User talk:Stonufka/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * Also, please do not blank your talk page. Many editors feel that it is helpful to have a record of comments made there. The reason I added the prod template to Tatra T813 is that I thought that it probably wasn't useful for an encyclopedia to have an article about, as it did not seem like a very important subject. See Proposed deletion and Notability. If you think that is a useful entry, please feel free to expand the entry in a way that asserts the subject's importance; however, it may be deleted because it currently has no content after your blanking of it.  --Grand Slam 7 | Talk 13:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, the article is notable after all. The original version didn't even say it was a car, so I had no idea and mistakenly believed it to be a useless page. I changed the page back to the first version, however, it would be very helpful if you would expand the page, as you probably have more knowledge than I do on the subject.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 14:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Vinea (soft drink)
The article above was tagged on 18 October 2007 with a template suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor who tagged this article felt it might not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion because he or she believed it was a "Non-notable soft drink". Prod deletions are supposed to be non-controversial; the prod template can be removed by any editor who disagrees, including the article's creator. While editors who propose deletion are encouraged to notify article creators, you were evidently not notified. I'm sorry that I did not notice this and contact you about it at the time I processed the expired prod.

However, while the article was deleted, articles deleted through this process of Wikipedia's deletion policy may be restored at any time on request. Since obviously you protest the deletion, I have restored the article. Note that if editors have ongoing concerns, it might still be sent for review at Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. You may wish to review the notability guidelines for companies and products to see the criteria by which such articles are assessed. The article will need verification through reliable, secondary sources. Thank you for contacting me, and, again, I apologize for not realizing that you had not been notified at the time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (duplicating from my talk page) Generally notability is established for products by demonstrating that other people are talking about it, by including references to reliable sources where the product is being discussed. As the guideline says, "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability". Personally, I find this to be one of the more slippery areas of Wikipedia. In order for an article to exist, you have to establish notability. If you claim notability, people will often interpret the article as overly promotional. Generally what I would do is find a good article on a similar product and use it as a kind of template. For example, Pepsi. It includes information on the history and the marketing of the product as well as its ingredients. It's also got good references. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Tatra T111
A tag has been placed on Tatra T111 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on |the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LightAnkhC|MSG 12:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no article, just pictures. Please create the article first. Deb (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The pictures can be put back, when there's an article for them to go with. And politeness costs nothing. Deb (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Truck
Thanks for resizing

More about yourself
Please, where are you located? Australia? Peter Horn 18:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories
Hi, when you add it adds that Tatra model manufacturers category which is wrong, if you want to link to commons use commons:category|Truck manufacturers   --&mdash;  Typ932 T  12:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And if you want add certain model to truck category add   --&mdash;  Typ932 T  12:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. --Flash176 (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. --Flash176 (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

ECU or Engine ECU (EECU)

 * I have renamed/changed the Engine control unit page in good faith as it would still be linked to correct page even if typed /searched under ECU. The acronym ECU  primarily stands for Electronic Control Unit. Just in case you wonder about EECU here it is and for good measure TECU as well .To be fair yes it can stand for the the above mentioned but today it is no longer accurate perhaps it was sufficient back in the days of the only electronic control unit found in the vehicles being the engine unit. Today one would perhaps be inclined to correctly specify which component is in question particularly in the multiple ECUs (Electronic Control Units) enviroment so EECU is the Engine ECU, TECU is a Transmission ECU , VECU is a Vehicle ECU and so on, no confusion there is it? or could I just make something up and than understand TECU acronym as a "Transmission Engine Control Unit" perhaps not. Have look here --> Engine ECU development paper @ SAE.org that might be a good read. I do recognize that a page move should be discussed and consensus needs to be reached first however it seemed like simple correction at the time, obviously not for you. So revert has been made and hopefully not many readers got confused. Have a nice day.Stonufka (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)