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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

[ [File:Information.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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).Reply[reply]

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.

Diesel Spotters Guide Errata

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)

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

In the future I will try to use "at" instead of "@".Sammy D III (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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! Corjan de Wit (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 Corjan de Wit (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Easy, Corjan, 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Sammy use the mail. You know where to find me. Corjan de Wit (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Well, feel free to start drumming up some consensus on the the talk page.  Stepho  talk  05:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

• It has recently become a good 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

On 14 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mack Trucks in military service, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Mack Trucks supplied over 32,000 trucks and $3 million in other equipment to the Allies of World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mack Trucks in military service. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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 (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) 10:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

• On the Dodge M37 page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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.

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.

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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.

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.

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?

→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)Reply[reply]

• (talk-page stalker) FYI no one accused you of being a vandal. I recommend to stop wallowing over it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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 ZealandReply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

This is one of my better, but not best, source/reference lists. Sammy D III (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is probably my best, 49 references for the word "combination". Sammy D III (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

OK but please try not to stir up the water and obscure everything Again. Best wishes. Eddaido (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Oops sorry, my mistake again. Eddaido (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

You mean Steve Lux? You had me panicking there for a moment. Eddaido (talk) 12:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

Written in US English for commercial trucks meant to be sold in the United States. Not targeted for SUVs, buses, or US-built trucks meant to be sold outside the US.

Manufacturer/Manufacturers is assumed to be in the US, others noted. Could be manufactured by sucessive or re-named companies, different countries have different company names (country should be noted), sub-contractor, joint-venture.

Also sold as could be a name-change, different name in different country, or special edition/model

Plant/Plants built US assumed (City, State) one plant's location notable, one of many plants, overseas plants (City, State/Provence, Country)

Type could be Conventional or COE (cab-over-engine), body type (box, dump, etc.), weight class

Variants could be COE, Short hood, long hood, SFA (set forward axle), SBA (set back axle), crew/extended/sleeper/open/closed-cab, bus, bare chassis, low-profile, RHD (right-hand drive)

Predecessor/Successor

Weights

Load rating in #-ton (singular "ton" is used) is an old measurement of what the cab-chassis or bare chassis could carry. The weight of the body is not included, and reduces the payload. Other options also affect the payload. (Military truck ratings are the payload of a cargo truck). An actual payload rating (occasionally used) would be pounds(kg).

Class is the USDOT commercial vehicle weight class.

Gross Vehicle/Combination/Axle Weight Ratings are set by the manufacturer. They are not the legal or actual weights. "Vehicle Weight" is the total of all "Axle Weights". Tandem axles are weighed together as one. "Combination weight" is used for semi-tractors and trucks with trailers. The USDOT measures actual weight in pounds.

Dimensions

Bumper to axle is measured by US manufacturers in inches.

Bumper to back of cab is measured by US manufacturers in inches.

Length is measured in feet by the USDOT. Beginning in 1992 meters to two decimals are a legal equivalent.

Width is measured in inches by the USDOT. Beginning in 1992 meters to two decimals are a legal equivalent. Safety equipment such as mirrors and handles are not subject to width restrictions.

Height is measured in feet and inches by the USDOT. Beginning in 1992 meters to two decimals are a legal equivalent.

Powertrain

Engine/Engines if they use the same fuel and it is not notable. Engine type or model name/number could be noted.

Fuel engine/Fuel engines if different fuels are offered or if a fuel is notable. Engine type or model name/number could be noted.

Power is commonly measured in "Advertized horsepower", which can be either SAE gross (aka "brake") or SAE net horsepower, and could be noted if known. The engine speed (@ ### RPM) that the maximum horsepower is developed could be noted. A range could apply to all engines above it.

Torque is commonly measured in foot/pounds. The engine speed (@ ### RPM) that the maximum torque is developed could be noted. A range could apply to all engines above it.

Transmission/Transmissions are commonly #-speed (manual). Syncromesh, non-syncromesh, automatic, automated/clutchless manual, w/PTO, manufacturer/model could be noted.

Transmission/Transmissions (auxiliary) are commonly #-speed (manual). w/PTO, manufacturer/model could be noted.

Transfer case commonly (but not always) have a high (direct) and very low range. Part-time, part-time shift on the move, full-time, w/PTO, manufacturer/model could be noted.

Chassis

Front axle/Front axles are commonly an un-driven beam, driven beam, independent, portal, manufacturer/model could be noted.

Front suspension is commonly leaf springs, air with locating arms, coil with locating arms, independent could be noted.

Tires can be different sizes on different axles, different models can have different sizes, some models can have both single and dual tires.

Rear axle/Rear axles are commonly driven beams arranged as single, tandem (2 driven axles), or tridem (3 driven axles). Powered/un-powered combinations, 2-speed, double-reduction, manufacturer/model could be noted.

Rear suspension are commonly leaf springs or air-bags for each axle or a walking beam] (w/leaf, air, load cushion, solid mount) on tandems.

Lift axle/Lift axles are commonly un-driven beams. They can be next to a powered axle or a distance behind to increase wheelbase for bridge laws could be used.

Lift suspension are commonly air bags, hydraulic with gas cushioning could be noted.

Wheelbase/Wheelbases are measured in inches by US manufacturers. They measure wheelbases on tandems from the front axle to the centerline of the tandem. The USDOT measures wheelbase between the outside axles in feet and tandem/tridem axle spacing in inches. Beginning in 1992 meters to two decimals are a legal equivalent.

Brakes on HD trucks are commonly full-air with drum brakes, mechanical, hydraulic, hydraulic with vacuum assist, air over hydraulic, band, disc could be noted.

Performance

Fuel capacity would be in gallons, different sizes and auxiliary tanks could be noted.

Hello, Sammy D III. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.Sedimentary (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emailed you re "International".

Hi Sammy,

I didn't expect you to act so decisively, but I think the list is better for it. Impressive.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mr.choppers:. Ahh, this is a real problem for me. I don't think it looks better.

I respect you as a Wikipedian. I'm not. That list is effectively a personal blog, and I understand it. That's why I wouldn't just revert "Loadstar". I'm not going to defend the list, I can't, it is just basically wrong. But I see no potential as a MOS article and I can't make it one. I was/am working on a "new and improved" (simpler and cleaner) version...

Here is a long-standing thought. If that list isn't on that template (I didn't do it) people wouldn't see it from inside. They would only go there from Google and it would just send them to the linked article.

Please don't take it personally and do whatever you want. In the next month things probably will change anyway. I'll take this post down in a couple of days.

Good luck in the near future. Sammy D III (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, well, Wikipedia is a community project. If you want to make something just for yourself then this is not the place. You could always try to create a subpage, like this: User:Sammy D III/International list, but I am not sure what the policy is on personal stuff.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mr.choppers: I'll leave it alone. No problem. But I don't think I made my thinking clear.

I did not mean that only I could edit it. I have actually asked several people (maybe even you) to redo the blurb correctly. I meant that I made up the form myself with no MOS. I did whatever I wanted. And I think it worked. Please notice that I asked you to revert Loadstar but I wouldn't do it myself. I can't cut the list down anymore and it will never fit anywhere.

I don't mind being rogue but I don't want to seem greedy. Thanks for talking. Sammy D III (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Sammy D III:, I wonder if you can help me. The best part of two years ago I decided there needed to be an article about those little air-cooled auxiliary engines made by Wisconsin and I created only a stub because I could find very little about the company. But I thought it would be a good thing to do because others might add to it.

Well a few people have added to it but very little. Recently to my astonishment it has moved up to collecting an average over the last three months of 60 hits each day and at times gone up to near 100. So a few facts would be very useful to quite a large number of people.

Trouble is I have spent the last few days hunting for more information about this business without any real luck. Everybody wants to know what has happened which I think is just that they stopped manufacture in USA relying on imports (Robin) then even FHI (Subaru) stopped making them and left the market to Yamaha (I think) but I can't find any place where all this is made clear.

What's needed is access to newspapers in Milwaukee or the right part of Tennessee or what I call trade newspapers. Anything that might report events to interested people. I haven't managed to achieve that. Are you able to help in any way? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwirkle. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Obvious Tag-Teaming iis Obvious. Qwirkle (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—List of United States Army tactical truck models—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Cavalryman (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would appreciate you voting either for or against my proposal re the above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles.

Thank You. GTHO (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, and thanks for letting me know about this discussion. The WikiProject Auto article "cabal" doesn't like me and never has, so any comment I make on that discussion will just anger them. They can read my comments here.

In researching Chrysler Corporation products from 1925 to 1965, when they introduced the Chrysler A, B, and C platforms, Chrysler made one full size car and branded it Chrysler, DeSoto, Dodge and Plymouth, with shared technology engines and chassis, with the same interior, with different sheet metal on the front of the car, then later started adding chrome in various styles followed by two tone paint jobs, and used model names to denote how much they wanted for the car. Model names were flexible from year to year as marketing department decisions were made.

They are all the same car...Chrysler, DeSoto, Dodge and Plymouth. Chryslers were made at Jefferson Road, Dodge at Hammtramck, DeSoto and Plymouth at Lynch Road then later in the 1930s the Los Angeles Plant was a branch assembly that put them together for the West Coast.

The articles, as some editors mentioned, were fragmented to say the least, with content copied from one car to another, so I merged all contributions onto one site with bolded names to signify the different models. If they want to split the articles into fragmented articles, fine, just copy the content from one article and copy everything into separate pages like clones with model specific pictures. I found the content from two books that are often sited on these car articles from books I've purchased so as to cite the source, and both books treat these cars, within the different brands, as one car. Let the bickering begin from the cabal. (Regushee (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC))Reply[reply]

@Regushee: Yea, I know the outside too. That seemed like a statement of what you have done, not what you want, so I just put it here. I'm going to delete this pretty soon, but I'll leave it up a couple of days just because. Have a nice day/night. Sammy D III (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings, you made comments on the above "merge" request at Talk:List of utility vehicles of the United States Armed Forces#Merger proposal: List of United States Army tactical truck models⋅ You made at least two comments, "As creator of the list I'm going to object strongly." and "Edit: I do not support this merge as proposed." The correct format would be:

• Oppose: [and reasoning]. This also highlights your opposition so it is noticed.

It is understandable to take offense at what is perceived as wrong. When a discussion turns personal there can be consequences. I would strongly suggest "Comment on content, not on the contributor" -- Otr500 (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw your post at User talk:Eddaido. May I ask how you know? I have seen Eddaido on Wikipedia for many years, as we're both very active on New Zealand topics, but I know nothing about them IRL.-gadfium 23:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are welcome to email me through Wikipedia if you prefer not to post in public.-gadfium 23:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eddaido and I have been "pen-pals" outside Wikipedia since 2016 or so, comparing cars and grandkids and such. Nothing Wikipedia, but I did stalk them here. They dropped out of a conversation and stopped posting so I searched for, and found, their obituary. They just wore out. I can't disclose their name but I'll email you shortly. Sammy D III (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I'll add them to WP:Deceased Wikipedians.-gadfium 01:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recently made a Request for Move for "Twin Cities Zephyr. I edited it down to be simple and easy to understand, but I didn't pay enough attention after the beginning. I also edited out my reasoning. Here is some of it.

I looked for the origin of the name "Twin", why 9901/9902 had that name and did it relate to "Cities". That was my interest. With the context of 9900/9901/9902, I believe that the train-sets were named because they were the same. I'm comfortable with that.

I only considered the 9904/9905 as direct replacements. I assumed the reason for the name "Twin" was the same. I don't like that. I think you could over-think it and say that the 9904/9905 were named after 9901/9902, not their mechanical set-up. This would make the name "Twin" sort of for the service/route after there? I don't now.

I should have made a better break between the train-sets and the conventional cars, which I had no interest in. I know that "Twin" was used as late as 1951, and probably 1971, but not how.

I believe that I have over-simplified and am not always accurate in detail. It isn't meant to deceive and I don't think it affects the reason for the move.

I'm not going to edit anything related to Burlington's Zephyrs. Sammy D III (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Sammy D, would you mind checking Navistar? User:SteveCof00 recently did a massive edit and I am not sure I like it. The sections are now giant clumps of text, and I have noticed in the past (Ford Escort (North America), Dodge Omni) that he has very little respect for references and sources when he re-writes - it all becomes a jumble as he moves the references and the text around. Anyhow, if you're bored go see if there is anything in that edit that bothers you, if not then I won't worry about it. Happy New Year,  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not in good shape here. I'm the machines, not the manufacturers. "Labor" vs. "Management". Steve was smarter than me anyway, and I've taken a neuro hit.

I've scanned the (+4,011) "+" diffs a couple of times. Not compare before/after, just the "+"s. Much is above my head, I didn't fact-check or check refs, but I don't see anything that shouts inaccurate. I would buy Steve's stuff in the past.

Matching other people's text and refs? What a nightmare. On my level I've AGFed refs I don't know, hoping they were good, but that's out in the fringes where nobody cares. At your level you might want to think AI.

As to form, I rarely work on real articles, I'm generally in stub or start territory. I'm wandering again and fell down a rabbit's hole at the portage, one tunnel led to IH, but my letters aren't translating to here very well. I'm too close and just can't dumb them down enough.

I hope I've been any help (but doubt it, ha). You have a good day/night. Sammy D III (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Sammy, be good. I'm gonna have to read up on Illinois Northern Railroad.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you know our new dog is Joon? I get people mixed up sometimes and don't want to mislead anybody. Sammy D III (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found this off of the alert I got on my main page; maybe I should explain what happened here a little bit. Part of this came from splitting content into a new Navistar Defense LLC article (this was discussed on the talk page over two years ago with unanimous support; it just had not happened yet); this content was overtaking the rest of the article structure. The remaining timeline content does indeed have a long way to go, as it still need to be restructured further (why I added an additional tag) as it is far too detailed. There is still a long road ahead for this article from many of us out there. -SteveCof00 (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yea, I wasn't sure if we should ping you (or him here), but I thought we were both walking away and leaving you alone (I'm going to ref some GMC V6s). Sorry.

While I have you... I'm plugging away the Chicago and West Towns (street) Railway/then Bus Co. It's a direct predecessor to a government agency and many routes are still served. I don't care about either buses or Berwyn, though, so it's going slow. I have the knowledge I personally wanted so I'm thinking of just putting up a simple skeleton and hoping for editors... I have a good dedicated book, some side stuff, I could just plug away, but a bus person will know/care about the difference between a TDH45 17 and 19. And I could walk. Sort of below you, but should I ping you? Or not. Have a nice day/night. Sammy D III (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]