User talk:Stude62/archive0

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia, Stude62!!

I hope you like this place and have fun editing.
We always like to meet new Wikipedians! Here ar some more things to do, in case you're bored. But don't feel pressed by that.

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Fix spelling and grammar

More... • Learn how

Fix wikilinks

More... • Learn how

Update with new information

More... • Learn how

Expand short articles

More... • Learn how

Check and add references

More... • Learn how

Fix original research issues

More... • Learn how

Improve lead sections

More... • Learn how

Add an image

More... • Learn how

Translate and clean up

More... • Learn how

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you want get to know more people here, list yourself at Wikipedia:New user log, and go back there sometimes to see if you find people matching your intersts. Go to Wikipedia:Community Portal to learn more about wikipedia and ways to participate.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, or add a question to the village pump. You also can leave me a message at User talk:Lady Tenar, but it may take a few days bevore i see the message and can respond.

Here are some more tips:

If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome!

ps: am i human or a greeting bot? find it out!

Fighting to keep salacious rumors away from the Harding legacy.

My apologies. By the way, you may conveniently sign your messages in Talk pages by typing four tildas: ~~~~ . It will produce your signature with timestamp, like mine: Mikkalai 20:25, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: Methodist Episcopalians

Happy to remove the VfD listing now. It is policy, however, that only a VfD nominator can remove a VfD listing early, and I objected to having had that done. That was why I ennumerated the article's faults in a somewhat exaggerated manner. My irritation was directed more at the insulting "clearly mistaken" characterization of the listing. When the article came in, the lack of encyclopedic format ("Raggedy Ann, a doll popular in the United States and Britian in the 20th century" before a more sequential history) meant that it took a very long time to tease out the central importance of the figure. That left me reading quickly, saying, "What is this?" and then hitting the typo of "wife" for "life." That prompted the VfD listing. (If you read new pages for any length of time, you get quick on the trigger.) I regret the ire, and I wholeheartedly welcome the article, as well as any editor who can contribute to any ecclesiastical history. (Feel free to see my user page for some of the ecclesiastical topics that I've written about.) Again, apologies for the thundering about, and please don't take it personally. Also, at the time you created the article, I had no way to contact you directly. Geogre 01:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: Call for Help

At first, thanks for responding to my greeting. It's nice to know my greetings are appreciated.

You asked me to help you about the above mentioned article. I started checking the facts as soon as i read that, but that took some time as i was too busy to check wikipedia for a few days. Sorry for that. Fortunately, the thing has resolved itself by now. I met Geogre bevore on the wikipedia, and i think he's a nice guy. I hope you will forgive him. BTW i was very impressed to see your user contribution, you've been really busy doing good work these days! I always like to help others here, but it would be very kind of you to sign your question next time you ask one, and to add a wikilink to the article the thing is all about. I had to look up your name in the history, and without the comment from Geogre on your usertalk page it would have been difficult to impossible to find out about what article you're talking. I'm only saying this to help you make yourself understood better next time, by no means as a pun. Just recently i had to be reminded how some things work here lol. I hope you don't let all this take the fun out of wikipedia for you. We're all humans. All the best, Lady Tenar 18:53, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Chadwick

Rather appropriate additions to Cassie Chadwick, I'd say - Skysmith 08:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comment by 132.236.38.114 - 16:10, 3 Jan 2005

The following comment was place on my user page, and I have moved it here and address it here:

Ohio Wesleyan University was never affiliated with the M.E. Church. It is loosely affiliated with the United Methodist Church. Only three out of 30something trustees are from the West and East Ohio Methodist Conferences. That's the "affiliation" of OWU with the Methodist Church. If you are on campus, you will not feel it.

Over the last several days we've had a lot on interaction. Not only have I turned the article over to arbitration, but I have also contacted the OWU Presidents office regarding the article on the school. I expect that the Public Relations Department will get involved - hopefully this will result in a MAJOR overhaul of the entry and make it factual.

As for your comments on the Methodist Episcopal Church (which you have called bizarre in other forums), it not only shows that you don't know very much about church history and the schisms within the church, but it also indicates that there is a schism between what I know is fact and what you believe is fact.

To me, you have demonstrated that you are more interested in getting your own way then you are in writing fact driven article on the topic.

Also, please sign your comments when you make them. [[User:Stude62|"user: stude62"]] 15:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Stude62 - just to note: as far as I know, you can't vote on your own nominations in the VfD process. I removed your vote and added your signature to the nomination (which also needs to be there). I hope that was ok. — Asbestos | Talk 10:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Asbestos...I'm still feeling my way around everything[[User:Stude62|user: stude62 talk:stude62]] 00:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Clamshell wagons

Thanks for the added info on the clamshells in the station wagon article. I didn't know there was a manual version. I remember that tailgate as being about as big as a Mini, so it's not surprisng that the manual gate didn't catch on. RivGuySC 16:55, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip-o-the-hat. They were cumbersome, and I'm being kind. If the motion was strictly upward, that would be one thing, but the arch of the track made it a major pain. Oh, if they got stuck (manual or automatic) that was a nightmare as well. But if I could find one (automatic)in good condition I'd buy it in a second. user: stude62 talk:stude62 18:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Welcome, and an image permissions question.

Welcome to the Wikipedia; I've liked what I've seen!

One question, though: you have placed no license information on a few images, such as Image:Studewagonaire63.jpg. We require images to have source information and information as to the license under which they are available, so we can be sure we have the rights to use the image. —Morven 23:56, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! I'm working on getting the license tags in order. While the processes seem to clear, I'm having a difficult time remembering all of the steps.
- For Image:Studebakerlark.jpg, you have claimed that the copyright holder released this image into public domain. Why do you believe this to be the case? Did you create the image? It is certainly not old enough to be copyright expired. Rmhermen 01:10, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  - I believe it to be a Studebaker image from Lark advertising. It would be a justifiable fair use claim, in my opinion, but releasing it as a promo image does not make it PD. —Morven 01:13, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
    - Gentlemen, then I have made an error. The ad is from 1959. The company is out of the Car Making business, what do you suggest? user: stude62 talk:stude62 01:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      - I would suggest making a Fair Use claim. I can also provide other Lark images since I have photographed several Studebaker shows in the Southern California area ... —Morven 01:18, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
        Thank you Morven. I'm more than willing to accept help from someone. How do I make the fair use claim. I hate to sound stupid, but I am still feeling my way about and I really do appreciate any help of links. Again, thank you. user: stude62 talk:stude62 01:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags (fair use is {{Fairuse}}) and you need to add your reasoning about why it is fair use. Public domain because of copyright expiration is for works before 1935. Just because the original company went bankrupt doesn't mean that the rights were not bought by another company. Look at the many owners of Avanti after Studebacker went under. Rmhermen 01:37, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
        AFAIR, public domain because of copyright expiration is possible up through the mid 1960s; works after that date were automatically copyright-extended to full term. —Morven 01:45, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
        Correct, the pictures are probably out-of-copyright but it is rather hard to track down an individual work. This page gives details on the exact U.S. issues. It is 1923 in the U.S. for automatic public domain and it seems less than 15% of works between 1923 and 1963 are still copyrighted. Rmhermen 02:25, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
        It's a lot easier to see if a printed work is out of copyright than an image, unfortunately, since copyright renewals for images are generally "hidden" within the work in which they were first published, and even if the copyright is explicitly renewed for the image alone, one has to know its title. —Morven 05:56, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
        
        I added an example fair use rationale there. Basically, for fair use, read the Wikipedia article on it and try to justify fair use based on that. In general, promotional images are fairly easy because the original intent was to be widely used and the images were given away to news services, etc. Make sure you agree with what's written there! —Morven 01:43, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Morven, thank you! I now see what I need to do! I guess the problem that I get into is that many of wiki guidelines are so involved, they almost need an "Executive Summary". Best Wishes, user: stude62 talk:stude62

Rmhermen, thank you too! I do appreciate guidence such as you have given me. I have learned from this error, but if I commit it again, PLEASE let me know so I can take car of it. Best Wishes, user: stude62 talk:stude62

Email

(copied over from other page)

Asbestos - Is there anyway that I can send you an email?

Did you happen to check my User page? Also, even had I not posted it, you can email anyone at Wikipedia by clicking on the "E-Mail this User" link on the toolbar to the left of any User Page (on my skin, at least).
Oh, and Welcome!, by the way (since I see noone has yet posted you a welcome message). — Asbestos | Talk 01:52, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS: So you're signature is now ok, then? I didn't even notice that I was posting in the wrong page. I don't see your email yet, but should do so tomorrow (bed time now in Soctland). — Asbestos | Talk 02:03, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- Just sent it through Wikipedia. Have a good night, user: stude62 user talk:stude62
  - Sorry, haven't received anything. I just checked the link myself, though, so it should work. Emailing to the address listed on my user page should definately work, though. — Asbestos | Talk 13:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - Just sent it through again through the Wiki link. This is an internet link that I really think that you will find as interesting as it is enlightening. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 16:33, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: VfD / Ohio Wesleyan Buildings

Articles usually stay up on VfD for around about five days. Information on the VfD policy can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Don't worry about multiple votes — this type of voting is known as "sockpuppet voting" and is watched against. Annonymous IP votes are normally discarded and evidence of multiple user accounts usually invalidates votes as well. Exactly which otes to keep, as well as what course of action is taken after to vote, is up to the admin who counts the votes. — Asbestos | Talk 16:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reference desk

Please use the reference desk to ask questions - not write articles with big <fill in the blank> messages. I found the information to fix Continental engine and Lycoming Engine with one Google search each and from pages on the first page of results. If you can't determine it yourself, you can always ask at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Rmhermen 19:26, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

You can sign your signature with four tildes (~~~~) if you are logged in.

Rmhermen - Thank you for the information. I was under the impression that placing the article in the ([[auto-stub]]) would have indicated that I couldn't find the information and that I was hoping that others could help out and help expand the article. I tried to make it clear on the discussion page for both entries that I had limited information. I did run the google search and I did find the article in question under Continental MOTORS - my bad, I was looking for engines. Again, thank you for your assistence. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 20:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Welcome

Thanks for popping by the Automobiles discussion page—I've seen a few of your edits and it's great to have another motorhead on board! Stombs 09:52, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragment! I love getting information and putting it together, but I am horrible about spelling and grammar - part of the joy of having a learning disability. Again, though, thanks for the encouragement... user: stude62 user talk:stude62 14:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Stude62—no probs on the grammar and spelling as I work in newspapers and magazines and help others edit their work. :) Stombs 02:33, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Ohio Wesleyan University/archive1

Hi, I'm about to shift this to the archives. Are you still working on this or actioning it? I haven't seen a comment in a while! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for looking over this, and looking this over. I think for now it looks as if its stable, and I think the number of people who have given the constructive contributions have really helped to improve the NPOV aspect of this. Since there is a documented effort by one person to tailor the article to suit his own ego, if he starts on the article again, can resubmit this to peer review if efforts are made to return the article to its former aggrandized state, yes? user: stude62 user talk:stude62 02:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment from Hotspur, relocated to talk page.

Hello.

I am the guy who wrote the Starlight Coupe article. It was all original and not available elsewhere. Why replace it with something from somewhere else.

I own a Starlight Coupe. Am a punlished author. Am an authority on Studebakers and I think had interesting things to say about the Starlight Coupe.

Why just reference other material?

Hotspur, you had wonderful things to say about the Starlight, and they were interesting. My concern was that they weren't as well said as they could be in order to keep the article as focused on the writing focused on the car itself and keep the article within Neutral Point of View (NPOV) standards. So I took what you contributed, corrected two minor factual errors and then added in material gleaned from another printed resource to give fact checkers something to tie the article back to. Have you visited Wikipedia:How to write a great article yet? Also, I've moved the above referenced section to my talk page, which is the best place for comments and questions. Finally, did you know that you can sign your name on Wikipedia by typing four tildas (ex: ~~~~); as a courtesy please sign your name whenever you leave a comment or posting on a discussion page. Again, I like your contributions - the world needs more Studebaker fans! Best regards, user: stude62 user talk:stude62 21:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You didn't edit the article you completely replaced it. I recognise most of what you put in because I've read the article it was based on though not recently. No, that's it. There was no article on the Starlight Coupe - I made one and was summarily punted. This was about my tenth article. This for me destroys all the enjoyment. I expect this act to be my last with Wikipedia.--Hotspur 22:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hotspur- This really concerns me, because all I did was check facts and contribute what I know from being a Studebaker fan since I was wee high. If you're implying that I plagerized something, then I would like to know what the extact name of the "article" is that feel that I lifted material from, so I can review it and get it corrected.

As for the editing, I did remove your lengthy preamble to the article because it got in the way of the information on the Starlight. As a body paragraph, it would be fine - re-edit it back in under a background section, but it took long to get to the heart of the article. If you look at any automobile listing that I work on, my format is the same in each one, per wikipedia guidelines to state what it is (Starliner), what it did (unique body style) and how it got there (produced by the Studebaker Corporation from 1947 to 1952).

As for the the two errors, they were 1) Studebaker used the Starliner to denote the 1953-54 Hardtop Loewy coupe, not "Starlight", which was used on the pillered model, and 2) the Starlight name was last used in 1958, not 1954, and even I had to go back for a check on that. I also added in the best description of the structure of the roof that I could. I also listed the immediate reference book that I had with me when I made the edit - I don't always have my 12+ Studebaker technical books with me at all times. I should also point out that I just got the most recent copy of Collectible Automobile, but haven't read the article on the bullit nose 50-51 Stude's as of yet; everything I know about them I learn on my Uncle Bob's car.

Again, my intent is not to offend, but help get it right. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 00:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Offer

I'd like to congratulate you for discussing things with Rananim. I was hoping you two would engage in discussion and I'm happy to see you are doing that. Remember to be civil at all times (regardless of the response). It'll be easier to get your point across. Don't hesitate to contact me if the discussion stalls. In that case I'll see if I can help you reach an agreement.

P.S. You may want to take a look at your signature and fix it. It is missing some caps and has some extra spaces. :) Mgm|^(talk) 22:16, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Possible request for help

I'm happy to keep an eye on the situation, although I'm not sure how much help I can be of. For the time being, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stude62 is incomplete and has not been listed on WP:RFC. My only advise is to keep your cool, no matter what. SamH|Talk 00:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Sam. If I react as he wants me too, then he wins. As for help, you've seen my auto project contributions, kind words are always moral boosters. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 00:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AMC template

The reason why I got rid of the AMC Eagle SX/4 on the template was because the SX/4 was never sold as a standalone model; it was simply a performance-oriented trim level of the Eagle. Also, when you reverted the template back to your version, you also reverted some beneficial changes to the template. Please don't revert it back without incorporating some of the better changes I made. --ApolloBoy 00:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you will have to detail those changes because evidently they were not all that evident. I much prefer working with you, but I do not understand the "shortness" of the above comments, nor do I feel that they are warranted. I could have instructed you not to change the template without discussing the idea with me first, or at the very least an explaination of changes that you made without the courtesy of letting me know, but I respect your contributions. If you'd like to take the cooperative route in this, I'd prefer that to being ordered by you to do, or not to do something in the future. Stude62 01:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one, I fixed some errors you made while making the template. For example, you didn't leave enough space between the spacers (e.g. "[[this]] |[[that]]") and you accidentally included the manufacturer's name for both the AMC Ambassador and the Renault Encore. Also, when you reverted it, you also forgot to add in the AMC Matador, which I added in. BTW, I had no idea the Metropolitian was sold by AMC, so forgive me for omitting it from the list.

Hope that explains everything. =) --ApolloBoy 01:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats better. Look, I really respect your talents, but the original post hit me wrong. Stude62 01:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explorer

Hi, Stude62. I see you edited the Ford Explorer, but I am still not of the opinion that it should be mentioned on the list so, if you don't mind I am going to remove the Explorer from the list. Thank you. Signature ^brendel 04:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brendel- Thats fine. I was just trying to clean up what Karmann posted. What is on the list isn't an issue for me, however how it is listed (hyperspeak, etc.) is a huge issue. But thanks for the heads up! Stude62 15:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Thanks for the comment, I really appreciate it! I've just been so amazed with all the high quality work you've done regarding post-war cars, that I thought it was time you deserved a Barnstar. =)--ApolloBoy 01:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Barnstar

Thanks Stude62. Your contributions have really made a difference in the world of Wikipedia’s car articles. Thanks also for your valuable involvement in the auto project discussions. Such hard work deserves a tireless contributer barnstar as well. So, thank you. **Signature ^brendel** 03:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Take Me Higher...

Ever since you posted another warning on his talk page, I've noticed he's been uploading more poor quality images and essentially ignoring our requests for higher quality pictures. Do you think it would be appropriate to place an RfC on him now? --ApolloBoy 05:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking the same thing. I've been thinking about this along the lines of:

1) the quality of the images, which are consistently poor;

2) the file size of the images, which are way too big;

3) the number of unsourced images;

4) the user's unresponsiveness to items on his post page;

5) the user's unfamiliarity with Wikipedia basics (how to sign talk pages, etc.)

but... I also think that the RfC has to also emphasize that this user has a very evident passion for the topic. Personally, I really believe that in their mind that they are attempting to make a positive contribution. Unfortunatly, he/she is doing it in a manner that is without improvement, even an attempted improvement. One other thing, is there anything that we can extend to the user that can be of supportive benefit to them if they indicate that they are willing to work towards improvement? Again, let me know what you decide to do. Stude62 13:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edsel

Actually, the reson I switched templates was that the combination was terribly ugly. Actually, though, the problem wouldreside in {{edsel}} itself, which I will now proceed to rework.Circeus 21:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but larger templates should not appear above smaller one. Circeus 21:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Visual consistency is still good. Check the new version. It doesn't hog screenspace anymore. Circeus 22:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edsel wagons

I don't understand why you reverted my change. What did you mean by "with a station wagon, it is implied that the vehicle has a tailgate unlike a four-door sedan with a hatchgate"? The reason I made the change in the first place, was to point out that the Roundup was a two door model. I thought that was an interesting detail, since almost all station wagons are four-doors. (Please reply here) Freekee 04:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because when you name things, the name tells people what they need to know. The definition of a station wagon is "n. An automobile having an extended interior with a third seat or luggage platform and a tailgate." So while telling people how many doors the vehicle has applies to passenger doors, it is unnecessary to also add that a station wagon as a rear gate as well. The gate is part of the definition. Now when one talks about the Mazda 6, this is a range that includes a four-door sedan, station wagon, and five-door sedan (the fifth door denotes that this is a hatchback). Stude62 15:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine. I wasn't really sure whether to refer to it as a four-door or a five-door, as I've seen sometimes, so I put in the parenthetical note about the tailgate, to clarify. If you say that's not necessary, that's good enough for me. But I'd like to differentiate between the two-door and foor door wagons, like was done for the other models. Freekee 17:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Whatever you think is best. I really don't like the idea of an RfC either but we've given multiple warnings and Take Me Higher hasn't stopped. I too have become annoyed with Take Me Higher's unwillingness discuss it. If I had to choose between yes or no, I'd probably say yes there should be an RfC because even digital camera images of better quality presented by Take Me Higher and other users are still of inferior quality than promotional images found on the manufacturers or consumer websites. Bavaria 17:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if Take Me Higher has stopped uploading images as of late. --ApolloBoy 01:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now it looks like TMH has started uploading images again, what do you think of the new ones? --ApolloBoy 01:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already listed TMH here, I need you to help me out with the actual RfC. Also, thanks for your input on the recent images; I agree with you on how the overall quality of his images hasn't changed much. --ApolloBoy 02:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea to me. --ApolloBoy 23:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Petro

Greetings, Stude62!
Thanks very much for your praise. Glad to see someone's noticing my labors here.
I see what you mean about this article. It looks like a rehash of an official biography. It does need work. However, to research it to the level I'd like is a big undertaking because Petro has been in public life for so long and the number of articles the databases will turn up will be staggering. I can't promise anything, but I will try to do something with it--at the very least rewrite this.
However, my main project right at the moment is my revision of my Bricker Amendment article, which I am completely rewriting in the hopes of sending it to FAC. Did you see my article on the incumbent lieutenant governor, Bruce Johnson, is now a featured article? PedanticallySpeaking 16:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC) (P.S. How, when your main interest is apparently cars, did you come to this particular article?)[reply]

Stumbled on Petro from Paul Hackett's article. Used to work in DeWine's Congressional office in 1983 - I was a student from Muskingum College on Honors at American University. Paul and I were in the same Seminar and the lot of us used to hang out together. So when Paul was planning on running against Mike, it set up quite a quandry. Stude62 17:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:207.164.171.148

You asked, "Given the activity today, do you feel that its likely that this IP address will get blocked?" Well, the first thing I notice is that none of this person's edits are classic vandalism. For someone like me who knows nothing about automobiles, I can't even be sure that they're illegitimate. Obviously, this user has a serious problem with sources, and needs to be yelled at again about how rude it is to make edits without explanation. I took on a guy like that recently who was messing with Cincy articles. I only got him blocked when he started leaving insulting messages. If they don't reveal themselves like that, though, there's pretty much no case for blocking someone for WP:CITE violations. --M @r ē ino 22:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old archives

Just wanted to drop a note and let you know that I moved an old Talk page you had archived at Wikipedia talk:Stude62/archive1 to your own user space instead at /archive0. Didn't think you'd mind. You might want to request a speedy delete on the old page by placing this tag on it (with your own explanation, of course): {{db|reason}}. (Right now it's a redirect to the new location.) Have a great day! :-) ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 14:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifying dates

Hi, I saw the edits that you made on the DeSoto (automobile) article. Just as a heads up, we generally do not wiki-link dates unless there is a reason to do so that is relevant to material in the article itself. Over linking can be distracting for the reader. Stude62 20:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for your note. You're right that it was a bit much. I've gone through different phases of turning dates into links, and it seems every phase has met with someone's objection. :-) At first, I made everything a link, including month-day dates, year-only dates, and month-day-year dates. Then I got the idea that that was a bit much, and so I started only making the first mention of each date in an article a link—or the first mention in a long while if it had occurred earlier in the article but much earlier. But, then, I noticed that not linking years in month-day-year dates meant that the date formatting wasn't being changed according to the reader's date preference. So my practice now is to link only the first mention of a date when it's JUST a year, but to link every date that is in the complete, month-day-year form. Anyway:

1. You're right about the DeSoto article; my edit resulted in too many year links.
2. I buy two arguments about distraction: one is that too many links in the text are annoying; the other is that it's annoying to be curious about a term (even a date) in an article and to have to look it up manually instead of just clicking on a cross-reference. I try to balance these.
3. If I get too explanatory in this note, just ignore it. I tend to be this way.

Thanks again. President Lethe 21:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, don't mention it. Keep up the good work ;-) Stude62 00:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that so I didn't have to do it ... AGAIN. BTW, did you get my email? ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 12:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting break

Okay, I see its an old term. I added a mention that its not commonly used anymore. I'm from Germany and spend lots of time in the benelux and have never heard the term to describe a, say, 1999 E-Class Wagon. I didn't know it was only used in reference to the old woodies. I just don't want a Candian or American tourist going to Eurocar rental at Schiphol airport and ask for a shooting break ;-) Thanks. Regards, Signature ^brendel 14:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No biggie! Stude62 15:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Request blocking a user for vandalism

Saw your question on Johnleemk's talkpage, so thought I may answer on his behalf. Yes they can be blocked again, so long as they are issued another warning after the block has expired, and the vandalism continues. You can report them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, in which any sysop will sort out the rest for you. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 16:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Marshall Teague edit

I didn't mean to offend, apologies for that.

It seemed to me that, most likely, Category:Racecar drivers was more specific than Category:Automotive related biography. And then, taken another step further, that NASCAR/F1 were more specific than Category:Automotive related biography. Does those seem inaccurate?

It's a new category, its role is still open to interpretation, I think. Please feel free to explain what your intentions/interpretations of the category are. I don't really want to twist it to any specific meaning, though I think the naming can imply what I was saying above.

Also, I'm trying to create Category:Automotive people stubs right now, and if these new categories overlap a little bit, then whatever Category:Automotive related biography is interpretted as may affect the stub category too. --Interiot 02:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- No problem - you didn't offend - just over-wikified my brain yesterday and why, I'll never know. Actually your approach makes the most sense, but I still feel that there should be a classification for executives, designers and those whose particpation in the busines drove (in the figurative) the auto industry. Unlike other drivers of the era, Teague was different. But I'll go along with your approach. Stude62 14:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left more comments for you on the article's talk page. Royalbroil 03:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edsel articles

Hi there again, I went through the Edsel articles today and made some great improvements to them. Please respond if I missed something or reworded something incorrectly. Thanks! --ApolloBoy 03:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

Firstly, you should assume good faith, and not revert my edits until you've left a message. Secondly, read WP:FUC. Our fair use policy isn't based solely on law, and it specifically bans the use of fair use images on templates (#9). ed g2s • talk 20:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think you should assume good faith as well by clearly commenting on your edits. Secondly, I have gone through the policy and it doesn't speak to logos of defunct corporations. So I would ask before you remove these that the matter be put up for discussion. In several of the templates, your removal of the logo also removed the text for which the logo is for. I understand that policies need to be enforce, but I feel that the manner in which you did it, without discussion was the wrong approach. Stude62 21:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct corporations' logos are still fair use, the policy talks about how to treat fair use images, not what a fair use image is. Brief edit comments have nothing to do with bad faith. ed g2s • talk 21:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct coprorations have no legal standing - they cease to exist under US law. And yes, I consider abbreviations on edit comments to be bad faith, especially when someone has spent a great deal of time working on something only to see it removed without any explaination. Showing good faith would have been to have at least dropped something on the items talk page explaining your action, something that you failed to do in your haste to wipe the image off. May I suggest that you place yourself in other people's shoes and view the action from their standpoint. As it is, I viewed your action as arbitrary as it was handled. Stude62 21:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you don't understand someone's edit, you should ask, not revert. The logo of a defunct corportaion will still not be usuable. And yes, I was batch editing about 30 similar templates at the time, so it was would've taken too much time. ed g2s • talk 21:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And when you go in and alter something, you have a responsbility to clarify why you are doing this. Taken too much time? Since when are good manners not important, and not part of Wikipedia? If you value efficiency over helping people understand why doing something, you will find no support from me on that matter. As far as winning me over with your arguments, you've lost that opportunity. Stude62 21:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you misinterpreted the tone of my comment and took offence. I have a lot of respect for the work you do, and some close family friends are autistic, so to say that I am being cruel is rather insensitive. I was pointing out that your argument about the need for images to help autistic children is not a valid one, and for those who don't need the visual cue - it is also invalid. ed g2s • talk 19:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try an explain this as best as I can. You have a habit of placing a great deal on the shoulders of others and taking on very little responsibility for your own actions. When it came to removing the images without even a courtesy note on that template's talk page, I, according to you, was at fault because I couldn't understand your shorthand and then you accussed me of showing bad faith. When it comes to alternative forms of learn, you refuse to even consider the other person's plight, instead you state its not Wikipedia's job to be a teaching tool. When it came to my reading your words as they read, even though you apologize, you do so at my expense. As a Syops, you have to have the maturity to play by the rules that you expect others to play by, and you have demonstrate the ability to think qualitativly, not just quantitativly. Frankly, I have the impression that you see the world as you do and expect everyone else to do the same. I've really spent as much time on this as I care to. I wish you well in life. Stude62 19:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I, according to you, was at fault", your fault was reverting before asking. If one is confused by someone else 'sedits, they should try and understand them before reverting them. That is what I meant by "assume good faith". To say that I don't consider another person's plight is a tad unfair. I think Gmaxwell has addressed this issue well on my talk page. ed g2s • talk

I'm sorry, but you altered the template without any kind explaination on the talk page, because, as you put it it would have taken too much time. I reverted it because it looked like vandalism. Is it my fault that I don't have access to your set of expectations and mannerism, hardly. Again, I wish you well in life. As for Gmaxwell's comments, they are his, that you feel vindicated by them isn't surprising, they support you. Now once again, I wish you well. Stude62 23:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stude62, excuse me for being so straightforward about it, but I think you got a bit too emotional about this issue, which easily distracts the attention from the actual topic of the discussion (or is a good reason to "forget" important vital arguments and not discuss about them). I understand you totally and feel sorry that you had to be upset and partially offended during this debate. Nevertheless, I think that nobody wants the essence of this discussion to get lost under "personal attack" labelling.

I also want to state that I find it inappropriate to remove all images from templates en masse without, as I assume, formally warning the Wikipedians involved in their creation and development - I see no warning on talk pages of the templates I checked, and also the Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles, which groups the Wikipedians concerned. It was a mass deletion aimed specifically at all , which is evident when you check the logo on the Template:General Motors brands, which by mistake was not included in this group. Previously warning Wikipedians concerned, in order for them to be able to discuss the matter and, if necessary, elaborate substitute solutions, would have been much more appropriate IMHO. --Bravada 23:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you aren't being forward, you are being quite correct and a good friend for doing so. I am withdrawing from this discussion on fair use, because I really feel that regardless of what happens, Wikipedia users won't be served well. Good manners prevents me from placing my feelings about the other person on a Wikipedia page, suffice it to say that I am thinking of a particular Dorothy Parker quote at this moment involving thorns. Stude62 00:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Stude62, thank you for the barnstar. I am happy that you found my argument appropriate, but I don't think this really deserves any special recognition. I don't feel like I did anything else that everybody else in the discussion. Feel free to remove the barnstar and save for the time when I will really deserve one (which I hope to one day ;) . --Bravada 19:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will not remove it. What you said was accurate, and very kind; it deserves recognition. Stude62 19:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stude62, I want to thank you for your email here. I tried to reply by email too, but for some reason my email server seems unable to deliver the message. Anyway - I hope you had a Happy Easter :D Bravada 12:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gremlin mid-size v. compact

Copied from User talk:Rsduhamel

I have reverted your addition to the Gremlin article that mentions a mid-size Hornet. The Gremlin was was a subcompact, and the Hornet was classified as a compact in 1970 based on the Government (and insurance company) standards of the day. I suggest that you add the mid-size discussion as a footnote, noting that based on current "day standards..." Stude62 12:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is correct (and I'm not disputing it) the articles on car sizes should be clearly edited to note the changes in standards over the years. I'm basing my arguement that the Hornet was a mid-size car because the wheelbase is the primary standard cited in the Wikipedia articles. Consistancy would help. Rsduhamel 01:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. But I really think that the statement should be on the Hornet page, not the Gremlin. Stude62 02:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troublesome image uploading user

I feel your pain. For a mediation to begin, the user must be willing to communicate with other users. We do not even start a mediation unless at least two opposed parties agree to mediate. I would start off by putting a message on the user's discussion page. If no response, let us know, and you will go to a RFC. Fahrenheit451 20 April 2006

- OK, will try it. I really do not want an RfC if at all possible, Stude62 01:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take Me Higher RfC

I personally have trouble making sense of a lot of TakeMeHigher edits. On one hand, his written edits tend to be mostly good, while others are not. He recently added a made-up nonsense statment to the Lincoln LS article, but two days later revamp the Lexus GS article and did a good job. Of course then there is the picture issue. He has actually uploaded one good picture to the Lincoln Town Car article (1985 TC), but overall seems to ignore requests for his pictures to be of higher quiality or add appropriate copyright tags. I find many of edits to contradict themselves in terms of quality. As you have presented TakeMeHigher with the problem and possiblity of an RfC I think we should wait a day (if he continues to contribute, meaning he is likely to have read the comment). Otherwise I will support your argument as his bad picture uploads seem (and the fact that he doesn't respond to them) seem to outweigh his good edits. Sharing your concern, Signature ^brendel 23:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automobile image quality standards

I welcome your input on Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Images. --SFoskett 18:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I have a similar issue, but I don't know where to go with it, so let me seek advice of a more senior collague :D Now, User:Shyrish surfaced on April 18th and began editing Japanese vehicles articles by adding links to a site called "amayama.com". He also did two or three minor edits to body texts and also informed the viewers of the Isuzu Aska articles that "Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Methane" (sic!), but that's not that important here.

My problem is that "my" Isuzu articles already contained links to specs on Histomobile, Carfolio or Global Car Locator, which find usually more informative and more user-friendly than Amayama. He seems really inclined on including those amayama references in articles of his choice, but to me it looks like an attempt to promote the site. What would you advise me to do? --Bravada 13:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've have a couple options:

- - First I'd place a question on his talk page and ask hime why he made the edit and then wait 24 hours; if there is no response, then I would revert the edit and do a follow-up posting stating why you made the revert.
  - Second, if you believe that the edit is attempting to promote something commercial, do the revert and simply state "Revert edit by XXXXX" and then let them know why you believe that the link was commercial and how Wikipedia doesn't allow for the promotion of a product or service, or allow articles to be used for the purose of promotion. If you do this, then you have to provide a link to the appropriate Wikipedia policy.

I would also invite him to discuss this with you. If he keeps inserting the site, and you feel its a problem, you can also do a request for comment on the article and see what that proffers.

I really hate RfC's on people though - I was shallaced in our a year ago by a user and his sock puppets, so I know that they can get really ugly. So if I did one on TMH, I'd want it carefully controlled so that the matter stays on the issue of poor images and communication problems.

As for the Methane, thats pure vandalism. Stude62 13:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, I will just do that. No-brainer, shouldn't have bothered you... As concerns Methane, it's not vandalism I believe, it's amateur editing (who can't be accused of some) with a very funny result, if you like absurd humour :D --Bravada 14:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Stude62, I responded to your comments on my talkpage. Scheinwerfermann 14:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC for TAke Me Higher

I have filed an RFC report against Take Me Higher.Please help me fill it out. --Karrmann

OK, Stude62, I wholeheartedly agree with you guys. The Dodge Ram image is the absolute low bottom here! I hope I signed in the right place - please tell me if it's not the case (I didn't have any direct issues with TMH concerning images, but he sometimes edited articles I have on my watchlist with mixed results, to say the least)

Bravada

Talk to me! 19:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stude62, the RfC looks fine. Good on putting the evidence images there. They are clearly amateurish snapshots. Fahrenheit451 20:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Take me higher

It was just a comment, I wasn't endorsing the RFC. The instructions said to put non-endorsements on the talk page. If you want to mention it somewhere on the RFC itself, go ahead. Phr 00:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asking for an endorsement of the RfC, I was inviting you to add the comment to RFC page. If you'll look towards the end of the page there is a place for outside comments, and adding this comment there would neither endorse or otherwise state disapproval, its simply a place on the page for these types of comments. Stude62 02:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

car photos

I have to raise a specific technical point about one of your comments to Take Me Higher: I think there's general policy over on Commons that all images should be uploaded at the highest resolution available, not scaled down as you suggested. Yes, that burns disk space on the server, but the cost of disk space these days is near zero. It doesn't take any extra download time for users reading articles (assuming they're presented at reasonable size), since the versions displayed in articles are scaled on the server side and the user only sees the much smaller version. So I hope you'll upload your own images at full resolution if you haven't been doing that. Phr 01:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really have to invite you state your comments on the RfC talk page. Keeping all of the discussions in one area benefits everyone, and as in the past, I encourage you to particpate in the process. Stude62 02:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this particular comment as being clutter there. It's about a narrow topic not specific to the rfc. Perhaps you could update your comment. Phr 02:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then. As for the technical merits, the user in question includes too much collateral space on their images, thus when the upload them, there is a very large image of the surroundings, rather than get in close to the subject and have it fill the frame. Secondly, the physical size of the images, for the quality of the subjects is simply too large. I agree that he should be loading them to the commons. When I take original images myself, I will add them to the commons. When I upload fair-use images, I'll save them Wikipedia. Stude62 02:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fair use images have to go on en rather than commons. Yes, shots should be composed tightly when possible. Yes, server space, while very large, is not infinite. However I wanted to make sure you knew that large uploads doesn't mean large downloads when the shots are viewed inside articles. See here about sizing guidelines for uploads. Obviously for really awful shots, uploading at full res may not be worth it, but for salvageable ones, you want the best available version to start with. Phr 02:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]