User talk:Milkmandan

December 20, 2004–February 16, 2005 archived at User talk:Milkmandan/archive0

Isetta
Thanks for the kind words, and for the proofreading and corrections - Regards Oldfarm 11:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GFDL
Milkmandan,

I have added the GFDL tag to the images that I have uploaded. (thanks for the hint on how to do that). Come a bit of warmer weather I will give the DeLorean a good bath and hopefully have some more higher quality photos to add.

thanks again!

MikeBabb

Road-stub in motorcycle articles
You wrote:"Phil- I don't think is the right stub for the Yamaha motorcyle articles. The Category:Road stubs contains roads and highways, and not much else.  What these articles really need is a motorcycle-stub&mdash;the regular stub should do just fine until that occurs.  --Milkmandan 16:49, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)" The idea is to reduce the number of "regular" stubs (basically I was backtracking through Category:Stub seeing what I could dump out easily), and the Road stubs category was the least-irrelevant stubs category I could find: the rubric does after all start:"This category is for stub articles relating to Roads or Road Transport." If that category gets filled up with motorcycles, maybe a new stub category could be started, but you need about 100 stubs if you're not going to get too many complaints (see here) HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 18:12, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Japanese car images
Awesome! I NEVER thought I would be able to get a photo of an actual Cosmo. Thanks so much! Good detective work! --SFoskett 13:13, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am in heaven! What beautiful shots of the Cosmo!  And there are BOTH series represented!  Be still my heart... --SFoskett 21:58, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * The Series I car could be anywhere from a pre-production 1964 version (THE show car) to the regular Jan 1965-July 1968 Series I production. The other was produced between July 1968 and Sep 1972.  Yes, the sign says "1967" but there's no way that's correct.  --SFoskett 14:15, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler
As the original requestor of the Spoiler (automotive) article, I would like to thank you for taking care of my request and for creating a quality article, not just a stub. Thank you!&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:30, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

GM APV Pages
Forgive me as I'm new to this, but you made a number of comments regarding the pages I made for the Pontiac Trans Sport, Oldsmobile Silhouette and Chevrolet Lumina APV , and I was hoping for some clarification.

You stated that there were too many photos and that the three entries should be merged. I thought the beauty of this electronic encyclopedia was the lack of limitations on space. What is the harm in the vehicles each having their own page even if there is some redundancy? Doesn't each vehicle having a seperate page afford some future editor the ability to further "personalize" the data for that specific model? The images I posted I believed illustrated changes made to the individual vehicle lines over the course of production as was discussed within the text of each article. In looking through other existing entries on this site there appears to be some pages that are particularly photo-rich, so I guess I'm wondering: How many photographs constitute "too many"?

I intentionally made these vehicles my first pages as there was very little information on the existing stubs, and I imagined there wouldn't be much interest out there in anyone else creating detailed entries for these vehicles. That said, there is certainly more information that could be added to those pages to further flesh them out, and further individualize them, but I figured that the pages as I posted them would provide a decent starting point for additional modification/expansion.

It was my intention to continue creating pages for the U platform vehicles to the present and then move through the U Platform derivatives. If the pages I have been creating are inappropriate, please provide guidence as to what is desired.

It is sometimes difficult to convey emotion (or lack thereof) in a written conversation, so I want to specifically state that the above statements/questions are not meant to be in any way sarcastic, and I welcome your criticism and comments.

Thanks. --Rawja 3/28/05

Perhaps a bit philosophical......
I've been thinking about your most recent comments regarding the three pages I created for the GM APVs. I have taken some steps to address the POV issues you raised and will come up with a more coherent layout of the images including deletions if it comes to it. I feel pretty strongly about each model remaining on its own page. While you have raised entirely valid points regarding having to edit and proof three seperate pages, given the unlimited capacity of the wikipedia, I believe having vehicle pages by platform rather than by model is in the long run a less optimal solution than individual model based entries for a number of reasons.

Clarity and consistancy for the non car-obsessed is difficult if various models on a given platform are lumped into a single entry as car models tend to change platforms over generations, some models die early, or switch platforms mid-cycle leaving their platform-mates behind. As an extreme example, the Cadillac Seville was on the X Platform, the E/K Platform for three generations, and now is on the Sigma platform. I don't think it would be optimal to have a Seville/Nova/Omega/Ventura page, a Seville/Toronado/Riviera/Eldorado page, a Seville/Eldorado/Deville page, and a STS/CTS/SRX page.

Given the automakers' penchant for platform-sharing and their increasing ability to base increasingly differentiated product off the same base, it would be wise, I think to base entries along model lines rather than platforms. I'm thinking the afforementioned Sigma Platform or say, the current model Cadillac XLR and the Chevrolet Corvette.

Arguably, the minivans are more closely related to each other than is the norm, but I believe all automobile models "deserve" their own page as there is a unique narrative that accompanies any given model even when the models on a given platform are closely related. Take the GM "J" cars, some were extremely sucessful while others were complete flops. But each model's story, whether of victory or defeat is equally worthwhile.

I happen to think the Delorean page is pretty good, sunvisor minutia notwithstanding. Arguably the GM APVs or any "regular" vehicle were more important than the Delorean ever was in terms of corporate financial investment and impact on the larger car market, but there will probably never be much in the way of information about the more pedestrian models out there on the web, and this site provides what will probably be the only easily-accessable forum for information about the less "exciting" ones.

The three pages as they stand only represent a starting point for further expansion. I have recently moved into a new home, and have not had a chance to unpack my referance materials, as time (work) permits, I am confident that I can impart sufficient differentiation and unique additional model-specific information to support three seperate entries.

Of course if I'm incorrect in my assertions, correction is just an edit away. :)

Rawja 3/29/05

toyota FJ40
genius,

why would you cut down a short, yet complete entry, and make it a stub?

if you want to take out some POV-ish adjectives that's fine, but don't wipe out an entire entry.


 * Hi. Thanks for your reply.  I removed some of the text that I felt was too POV and cut out what wasn't factually verifiable.  I admit that the dividing line between what is reasonable and what isn't is very subjective.  Personally, I think a non-POV stub is more appropriate than a POV article for an encyclopedia.


 * If you'd like a second opinion, I encourage you to ask someone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. There exists a good deal of collective experience that you can bounce ideas off of.


 * Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or concerns about my edits. --Milkmandan July 4, 2005 08:04 (UTC)

Eclipse
Oops, thanks for the heads-up! Fixed! --SFoskett July 7, 2005 01:33 (UTC)

Aircraft specifications survey
Hi Milkmandan. Since you listed yourself as a participant of WikiProject Aircraft, you may be interested in a survey currently underway to help develop a revised version of our standard specifications section. --Rlandmann 00:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
''Just wanted to thank you for great work done on Toyota Camry. Thanks.'' --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu 00:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Important WikiProject Automobiles Discussion
Hello! As a WikiProject Automobiles member, I just thought you might want to input your opinions on an important discussion we're currently having about whether articles regarding similar vehicles should be merged into one or split by brand. If you would like to comment or read further, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Thank you in advance for your thoughts and feedback. Airline 23:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
There is a consensus discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft on adopting a non-specifications summary infobox for aircraft articles. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate!  18:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Automobiles Notification
Hi Milkmandan, you were on the list of members at WikiProject Automobiles and we are introducing a new way of listing members, as the old list was becoming too long. Our new method involves having all of our members in a category.

To add yourself to the category just add the userbox to your user page by putting   where you want the userbox. Alternatively if you don't like the userbox you can add   to your userpage.

If you no longer wish to be a member of the project, simply don't add the userbox or category, there's no pressure. Thanks for your time, James086Talk 04:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Aviation Newsletter delivery
The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Eclipse Laser Talon production image
If you are the creator of the eclipse talon laser image used on the respective pages showing the trims and models and the years available, you may want to edit the fact that the eclpse wasnt called a "GS-T" until 2nd gens. They were never badged as GS-Ts in first gen they were badged as GS Turbo. Aspensti (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  03:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Talon Eclipse Laser production notext.png
Thank you for uploading File:Talon Eclipse Laser production notext.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)