Jump to content

User talk:Sammy D III/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Sammy D III, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- John of Reading (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of ship commissionings in 1944, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mackinaw (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sammy D III

hey thanks for your note. im glad someone read some of that kerr mcgee stuff i wrote. its a hell of a story... anyways. do you know which 'west chicago' article you are referring to? its been a while but i have forgotten. as for the cover up - there are enough real conspiracies out there, i dont believe in them until i see evidence. if you can trace the IP back to a law firm, PR firm, corporation, etc, then i might think it was suspicious, but also rather humorous (things like that happen on Wikipedia all the time). anyways. thanks again. Decora (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. thanks. Decora (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited M54 (truck), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brockway (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Van Buren Street Tunnel may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "{}"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Street, just north of Van Buren Street, opened for the company’s southwest lines on March 24, 1894.(ref name=bor12>pages 143-144</ref><ref name=san06>pages=49S, 87W}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

EMD MP15AC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Seaboard
EMD MP15DC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Seaboard

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

United States Coast Guard

Friend of the United States Coast Guard

Sammy D III: Please accept our heartfelt appreciation for your edits to articles concerning the United States Coast Guard here in Wikipedia. Your efforts to help preserve our Coast Guard history are a source of joy and pride for many generations of the Coast Guard Family. Semper Paratus,

Tjlynnjr (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC).

Diesel Spotters Guide Errata

I have a four page Word Document detailing errors in DSG2, would you like a copy? You seem to be in to this wikipedia thing. --SSW9389 23:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

These are just notes from over 40 years of observing and reading about diesel locomotives. My first DSG was acquired in 1970.

ALCO

Page ALCO-207 add 538 and 538T, 12V-244A engine to production at Auburn, NY Page ALCO-208 Add ALCO/M&S 330 engine Correct 531 to 531T Add 538 Add 538T Correct 539 to 539T. When was last date of manufacture of this engine. NdeM RS-1s of 1960? Add 244 A Add 244 B Add 244 C Add 244 D Add 244 E Add 244 F Add 244 G Add 244 H (250 engine) Add 251 date should be 1951 Add 251 D Add 251 G? Page ALCO-216 HH300 or OE??????? Produced through 1938 add 2 export units Page ALCO-217 check quantities, add 538 and 538T engine data, remove reference to 539 and 539Turbo. Page ALCO-218 correct copy to 538 engine from 539 Page ALCO-220 correct caption to HH900 Page ALCO-221 check quantities, check export S-1s, correct build date to reflect late S-3s. Mention differences in carbody between S-1 and S-3. Page ALCO-224 date on S-2 start manufacture appears to be wrong. All engine data should be 539T. Date on S-4 Start is wrong per MLW production. Date on end S-4 production is wrong should be 1957. Last unit sold in 1961 reflects sale date, not build date. Carbody differences of S-4 from S-2. Page ALCO-230 ALCO demonstrator #6 built in 1951 is missing from this page. Spec number on S-5, should it be DL421 and DL421A=demo and six production locos. Page ALCO-233 Engine is 539T not 539. Export RS-1s not listed. No RSC-1s shown. Spec number. Page ALCO-235 NdeM numbers 1st or 2nd? Page ALCO-238 engine on RSC-13 should be 539T, engine on RSC-24 should be 244B Page ALCO 243 engine data 244B, 244C, 244D Foreign export data Page ALCO 245 engine 244B,244C, 244D Export RSC-2s and RSC-3s missing. Page ALCO 247 engine 244D Page ALCO 248 RS-11 exports missing. Late NdeM production. Page ALCO 252 check RS-27 production date. Add C430 Spec no. Page ALCO 257 Add RSD-12 export data, RSD-7 engine data 244G and 244H. The 12 C&O units are RSD-7 not RSD-15. Production dates and quantities on RSD-7 and RSD-15 are wrong. Page ALCO 259 Five export units add. Page ALCO 262 add export C636s. Page ALCO 263 add export M636 Page ALCO 267 add spec numbers DL202-2 and DL203-2. A units built January 1945. B Unit later in 1945? Page ALCO 268 FA-1 FB-1 Spec numbers for early units may be wrong. Engine was 244 or 244A, then 244B, 244C. Where are DL204, DL205, DL206, DL207. The DL204 and DL205 are the first GM&O/Alco Demonstrator units. Does engine change signify change to the DL206 and DL 207 units? Page ALCO 272 engine is 531 not 539. Page ALCO 273 add spec DL103b with twin 538T engines built 12/39. Add spec DL105 with twin 539T engines built 1940, Add spec DL107 and DL108. Correct all dates. Page ALCO 276 244 engines used Remove reference to PA-3 and PB-3 they never existed. These units were PA-2 and PB-2. PA-1 PB-1 produced in June 1946. Add three export PA-2s. Would PA-3 have used the 244H engine? Or early 251B? Page ALCO 278 This is a GE RSX-4, ALCO was a subcontractor. Horsepower should be 1600, not 1000. Unit used 12-244D engine with GE electricals, some had steam generators. Page ALCO 279 check this statement of only export to a North American RR.

EMD/GMD Page EMD-23 CF7s built from F3, F7, F9 Page EMD-25 Plant No. 3 operated from late 1948 to early 1954 War Production Board Controls were for the period April 1942-December 1944. Page EMD-26 General Motors Prime Movers 567 9/38 first E3A There is a Preston Cook article showing a 567 on test in 1937 567B MRS1 rated at 1600 567C EMD F9A Demo 975 2/53, also 660 HP SW900M 567CR Counter Rotating engine rated at 900 HP 660 HP? 567D2 first used 3/59 on EMD factory repowered GP9s. See EMD p63 567D3 first used 1/58 at EMD LaGrange as a peaker unit, first locomotive EMD #5579 Demonstrator SD24 7/58 567D3A first used in EMD #5652 Demonstrator GP35 7/63 645E3 was first used in EMD SD40X Demonstrator #434 in 7/64.

Page EMD-35 first SW1 12/38 Check WPB data Page EMD-36 check WPB data Page EMD-38 567A or B? Page EMD-41 567CR engine use, first SW900 12/53 by GMD, date of last SW8? Date of last SW900 is 3/69 Page EMD-43 First SW9 at GMD 12/50? Page EMD-46 Production dates for GMD1, 567D1 engine on RS1325? Page EMD-48 Production dates for SW1000, SW1001, and SW1500. Page EMD-52 Air throttle was specific to the BL1. Page EMD-53-56 567BC engine used on GP7, GP7M and GP9M data. Page EMD-57 GP38AC data, GP28 production dates. Page EMD-63-64 Omaha GP20 clarification, East LA Shops, numbers of Omaha/ELA GP20s Page EMD-65 EMD GP22 note Page EMD-67 GP35 first produced 7/63 demonstrator Page EMD 71 Export SD9s Page EMD-74 export SDP28 Page EMD-77 export SDP38 and SD38, SD40 Page EMD 96 Production dates for EMD Demonstrators wrong Page EMD 99 4 C&NW FP9s Page EMD 118 E2 production dates 10-12/37 Page EMD 121 E3A demo of 9/38 Page EMD 124 E8 production dates go to 1/54 E9 production dates go to 1/64

THE SECOND DIESEL SPOTTER’S GUIDE ERRATA

PAGE Export production of export models not shown 23 CF7 conversions 26 567 engine built 9/38 E3A Demo 567B rating of 1600 hp in MRS-1 567D2 first used in UP GP9 conversions 3-6-1959 567D3 first used in SD24 Demo 7/58 567D3A first used in GP35 Demo 7/63 645E3 first used in SD40 Demo 7/64 35 First SW1 12/38 WPB order dates 36 WPB order dates 41 SW900 production date 12/53 to 3/69 in Canada 43 SW9 production date in Canada 12/50 46 RS1325 used 567D1 engine 47-48 BL1 build date, built with air throttle 9/47. 57 GP38AC production 60 “ 67 GP35 first built 7/63 77 SD45 first built 12/65 96 Production dates for EMD Demonstrators wrong F2/F3 swap IDs 99 4 C&NW FP9s 118 E2 production dates 10-12/37 121 E3A demo of 9/38 124 E8 production dates go to 1/54 E9 production dates go to 1/64

Page GE 137 Alco-GE partnership Universal line of diesels was introduced in 1956. 400 exported before the first U25B was sold. Page GE 138 Engines FDL 12 Tonners! Page GE 161 Engine data Page GE 162 Universal Line Page GE 163 add U28CG Page GE 164 note all U25B and U25C rated at 2750 horsepower Page GE 171 add U30CG Page GE 176 add U34CH and U36CG Add P30CH Page GE 182 UP #52 rated at 5600 horsepower for a time Page GE 185+ more tonners --SSW9389 22:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Write your email on my talk page and I can send the Word Document. --SSW9389 22:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to EMD E7 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | minimumcurve= 21° ({{convert|273|ft|m|2|abbr=on}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1-50 series (Chicago 'L') may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | maxspeed= {{convert|50|mph|abbr=on}}<br>(1-4 {{convert|70|mph|abbr=on}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


Pete Seeger R.I.P.

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mack Trucks may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[File:King_Fire_Engine.jpg|thumb|MC fire engine (1978-1990]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to School bus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ==Design history)==

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to M25 Tank Transporter may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • exclusively for the M26, although it was also used to uprate the [[Diamond T 980|Diamond T]]). Some 2,100 Type 440s were built. Baxter<ref name="Baxter, Breakdown, 51" /> notes "over 1,300"

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hiya Sammy Dee

I've noticed your mostly great edits across a number of oft neglected truck articles, just wanted to say thanks and welcome to WP. One minor niggle:

As per WP:WPAC, outputs are written this way:

  • {{convert|98|hp|kW|abbr=on}} at 5500&nbsp;rpm, not with an ampersand. Not a big deal at all, but it'll save me the boredom of going in after you to spell out all of the @'s. The "&nbsp;" text is a no-breaking space, which keeps the numeral and the unit together in case of a line break. Thanks a lot, hope to see more of you, and Studebaker E-series truck needs some TLC.  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
In the future I will try to use "at" instead of "@".Sammy D III (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Great, cheers. I hope I didn't offend you, I certainly didn't mean to.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I’m impaired, not offended, I don’t know where that comes from.
“@”s give you trouble, not me. They are used correctly in the infoboxes, but I’m going to cut most of them out, anyway. Use the details to punch up the text, if there is any. I’ve already started. That may come from thinking about your first message, but you haven’t scared me away, it looks right.
If I notice one, I’ll change it. I’m probably going to hunt down some of the infoboxes, but I’ll never find them all.Sammy D III (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited M54 (truck), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mack (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of U.S. military vehicles by supply catalog designation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of U.S. military vehicles by model number may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

INFOBOX ON M1 HEAVY TRACTOR

Sammy, there is a Studebaker infobox now in the M1 heavy tractor article. Could You undo this? Thnx in advance Corjan de Wit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corjan de Wit (talk • contribs) 16:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dodge WC series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fargo. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks for Your efforts! No problem sh.. happens

Corjan de Wit (talk — Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I messed up, you keep talking at the same place you start a comment. I should have stayed here, I didn't know if you would watch here. And you don't have to make a new section, if you put a colon (:) at the start of a paragraph, it moves over one space. Then the other person uses two colons. I'll show you.
Are you getting your stuff from Advocaat? I got stuff there, but was using them as books, I'm going back to change them to links. Those that I can find.
Infoboxes are easy, I can give you tips if you want. And if you use four squiggly dashes it signs your name on talk pages. Have a good one. Sammy D III (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox dimentions

Until at least 1986 the US Army has measured truck dimensions in inches, which I will use, rounded off to the nearest inch.

I will convert inches to centemeters. Millimeters, used by European auto manufactures, is too small when the source is rounded off. Centimeter is the closest unit to inch, and the two round off well together. For engine dimensions, I will use millimeters.

EDIT: A European has told me that they use meters.00, so from now on I will, too.

I may use feet and tons in measuring load, as the Army often does. I will convert feet to meters. Here a ton equals 2,000 pounds, aka a short ton. We do not use the word “short”. Because of this, I will convert tons to kilograms myself.

Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your significant improvements to US Military Vehicle-related pages! Stratocaster27t@lk 04:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ZIL-157, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ZIL. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Bye

Sammy, thank you again for the info box for the K-31 article. You can take the image of the radionerds site. I will send you the link. See my talk page for the latest police message. The TD-18 is not my article and as you would understand I am not willing to contribute too much until this tempest is lying down. It is a waste of time and very annoying! P.S I have deleted the images etc. of the TD-18. I am fed up with this kind of negative people! I am considering deleting my contributions. Maybe that will bring sense back to these people. It is a shame. If you still want to place an image in the info box this is the link of our friends: www.radionerds.com/index.php/File:K The image can be used freely -deleted- 12:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Easy, you are sounding like me, that is bad. I am insane, impaired, and an asshole, it’s not fun. You are not, don’t come down to my level. Don’t delete, I have done that, nobody will even notice, and when you go back everything has to be redone.
When these guys blow through like that, they sometimes tell everyone that they are going to do something. You got hit because your name was in the “History”, they are throwing away a bad article, You couldn’t make it good enough by yourself. They do whatever they want, sort of a social class deal. You are an advocate, maybe You can make a real argument. If that is fun for you.
You are making yourself get noticed. You have great sources, but your links themselves are ugly. If you use those blank forms (they are called “Templates”) your links will look better. Then you can copy and paste them anywhere.
I think that making ugly links to a lame article is a bad idea. Spend some time getting it looking OK, then use nice links to get people to see you when you are ready. I am racing here, maybe you should slow down and do one thing at a time. And you don't want to do it all now, stretch the fun out?
That picture on K31 is great, but you have to make it work right. I don’t know how. But doing that, I think you might want to go away from the trucks and into the radios, that is fun for you, right? The xx radio, mounted in this body, does this and that. The antenna is this size to do that, so it is on this trailer. Make the radios the story, the truck is background? You already have the truck at 8144T.
Spend more time on the little things? Footnotes are easy. Convert stuff into metric. This makes it look better, even if the text is the same.
Real life is calling me. Cool off, I get angry, and end up looking stupid. Later, Sammy D III (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey, don't go away forever, I have been having fun. Do you mind if I keep using some of your stuff? You could come back whenever you want. If not, have a good retirement. One question, though. Why does someone who lives in the shadow of a modern navy care about old trucks? Later? Sammy D III (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Sammy use the mail. You know where to find me. -deleted- 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I tried, but we have talked a lot, finding it is hard for me. My play address is: sammydthree at gmail dot com, or tell me where to look? Thank You. Sammy D III (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference dates

Thank you for your edits to Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck. Please pay attention to using the same date format as the other references in the article. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  22:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

At HEMTT I just posted six refs using a human date format. EDIT: This is the format used by the source, US Army documents. I intend to post more. There were three, one dead, there. I would appreciate it if you changed the them back. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I shifted your comment from my talk page to here. Much better to have a discussion in a single place instead of in two disjoint places.
MOS:DATEFORMAT says that reference dates are allowed to be in the yyyy-mm-dd format. References should use a single, consistent format. That format does not have to be the same as the format used in the source material (i.e. does not need to correspond to the format used by the army). This must be true because how can we have a consistent date format if we use references from multiple sources that use different formats.
WP:CITEVAR says that citation styles (including the date format) should not be changed according to editor preference. Instead, the first editor gets to choose from the legal formats (which includes yyyy-mm-dd) and future editors should respect his choice. In our case, previous editors had made the majority of references in yyyy-mm-dd format, so therefore we should use that same format for new references.
It is possible to change the format but only by gaining consensus on the article talk page to change it. Note that consensus requires a clear majority in support of the change - a deadlocked discussion means no change.  Stepho  talk  02:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Wrong. The correct answer is "Good point, I'll change them back". No wonder you don't want this on your talk page. Sammy D III (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, feel free to start drumming up some consensus on the the talk page.  Stepho  talk  05:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mack Trucks in military service

Hey, I've nominated Mack Trucks in military service for DYK, a section of the mainpage that showcases new and expanded Wikipedia articles. In most cases, you can nominate an article for DYK in one of the four following situations:

  • You have created it within the last week, and it has 1500+ characters of prose (not infobox).
  • You have expanded the prose of any article to five times its previous size.
  • You have doubled the prose of a formerly unsourced BLP (living person) article.

The nomination page is at Template:Did you know nominations/Mack Trucks in military service, where another editor will review the article, the 200 character hook and decide whether or not to put it in a waiting list to show on the mainpage. Thanks for writing such an article! Buggie111 (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join MILHIST

Hello, Sammy D III, you are hereby invited to join the Military history WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, theory, and practice. You can add your name to the list of members, browse our showcase, train at the Academy, weigh in at current discussions, read the news, or find an open task. We hope you will join us! Anotherclown (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Mack Trucks in military service

Thanks from me and the DYK project. Victuallers (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Lukeno94

In deference to Luke I'm not replying directly to your comment on his talk: page.

So I had "ABSOLUTLY NO BUSINESS" in posting to his talk: page? But it's OK for him to make fairly blunt attacks on me elsewhere, be excused at ANI because "he had retired" and then not only has he not retired, but nearly every comment he has since posted has been either a snide dig at me, or has had one in the edit summary. I'm not going to leave those unchallenged. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

AFTER he "retired" Springee has posted twice, you have posted twice, and Ricky has posted three times. Sound right? You all know he doesn't want to hear it. He has only posted on his talk page, answering you. You should have let him walk, not follow him. Especially you.
I stood up for you yesterday, but kicking him while he was down was wrong. Sammy D III (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy to let him walk, but not if he's still shouting abuse over his shoulder.
Yesterday ?? "Kicking him"? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
You have been baiting him since he left. And it worked. But you started (continued) it. I posted as a number yesterday, I don't like him, but you lost your advantage by fanning the flames. Sammy D III (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Steering weight.

Where do you see 12,000 on steering? 6 wheelers regularly have 16,000 here. Ready mix used to do 18 18 18 (wide rear tandems count as two singles) 12 (boost-a-load trailer). Just asking. Sammy D III (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

12,000 is standard in the industry for 18-wheelers (I am assuming this is what "Class 8" means since 80,000 was listed as the gross). It is natural to set the axle limits to sum to the gross limit, which is indeed the case: 12,000 + 34,000 + 34,000 = 80,000. Never having driven them commercially I am unfamiliar with the limits for 6-wheelers, but my guess is the axle limits would sum to the gross limit for them too, which would help explain 16,000 for the steering axle. Mathematrucker (talk)

Thank you for answering so quick. I was looking a while ago and couldn't find any federal law putting a 12,000 limit. My state doesn't. I know it works that way on semis, but probably not on large strait trucks.
I was driving before the fed regulations, it was 18,000 per axle (now 20,000), 32,000 on tandem (now 34,000), and 73,280 (now 80,000) GCW. On 6x4 dump trucks 16,000 + 32,000 ± was most common (47,500 worth of wheelbase on bridge formula), but some long wheelbase trucks had 18,000 + 32,000 = 50,000.
The classes don't work that way, Class 8 is over 33,000, basically anything with more than 2 axles. I don't know why they have so many small classes.
Thank you for talking. Once I know you have read this, I'm going to delete it, I always do that. It is common to have the whole talk in one place, I hope you see this. Have a good day. Sammy D III (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Mr Manners

Your apology is unnecessary, if welcome. I've been treated more rudely by people here with less reason. If you're going to keep editing, tho, you'll need to get used to being RV'd by people, & need to learn some of the conventions, 'cause, like Gibbs' rules, much of it ain't written down anywhere... So I hope you aren't leaving. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

"much of it is not written down". Like the part where you keep putting that red link back in the infobox when I left one in the text, put another one in my new text, and talked on the talk page. People know that you put that third red link back in the infobox to mess with me. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:US M426 dimensions.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:US M426 dimensions.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Caterpillar C15 engine.2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Caterpillar C15 engine.2.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Caterpillar C15 engine.2.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Caterpillar C15 engine.2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Caterpillar C15 engine.4.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Caterpillar C15 engine.4.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Caterpillar C15 engine.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Caterpillar C15 engine.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to fill out the license, and when notified I couldn't edit it. I reloaded the image several times, the current versions is "Caterpillar C15 engine.4". All others should be deleted. Sammy D III (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (2½-ton 6x6 truck) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating 2½-ton 6x6 truck, Sammy D III!

Wikipedia editor Damibaru just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good. However, instead of toppling all the refs together at the end of a section, one might diffuse them throughout. Also, there are a lot of smaller paragraphs and infoboxes, something that might make it harder for some to read, but I don't think it's necessary to change anything. Cheers!

To reply, leave a comment on Damibaru's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mack model EH trucks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mack. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to PCC streetcar may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

51 refs and out

I have been here for over six years, and I do not think that I have ever been in any discussion that has reached any consensus about any article I have ever edited. Instead I am told that that is the way it is done. I just posted fifty-one rock solid refs for one word which probably won't be used anyway. You would be pissed, too. Sammy D III (talk) 8:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Retired
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sammy D III. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Damn

December 2016

Information icon Hello, I'm Toddst1. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Talk:Mack model EH trucks without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Vicious vandals

I just had some stuff reverted because in one minute someone thought I was a vandal. I forgot an edit summary. Serious crime. This can apparently be done by anybody, this person was not an admin. I'm going to talk about this for awhile.

I have been here a while, and have posted a lot of stuff (by my standards, anyway). Sure I have argued, I have also collaborated. I think I have made a contribution to the place, maybe others don't. But if I have been productive, or even if I just haven't been shown to be counter-productive, I shouldn't have stuff I think is good just dissappear out of the blue. One minute is simply not enough time to make an informed decision.

I have no idea how bad vandalism is, I only see the stupid "Jimmy stinks" stuff most of the time. But should everyone who has been plugging away for some time be judged in literally less than 60 seconds? I have been in different groups, none of them are about vandals, but it doesn't seem to matter. I have no reason to believe that vandal hunters are even expected to do any background checking at all. I have asked, no answers, but that could be a lot of reasons. User groups. Contribs. Page histories. None seem to have any use in a one-minute decision. Actually, I have tried, sort of. Of course it is the wildest stretch to think I could replicate a hunt, but I think 10 seconds would do contribs pretty well. I would think that would be pretty useful. And I think most would pass. I don't know if I would, but there can be so many reasons not to tell. Page histories, as I think about it, probably wouldn't be as good, especially for drive-bys.

I am not a vandal, but got popped anyway. Then when I asked that the damage be undone, the reverter doesn't even really have to, they can second-guessed the non-vandal content. On a subject they have no familiarty with. So maybe you don't get your stuff back even after you ask that a mistake by the reverter be overturned.

There are basic problems. This is not about free-editing, it is about that being denied by a snap decision. And these snap decisions don't seem to have a lot of time or energy behind them, the reason is "you looked like". You have to activly not look like you could be a vandal. While minding your own business out in nowhere.

And then the reverter has power over you. The snap decision actually gives them power, right or wrong. Just hunting makes them seem, well, like an admin to me. And anything they they do is a good-faith edit, without any sort of discussion. You can have someone who considers themself better than you, who has a good reputation, who is ignorant of the subject, and who think they can do better. And who will never be back. They only showed up to hunt, they don't care about the actual article.

These people haven't been through the Admin Ordeal, but they can make a lot of undiscussed changes very fast. And they sort of come in with implied power.

Only so many edits per time space? I think that might be positive, but you don't really want to restrict a hunter to less edits than Anyjoe. Still, maybe only so many type of edits per time? I assume there is a bad backlog for bad actions, everyone rushing, but there should be some type of... And, of course, cut down on the old boy's school school.

Gen Z

I thought that the number of editors was a problem. It is in my world, but that is off the beaten trail.

As soon as an account is opened an old-timer drops a form letter. Maybe this is Brownie points, but I have taken them at face value. Foreign sites seem desperate, just pressing "edit" to get something can get you a greeting.

I tried to get an old-timer audience but missed my chance, I got a far younger crowd. Well-meaning, sort of, but not of much use. I don't know what the cross-section is, and certainly not psyche in general. But it sort of looks that it is more of the same thing, repeating, not really changing. It is almost as if there is a phrase-book. It can be ironic, I got a lecture on seniority, but they do believe it, and of course a lot of it is good.

Smart. I don't see a lot of stupid here. I think that is largely just the basic literary setup of the place. You have to read non-fiction. I personally doubt that many editors are top in their fields. They are the top in their field who have enough time and interest to come here. Or students and retirees. The actual top in their fields are busy being at the top.

Sort of fanatical. Of course. Less open than I expected. Could that just be time? Sort of inflated personal self-worth. If it is the "most" somebody has ever seen, but they have only been here a year, they haven't seen much. It may still be the "most" in a few more years, but they would have a much wider knowledge base then.

You can see the alliances forming.

If you want more of the same you should probably relax. There is nothing revolutionary or radical way out here. I'm too close and it's to short a time, but the only evolution I can tell is the size.

And, of course, cut down on the old boy's school school.

WP:STICK

I strongly advise you to drop the stick. Talking about revenge against anyone on Wikipedia is enough to get you blocked.

Your comment about "not sure how far to push this" is absurd. You were told to drop it at ANI but you refuse. Any more of this nonsense and we'll be discussing your behavior and WP:BATTLEGROUND at WP:ANI. This is not a threat or an attack.

If you want to figure out how to archive a page properly, I suggest you start with this one, like almost every other constructive editor does with their talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I just spent time editing, and I got another edit conflict and it is all gone again. I'll try later. Sammy D III (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
You edit-conflicted me.
I was going to talk about Wikipedia here, I think when it is done right it is an essay? I thought it was unlikely anyone would ever stop by, you have made my day.
I have no intention of dropping anything. As it happens there isn't anywhere to go, I blew it and can't go forum-shoping now. If it comes up, I will talk. Blocking isn't all that important.
"not sure how far to push this" is referring to how many questions I could ask Lepricavark before he got tired. But you have decided it is absurd. I will ask anyone I want any question I feel like asking. If they don't want to answer they can say so or just not answer at all. Actually, it happened this morning. And after you selectively archived your talk page I didn't go there. But if you want to talk about me, and you want me there, let me know. If you want to talk without me, no problem, you have whatever permissions you can use.
Maybe you want to re-read my first paragraph above. Bottom line, I don't really care about archiving this page, you do. I know it is a prejudice of yours, I saw you asking somewhere. If I had started when I started it would be there. If someone else wants to do it retroactively, fine, if it is easy I will use it. It might have been a fun project. But just blanking is pretty easy.
I can never try anything I am not sure of? I was following a Help page when you hit me. Two or three minutes and I probably had it. But I was edit-conflicted. You wouldn't give me more than one minute, the whole reason we are here at all. You will never convince me that one minute is long enough to make an informed decision. Then not apologize for making a mistake, which you have never even acknowledged. But one minute seems to be acceptable, it's not just you, it's the system. But should it be?
Unless you can get me blocked here I'm going to keep posting. If you block me, I'll survive, there isn't much more I can do here anyway. Drop by anytime to say anything. But remember that if I ever edit an article again this page is going to be empty, however it happens. Sammy D III (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

You've stated that you've lost work twice because of edit conflicts. I think it would be worth your time reading Help:Edit Conflict. You never lose your work because of an edit conflict. It is always there for you to post after resolving the conflict. Toddst1 (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I can't do that. I just switched to a word processor. By the time I finish something has happened. There, it just happened there.
I saw you at EH. Do you have a problem with me just blanking this? I could save some of the top, but procedure isn't really me. I want to do some truck basics but this crap is in the way and for some reason it is spreading. I can work around it if I have to, though. Sammy D III (talk) 03:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Take a breath

I have never seen an editor hold such a grudge over something so trivial. Take it easy and just let it go. No one thinks badly of you for the situation you are addressing, but continuing to argue it does look bad. This is just my advice; take it and get back to fruitful editing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Trucks are below this

I worked on some old US Army truck and newer commercial truck articles. This is about mid and heavy duty trucks, not cars and light trucks, I don't do them. Anything here can easily be wrong, it's for background only. Thank you.

US Army truck sizes

WWII 2+1⁄2-ton
(driver and his hottie)
Post-war 2+1⁄2-ton
(no eye candy)

I know something about trucks, but I don't know how much most other people know. The ton wheels measurement gives many a good idea of the size and type of a truck in the US. I think I have a good example.

The 2½-ton 6x6 truck is a size from WWII, and it worked so well that it was still used into the 2000s. In WWII they often had an open cab with those door cut-outs. The ones after WWII have doors and those flat and angular fenders. There is a larger 5-ton 6x6 truck that looks the same. I don't know how many people know that a 2+1⁄2-ton is a mid-duty, and not heavy-duty, truck.[1]

2+1⁄2-ton is the weight that a cargo version of the truck can carry. Ton is a measurement that goes back to ox-carts. In Wikipedia conversions ton is a tough unit. There are several, used in different places and weighing slightly different. Wikipedia converts call "tons" "short tons", a name not used in the US. These sort of have to be converted manually.

The army rates trucks as on- or off-road. Army looking trucks usually have a powered front axle and are rated as off-road, commercial models as on-road. Up to WWII some trucks had off/on road ratings (5-6 ton), but they stopped doing that. [2] An off-road rated truck now normally carries twice it's rating on improved roads. A 2+1⁄2-ton carries 5 tons. The ton is a rating, in the real world a 2+1⁄2-ton carries 5,000 pounds. Pretty much all commercial trucks use pounds.

Should "tons" be converted to metric at all? Lots of armies use tons/tonnes/whatever to describe trucks, is the few-hundred pounds??? worth getting that exact? Both will look the same. In the US Army the actual name is usually number dash ton (#-ton), even though it probably should be # tons.

6x6 is the wheel/axle arrangement. This is number of wheels x number of driven wheels. There are two wheels per axle, dual tires are counted as one wheel. Some series have both single and dual tire versions. This sometimes gives non-truckers problems.[3]

If two tires or wheels are next to each other and do not move relative to each other, they are one wheel. Many (most?) know the 2+1⁄2-ton is a 6x6, think how many tires it has. Dual tires have been universal in US trucks since World War I or so. Larger load on smaller tires, and if one tire fails the second will keep you afloat for a short distance. But dual tires are pretty bad on soft ground, mud and especially sand. Armies like "super-singles", they work better on soft stuff with less air pressure. Spread out the load on the flatter tire. But flat tires don't work on roads, so most army single-tire trucks can raise and lower the air-pressure in the tires on the fly. They still can't carry as much on roads, though, but that isn't really their job anyway. Some series have both single and dual tire models.[4]

In WWII the Army set stadards for trucks, but there were a mess of them. 2+1⁄2, 4, 6, 7+1⁄2, and 10-ton 6x6. In 1950ish they cut down to 2+1⁄2, 5, and 10-ton, that lasted into the 70s.

  1. ^ Doyle, David (2003). Standard catalog of U.S. Military Vehicles. Kraus Publications. pp. 105–160. ISBN 0-87349-508-X.
  2. ^ TM 9-2800 Standard Military Motor Vehicles. US Dept. of the Army. 1 Sep 1943. pp. 238–276. Retrieved 27 Dec 2016.
  3. ^ Crismon, Fred W (2001). US Military Wheeled Vehicles (3 ed.). Victory WWII Pub. p. 10. ISBN 0-970056-71-0.
  4. ^ TM 9-2320-272-10 Operators Manual for Truck, 5-ton, 6x6 M939, M939A1 and M939A2. US Dept. of the Army. 2004. p. 1-9.

Truck weights

Trucks weigh a lot. But how much?

Army trucks are normally rated in "tons" of payload. But tons are not used much in trucks these days. Pounds.

These are the ratings that the manufacturers stand behind. To get to the real world you just leave off the word "Rating".

Gross Axle Weight Rating is the maximum weight an axle puts on the ground. On a tandem it is the total of both axles combined.

Gross Vehicle Weight Ratings is the maximum weight of the entire truck. Normally it is the total of all GAWRs.

Gross Combination Weight Rating is the maximum weight of the truck and all trailers. This is usually used with semi tractor-trailers, but a straight truck with a trailer also uses it.

Semi tractors rarely use GVWR, GCWR is used instead. The tractor pulls more than it's GVWR so many components are stronger than they would be for a straight truck with the same GVWR. Road weight limits are measured by GAW, axle spacing, and total weight, individual units are not measured separately.[1][2] Semi-tractor GVWR is not much use.

The USDOT actually sets minimum, rather than maximum, weight limits. Any truck in interstate comerce must be allowed 20,000 lb (9,100 kg) on single axles, 34,000 lb (15,000 kg) on tandems, and a total combination weight of 80,000 lb (36,000 kg). Individual states can set higher limits on interstate highways in their state, or lower limits on loads inside the state.[3]

Empty Weight is, duh. Rating are usually with a full fuel load but no driver, but in the real world it would be the actual total including the driver at the time of weighing. Loose material, such as gravel, are often measured as weighed GVW/GCW minus the empty weight equals the payload. Not all loads are measured by weight.

  1. ^ "Federal Size Regulations for Commercial Motor Vehicles". US Department of Transportation. Retrieved 28 Dec 2016.
  2. ^ "Freight Management and Operations: Bridge Formula Weights". US Department of Transportation. 21 May 2015. Retrieved 28 Dec 2016.
  3. ^ "Compilation of Exixting State Truck Size and Weight Limit Laws". US Department of Transportation. May 2015. Retrieved 28 Dec 2016.

Dimensions

Trucks are usually "officially" in inches, but they are pretty big numbers that nobody knows. You use them when you spec out the truck, but not really after it is built. As a pro a truck was "eight foot" wide and "thirteen six" tall. Trailers are "officially" and practically foot/feet.

So? Well, which do you use. Or did I. Feet mostly, after an inch start. The same person in different places made the excellent point that feet are what Anyjohn/jane knows, no matter what the source. The exception is wheelbases, I used inches because truckers know them and nobody else has any clue either way. Might as well mean something to someone.

Measuring wheelbase. Single axles are measured to the centerline, just like you would think. Tandems are measured to the center between the axles. This means a single and tandem both put the center of the load in the same place on the frame, the difference is how much load. So what? Your wheelbase is going to be wrong on tandems. Only the police measure to outside axles. I used the centerline, that is almost certainly the source, then I left a "center of tandem" note.

How close do you round? I usually did meter|2 digits. There isn't much smaller in this world that needs centimeters, much less millimeters. I think you need to go down to components before they matter.

In the US feet have inches, which usually have fractions if needed. UK English seems to think decimals are acceptable, but in the US we insist on those damn 12 inches. You UKers stuck us with them. And kilometers? Do you know that most of this country is on a mile grid? Do we really want to make every street, address, and property deed wrong just to shut you up? Didn't think of that, did you?

Sigh

I pushed back from the table. That's all I have. I'll clean up a little. Archive. No floppy-disc flag. I had to fix that. Enter a category. Fix the flag on one more article. Go for a bike ride. Enter withdrawal. I was that close.

I got hit as a vandal. Sammy D III (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by. Wallowing. The irony increases.

After a short time editing I thought it was time to stop. I spent a couple of weeks cleaning up, doing cats, explaining things on talk pages. My fourth to final edit in my "career" was reverted by a pompous old-timer who didn't think all my time and effort was worth one minute. He did a half-assed job and never apologized or even admitted his decision was wrong. He made the mistake, then blames me because I didn't try hard enough to stop him. If I had not forgotten an edit summary he wouldn't have had to do a half-assed job. These people appoint themselves more important than others, and some of the new generation back them. He then was rude and attacked me on the talk page. I took him to an admin board, but he isn't an admin, so he didn't have to meet their standards. But every point I made is true.

Wallowing. I'm moving between angry and bemused, but I'm not even feeling sorry for myself. I couldn't have made this up.

Thanks for your advice. Stop any time you want. Sammy D III (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Everyone here is human; it was just a mistake and it's time to move on. I would hate to see you waste your time over it because you seem like a decent editor. You cannot force anyone to apologize here, especially for something as small as that. I am not choosing a side because there is nothing really to debate. It was insignificant, I saw the ANI case. I have dealt with harassment, mistreatment by admins, and false blocks, but I put it in the past. You should do the same.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the civility. I actually thought I was backing off, I blanked the ugly stuff. That paragraph was supposed to show the absurdity (not quite the right word) of the situation (my last 10 minutes of editing). It doesn't show a specific name or incident, it was meant as sort of a walking away shaking my head. Unless you have a specific objection I'm going to blank this stuff tomorrow and repost that paragraph in a few days, once the dust clears. I'll listen to you. (EDIT: I'll be gone by then). Fireworks are scaring the dog, gotta go. Thanks. Sammy D III (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Kenworth 10-ton 6x6 heavy wrecking truck) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Kenworth 10-ton 6x6 heavy wrecking truck, Sammy D III!

Wikipedia editor Hydronium Hydroxide just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for your article. Could you please add a link from List_of_U.S._military_vehicles_by_model_number -- is it "M1 heavy wrecking, (G63)"? -- and also (in future) add the appropriate wikiproject(s) to the talk page.

To reply, leave a comment on Hydronium Hydroxide's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 13:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I should do anything at "M" numbers, and am extremely uncomfortable putting something in a project I am not in.
I'm going to the talk page. Please ask me anything about trucks. Sammy D III (talk)

International Harvester S-Series

Hi Sammy D III. Are you able to help me find out why International trucks are known in Wikipedia as International Harvester trucks? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

International is the name brand of trucks built by the International Harvester Company. When IHC became Navistar they continued using the name.
The series names are messed up. IHC used names since the 1950s. NaviStar went to numbers (EDIT:I am not sure which one used numbers for names), then back to names, sort of. They upper-case the Star (SomethingStar) and have made some new names. The trucks themselves are now the next generation with new cabs and evolved parts.
All of these trucks have four-digit model numbers. Navistar/IHC numbers don't really match, but it's the same idea. First is series, second can be a variation, and the last two are medium/heavy duty. "F" in front means tandem rear axles in IHC trucks, I don't know with Navistar.
You might want to try User:SteveCof00, he may be interested. These all need work. Any questions, please ask.Sammy D III (talk)
I should explain some things. I restrict my interest to "old" things and ignore recent developments like Navistar. This because I'm older than most editors and they are rarely interested in old things. I try to untangle poor categorisation in Wikimedia. I found an image of an early IHC product and wanted to upload it which meant I had to find a category. It seemed to me IHC truck categorisation might be improved in the case of certain items. I also noted the insertion of the word Harvester where International alone would be correct.
I have borrowed a copy of a book published in 2015, written by Patrick Foster, ISBN 978-0-7603-4860-4 called International Harvester Trucks (note the Harvester) The Complete History. I was planning to use the knowledge so acquired to make more logical categorisations of some of the images. That is to say some of those categories of old products, well, probably not post-1945 products.
Having grown up with them I know very well they are International trucks and not International Harvester trucks. I am just trying to find out why they have that extra word within Wikipedia when the rules say we should use the common names.
Asking you and SteveCofoo because I do not want to delete Harvester from the Wikimedia category names and walk into a storm of protest. If I knew and understood the background to the choice of name (International Harvester) I would be more comfortable.
Many thanks for the other useful information. I've also left a message on SteveCofoo's talk page. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I understand old, I am a retired truck driver/dispatcher (in "Harvester" country). These articles were here before me. To me "International" would seem right on trucks (I don't know machines). They have used that name since solid tires. This is just "International trucks" against "Trucks built by the International Harvester Co". I doubt that anyone will object.
Try this: [1]. I'll probably look for Foster (15). I've driven a few "Binders" (from corn-binder).
Again, ask anything. Sammy D III (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I always did desk jobs but I grew up on a small farm. Very pleased to know I'm not the only senior! Thanks for the link to the great source. I'll be interested to hear from SteveCofoo. Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC) in New Zealand

Your International (Harvester) move requests

Hi. There are a some procedural problems with your page move requests.

  1. Per WP:TOPPOST, you should start new topics at the bottom of the page. {{Requested move/dated}} is not designed to be a permanent banner placed at the top of talk pages. It is a temporary banner placed at the top of the section where a requested move discussion is currently taking place. This banner is removed when the discussion is closed, by the administrator or other editor who closes the discussion.
  2. It appears that you missed the note at the bottom of {{Requested move/dated}}: Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.
    Please follow the instructions given at Template:Requested move or on WP:Requested moves.
  3. When making multiple related requests, you are strongly encouraged to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves § Requesting multiple page moves, to have a single, focused discussion on one talk page, rather than splintered discussions on several talk pages.

Generally in this case you might choose the truck model that is best known, or lasted the longest, or has the most page views, etc. to host the discussion. But I see that there is already a lengthy discussion on the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trucks. While using WikiProject talk pages to host discussions isn't fully supported, other editors have used work-around solutions to host centralized discussions on project pages. It's been on my long-term to-do list to implement more robust support for this, so if you don't mind I can try refactoring your multiple requests into a single requested move discussion, hosted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trucks. Regards, wbm1058 (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

While the move request submitted at Talk:International Harvester Light Line pickup by Mr.choppers didn't violate rule #2 above, it did not conform to #1 or #3. So, I'm reverting it as well. This should be combined with the others into a single request. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't have time to submit a properly formatted multi-move request for you guys right now, but can do that later today, if you're willing to wait and prefer that I do it. Or, feel free to try submitting a new request yourself. Later, wbm1058 (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I would love it if you could fix that stuff. I was at my limits there, I'm sure the formating stinks. I couldn't get International Harvester S-Series (bus chassis) at all. And Requesting multiple page... would have been so much easier. This was for all names and no other difference in any truck, that is why I put it at Project Trucks. I think it will work? Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I was trying to figure out how to place such a tag for a batch renaming, but not exactly an intuitive process. Thanks for the help, I guess.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
You gave me something (thank you) and I couldn't get it right. I can't do that stuff. But we tried. I assumed this guy would be better, maybe I should have asked you. Now I have to figure out the new stuff.
Thank you for coming. I'm going to try to be smoother. Sammy D III (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopedic? No.

  • On 25 August 2017 a mistake in the name of "International" was shown to me. Since then I have tried to correct this one mistake.
I have driven International trucks, used their state registration cards, insurance cards, read their operators manuals, and talked with others who did the same. Of course this would be OR in an article, but we are on a talk page. I can post the truth and you can call me a liar.
Anyone close to International trucks can walk right up to a ratty S truck in a parking lot and look at it. Of course you don't have to, and you can't use it in an article, but you can use it as background. If you can't/won't do that you could at least read sources objectively.
I keep providing sources for using the name "International" and nobody provides any source disputing it. Of course not. Even if someone could come up with a single source disputing it the number of supporting sources should overwhelm it anyway.
People have used their own opinions with no sources to oppose something which has been overwhelming sourced. Some have edited these articles (I have, too). I think some people are too close and can have an ingrained opinion that they can/will not look at objectively.
I believe people are standing in the way of correcting Wikipedia for their own personal reasons. People who are objective can look at and discuss evidence. And if you are only subjective should you be editing an encyclopedia?
Feel free to call me a liar who is only trying to help my ego. But when this move request fails Wikipedia will still be presenting incorrect information across the board and some people did nothing to correct it, not even consider it honestly. Sammy D III (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, it looks like the people with the position "is too/logo" without support have slowed down.
Now I am dealing with "how can I manipulate the (still not accepted as) actual name so it will be easier to sort articles?" At least I can talk now, my keyboard is hoarse from screaming.
I am still hoping that the idea of actually naming the article after the vehicle in the article will occur to a few more of us. Sammy D III (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
This is one of my better, but not best, source/reference lists. Sammy D III (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
Seventy-five years of IHC brochures for their trucks are here. After 1911 "International" is used in trucks without "Harvester". A rare exception is some late model Scouts.

International Harvester General Catalog No. 20. International Harvester. 1920. pp. 336a-342. Retrieved 8 October 2017. Section "International Motor Truck" does not have the word "Harvester" in it.

Historical Facts About Early International Harvester Automotive Vehicles. International Harvester. 1947. p. 2. Retrieved 8 October 2017. Page 2 paragraph 2: "From 1914 until the present all International Harvester vehicles have carried the name "International"".

"A History of International Trucks (PDF copy of this article)". International Harvester Company, Chicago, Illinois. April 25, 1961. Retrieved September 19, 2017. The first paragraph of the second page ends with "and the trade name "International" was not bestowed until 1914".

History and Development of International Harvester. International Harvester. 1976. pp. 14–15. Retrieved 8 October 2017. Page 14: "the design of the International truck..."the present International truck"..."International had become". Page 15: "International trucks"..."Modern Internationals"..."the International 4x4"..."of International trucks". These pages use "Harvester" and "the Company" to talk about plants, not trucks. Page 18-26 all picture captions say "International".

"Navistar, Who we are, Heritage". Navistar. 2016. Retrieved 9 October 2017. This is Navistar's own history. They refer to trucks as "International". From 1972 (IHC) until present (Navistar) they show "International ®".

"International Harvester". Springfield Ohio History.net. 2009. Retrieved 9 October 2017. is about the IHC/Navistar truck plant. It talks about the reorganization. The last sentence is: "Navistar International Corporation continues to manufacture...under the International brand name".

Burness, Tad (1985). American Truck & Bus Spotter's Guide 1920-1985. Motorbooks International. pp. 215–250. ISBN 0-87938-198-1. has "IHC Chicago" under the section title. Page 226 and 229 label the hood ornament logos as "IH". Everything else is "International", "International Trucks", or "International Motor trucks".

Crismon, Fred W. (2001). Modern U.S. Military Vehicles. MBI Publishing. pp. 93, 94, 113, 129, 148... ISBN 0-7603-0526-9. shows that trucks built for the military are "Internal Harvester Model xxx. Prototypes and civilian types are "International" or "International's", but occasionally some are "IHC's Model".

Davies, Peter J. (2000). The World Encyclopedia of Trucks. Lorenz Books. ISBN 0-7548-0518-2. Page 401 is International Harvester, Melbourne, Australia. In the text "International Harvester" is repeatedly used as a company, but trucks are "International". Page 402-403 International Harvester, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Text says "the International name badge was adopted in 1914". All trucks after the "Auto Buggy" are "International", "International's", or just model numbers.

Foster, Patrick (2015). International Harvester Trucks, The Complete History. Motorbooks. ISBN 978-0-7603-4860-4. This history of the company uses "International Harvester", "International", "IH", "Navistar", and "the company" as names of companies. All trucks after the "Auto Wagon" are "International" or model only. Page 172 (about the Navistar name change): "The vehicles themselves would be known as International trucks, as always".

Mroz, Albert (1996). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of American Trucks and Commercial Vehicles. Krause. pp. 206–212. ISBN 0-87341368-7. The first three paragraphs of the section "International" tell of early history. The last sentence of the third paragraph is "In 1914, the IHC was superseded with the name International". The word "Harvester" is not used again. The Navistar reorganization is in this section.

Wood, Donald F. (1998). American Buses. MBI Publishing. pp. 23, 41, 42, 58, 65, 77, 96, 101, 116, 123, 127, 130. ISBN 0-7603-0432-7. uses "International" or "International chassis".

Motor's Truck and Diesel Repair Manual (26 ed.). Motor. 1973. ISBN 0-910992-16-9. index has "International" (915-953) and "International Diesel Engines" (1224-1249). The word "Harvester is never used in the index or either section.

This link[2] is to a run-of-the mill commercial truck sales site. There are plenty of them. Search "Select a make" for "International" (there is no selection with "Harvester"). Look at the very oldest page (#472 for me). What do professionals who buy and sell trucks call them?

Google images [3] shows all factory Scout manuals are labeled "International". There are also some "international" sites that are confusing, but that is Wikipedia's issue, not people looking for an accurate "International Scout" article.

Google search for "International trucks" [4] 126,000,000 results. Search for "International Harvester trucks [5] 520,000 results.

The most basic Google search.
This is probably my best, 49 references for the word "combination". Sammy D III (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
In the US "Gross Vehicle Weight Rating" (GVWR) is for a single vehicle. "Gross Combination Weight Rating" (GCWR) is for a truck or tractor with all trailers. The USDOT and these states use "combination" for vehicles and not "combined" for weight:

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24](defines GCW and GCWR) [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] (defines GCW and GCWR) [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]. [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]

These three states [53][54][55] use "combined" describing weight, but refers to vehicles as "combination".

How complicated can we make this: 1. What is the name of the truck? 2. Should the article be named after the truck? 3. If the article should not be named after the truck, why? Sammy D III (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

internationals

Hi Sammy D III. You've made your point(s) a number of times (I have too) but would you please now try to "possess your soul in patience". (That's Shakespeare or the Bible or something). And there's "Patience is bitter, but its fruit is sweet." (Rousseau). Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

You are right. I will reply to the logic one, but otherwise it's yours. Good luck! Sammy D III (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
OK but please try not to stir up the water and obscure everything Again. Best wishes. Eddaido (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I was just coming back to post "EDIT: on his talk page". I don't want to screw it up again. Sammy D III (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Oops sorry, my mistake again. Eddaido (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey, heads up. Check the history of the closed RM. Familiar name? Sammy D III (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

You mean Steve Lux? You had me panicking there for a moment. Eddaido (talk) 12:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
He will not answer a refute but he will edit a closed RM that I started. Sammy D III (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


Archive 1

Trucks

I can't see any value in debating with "support" editors (reads like someone sitting in the sun pondering) until the change that we want is opposed and then we have to show their reason is wrong. Just keep it simple and the powder dry for when it is really needed. Who knows the proposed change might be unopposed - might not too! Regards, Eddaido (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Sammy D III (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sammy D III. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sammy_D_III/Archive_1&oldid=932223136"