking place down there and that when it does, laws should be enforced. Regardless, lets keep personal feelings off th talk page of the article. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you.

Please do not blank out that much information again. It was well sourced and did not offer undue weight. Did you actually read through the source? Was it a knee jerk reaction? I honestly can't compehend how you could make an edit like that. If you want to go through the edits and tighten it that would be understandable but a complete blank smacks of laziness, is a diservice to the reader, and is rude.08:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories & templates being used in your sandbox

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your user page, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline. After you look over that guideline, could we discuss that concern here? I'd appreciate hearing your views, such as your reasons for wanting this particular page and any alternatives you might accept.

There are several options available for resolving this matter:

• If you can relieve my concerns through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
• If you decide to delete the page yourself, please add {{Db-userreq}} to the top of the page in question and an administrator will delete it.
• If the two of us can't agree on what needs to be done, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's user pages for discussion, which may result in the page in question being deleted.

Thank you.

This is specifically in regards to your sandbox showing up in categories. :) I removed the categories from your 2 sandboxes. :) --68.41.80.161 (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I see that you are responding to the sandbox issue at the talk on Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. It would be more appropriate to discuss that here or at my talk page. No disrespect intended. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Just click where it says talk ^. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Edit summaries including "let's put these whale killers out of business", pushing an agenda with your edits, disruption on the talk page, and continuing conflicts with other editors needs to stop. If you cannot adhere to the guidelines you need to step back from editing the article. Also, stop adding catagories to your sandbox pages since that links in the main space. #68 didn't request that to be a jerk. Cptnono (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You're not an idiot so please go read WP:SEEALSO. The See also section is for internal wikilinks. The link you added may not even be acceptable as a reliable source or external link. I haven't checked it out completely yet but before including anywhere I would recommend reading those guidelines (which have been provided) or making a mention on the talk page. If you honestly need a hand learning the guidelines you should make mentions on the talk page to save everyone frustration. If you are making such additions to make a statement it is disruptive. Please proceed with caution and make some inquiries on the talk page if you have any inkling of it being a concern to other editors. Get off the thin ice and start collaborating or we will have to deal with the drama of reporting you.Cptnono (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No more warnings on this one. If I see categories on your user page again I am reporting it. I shouldn't have to search through that trainwreck of text looking for categories to delink.Cptnono (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And please be more careful on the talk page. Omitting ending ref tags, partial refs in section headings, and not signing your comments are adding confusion.Cptnono (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to User:Wdl1961/sandbox1, you will be blocked from editing. If you replace the categories again in this article, or other inappropriate place in Wikipedia, I shall block you for an extended period. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

You have been blocked for 72 hours, per my only warning above, for having placed categories in your sandbox. You may work on articles there if you desire, but you must not include categories. If you are incapable of understanding this simple instruction, then you are likely to be sanctioned further and for longer periods. I have removed the categories and made a placeholder should you wish to return the content to mainspace. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Twin-screw type supercharger. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

'Ignition System' Diagram

Thanks for helping anyway. It would have been a shame to not use the diagram after getting it translated. (in less than 24 hours!!)

I'm not an expert on engines (more electronics). What got me going in this area were some very dubious statements in Ignition coil and related articles. Apparently someone is mixing up current and voltage!

You seem to know something about engines, so what do you think about this;

Since it has a capacitor connected across it, the primary winding and the capacitor form a 
tuned circuit, and as the stored energy oscillates between the inductor formed by the coil 
and the capacitor, the changing magnetic field in the core of the coil induces a much 
larger voltage in the secondary of the coil.

This, I find odd. It may be technically correct, but how significant is it (tuned circuit)?.
I had never heard tuned circuit and Ignition System in the same sentence, until I read this article. The capacitor certainly protects the points, and also suppresses RF interference (not in article) by reducing arcing. The fact it may form a tuned circuit may be just a fluke, that possibly has no bearing on the ignitions operation.

Comments? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The 300 volt is wrong for any car . It is like this on other wiki sites but I would change it or not use it . It was my mistake to put it in. Thanks for your attention. Wdl1961 (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

MIT video in Finite element method

The MIT video is distributed under cc-nc-sa, which is a *non-commerical* licence. The website being linked to is using this for commercial purposes, and the original distributors have links posted for the video. If you wish to retain the video please use the MIT link available at OCW. More discussion is available at my talk page. User A1 (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Speed of light - clarify changes

Hi. Could you mention what the changes are in your proposal, compared to what's currently in the article? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Look below and see ref 6. It does no transfer to talk sol. correctly. Wdl1961 (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like your proposal is nearly the same as "Option 3b" on the sol talk page. Did you mean to propose Option 3b? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This below is supposed to be implementation of 3b i hope. Wdl1961 (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at Option 3b on the talk page, it has a footnote at the end of the footnote, which yours doesn't. Are you sure it helps to have this proposal? It's not clear to editors what the changes are, and Option 3b describes the changes more clearly. Just something to consider. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It is just a proposal so change and improve or copy and move. pls keep the refs to be checked. Wdl1961 (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

proposed "Numerical value, notation and units"

The speed of light is a dimensional physical constant, so its numerical value depends upon the system of units used. In the International System of Units (SI), the metre is defined as the distance light travels in vacuum in 1⁄299792458 of a second (see "{{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing", below). The effect of this definition is to fix the speed of light in vacuum at exactly 299792458 m/s. The speed of light in vacuum is usually denoted by c, for "constant" or the Latin celeritas (meaning "swiftness"). Originally, the symbol V was used, introduced by Maxwell in 1865; c was used in 1856 by Weber and Kohlrausch for a constant later shown to equal √2 times the speed of light in vacuum, and in 1894 Drude redefined it with the modern meaning. Einstein used V in his original 1905 German-language papers on special relativity, but in 1907 he switched to c, which by then had become the standard symbol.

Some authors use c for the speed of waves in any material medium, and c₀ for the speed of light in vacuum. This subscripted notation, which is endorsed in official SI literature, has the same form as other related constants: namely, μ₀ for the vacuum permeability or magnetic constant, ε₀ for the vacuum permittivity or electric constant, and Z₀ for the impedance of free space. However, in this article c will be exclusively used for the speed of light in vacuum.

In branches of physics in which the speed of light plays an important part, such as in relativity, it is common to use natural units, in which c = 1. Thus, no symbol for the speed of light is required.

Giant list of references at Alternating current

I took out your section of references at Alternating current because they did not apply to the subject matter. If you wish to have the references displayed somewhere on Wikipedia, I recommend finding more specific articles for each reference rather than having all of them appear en masse without all having relevance. As well, it would be far better for the reader to have the observations of the references brought to the various articles as explanatory text, using the reference to support the article text.

Possible venues for some of the elements of your giant list:

• Electromagnetic_field#Health_and_safety
• BioInitiative Report
• Radiobiology
• Electromagnetic radiation and health
• McGill EMF Conference
• Electric_power_transmission#Health_concerns
• Wireless electronic devices and health
• Wireless_network#Environmental_concerns_and_health_hazard
• Non-ionizing_radiation#Health_risks
• Mobile phone radiation and health

Please make the effort to improve articles with explanatory text rather than a raw list of information sources. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on High-voltage direct current. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. —EncMstr (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

section about diesel passenger cars

Hi, I left you a comment at [2]. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Diesel automobiles

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Diesel automobiles, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Eeekster (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Diesel automobiles redirect to diesel engine should be removed.Wdl1961 (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Diesel automobile

A tag has been placed on Diesel automobile requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Jarkeld (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI edits

Hello Wdl1961, I've removed these edits you made at the admin incidents noticeboard since they appeared to be basically a duplication of the notices here on your talk page. Can you describe what administrator action you are requesting? Or do you need help understanding how to respond to a deletion notice? You can put the {{helpme}} template right here on your talk page (edit in "{{helpme}}" followed by a description of what help you need) and someone will come along to have a look, or you can ask at our help desk or you can just respond here with whatever it is you are trying to do and I will help you as best I can. Hope this helps! Franamax (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I need access to diesel automobiles.Wdl1961 (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The text is still in the history, the article itself has simply been changed to a redirect. Here is the version you worked on, is that what you're looking for? Franamax (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Franamax:Thank you.Wdl1961 (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Diesel automobile

The article Diesel automobile has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Good-faith creation to solve an apparent need, but poorly-thought out and executed article, basically an essay at this point, few reliable sources. Ambiguous title.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jarkeld (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wdl1961, keep in mind that you have the option of moving the page into your userspace where you can work on sourcing and structure until it's ready for "prime-time". That way you don't have to worry about the page being deleted while you're still working on it. You can move it yourself or let me know and I'll do it for you, and I can give you some links to various places where you can ask for others to help you. Franamax (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

pls put links in the Diesel automobile art. further it should incorporate Diesel automobile racing and Diesel automobile history.Wdl1961 (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well no, I'm not going to help you write the article, at least not right now. What I am offering is to move it into your userspace so it won't be at risk of deletion and you can continue to work on it at your own pace. And I could point you to some projects where other editors may be willing to help with the writing. Franamax (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I spent enough time on it with no results .art is needed so find someone to put up with this stuff.Wdl1961 (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Formal warning, re Torque converter

Your recent edit to the page Torque converter appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Doop speed control

there are multiple problems with the article Droop speed control including the following:

• References don't support statements.
• References are low-grade (TV news coverage); the two video clips listed were actually the same clip and don't talk about speed droop at all.
• Organization needs work, should logically flow instead of jumping around.
• Should discuss modern AGC control instead of just electrohydraulic governors.
• Language is needlessly opaque and pompous, encyclopedia article need to be written in clear simple accurate language with a minimum of cant.
• Sections should be relevant.
• Weasel language "It is often claimed..."
• The stuff about nuclear plants is irrelevant. Nuclear plants run at full output for economic reasons, this is not a good illustration for speed droop control.
• The cyberwarfare section is about taking electrical plant control networks off the Internet, and is nothing to do with speed droop.
• What's an "infinite sink" ? This isn't even jargon, it's just wrong.
• Please explain the equation. "S is the ratio of frequency deviation when comparing the load versus the nominal frequency." isn't English, let alone an explanation.
• Not all generators in North America are synchronous. This claim isn't even relevant to discussion speed droop.
• Time control paragraph is borrowed from "utility frequency" and again has nothing to do with speed droop.
• Wikipedia style is to separate external links and references.
• The references section is called "References", not "Notes"
• What's a "droop curve" ? Can't figure it out from this article. An illustration is needed.
• Voltage control of several power sources is not practical because there would not be any independent feedback, resulting in the total load being put on one power plant.[3] What is this supposed to mean? this is conflating load control and voltage control.

And so on. This article needs a lot of work and reverting changes every time they are made is not constructive. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Edits at talk:flowchart

== vector-based drawing program has more entropy and therefore nononononononononononononononono == vector-based drawing program has more entropy and therefore nononononononononononononononono[[User:Wdl1961|Wdl1961]] ([[User talk:Wdl1961|talk]]) 22:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain what this means in terms of trying to improve the article? --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

QED.Wdl1961 (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Warnings

April 2010

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Voltage, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Voltage, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Jump start how-to and edit warring

The how to instructions for jump starting are over here at Wikibooks. If you want to add safety warnings to that article, please go ahead. Please stop putting how-to instructions in Jump start. See WP:NOTHOWTO.

You also might want to take a look at WP:3RR. You are edit warring and that needs to stop.--Dbratland (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

3RR violation at Voltage

Please read WP:3RR. It is against Wikipedia policy to revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. I count 5 reversions in the edit history for Voltage. Please discuss edits and build concensus instead of reverting. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Caution regarding edit war

I will note that both parties here – Wtshymanski (talk · contribs) and Wdl1961 (talk · contribs) – are engaged in an edit war at Voltage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Both of you need to use the article talk page for something other than 3RR threats and nasty remarks. While the three-revert rule sets out an absolute minimum standard, it does not represent an entitlement or allowance for ongoing edit warring. If I see either one of you revert the other without having engaged in meaningful discussion and consensus-building on the article talk page, I will block.

In order to resolve a content dispute there are a number of appropriate steps, which I expect you two to use. Refer to the instructions for dispute resolution, try asking for a third opinion, or file a suitable request for comment. Be patient, and stay cool. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note the discussion on the talk page of Voltage relative to whether this disputed addition belongs in the article. Your addition has been removed by four different editors (myself included). There does not appear to be consensus for it to be in the article. Please make your case for it on the talk page, if you wish, rather than by edit warring against consensus. Edison (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please explain

Please explain the revert at Generator. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

item has entropy and therefore nonononononononononononononono Wdl1961 (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Wdl1961. Thank you.--Dbratland (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jump start (vehicle). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

Some of your edits are clearly helpful, and you've reverted a fair amount of obvious vandalism, which I thank you for.

However, you have also made a number of edits which appear to be significantly outside Wikipedia's purpose of existence, and a number of edits in which your communications contained ungrammatical and unintelligible writing. It's not entirely clear that you are actually understanding and communicating in response to people complaining about your outside policy edits on article talk pages, your talk page, or the discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents.

I have placed an indefinite block on your editing Wikipedia, other than here on your talk page. This is not a permanent block. Any administrator, including myself, can unblock you immediately if you can clearly communicate that you understand that you need to discuss your edit problems with other editors in a focused and understandable manner.

If you can explain why your edits have been hard to understand, that would help in the matter.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Copy of your message to Georgewilliamherbert: Wikipedia e-mail InboxX

Reply |Wdl1961 show details 7:28 PM (1 hour ago)

if there is a specific item i edited in an article that is wrong i would like to know about it. i suppose a blown battery blinding a person is not important to some . 1961delang@gmail.com

Your intentions with an edit often appears to be with the best of aims, but the end result is chaos. Your habit (as demonstrated by your last edit) of copy and pasting irrelevant headers (in this case from your email program) is just part of it. There is a requirement under WP:COMPETENCE that a wiki editor is capable of making an edit that is at least approximately correct, in terms of making readable sentences appear in articles. Your additions are very often ungrammatical nonsense that's simply impossible to read or understand, let alone judge the accuracy of it.

As to accuracy, then you have an odd attitude to factual accuracy and an utter disregard for reliable references - just look at your changes to Torque converter. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Bernoulli's equation:$q\,=\,{\tfrac {1}{2}}\,\rho \,v^{2}$ is dynamic pressure,the reverse applies to a turbine .Fluid flow gives the final $v^{5}$ factor proportional to $n^{5}$.Wdl1961 (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating just what I meant. The question is: $N^{2}D^{5}$ (correct) or $N^{5}D^{2}$ (incorrect). It's hard to derive this, easy to look it up. My response was to cite good, robust references to support the correct one (and no, I didn't try to explain it - that's unduly difficult). Your response was, and still is, to ignore the issue of referencing, refuse to show where your own claim comes from and then to repeatedly paste in an irrelevant equation. Bernoulli is an irrelevance here - it's not a significant factor in the physical operation of a torque converter. Nor is your cargo cult approach of pasting in snippets out of context a helpful one. I know Bernoulli as well as you do: why does it matter here? You haven't even tried to explain this beyond pasting magic sigils all over the place and hoping we're impressed. As a basic rule in teaching, if the audience doesn't understand a statement, simply repeating it more loudly won't work any better. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

In wikpedia hydropower is the derivation and formula for power as follows:

$P={\frac {1}{2}}\,\rho \,A\,v^{3}$

this formula applies to the pump and turbine . Because the flow is the same in both it results in v^5 . This to me is a focused and detailed derivation . There are no fluid couplings with a variable diameter after they are designed and build. If you have a focused and particular question other than water is not oil I will try to answer it. Wdl1961 (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This sort of analytical physics depends on understanding what the equation describes, not just on visual pattern matching because the resultant equations look similar. Your whole post here is nonsense: it makes no sense, it is a non sequitur, it's just playing at understanding.

As to your hydropower analogy, that has nothing to do with turbines or pumps. The equation you quote is merely a representation of the energy available in a flowing body of water - kinetic energy as 1/2mv^2 (derivable from Newton's 2nd law and a bit of integration), multiplied by the mass flow rate of the water, given the area of the channel and its speed. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Wdl1961

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked.

Wdl1961 (talk · contribs) has been edit warring, violating 3RR, by adding how-to instructions in Jump start (vehicle). User has refused meaningful discussion on talk page, and has shown no regard for WP policy, i.e. WP:NOTHOWTO. Edits: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] --Dbratland (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors should be required to read art. first and apply rules evenly.Wdl1961 (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The guideline you are using, WP:NOTHOWTO, says an article should "should not read like a "how-to" [...] manual". It does not say that an article should not contain any how-to instructions. The article Jump start (vehicle) does not in fact read like a how-to manual. Wdl1961 has merely added a brief section dealing with a fundamental safety issue, that contains some how-to information. But this does not turn the article, as a whole, into a how-to manual. There are other snippets of "how-to" information elsewhere in the same article. For example, the section immediately above the section Wdl1961 added says "A slave cable is plugged in to the receptacle on each vehicle, and the dead vehicle is started with the live vehicle's engine running." If no how-to instructions are to be permitted in Wikipedia, a lot of Wikipedia articles would be hobbled.

Another example is the article on rip current. That has a section on escaping a rip current. This section also contains some how-to instructions. But the article, as a whole, does not read like a how-to manual, and it seem to me that the article would be incomplete, indeed irresponsible, if it did not include this section. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, other stuff exists. The point is to continue moving the how-to instructions away from Jump start (vehicle) and over to Wikibooks where it is most appropriate. The fact that some parts of the article, or other articles, deviate from policy is not a reason to insist on making it even worse. --Dbratland (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That is missing my point, which is that these articles do not "deviate from policy". --Epipelagic (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Reading the policy that way is equivalent to saying you can put how to instructions into any article you like as long as there are other parts of the article that are not instructions. Is the only reason for having the policy to ensure that merely some of each article is encyclopedic in nature? --Dbratland (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere in any guidelines is it said that you can't explain how something works. If that were the case, then you couldn't even write a coherent article on something like a fish hook. But what the guideline you invoked said, was that articles should not read like an instruction manual. Some articles require an explanation here and there of how things work. There is nothing unencyclopedic about that, so long as the article doesn't degenerate into a mere instruction manual. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I would think with something like this, which does carry an element of danger, Wikipedia should not be giving instructions, especially unsourced ones. If we have sources that indicate the correct way to jump start a battery, they should be linked on the page. That seems to be sufficient. Dayewalker (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, safety instructions like these need impeccable sources, like the sources given for escaping a rip current. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to put a hatnote at the top of the page, rather than the bottom as guidelines normally indicate, saying Instructions on how to jump start can be found at Wikibooks? This would help clear up any confusion and direct those looking for help to the right place. And if there is nothing left to say on Jump start (vehicle) after all the how-to has been moved to Wikibooks, then the page should be deleted or merged.--Dbratland (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I would personally disagree with such a hatnote, because it's not the job of Wikipedia to meet the needs of every user who's looking in an encyclopedia for information an encyclopedia shouldn't include. It seems to defeat the purpose of defining what does not fall within Wikipedia's mission and domain, if Wikipedia just links to all that information anyway, especially right at the top of the article. If users look for how-to information here and can't find it, they can reasonably be expected to figure out that there may be a better place to find that information than an encyclopedia. Propaniac (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Indef block and ban on the basis of WP:COMPETENCE. This editor has a long record of edits that can best be described as "surreal", bearing little relation to reality and no relation to WP policy. I believe they have some past career experience with electricity power generation, but they still have a particularly unusual view of how some well-accepted engineering principles work. Their abuse of references is particularly problematic as they've often made edits that are just plain wrong, but aren't obviously so to an editor not skilled in the arts and assuming that a claimed cite will mean the same as that which a reference actually stated. "relational vibration" in engines was one of the worst examples of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Having read through their talk page, browsed through their mess of a user page, and looked at some of their edits, I'm inclined to agree with Andy Dingley that the competence of Wdl1961 is indeed an issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

for easy ref "Relational Vibration "

copy from Talk:Four-stroke engine

13 User:Wdl1961

14 file

14.1 Relational Vibration

Wdl1961 (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have jump-started a great many vehicles in my time, the content you added was borderline incomprehensible. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

first occurs before last like 1 ,2,many,many.

Wdl1961 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that sounds just like plain craziness. A certain soundness of mind is required to edit Wikipedia, and it does not seem to be present here. I was about to indefinitely block Wdl1961 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at this point, but Georgewilliamherbert was faster than me.  Sandstein  20:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I have left a message asking them to try and clearly communicate on their talk page the reasons for their communications issues. This is an indef block based on the communications and coherency issue - not a permanent block. They may have an issue they can resolve, or they can refocus on communicating coherently and succeed in the future. Any administrator who comes to believe that they are going to be able to edit in a productive manner and communicate in an intelligible manner going forwards is welcome to unblock without further notification to me. I don't know whether they will be able to do that, but one would hope that they can. They have been reasonably good about vandal fighting and I don't doubt their good faith, but there's something wrong here that good faith does not overcome. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

original droop speed control

Boulton & Watt engine of 1788

notice the slack in the chain to ignore small speed disturbances.