- 1 Intro
- 2 Modification of McLaren_MP4-12C
- 3 Climate emails
- 4 Talk:The Age
- 5 Bourke Engine
- 6 Chevy Volt
- 7 Your abuse of process !vote
- 8 Wikipedia:No personal attacks
- 9 Wacky attack
- 10 Suggested reading
- 11 Cheers
- 12 Disambiguation link notification for August 19
- 13 Talkback
- 14 Bourke engine
- 15 MSC Software
- 16 Altering my signature
- 17 ATSE / FTSE question
- 18 Julia Gillard and The Australian
- 19 Indian migration...
- 20 Earworm
- 21 Excel Graph
- 22 A Tesla Roadster for you!
- 23 Notification of automated file description generation
- 24 Disambiguation link notification for February 4
- 25 Forward engineering - Neologism?
- 26 William Tomicki: possible deletion
- 27 February 2015
- 28 Ford Pinto
- 29 Magnetic air car
- 30 C2C
- 31 September 2015
- 32 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 33 You might like this article
- 34 Australian large car sales graph
- 35 Fastest Production cars
WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE. Remember to link to whatever page you are discussing, and start a new section if it is a different page. Please type in grammatical, correctly spelled, English. Greg Locock (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Bold textWhen the detection system fails it is useless. Tech's are not able to fix it because the system resets if it starts working. MY GM z741 has not worked properly since I bought it. When I drive in Town on flat ground it reset and indicates no failure. As soon as I go into the mountains it says service required. I think this system should be eliminated. I have an 1992 S10 without all this crap and it dose YOU MEAN DOES great. This junk is a marketing piece of crap that should be disabled and not show up on the dash. The Tech's don't have a clue of how it works at the shop. Does anyone else have the problem with the auto trac and auto skid? Both lights come on and it is disabled. Might be better without it. Would love to have it not there. No message please!== Stick to one post ==
Everytime I leave, people insult me or the page or the company and do the WP: thing to show that its justified, and I kind of feel sad when they do that. Also, some of it is kind of mean so I want to say something back, usually along the lines of "that's not true". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 04:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Modification of McLaren_MP4-12C
- Beacuse it is just trivia inserted to advertise a game. Do you think we're stupid? Greglocock (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
BORING This is part of a landmark deal in which the ENTIRE McLaren catalogue has been licensed - 1st time ever. I think that's pretty noteworthy by anyones standards. The full text of the deal was published in Autoweek a very well respected authority within the automotive industry http://www.autoweek.com/article/20111103/CARNEWS/111109926 I absolutely respect the integrity of Wikipedia and this entry, but feel this to be more than trivia. Seyoda (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Three different Wikipedia editors, myself included, have now removed that info as trivia. Wikipedia is built on consensus and it looks like we have that in this case. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I just removed your reference from a subtitle in the CRU email article. Please note that article is under a 2z rule. You could add the ref to the sentence, or expand slightly, or, better yet, discuss it. Experienced editors of the article are not rushing to add this latest development immediately. Yopienso (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Please contribute something intelligent to the discussion. In the absence of anything sensible, I will again remove the additions. Reverting my removal will be treated as vandalism. HiLo48 (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I did - I pointed out you had removed valid material from the article. Still, i have time for the next few days, let's see if you can support your ridiculous PoV, which basically sounded like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Greglocock (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Greg, you just significantly damaged and removed about 2 days of careful work, putting in citations from the world's only authoritative source on the Bourke Engine. it would be greatly appreciated if you could discuss modifications prior to doing that, and to obtain a copy of the Bourke Engine Documentary book BEFORE going and destroying the efforts of contributors. i will now have to spend about an hour extracting the work done and reverting the damage that you've created. please don't do that again, thanks. Lkcl (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
It'd take 1 minute to restore it.If you are making significant changes then either discuss them beforehand or put up an under construction sign. Let me know when you've finished with the fairy tales.Greglocock (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Greg - please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Discuss_with_the_other_party. now, please kindly apologise for a) assuming that i am acting in bad faith b) the various accusations that you've made.
primarily, you need to cease and desist from all actions and editing unless you have read the world's only authoritative source of material on this subject.
if you cannot trust that i know what i am doing, here, then i will be forced to take action, up to and including getting you banned from wikipedia.
i've been forced to raise this with the wikipedia editors, greg. if you are going to make commits with the phrase "do you even understand the subject matter" then that is tantamount to vandalism - as well as violating the "trust" rules of wikipedia as well as being incredibly insulting.
i'm dead serious about getting you banned from wikipedia if you persist with the vandalism, insults and interference.
btw - i'm quite happy to scan and make available to you copies of pages of the bourke engine documentary if you cannot afford to buy your own copy - it's published 1968, out-of-print and there are a very very limited number of copies available left, anywhere in the world. you will have to promise to delete each page after you have reviewed each section Lkcl (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC).
"* The use of the Scotch Yoke reduces vibration from the motions of the connecting rod—for example, the peak acceleration in a Scotch yoke is 25% less than the acceleration in a conventional crank and slider arrangement. The piston movement and therefore vibration is sinusoidal so the engine could theoretically be perfectly counterbalanced, unlike a conventional engine which has harmonics in the piston movement courtesy of the lateral movement of the crankpin."
you deleted this section, greg, which indicates very very clearly that you do not understand basic physics and mechanics. imagine a crank which has radius of 10cm, with a camshaft (slider) that has a length of 10.5cm. due to massive sideways swing of the camshaft, the amount of time that such an arrangement spends at BDC is absolutely huge, whilst the amount of time spent at TDC is clearly absolutely tiny. if on the other hand the camshaft is of infinite length, then and only then will the motion of the camshaft be exactly the same as that of a scotch yoke.
thank you for alerting me to a prior under-informed edit of the bourke engine page. i've removed the exact, precise and misleading "25%" of the prior under-informed editor on the section about the differences between scotch yoke and crank-camshaft acceleration. crank-camshaft acceleration graphs Piston_motion_equations#Acceleration actually vary with the ratio of crank radius to camshaft length. Lkcl (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think it is time to sort this article out and remove the original research supported by the self published source The Bourke Engine Documentary. I will happily support your efforts. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Greglocock. I would appreciate if you drop by the talk page so you can provide your input about my proposal to close the discussion regarding "Emissions & language". Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Your abuse of process !vote
Today I tried to facilitate the discussion in a NPOV manner but as you can see another editor is being pretty obstinate with their own POV. Specifically, where you !voted "abuse of process" I recently inserted (keep) to help the closing admin quickly look over !votes. Since this other editor seems to think you did not vote "keep" I am suggesting you yourself revisit your comment and add that word, if it accurately describes your position. Silly, perhaps, but that's what obstinancy sometimes requires. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- PS, If you are interested, as I was posting this the other editor visited my talk page and I mentioned this thread in my reply here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy misrepresents the situation, as usual. First of all, you seem to have been unaware that the AfD had been closed in error after only having run a few hours, and was relisted because of the bad closing. Secondly, NewsAndEventsGuy should not be deciding what you intended to vote. If that's what you mean to vote, fine, but that's for you to say, not someone else. 86.** IP (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- PPS, 86 mentioned you here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#NewsAndEventsGuy_changing_votes_to_Keep_in_an_AfD, which is now closed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Little Buddy? Hell no I'm a mix of Thurston Howell III and the Professor :P But What does that make you Ginger, Mary Ann or Eunice? -- Phoenix (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've told you before not to post on my talk page " I have explicitly asked UKP NOT to post on my talk page. Frankly arguing with him is like stepping in dog-shit (ie useless, deeply unpleasant, and memorable for all the wrong reasons)." So be a good boy and go away. I'm sure your last reply was deeply witty but I'm afraid those particular pearls are completely invisible to this little piggy. Go away, smarten up. Greglocock (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Greglocock, filed by Phoenix who I think is on a fishing expedition, hunting for a reason to block you forever. You will likely want to weigh in. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- And since that has failed, for his next move he'll try some other forum to get me blocked. I imagine he'll succeed eventually, since I lack any particular interest in his silly games. Greglocock (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking recently that Phoenix had gone quiet on the Bose front, clearly he was busy brewing up this! "Two users... both interested in cars, technology and Australia?? Hmmm.... CONSPIRACY!!!" Have a good day, fellow real person. 1292simon (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Since it appears that you do not know that " that a foreplane is sometimes called a "horizontal stabiliser". I thought you might appreciate the following bits of wisdom from the Wiki. Once you identify the editor involved you can follow his edits and make corrections.
You will be accused of "incivility", not complying to "consensus", not supporting NPOV, and someone will try and snag you on WP:sockpuppetry to try and get rid of you. Have fun! - "CallmeIPaddress"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aircraft&diff=prev&oldid=502209104 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited List of fastest production cars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ford Model A (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Altering my signature
- Sorry JammyDuck, yes that was an accident. Greglocock (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- No worries. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
ATSE / FTSE question
- Single purpose account, AFD brings out the loons who somehow think that votes matter. Incidentally if you are going to make claims that I am not who I purport to be you are unlikely to be taken seriosuly by me. Big deal I know. Greglocock (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for several reasons that you interpreted my comment as a claim "that I am not who I purport to be".
- That was not my intention.
- It was an attempt at light humour - it would seem that in that regard, it failed miserably!
- I am really surprised that you found only one name you recognised. Surprised to the extent that I was expressing (trying to express?) disbelief that you didn't recognise other names - I never intended my comment to be interpreted as "disbelief that you are not who you purport to be".
- I hope that clarifies any mis-understanding(s)? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for several reasons that you interpreted my comment as a claim "that I am not who I purport to be".
Julia Gillard and The Australian
Not sure this is the right spot, but I assume it is. The piece you have restored on "Stimulus Watch" is biased and POV. There is no question of that. You are taking what is in essence a campaign run by a newspaper that had the intention of expressing general dissatisfaction with the governments handling of the GFC and offering it as neutral fact. It was a campaign initiated by The Australian that actively attempted to discredit the government, a campaign that expressed an OPINION on the government, and its handling of a particular issue. Of course, there are other OPINIONS on the Stimulus, many of them positive, including the social and economic results of the BER policy. Yet it is stated in the passage in question that The Australian uncovered a now universally held position that the Stimulus spending was a failure. And not just that - "incompetent", "flawed", a "political embarrassment". This is OPINION. It is as partisan as it comes. Either edit it out completely, or include an equal amount of content by others expressing OPINIONS about the success of the Stimulus spending.
While I'm at it, shall I pop in to the opinion section and include a selection of quotes from various academics and political commentators who have expressed an OPINION on what is viewed as The Australians ongoing anti-labor stance, it's blanket use of solely right-wing, partisan commentators, and the damning charges of bias levelled against it in the recent independent media inquiry? Seems that would be fine, as POV is A-OK on this page.
Or shall I add a nice little referenced quote from Latham's recent article in the Quarterly on The Australian's handling of the AWU 'saga', which he describes as "a group of right wing fanatics running a smear campaign" that targeted a PM in a personal manner never seen before in Australia? You've set the POV precedent, so it seems only fair this OPINION also be included in Notable Stories, right?
ps. apologies for re-edits and versions, getting used to how wiki works.
Before I take this to WP:BLPN, could you tell me as to why you have added this BLP violation back into the article? since when was an opinion peice, from The Australian, in regards to a controversial issue involving Julia Gillard - in The Australian article itself - is okay?
- Take it to BLPN then. It's investigative journalism into the public history of a public figure. if you need better refs then we'll find them. I'll put it back for you. Sadly i won't be on the internet for 2 weeks as of sunday, in all probability.Greglocock (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh I will. Another user I see has joined the issue; and has presented probably better arguments than mine - but either way, content that is negative and improperly cited (as is in the article after your recent revert) - must be removed per WP:BLP. Regardless of the facts, whether or not such or such happened - controversial content of a living person must be removed. —MelbourneStar☆talk 01:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Greglocock - please step back a little, drop your anti-Gillard prejudice (at least momentarily - I'm not asking you to vote for her), and look at whether that really is an objective addition. Think about whether you could accept it if it was about Abbott, or another Liberal. Everyone except rusted on Lib lovers can see that the Australian is running an anti-Labor campaign. They can do that. Wikipedia can't. HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- I voted for Keating's ALP, and I think I voted for Rudd, but no, Gillard and Swan, no chance, not that Abbott fills me with any great joy. Anyway I agree that the AWU article is where it should be covered, I'd have thought a link to that made sense. Can we discuss this on the talk page?Greglocock (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll see where we've got to on the talk page. Anyway in general i see no particular reason why a newspaper's article should list stories unless they were truly definitive - say WaPo and watergate for example. Australia's parochial rags and their dabbling in Australia's parochial politics don't really meet that criterion. Greglocock (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey there – thanks for your recent addition. I think it might need to be re-worded. I don’t think you’re saying that they are now the largest immigrant group in Australia – but that’s how it reads. I think you mean that the annual number of people immigrating from India to Australia is now the highest of all immigrant groups. Can you please review? Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
When rephrasing the opening line, I looked at multiple online dictionaries, one of which was the Oxford dictionary that defines it as a "catchy" tune. I thought a couple were referenced already, but apparently that's not the case. I'll add the Oxford one now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
My point is that 'catchy' is almost undefinable, and seems unnecessary as a qualification. In my case my favourite earworm was a Haydn string quartet, which may be catchy to some, but not many , including me, I think. Greglocock (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The two graphs on the file is directly applicable to the explanation of secondary vibration, and I would like to use them in Engine balance#Secondary (Non-sinusoidal) Balance. Would it be too much to ask for your changing: 1. 'Displacement' to 'Piston position in the stroke' 2. 'Scotch Yoke' to 'Sinusoidal motion' 3. 'crank and slider' to 'Actual movement' 4. Inverting the positive data in the top half of Acceleration graph to negative, negative data in the bottom half to positive (with X-axis scale left as is). 5. 'Acceleration' to 'Inertia Force'. for the use in Engine balance article?
A Tesla Roadster for you!
|A Tesla Roadster for you!|
|Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)|
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Battleship noshelltrap.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Another one of your uploads, File:Battleship shelltrap.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tata Nano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AMS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Forward engineering - Neologism?
Hey Greg. I have no problem with you reverting my change (I was a little iffy on it in the first place); however, you said it was because "forward engineering" is a neologism. Now, I'm not sure how old a word or phrase must be before it is no longer a neologism, but there are several sources with definitions of the phrase:
- The University of Alberta (link)
- The Free Online Dictionary of Computing (link)
- Reference.com (link)
- TheFreeDictionary.com (link).
Granted-- the UofA page seems to refer to a psychology, and the definitions are different from what I wrote. But is this not enough evidence that it is a real phrase and worth a small section on Wikipedia? --Zeldafreakx86 (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Per your note above, adding links to articles in question: I am referring to the change I made on Engineering (the edit), which I made after modifying Kleptography (the edit). A previous author wrote that a kleptographic attack was a forward-engineering attack, which is vague and I was unable to find any description of what this kind of attack was. I was able to determine what forward-engineering was, so I reworded the sentence to clarify. I wanted to further explain what "forward engineering" was. I considered creating a new article but I didn't have enough content, so since forward-engineering and "engineering" are closely related, I put it there. Let me know your thoughts. --Zeldafreakx86 (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think you'd be better off with a new article, in 30 years as a professional engineer I've never heard the term and it doesn't really seem applicable to engineering in general, since it is just a faux derivation from reverse engineering, with the approximate meaning of normal engineering. Greglocock (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
William Tomicki: possible deletion
Thank you for your interest in my Wikipedia page.
My wish to delete my page was simply frustration talking and not at all what I wish. I would just like an accurate article about me posted without the controversy or criticism.
And I would be happy to provide more facts, backup or information to clarify any issue. I, too, seek an honest and properly researched page full of transparency and scrupulously honest.
Sincerely, William Tomicki
Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#What_is_the_evolutionary_advantage_in_learning_to_control_the_anal_sphincters.3F. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Even if you dislike StuRat and the behaviour of other users on refdesk, there's surely better ways to approach it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 22 Shevat 5775 07:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 22 Shevat 5775 07:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=647976454&oldid=647972347. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. As I said before, even if you dislike StuRat or another user, there's no reason to insult them. That kind of behaviour only makes the person doing it look bad. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 1 Adar 5775 02:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 1 Adar 5775 02:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
See page at Ford Pinto for a duplicate of this: Yes, this happens from time to time. The article had remained stable for years before the arrival of a single editor, who despite previous discussion sees fit to give the article a point of view about the controversy. Please do us all a favor and see if you concur that an example of the page history from a while back such as this edit from November isn't closer to neutral on the subject. Let's see if we can regain a consensus that keeps the Wikipedia article from being an attack piece. 842U (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Magnetic air car
Thanks, you are right, that there is no supporting evidence, other than the MIDI air car in France, and the Howard Johnson magnetic motor, as well as the air bearing turbochargers be ring tested by Nasa and Toyota. Hopefully you can see an integrated model in your lifetime, then we can put them into the encyclopedia. Science fiction influences real science. 126.96.36.199
- Nothing wrong with air bearings, but MDI's car is a not a believable product 130 kph range, 80 kph speed, from 2 125 litre tanks haha and magnetic motors are bit hard to take seriously -quote from peswiki "As of April, 2012, we do not know of anyone who has successfully replicated one of these motors, though many have tried, and many are presently making an attempt. ". If MDI ever let a third part test the range I'll change my tune, at present they look at best like optimistic dreamers, at worst like an investment scam.. Greglocock (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) The energy density of compressed air—at any pressure that would be reasonable to carry aboard a car—is worse than that of even lead-acid batteries by volume, and by mass as well when you include the weight of the tank. And of course modern batteries leave the compressed air tank even farther behind. No amount of improvements further down the drive train (like low-friction air bearings) will fix this. You just can't store enough energy this way to build anything with performance comparable to a gasoline-powered car, or even a battery-electric car. Jeh (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Greg, please see my ideas for sorting out the extra books on the C2C page. In brief: I think you were right about the two newest additions and it certainly needs keeping an eye on. The Cowley one in particular comes back a lot and they NEVER discuss it ... cheers DBaK (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm John. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
You might like this article
Totally not within Wiki policy, but might enjoy
Australian large car sales graph
I came across the discussion at File talk:Australian large car sales 1991 onwards.png and created a wiki markup version of the graph using Template:Line chart. Looking to see if others are happy to switch from the image to the wiki markup, which will be placed in its own template. Thanks. – Kytabu 00:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Fastest Production cars