User talk:GeeTeeBee/Archive 1

Proposed deletion of Hoverwing (model aircraft)

The article Hoverwing (model aircraft) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable r/c aircraft that failed to achieve anything in the market.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 4 August 2012 (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) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

June 2017

Hello, I'm Mlpearc Phone. I noticed that you made a change to an article, The Beatles, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 12:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Analogues

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The Analogues requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 13:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

"If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to .." — Can you be any more condescending ? Even the most shallow glance at my user page would have told you that I initiated my first new page over 10 years ago .. GeeTeeBee (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, then you've been around long enough to know that this template is automatically placed when a page is sent to CSD. Happy editing, - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Ship transport or water transport?

You have previously discussed the title of the ship transport article. There is a proposal to move this article at Talk:Ship transport if you care to participate. —  AjaxSmack  21:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, GeeTeeBee. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Jeep Wrangler (YJ) - arguments per WP:RS

Hello GeeTeeBee, Differencebetween.net accepts user submissions, has no visible editorial oversight and contains zero information about their authors' expertise and professional credentials (see [1]). Their posts have no information about used sources and data. In short: it's a well-made blog, but not a reliable source for encyclopedic information. All of these criteria are already explained in detail at WP:RS, especially WP:USERG - please read this guideline. I will remove this source as clear violation of the linked guideline, If you disagree please feel free to ask for more advice at WP:RSN. GermanJoe (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Jeep Wrangler (JK) does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! SweetCanadianMullet (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Changing the access dates of reference verification

I am curious why you insist on original access dates when I have reviewed the references to make sure they contain the information and thus updated them? I do this to ascertain the material is still as quoted or as described. If it is not verified, I do not change the reference at all. You must also be aware that simply keeping a reference with an old access date does not mean the information was actually there even at that time. For example, the sentence that After the war, Ford unsuccessfully sued Willys for the rights to the term "Jeep", leaving Willys with full rights to the name has a reference to a "classic-car-history.com" page that was apparently accessed on 26 May 2015. However a simple check of the Internet Archive's "Wayback Machine" shows nothing about Ford on that page. Please see their capture on 29 November 2014, as well as the following capture on 18 September 2015. I did not change this "failed verification" reference. Rather, I searched for verifiable information and after finding two reliable sources, I edited the section and provided the references with the correct access dates. In short, please respect the efforts of fellow contributors to enhance the information and correctness of WP articles and associated citations. Cheers, CZmarlin (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding on my part. Considering you used a semi-automated tool to fill in bare references, I assumed you only verified that the pages are still up, but didn't actually go into the content of the referenced pages — either then or now, especially if one considers how much time it takes to go through the text of two versions of each referenced source (the current one, and the archived one).

I did already verify that the Ford claim was unsubstantiated, both then and now, so I support your edit on that part.

--GeeTeeBee (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

After having given it some more thought, I would like to reverse the question. I appreciate your effort to fill in the quick and dirty references I threw in, but I don't understand why you would want to replace the retrieval date of pre-existing references with today's date. The original retrieval date is useful to backtrack when a particular statement was introduced into the article prose, because it tells you where to look in the article page history, to compare what it said just prior and after the retrieval. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Dodge D15

Hi, I notice you recently added an image of a Dodge D15 to the article about the Dodge WC series. I think that vehicle might have been misidentified and should be a WF and not a D15 but then I know nothing about Dodge trucks, just asking. Have a look here: 1941 WF31. I was trying to categorise this image. I'm aware there are already photos of it in Commons. Keen to know what you think. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 07:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanx for message. As far as your image goes, I would be inclined to sort it under Category:Dodge T-/V-/W-Series (1939-1947) or its sub Category:Dodge T-/V-/W-Series pickups. As far as the D15 pic goes — I'm no expert either, but it has the steering wheel on the right, so it looks like a Canadian built one. But I can't tell a D15 from a D60 — I just went by the user who identified it, see User:Ain92/Military trucks indentification on Commons. See also here: http://www.baiv.nl/1944-4-x-2-dodge-d15-15cwt-gs-tipper/ or Dodge D15 GS 15cwt truck – Forum --GeeTeeBee (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You are probably well aware that for tax reasons all the big US automobile manufacturers maintain or maintained equivalent plants just across the Detroit river in Windsor, Ontario Canada. Whatever proportion there was of Canadian manufacture decided the rates of customs duty etc when the US or Canadian product (with RHD) was exported within the British Empire (later Commonwealth) because preferential tax rates were levied on Empire products and US products were penalised. Dodge Brothers had plants in UK (long before Dodge was sold to Chrysler) in north London suburbs (North Acton NW10 and Park Royal) and Maxwell/Chrysler had one of their own for their cars in London's west (Kew). Post war everything shifted to Kew (and cars were no longer assembled there). I understand there was considerable local (UK) content like engines for trucks. Maybe there was an assembly operation in Australia but I doubt they would have actually manufactured anything at all there at that time so I doubt Australian wartime production means anything more than assembly yet wars do create unexpected arrangements and I only surmise. So "Canadian built" may not be a perfectly accurate description and just Canadian alone might be better. Is a model T-222 just a D15? I see T-222 and T-110 are being sold in the 1950s in London as War Department models. Maybe T-222 and T-110 were the i.d. of the London-made trucks?

So, if Canadian models had different i.d. then should they be categorised in Commons under Dodge Canada? Dodge UK under Dodge UK? Is pickups the correct name for these vehicles? (who gave it to them?) Should Category:Dodge T-/V-/W-Series pickups be split into its components? Please be not alarmed. I wouldn't attempt these changes without support from someone like yourself but if you think my ideas are good say so and I'll work in with you. regards, Eddaido (talk) 03:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

That's an extensive reply ! — First off: I wasn't all that aware of the things you point out. So thank you for educating me !! — To an extent I think your level of knowledge and attention to detail is better spent on WP than on commons, but you're also very sharp to notice that this pic, this one, and this one should probably not be categorized as D15s, because – although they're right-hookers (so likely Canadian), the rig is completely civilian. So according to this source, they depict more likely a Dodge DB(1/2/3/6/7) ? — I do know that the T-110 meant D60(S/L), and T-222 equals D15. And it's indeed probably better to call 'em trucks than pick-ups — Dodge introduced the philosophy of 'Job-Rated' trucks with their 1939–1947 truck line-up, see this source. I wouldn't be inclined to split up up the T-/V-/W-Series, because initially the letters simply signified the model year (T for 1939, V for 1940, and W for 1941), but WW II happened, and Dodge retained the 'W' until the range was replaced after 1947. Hope this is helpful ... Cheers, --GeeTeeBee (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

"Canadian" for you means? Canada drove on the (strange, unnatural) same side of the road as the country to its south. RHD countries were far from limited to the British Empire (e.g. Sweden, Austria) but true if a Dodge truck is RHD it will be the same as the Canadian version though probably made in UK. As I well remember from 1945 on (as happened in 1919) there were vast yards of war materiel, aircraft (made of recyclable metals then of value) and vehicles. (What seemed like) miles and miles of rusting trucks (and other equipment) in tidy rows, immense piles of wrecks. Governments tried to sell the stuff as hard as they could. Some businesses set themselves up to renovate vehicles and sell them to a vehicle starved world with varying degrees of success and when they did they were painted as civilian vehicles. Who could want to be reminded of the army and the war by their transport. Any original paint would have evaporated almost 70 years ago now and why would anyone put on more of it unless they were militant military enthusiasts and that would have been (many?) decades later. So forget the civilian dress, they'll be old army trucks readily identifiable by serial number I expect.

My thought was to encourage you to make changes if you agreed they would be a considerable advance and offer help if you would like it. Once you've built up an accurately identified collection of images it is so easy to identify new arrivals to Commons. This knowledge acquired from my old-car experience. So there we are but I'd be really keen to separate out the products of Dodge Brothers Canada and Dodge Brothers Great Britain (or whatever the correct ones were). I feel sure US editors would have little interest in this yet it starts to solve the occasional mystery doesn't it. Best, Eddaido (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Canadians drive LHD because they drive back and forth into the US. They, and their vehicles, are North American. Of course they are dominated by the US, but the vehicles mechanically match the turf.

Where is the line between "built" and "assembled"? Especially in Australia.

Hi Sammy. Maybe that was a silly thing for me to say because if you build something you going to assemble it aren't you. I'd have thought even Australia's ("locally manufactured") Holdens might have contained important imported bits

In 1922 International Harvester bought a truck plant in Chatham. Were Australian Internationals built in Canada?

Don't know Eddaido (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

In 1939 GM started using letters for the design year. I do not know if that relates to Dodge.

I am posting to (already offended?) a Commonwealth military expert at Talk:Canadian Military Pattern truck. You two might want to hook up with them. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Eddaido: I'm aware Canada drives on the right side of the road ;-) — I simply concluded from the RHD in the pictures, that (assuming North American built), it would be from the Windsor plant, so that's why I termed it "Canadian". The T137.com T-codes registry makes no mention of 1939–1947 Dodge/Fargo trucks being built / assembled in the UK, let alone Australia. And specimens used by the military in the war being repainted afterwards, I also failed to take into account. So for the sake of categorising difficult to identify specimens, it might be the most practical to simply classify them as RHD, without sticking a country on it, since we don't know the serial.no ?

Furthermore, I'm a bit out of my depth here, and you guys are quite knowledgeable, so if either of you are so inclined, please feel free to improve the Dodge T-/V-/W-Series article !

And I think I will throw in two cents on Talk:Canadian Military Pattern truck. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The Detroit area is accessable to ocean-going ships. And you can go South from the US into Canada. Sammy D III (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

GeeTeeBee - Sammy knows about trucks, I don't. Well not enough to write in Wikipedia. The way I see it is if a contributor knows the image subject is a D15 and he can find a category saying Dodge D15 he's all set (and he gets it right first time) or T222. So I'd be in favour of the detail. Faced with Category:Dodge T-/V-/W-Series pickups I just threw my hand in and called for help (you). I'd much prefer to find a nice category labelled T222. Will now go to the CMP page. regards to both, Eddaido (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Current stuff going on

Oops — my taxi to work just arrived — too be continued. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The Summary Report of Acceptances Tank-Automotive Materiel 1940-1945, December 1945, by Army Service Forces, Office, Chief of Ordnance-Detroit, Engineering-Manufacturing Division, Requirements and Progress Branch, 1945 — Yes, I'm hoping it contains All the tank-automotive materiel acquired by the U.S. Army in WW II. So not the Canadian or "British empire" stuff, nor weapons.
By the way, are you familiar with "The Ordnance Department: Procurement And Supply", 1960, by the Office of the Chief of Military History, and part of a series called "U.S. Army in World War II" — whole book online here ?
I share your appreciation for the CMP's excellence aspect of small industry putting out big production. By the way, did you know that my small country is the world's second biggest exporter of food and agriculture products — second only to the U.S. ?
Anyway, I'm still more a car guy than a truck guy, so this weekend I started the FIVA and Historic Vehicle Association articles. And Monday and yesterday I did some moonlighting on a woman who is almost literally out of this world: Bibian Mentel. She achieved a second paralympic medal under sheer impossible conditions. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)