Talk:Volvo Halifax Assembly

Just updated some information on produced models and trade legislation. Nfjb (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Article improvement & reversion
Nfjb, it is not acceptable to revert edits, wholesale, that brought the article considerably closer to compliance with Wikipedia policy and principles related to NPOV, style and structure, and fixed basic errors of spelling, grammar, and syntax. It is especially unacceptable to do so without any discussion here on the article talk page, and without so much as an edit summary. Please take whatever effort you require to understand that this is a coöperative venture, not a competitive one, and you may not undo valid work simply because you would rather see "your" text displayed. If you really feel that "your" version is better, you will need to please explain that position here on the talk page and attain consensus before reverting. That is how it works here.—Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 05:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Added in all the necessary changes and citations. Just looking through my old press releases for the ones I added in the other day. Could you please redo the picture pixel levels they looked better the way they were. Nfjb (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Model Section
Do not edit 120 model section under the operations heading. The specific 122 models built at the facility are important to note (DO NOT EDIT) as they were not all generic Amazons. If they were I would have tagged them as that. Nfjb (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Unilateral language such as "DO NOT EDIT" and "If (n) was the case I would have written it that way" is not acceptable here. See WP:OWN. This is not "your" article; no editor gets to decide on his own what text stays and what text goes. We work by consensus here, and—again—the standard for inclusion of a statement in a Wikipedia article is not what we know (or think we know) but what we can prove with citations of reliable sources.


 * Furthermore, please stop at once making your edits one little tiny bit at a time. It is rude and makes life unnecessarily difficult for your fellow editors. There is a preview button you can and should use to see how your edit will look before committing to it. Make your edits in batches, not in long sequences of onesie-twosie.


 * You will find that courteous, polite, coöperative behaviour pays off bigtime here. Selfish, rude, competitive behaviour, in contrast, tends to cost bigtime. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 08:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

First plant?
The text says: "first assembly plant Volvo opened outside of Sweden", but this is - depending on the interpretation of this sentence - a contradiction to what you might read at the DiVolvo article about an assembly plant opened some years befire. The link #2 provided does not work, even not with the WayBack Machine. Can anybody please verify this? --Roxedl (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, DiVolvo seems to have been an independent operation. I have the Lindh book and it states the same. Thanks for your help in removing AutoJunkie's nonsense.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)