User talk:Greglocock/Archive 3

Thanks

Hi, a quick note just to say thanks for dealing appropriately with the comments made at Talk:Electric car by the contributor who appeared to be attempting to use ad hominem, rather than using logical argument to further a point. -- de Facto (talk). 10:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Plans X and Y discussed

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I found the book today, and copied the relevant passages onto the Bismarck-class talk page. Cheers. Sacxpert (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

great stuff Greg Locock (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Marcus Einfeld

Good pickup this, I should have removed them when I removed the other. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Bogus reasoning on GM Volt deletion

You are mistaken. References must be credible to the extent that they can withstand at least a bit of scrutiny in order to be used as an encyclopedic reference. I have no intention of reverting my edit on the Chevy Volt article. I believe that the majority of editors interested in this article are in agreement with me, so you risk running afoul of the three revert rule if you engage in an edit war.Fbagatelleblack (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes the crowd will win. Thank you for your contribution to wiki stupidity. Nice threat on 3RR by the way, since I specifically did not revert your poor edit, in fact I have reverted very little on that page. Expect great scrutiny of all your edits from now on. The maths in the original reference must have been more or less right (at least better than the first attempt by the Frank on the talk page) since it almost agreed with the final estimates we/he came up with. Am I to take it that you will also be removing all references in which calculations are made without their assumptions being stated, or just the ones that don't support your agenda? That Volt article is going to look pretty empty if we insist that all calcs are fully referenced in detail, I rather doubt GM are going to tell you how they work out their numbers. Incidentally "I am confident we can make him either stop or run afoul of the three revert rule" as you have posted on Frank's Talk is possibly the stupidest thing you have done yet. Conspiring to suppress editors or annoy them is probably not in the general spirit of things. Greg Locock (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Such anger, when your inaccurate and/or unsupported claims are called into question. I've done nothing wrong, and I welcome your scrutiny, or the scrutiny of any other Wiki editor, in reviewing my posts. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine. You mistake contempt for anger. Greg Locock (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Very good then. If it is good, ole contempt, then carry on and may the grace of God go with you. Cheers! Fbagatelleblack (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Greg, My two cents. I understand the purpose of the comparison. However, our intent should be to convey to the lay reader, electric vehicles still generate CO2 emissions--at the power plant instead of a gasoline or diesel engine. Stating the Volt emits MORE CO2 then a BMW 118i is completely misleading. The word more implies significance, when in fact, the data I could find suggests the Volt generates comparable or slightly less emissions then the 118d. Significantly less emissions using UK electricity, which I remind you is the origin of the unsubstantiated reference, by not clarifying how they performed their calculations. Could I suggest some sort of compromise? First of all, remove this reference, but still use the BMW 118d as an example of an energy efficient diesel powered car. Then show, based on average CO2 emissions rates for the US published by the DOE, the Volt emits similar amounts of carbon dioxide as the BMW 118d. Then show an example for the UK. Now the concept of how electric power used by an electrical vehicle generates its emissions is dependent upon how the power was generated will be very apparent and tangible to the reader.--Frank Ravizza (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• GL, Just out of curiosity (since I'm here visiting your talk pages) what is the primary source for power plant generation down under? What constant would one use for CO2 production there? (in case someone wanted to create a table making the Volt's CO2 footprint (for both off-board station and post depletion charging modes)for the Volt's primary markets. WopOnTour (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Some huge %age is coal, but I don't know an accurate figure. Greglocock (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Greglocock,

thank's for posting the Australian Top-Gear-ratings. Can you tell me where you've find them? I'm a TV-enthusiast sitting in Germany and always looking for Down Under ratings.

Best

Pismo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.16.163.243 (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.tvtonight.com.au/category/ratings Greg Locock (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WOT Backing Off?

Mr. Locock I thought your name sounded familiar and after looking into it a bit, I respectfully "back off" ;) (i.e. you won't get any more "tone" from me - lol)
Here is an article from a recent local event that I thought you would be interested in. http://www.veva.bc.ca/releases/081030-Xof1-DistanceRecord.pdf
http://www.xof1.com/home.html
I am a member of the Vancouver Electric Vehicle Association in Vancouver, Canada http://www.veva.bc.ca/home/index.php
Thanks for your contributions to EV technology
Best Regards WopOnTour WopOnTour (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No probs, all we want is a dialogue, not unilateral action. Cheers Greg Locock (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, We're all-good here ^^

However, based on your obvious tongue-in-cheek comments in the Volt discussion page, you seem to believe your "reliable" sources of rumor and conjecture with respect to the Volt are far better than all others. I respectfully disagree.
Additionally, I believe you have assumed that just because I had stated that I was a member of the EV association I posted above, that I actually reside in Vancouver Canada and such is not the case. (although it appears even Vancouver would be a LOT closer to Michigan and Volt Engineering-Central than your current residence) FYI, I belong to many such EV user groups and associations throughout North America as you probably do as well.I had only assumed, considering your solar EV background, that you might be interested in the recent solar powered trans-continental trip made by Mr. De Luz (whom I've had a chance to meet actually, including his engineering and support team, when the XOF1 visited Watkins Glen during the "Green Grand Prix" last May)

:::So while I realize what's posted in talk and discussion pages shouldn't necessarily be subject to the same "reliable source" scrutiny as encyclopedic content- I certainly don't understand your rationale behind continued posting of so obviously biased, speculative and negative opinion towards the Volt and/or GM within them. Given your own lack of contribution to the actual article (despite your obvious knowledge in many aspects of the subject matter) I can't think of any other reason than to merely create a disturbance amongst the editors in some attempt to "flush-out" the fanboi's.As noble as that may be, I suggest that if you have something of actual techncial merit to add, TO THE ARTICLE then please by all means do so. But do you actually consider publically rediculing and taunting others in talk/discussion pages as "contributions"?? WopOnTour (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, you are reading far too much into all this. As I've said elsewhere, I think the Volt is on the wrong track, but it is an interesting alternative to the Prius, and I would like to see how it does in the real world. I don't edit the GM Volt article space (generally) because in my opinion very little has been published that makes sense in RS, and previous attempts to edit it have been reverted by fanboys with incontrovertible proof of their claims. For instance consider the current stupidity over the engine. I can't remember whether the article is right or wrong at the moment, but sure as eggs is eggs some idiot will find the old spec in an on-line source and reintroduce it. Yes, I do enjoy taking the mickey out of GM and their grandstanding. It's an Australian thing. I don't really blame GM for milking the PR cow, but I certainly reserver the right to heckle from the grandstands.

Oh and if you follow solar cars you may be aware that I have had several public run-ins with the community over various aspects of solar car racing, primarily from a safety viewpoint. Greglocock (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Perhaps I was reading a bit too much into your comments, and I certainly wouldn't want to stifle good ol' Australian "carefully optimistic skepticism" (yes, I have more than a few Aussie friends, cohorts and acquaintances ) But AFAIK GM's grand-standing with respect to the Volt has been pretty much limited to auto-show press releases, and Volt items posted on their own web-sites, so one might ask just where a more appropriate venue exists for such marketing propaganda? If one doesn't wish to "buy-in" to the hype surrounding Volt's potential, then it's just as easy to NOT visit those show booths, read those PRs, or visit those web-sites.Instead, there ARE those that resort to subterfuge and the the propagation of misinformation and falsities in various media in some attempt to discredit what is considered by many as a marvelous adaptation of numerous automotive and EV technologies.One that just MAY help to quell the tide of the industry's (and GMs?) poor environmental reputation and potentially alter the current wasteful mindset of the "average" American.Despite what gets posted on various green forums few people even SEE a hybrid on a daily basis (Prius or otherwise) let alone drive one! So why isn't exposing the intentions of these charlatans as false, just as worthy as fanboi bashing? WopOnTour (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Compressed air car

Hi - that ref thing in the "See also" section is unusual. What does that mean? Please respond on my talk page. OK, I found the discussion there... never mind. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 05:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, odd, but not wrong. Greglocock (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Find a source more reliable than a weblog which labels the vehicles in question "vaporware" and it can be added to the article body. The "See also" section is not for editors to add their own labels to article subjects. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, are you saying that signed editorial in established blogs is not an acceptable ref? I'm quite happy to implement that as policy, especially on the GM Volt page. At what point does a blog become acceptable -is the new york times blog acceptable? Or GM's 'official' blog?Greglocock (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are typically only acceptable as reliable sources for the author's opinion. If that "someone" happens to be a personality intimately related with the article subject, such that said person's opinion may be an important thing to note in that article, then a paragraph on said person's opinion is appropriate. What is not appropriate is including a context-free link in the endnotes pointing to the opinion of a figure who may or may not be particularly relevant to the subject, especially when the link is attached to a wikilink like "vaporware" which is typically inflammatory. I'm not sure what the GM Volt article has to do with anything, as we're not discussing the GM Volt. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Good, we generally agree. So, I repeat my question, is the nytimes blog an RS, I think you are saying not? The GM Volt article is a similar example, largely referenced by links to blogs and news aggregator type sources, rather than what we probably agree are 'proper' published sources. Greglocock (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, it depends on whether the reference is being used to back up a fact or an opinion. But my reason for commenting here was that you were adding things without a RS, not taking them away. Feel free to do the latter if you think it improves articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the nytimes blog an RS? Many people, including people who write blogs for authoritative sources like the NY times, are saying that CACs are vaporware. That is a fact. CAC fits the definition of vaporware. That is a fact. If editorial in blogs of an authoritave organ are RS then I have an RS. WP:EL says that blogs can be used as sources for the opinions of their writers. Greglocock (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

{{ww}}. Link a source, put it in an appropriate section in the article body, state that "X says that compressed-air cars are vaporware". Don't just stick a link to vaporware in the endnotes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BITE

An edit you reverted introduced some iffy writing, but was obviously made in good faith. Here's a friendly reminder to not bite the newbs by reverting their edits without an edit summary or some sort of communications and, when possible, clean up their edits rather than revert - It helps build the community in the long run. Happy editing, MrZaius^talk 13:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

But the reason I reverted it is that the basic point is incorrect. These numbnuts assume that if you leave the car in gear with your foot off the throttle it'll use less fuel, which is correct. But it will slow the car down much more quickly than if it is in neutral, which since the objective is 'coasting' seems a bit daft. So, since the edit was illiterate AND misleading AND by an anonymous editor AND has also been posted before I zapped it. I see no point in starting from an entirely incorrect premise when building a technical article. Greglocock (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't assert that there was. I was just saying that it was a mistake to rv a good-faith edit without an edut summary. Referring to them as daft, illiterate numbnuts is pretty much the opposite of the goal of the above. Advice to stay civil and not bite the news is well worth taking. MrZaius^talk 12:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words

When I started editing in 2004, I decided I'd mostly work on controversial articles, like on global warming, the Iraq war, homeopathy, depleted uranium, cold fusion, evolution, gulf war illness, the Big Bounce, etc. Amazingly, concentrating on controversy against well-heeled opponents did not result in the most optimum social editing experience! However, I have something that my opponents don't: my only motivation for editing is to make the encyclopedia better, within its existing policies. Apparently, I'm the only banned user to ever take an article to featured status while banned. I want to be the first logged-out user to pass FAR too.

Please delete this comment from your talk page after you've read it. 208.54.4.54 (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

reply re coal

Hi, please see User_talk:Phanly#compound_growth_impact_on_resource_life for my reply. I stand by my calculations but welcome your reply after you check them based on my methodology. You might also be interested in Peak coal. Cheers dinghy (talk) 07:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I get it now! But the same argument applies to figures based on current consumption which IMHO mislead as to the timeframe within which there will be marked changes in usage/price/general availability conditions for the relevant commodity. Economics (and geology) indicate rising prices, falling consumption after a peak a la peak oil and peak coal theories - but you know that.dinghy (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Auto Express

Ah, we meet again. Can you explain to me how it is a reasonable comparison done by Auto Express? I checked out the "article", and there is no explanation of method. Even worse, they decide, without explaining why, to figure out the upstream (well-to-tank) emissions for the Volt, while limiting the emissions of the BMW to tank-to-wheel. I would very interested in knowing how this can be construed as an appropriate comparison. Jeffwishart (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sadly that is not what RS requires, otherwise most of the pox ridden article called GM Volt could be deleted, since virtually none of the sources justify the methodology used for their numbers (including most of the stuff from GM). It has already been extensively discussed on the Talk page and the paragraph in the article was a CONSENSUS. Greglocock (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the numbers aren't definitive for a lot of the article, but could be classified as speculative, especially when it comes to specs. But calculations are a very different matter. That article has absolutely no details. And I looked over the discussion in the talk page, and there certainly was no CONSENSUS. Nowhere did you address how well-to-tank and tank-to-wheel analyses can be compared with a straight face. Sorry, we are going to have to agree to disagree (and likely engage in an edit war). Jeffwishart (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I've told you what the correction factor is. 15% If you want to go to start an edit war, well, that is up to you, but a more sensible approach would be to build a consesnus on the talk page. Consensus doesn't mean everybody holds hands and sings kum by yah, it means we end up with something we can live with. Since you obviously have nothing useful to say to me please do not contact me again. Greglocock (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The Auto Express article has been rejected multiple times by multiple editors because it contains only claims, no actual calculations as implied by the verbiage you continue to reinsert into the article. It has no place in an encyclopedic article. Also, I've seen you assert that some CO2 "correction factor" is 15%. Please include a link to your source when you make such assertions in the future; I would like to understand what your assertion means. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Many references on the GM Volt page do not include calculations. That para has also been reinserted by multiple editors, and as I am sure you are aware Wiki is not a democracy. http://www.calcars.org/calcars-technical-notes.pdf falls to hand, I've seen better refs. Here's a more in-depth one, although of course it only presents figures, not calculations, http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-600-2007-002/CEC-600-2007-002-D.PDF Greglocock (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I was reading through this after the Nazi Sharks thing (I wrote it - the humour and title were for the audience but the figures are sound; it's definitely not notable) and had a quick look at the references you've cited here. Please be aware that the Californian one listed directly above contains an error on page 3-50. An assumption was made that 40% of journey mileage would be electric when in reality it's more like 70%. Cheers. luckyman 23:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theluckyman1976 (talk • contribs)

Wow, well thanks for paying attention. I've more or less given up trying to get the calculations straight in wiki.p3-50 isn't immediately apparent in that document? Greglocock (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Lots isn't immediately apparent in that document, mainly because they switch between metric and imperial so often! Apologies for the reference, it seems to be p50 of section 3, but is at the top of p90 of 243 in Adobe Reader. The Volt seems to crop up on this page quite a lot - I'd be inclined to leave the whole page blank until there's some independent testing, but since you can't do that the following may be of use:

The IET did some work on CO2 emmissions and their methodologies are usually sound - you can check with them if you want more detail. They came up with the following for electric mode 'average vehicle' use

All Coal - 122.07 g/km. All Oil - 85.54 g/km. All Gas - 52.65 g/km. Existing UK grid mix - 65.13 g/km. All Nuclear/renewables - 0.0 (which is rubbish if you include construction and ore extraction but close enough; might even be accurate to 1 decimal place).

Uk grid mix for 2007 (http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file46983.pdf p24)

Coal - 34%. Oil - 1%. Gas - 43%. Nuclear + Renewables + Imports (from France so also nuke) - 22%.

If you can find out the grid mix for other countries that info should at least give you a start. From reading this page you're based in Oz I think? No idea what your exact grid mix is but from memory it's about 70% coal.

Main thing from my point of view for BEVs and PHEVs has little to do with CO2 and almost everything to with getting away from oil. I don't want to see our economies shattered that way again. I've also had a quick look at PHEV 7 and PHEV 40 and for what it's worth I'd think England, bits of Europe and especially Japan might benefit from PHEV 7 (i.e. plug-in Prius); people in USA, Oz and Scotland where I'm based would find it far too much of a hassle to be charging so often.

Hope this has been of some help; please do mail me if you think I can be of help in future. luckyman 12:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theluckyman1976 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Plug-in hybrid

Hi Greglocock! About a month ago, you commented on the above featured article review, saying that the article needed work in a few areas. In particular, you highlighted the prose as needing improvement. Could I ask you to come over to the FAR and give some examples and sections where the prose needs improvement? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is till being chopped around, I'll try and sort the prose out when it has stabilisedGreglocock (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

External Link quality in "Electric Cars' Article

Greg,

Hey! First off, thanks for your years of hard work on Wikipedia and keeping it legit. I understand how carefully you have to edit a Wiki or it'll get over-run with weeds and spammy, irrelevant stuff.

I just wanted to check-in with you about the deletion of an EV guide on the electric cars page. You said that it did not meet Wikipedia standards for external links, and after reviewing the WP:EL page you referred me to in detail - it 'appears' to meet the guidelines to the letter.

The guide in question - http://www.hybridcars.com/electric-car - has been recommended and directly linked to by:

• Fueleconomy.gov - http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/mostEfficient.shtml
• MIT - http://web.mit.edu/evt/links.html
• US Department of Energy - http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/progs/related2.php
• Argonne National Laboratory - http://www.transportation.anl.gov/media_center/links.html
• Treehugger, VEVA, TheDailyGreen, Duke, and more!

In addition the site Hybrdicars.com is cited as a reference for several popular Wikipedia pages (ethanol fuel, prius, etc.) and has been for a long time.

I'm trying to enrich the 'Electric Cars' page and participate according to the rules and principals of Wikipedia, which I am somewhat familiar with - but I am not an expert.

Can you please explain why this link isn't 100% legit according to written Wikipedia guidelines or unwritten quality principals?

Where does it fall short? What can be done to make the page more credible and offer more value to the point where it becomes an acceptable Wikipedia link?

Or is there any chance we can just let it stand?

There are no emotions here - and no attempt to spam Wikipedia - and no desire to battle or "win." Just want to communicate and offer valuable reference material to people interested in EVs. I'm on your side.

Thanks kindly! Clearlight418 (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion it fails WP:ELNO 1 - no unique content , 2 - few sources, very misleading diagram (EVs produce greenhouse gases in almost all cases, at least until we build more nuclear power stations), 11 non authoritative publisher - the site is basically a blog and a forum. Personally I am very tough on ELs as they become spammed so quickly, I'd rather we got rid of them completely! The best way of incorporating content from an EL is to use it to build up the article - the problem you face there is that blogs are not WP:RS - that is not insurmountable, if the point you are making is a good one then finding RS is usually not too hard. Greglocock (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please continue this on the article's talk page not hereGreglocock (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

charges every 10 miles OR LESS (GM Volt)

OK, I had it wrong, it was every 10 not 7. But it does say every 10 or less:

"Our results suggest that for urban driving conditions and frequent charges every 10 miles or less, a low-capacity PHEV sized with an AER of about 7 miles would be a robust choice for minimizing gasoline consumption, cost, and green house gas emissions."

-Page 9, last paragraph. Bluetd (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

But the general conclusion is the one that I put in the article, that for EVERY cycle considered the 40 mile AER was uneconomic. The refernece identifies the figure (6) showing this. it is also mentioned in the conclusions. Greglocock (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

External Links

I notice you are including a lot of links to the products of these people http://www.nch.com.au . These fall foul of wp:el, specifically "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, in the mobile phone article, don't link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services." I suggest you stop doing so. Greglocock (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Blah blah blah (uncivil yes!!!!). Go and delete GoldWave's external links and I'll stop being annoying (oh sorry... one of our Glorious Leaders - Uncivil). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckdad (talk • contribs) 20:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a point? Doesn't look like it. Can you go away and be pointless somewhere else? Greglocock (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Greglocock (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Move Thompson Constant Velocity Joint (TCVJ) into CV article...

I was concerned about "copying huge slabs of text" and so appreciate the links instead. It's probably better, however, to move the TCVJ section into the Constant-velocity joint article and then link to it from the Universal joint article. The TCVJ really is a constant velocity joint; it's just not a Rzeppa joint. MarkWarren (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The actual problem is that the CV article has the wrong title, as teh article itself is mainly focussed on rzeppas and tripods, and we are muddying the waters further. There is a class of joints which are CV joints (a misnomer, they aren't), and there is a mechanism called the Hookes Joint. My thought was to keep DCJs and TCs in with Hookes joints as that is the mechanism they are based on, but the logic works just as well if we put them both into CV joints. So, we could flip it round like you say and then defocus the lede on RZs, so that CV joint article becomes a catch all for all the CV-like joints, and Hookes remains by itself as a detail about that mechanism itself? I think that works. Greglocock (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The sky is falling

No it isn't http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/MornerEtAl2004.pdf Greglocock (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

To be persuasive, we must be believable; to be believable, we must be credible; to be credible, we must be truthful.

Electric car

Re Electric Car

Thanks for the compliment-- didn't know that word (Stachanovite). I am awful at at starting anything but once I get started I can't let it go.

Well it took a couple of days but I kept getting distracted fixing other things while I was checking links etc. Which is good cos other articles get fixed too, and I learn around Wikipedia different techniques for different kinds of articles, so that's all good but makes it longer for me.

It was (and is) I think quite a good article and I haven't changed it much, though rearranged a few bits and pieces. I think fair credit to the regular editors who I suspect have been holding back a little so that they weren't treading on my toes. Now all the refs are sorted and not cluttering up the article, I think it runs much more cleanly, and now those who actually know what they are talking about can go in and edit it with real content not just silly reference fixing, to make it really good.

Caramel is my next-- plenty of worms there-- only a day on that so far. That's led me to all over the place that one.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Greglocock. You have new messages at Talk:Electric_car.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You were just one step ahead of me, I was checking. Full reply there. I agree with you. SimonTrew (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Regarding your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bible In 30 Minutes ... Or Less!: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Such pomposity. One laughs. Greglocock (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Take a look at this, he ain't new to this process. Dapi89 (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

TA I think I know him from another board Greglocock (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Tirpitz

I noticed that Kurfurst is at it again. You should know the source he is using is available on google books. Dunlin and Garzke say nothing about "huge naval and air forces". Dapi89 (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing in Bismarck/Tirpitz/Scharnhorst etc. articles, incivility

Your recent edits in these articles do not strike me as particularly constructive, you seem to be constantly argue about how poorly designed these ships were, or questioning that they were of any worth, without finding reliable secondary sources to underline this, or to improve the article in other ways. You are also making threats and remain grossly uncivil to other editors, calling them 'fanbois' etc. Please refrain from that. I suggest you study a bit Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, [Wikipedia:Reliable sources], and especially, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and Wikipedia:No personal attacks for future reference about wikipedia guidelines about editing articles. Kurfürst (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you realise that wiki has come across people like you before, and they wrote a whole page documenting your tedious and unoriginal tricks. WP:GAME Greglocock (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

WQA

This is just to let you know that another user has opened a WP:WQA thread regarding you here. Thanks. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ta. Que sera sera. Greglocock (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Electric Car

Hey greg

can you help me out here onelectric car its got b class but now with all the refs done looking sweet and it is not perfect people are adding stuff in and it is good enough now that it is getting vandalism! It needs split it is far too long i would like somehow to take it to peer review how would you suggest we proceed? I am quite new to this article many other editors have worked on it very hard I am just trying to push it forward. If you think FA is pointless fair does should we go GA what should we do? SimonTrew (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW in the process i created Citroën_C1_ev'ie and Newmarket and Chesterford Railway how i managed to get from electric cars to ancient railways i dunno it happens like that sometimes. But if you want to cast your subbing eye over them that would be great, they are very short I am not sure if they are marked as stubs but there is only so much to say so they are not really stubs just short articles. SimonTrew (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Simon, I don't know how to get a peer review/GA/FA. I personally don't like FA, because there is no guarantee that the article you're looking at is the same as the one that was featured - that is my only objection (I'd much rather that when articles got GA or FA then they were locked up to some extent). I'll look at yout ther links but I don't know nuffin about them. Greglocock (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Lazy Editors

Hi. I was just about to put an explanation on the article's talk page when you deleted my tag. But, I guess the non-notable tag is enough on that article. I really don't see how this confusingly named memo is notable, but I'm happy to be proved wrong. Meanwhile, the editor who created that article is sticking references to it into other articles without any reference and without an explanation that identifies what it is. Indeed, the article doesn't explain with any clarity what the heck it is about. I really don't see why you attacked me at the AfD page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I hadn't followed the history to see who had tagged it. I have a bit of a crusade about people abusing tags, should have waited longer. Please do add your crit to the talk page, maybe it can be rescued. Sorry again. Greglocock (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care. One tag is enough. I don't think the article is salvageable, but this is more your field than mine. Try to have some compassion for your fellow human being - I'm just not fast enough to form an AfD page and add a talk page explanation for the tag all at once! BTW, I never even used that tag before, so, don't worry, you've discouraged me from ever using it again! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to confuse things I readded the tag. Do with it as you will. I am going to ask topgearx to stop spamming and improve the article instead Greglocock (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for taking down the hurtful language at the AfD's page. I volunteer a lot of time for Wikipedia, and I think I have written and expanded a lot of high-quality articles with diligence and careful research and referencing. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Difficult to know what's acceptable and notable and what's not if you've never done it before. Thought that having links to and from other pages was important not spamming. Thanks for trying to help but looking at this page and reading all the nonsense that goes on here means this is my first and last time trying to post a page on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topgearx (talk • contribs) 03:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

So when you first try and publish in a journal you just send in your first thoughts and expect to get published?Or do you consult their manual of style so it won't get rejected out of hand? Anyway, enjoy your hissy fit, it won't be the last. Greglocock (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

peacock

i suggest you read wp:peacock a number of times, until you can grasp that there is no peacock terms or peacockery in below text:

"calculates (since all states are not readily available, this calculation is actually an "estimation" according to the control terminology)"

Logos5557 (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Preening in front of Wiki's mirror is peacockery. Your phraseology is impenetrable to a general audience and redundant. ie it makes you sound like a wanker. Greglocock (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

overinterpreting wiki's policies & guidelines deserves some attention. instead of wanking in front of wiki's mirror with your imaginative perceptions, i suggest you to start creating your own policy against wankery; wp:wankery, from scratch. until there is consensus on it, you better stay clean of gaming the system (WP:GAME). Logos5557 (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for rewriting the jargon into english. I knew you had it in you. Greglocock (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Squat

A/s does not affect the steady state weight transfer at all. A/S can be used to suppress any visible rocking effect. Is A/s really a great link in context? Greglocock (talk) 7:25 am, Today (UTC−5)

Who said anything about "steady-state weight transfer"? The preceding sentence says "By way of example, when a vehicle accelerates, a weight transfer toward the rear wheels is said to occur." In this context, the squat/anti-squat discussion seems to be pretty good, but not perfect. Do you know of a better link? -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but then I can't think of an equally irrelevant link either. Maybe Mary Poppins. Seriously, using squat to illustrate weight transfer is like using cabbage to illustrate roses. Greglocock (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? Perhaps you are thinking of load transfer. As the articles are currently written, "squat" is the name of the motion associated with rear-ward weight transfer. By the way, what is "steady-state weight transfer"? -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really thinking of either. I try and remember to call it load transfer but everyone in my industry calls it weight transfer. SS weight or load transfer is what is seen in steady state acceleration. Funny terminology but vehicle dynamics is like that. You would see no squat with a rigid body, yet weight/load transfer would still exist. I assume you think you have a point, you are singularly failing to make it. Greglocock (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes there appears a lot of fuzziness about which terms means what, and the two articles currently attempt to keep it clear. I never intended to make a point, just add a wikilink. The text originally said "the car visibly leans to the back, or "squats"." I just added a link to the one subsection I could find that talks about "squat". That the same subsection also describes anti-squat doesn't seem to be an issue to me. What point is it that you wish to make?

• "Weight transfer" should be called "load transfer" and vica versa?
• A/s does not affect the steady state weight transfer at all.
• A/S can be used to suppress any visible rocking effect.-AndrewDressel (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My point is that squat is not a necessary consequence of acceleration, perhaps the problem lies more with the original article than your link. Personally I think the weight transfer article is a travesty, since it takes the general name for load transfer and applies it to an effect that only a very small number of people care about, and forces the load transfer article to be called by a name that few recognise. Anyway, I'll have another look.Greglocock (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"squat is not a necessary consequence of acceleration." No disagreement from me.

Perhaps the two articles should be merged. Then each phenomenon can be clearly described and the conflicting usage of terms can be explained. My interest is bikes, so the last time I worked on these articles, I used Tony Foale as the reference that explains which should be which and why. Do you have a comparable reference that goes the other way? That would be a good reason for readdressing the issue. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have access to "Vehicle Dynamics Terminology" (Document Number J670, Published January 2008) by SAE? That might be a great reference for the load transfer vs weight transfer debate. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a great ref . I quote from it in one or the other talk page, it only mentions load transfer. Gillespie uses the term weight transfer like normal people do, to mean load transfer. To my mind the whole weight transfer (as it is currently written) section is undue weight on an effect that very few people think about, it would be better to combine the two articles into one, describe load transfer while calling it weight transfer and observing that load transfer is a better term, and then add a second section pointing out that for motorcycles and half empty milk tanker cg shifts are important. Greglocock (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL, if you will pardon the expression. I like your merger idea. Care to start it? -AndrewDressel (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's talk about it on the weight transfer talk, I think that is the best name for the combined article, then we can have a redirect load transfer -> weight transfer. I think the intro para should read something like- weight transfer refers to two distinct effects. For four wheeled vehicles it is customarily used to refer to the transfer of load between the wheels as a result of accelerations, due to the height of the cg above the ground. This is more properly referred to as load transfer. Weight transfer on motorbikes and also in some other special cases is due to change in cg location longitudinally and/or laterally. (etc) Greglocock (talk) 07:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I proposed the merger and suggested your lede. I included your signature along with mine. I hope you don't mind. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No probs. Greglocock (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Anti-lock brakes

I'm the anon who requested a definition of locking. Thanks for providing it! rhebus (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

civility/personal attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Greglocock#peacock

it makes you sound like a wanker.

please refrain from such comments in the future. from your talk page I can see that you do not make a habit of this, so please ensure that there is no repeat of this incident.

thanks 119.173.81.176 (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever gave you the impression that I have the slightest interest in your opinion? Wanker. Greglocock (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alerts - NPA warning

The next time you make a personal attack, as you did here, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Greglock, you've been here for long enough to know that know this in sufficient detail already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The above pomposity was either temporarily or permanently rescinded by the collective might of the Wikiquette alert mafia. Greglocock (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Greg, your general sarcasm and incivility is really not helping here. The whole idea of the report/warning was to remind you that we're all here to build the encyclopedia, so slinging abuse is not going to be helpful. Could you please just relax a little? The whole issue could be forgotten if you were happy to just let the whole thing drop. You don't even have to apologise- just relax a little. J Milburn (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not actually agree with you but appreciate the positive sentiment. Greglocock (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope we can get on a bit better in the future, from someone I know being called a wanker was offensive, but perhaps I should assume that you meant it in a friendly way. See you 119.173.81.176 (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing you have written before or since has changed my opinion, in fact it has been reinforced. I am unclear as to why you persist in posting here. Greglocock (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I am so sorry - I apologise for trying to clear the air and suggest that we try to get along while editing wikipedia. You might want to grow up a little and try to get on with people, right now you are just making yourself look stupid. I don't require an apology, just some basic manners - however after reading the above comment I am not going to hold my breath waiting. The offer to get on in a friendly way still stands, if you don't think it is important, that is your choice. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Why??

...the heck can't you take any criticism? You write great articles, but you're rude and sarcastic towards anybody who criticises you, and you don't try to help anyone who criticises you. Not nice at all. You don't need to reply to this, your replies are quite predictable to such stuff. Calm down, OK? We're all trying to have fun, and make WP a better place. Your behaviour is against the spirit of Wikipedia. Keep up the auto stuff, it's excellent. user: vvneagleone here, sorry for not signing in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.132.124 (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

In no universe, of which I have knowledge, is the ability to write good wiki articles connected to the ability to accept anonymous meaningless criticism gracefully. Perhaps in your universe this is so. How nice for you if that is the case where you think you live. How nice for me that it isn't here. Greglocock (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for personal attacks

For insisting on calling Wikipedians names like "wanker" and "mafia" I have blocked you for 31 hours. When this expires you will be expected to refrain from name calling. Chillum 04:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, when I made that block I thought this had happened more recently. I have reversed the block as I do not think it will be helpful at this point. Please do not engage in name calling in the future. Chillum 04:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)