User talk:T-dot/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Lincoln MKS

Hi, I just read your message concerning the Lincoln MKS article, but am still a bit confused. On the infobox it said that the Mark S concept is a mid-size sedan and the template confirms this assumption by listing the MKS as a possible replacment for the LS. In the article and in your message, however, you stated that it is a Full-size sedan. I myself have read the press releases but am still doubtful at the vehicle being a Full-size since Lincoln executives only said the MKS merely hints at the design for a future full-size sedan. The pictures, despite the 20" wheels do not hint at the MKS being a Full-size (The Chrysler Imperial has 22" being a Full-size; they all have big wheels now.). If you could provide a link or some dimensions specs I can change the infobos to read Full-size. Anyways, Thank you very much for contributing. Sincerely, Gerdbrendel 19:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC) ................................................................................

I believe that what you can legitimately post in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia is factual information, as released to the public, by the entity that owns the information. Everything else is to be considered pure speculation, gossip, rumors, or perhaps unauthorized leaks. Even if a "Ford insider" knows something about the "MKS" concept car that has not been publicly announced by the Company , they SHALL NOT post it here (as some have already done) - doing so may be considered Corporate Espionage, and can result in termination, lawsuits, and prosecution. I started to try to clean up all the speculation posts about the MKS - but gave up trying - it is just too deep now.

Now if Ford Motor Company publicly acknowleges (and you can prove it with a link to a legitimate Ford Motor Company Source - not from a fan / rumor / gossip or spy website), then by all means it can and should be posted here. For the time being, you have to go with the official company line - that the MKS is a concept car that "strongly hints" at a possible future full size Lincoln sedan. But you can feel free to scour online news reports using Yahoo! or Google or some other search engine, and then post anything you find, from a reputable news source, that is directly quoting Bill Ford or Mark Fields or Anne Stevens or some other Company Executive or Spokesman. I think the Company realizes there has been some mixed information released from various sources, and will try to straighten it all out in the coming days. For the next few weeks, Ford will be observing public and press reactions to the MKS Concept Car, and then make a final decision about production possibilities - most likely after "The Way Ahead" on January 23rd. In addition - Ford has many other upcoming Auto Shows, where more Concepts (and variations) and corporate announcements can be expected.

That said - I really do feel your pain. The sudden and unexpected renaming of the 2007 Lincoln Aviator as the 2007 Lincoln "MKX" has produced no small amount of chaos and controversy; and then saying it is all about "letters" for Lincoln from now on, and then saying MKX is actually pronounced "Mark X" (which is alarmingly close to "Mark Ten"), and then calling the "MKS" (pronounced "Mark S") as either a full size Concept Car (which would be E or F class), or a midsize D3-platform based midsize LS replacement (which is itself a mid-plus D/E class chassis) - it is all very confusing. The best we can do at this point is be patient - wait for the Corporate Executives and Marketing folks get their "official story" straight, and let the Full Battle Fury of the Auto Show settle down a bit with the dust; and then post "just the facts Ma'am" on Wikipedia. T-dot 00:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

...................................................................................

Let me respond here rather than start yet another section.

You have referred to me in pluralis majestatis. I do not know whether this account is used by several editors or what. Anyway, I understand how upset you are when somebody just comes and tags the article you contributed to and which deals with one of your favorite topics like that. But what I was hoping for is just stir some discussion about it and hopefully help you adopt a broader view on the issue. Why I tagged this article like that:

1. First and foremost, there is no appropriate template available
2. Secondly, recently I have seen an increase in the number of articles featuring speculation, discussion and newspaper-style reporting, all "justified" by the use of the "upcoming vehicle template". The template says that the article "is likely to contain information of a speculative nature" - well, information of speculative nature are not really information and have no place in an encyclopedia.
3. Third, this article really reads like a newspaper article, and not an encyclopedic article. It tries to give an account of selected press reports, paraphrasing them and citing some people from FoMoCo.
4. Fourth, I have briefly looked at some fragments of your discussion with Gerd and I believe this article looks like it was shaped to argue your point (third paragraph especially). I don't think it covers the issue in its entirety, as it would have to cover all bits of gossip and tidbits from Ford guys to do so - but Wikipedia does not cover gossip anyway.
5. Fifth, call me whatever, but this is NOT the best written and formatted Wikipedia article I have seen.

At present, the MKS is a concept car which may or may not in a similar or quite different form under this name or other become a production model, replacing some other models or not. Those things change a lot, as automakers change their plans, and FoMoCo is especially unstable with regard to that of late. Rather than speculate and try to discuss the future, and perhaps alternative scenarios, the article should simply inform the user of the facts that are firm and certain. So, I would say this article should read like that:

• A description of the concept car and its features, including where it was presented and such - a fairly good example would be the Audi Nuvolari Quattro article (perhaps you can get a bit more detailed than that.
• One sentence like "Ford Motor Company has indicated that a production vehicle based on the Lincoln MKS concept and possibly using that name will be launched in 2008 or later." (however hard I tried, it still sounds awfully speculative) and link to some newspaper report or wherever a good and up-to-date account can be found.

The point is that Wikipedia is not a place to discuss future automobiles and automotive gossip. The car mags, automotive forums and such are. And it should stay that way.

As concerns what you added later to your edit on my talk page, I am considering launching a more widespread campaign against "future on Wikipedia" and "future vehicles" in particular. The MKS article just displayed a number of bad features and I couldn't resist starting with it. I will pursue this further. Delete the notice if you please and rearrange the article so that there would be no reason for it to be there and the whole thing will be a thing of the... past :D

Regards, Bravada, talk - 13:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

PS. What you are linking to are not FoMoCo press releases. Ford press releases are to be found here. Please also see this discussion - in a nutshell, press photos are not really fair use and will have to be removed. I would focus on trying to procure some privately-made photos of the MKS when displayed at NAIAS or elsewhere.

OK fine then - if your agenda is to rid the Wikipedia of any references and articles on concept and future production automobiles, and any other future events and concepts, then I guess my recommendation to you would be to collect ALL of the Concept Car and Future Automobile (etc.) category entries, and nominate them as articles for deletion, and let the other Contributers decide by vote whether they are worthy of continuing, rather than using your drive-by slash-and-dash approach of choosing a single article and posting a self-made banner, claiming that it does not meet Wikipedia standards, and calling the article "fortune-telling" and "speculation" and "arguing a point of view" - even when it is well referenced and linked to the official sources. Let's do it right, not make up the rules as we go along. --T-dot 14:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down and read what I wrote carefully once again. I greatly appreciate well-written articles on concept cars and I believe we should have many more of them, this seems to be a rather poorly covered topic. I am not going to nominate articles on them for deletion, what for. I would like to curb "fortune telling" and "speculation" on Wikipedia, with speculation also appearing with regard to the past. And, btw, MySanAntonio.com is NOT FoMoCo's official website. Bravada, talk - 14:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The San Antonio News article is the reference source of the quotes from the Lincoln MkS Marketing Manager, obtained during an auto show. An additional external link to media.ford.com is provided at the bottom of the article, so readers can access the specifications, images, and technical details on the MkS. --T-dot 14:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Mustang infobox

Sorry, I'm not an expert on Mustangs, Lincolns are more my field. I was only adding the new standard infobox to the article. Just replace any information inside the infobox. Usually cars using the same platform are called related but that may not be the case here. Thanks. Gerdbrendel 15:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, okay I'm sorry O must have confused platforms. I just research the D2C platform and found out that the Ford Thunderbird, Lincoln LS (?), and Mecury Cougar also used or use this platform. I don't trust this article however since the LS is related to the S-Type, you however mentioned that the Mustang has Jaguar derived parts, a circumstance under which the LS could be related to the Mustang. Once again I'm sorry for my mistake, I have now added all cars that use the DC2 platform, according to the Wikipedia DC2 article. Thanks for your help. Gerdbrendel 19:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now it makes sense because the LS really didn't fit. Thanks. Gerdbrendel 04:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

New Speculation Template?

Well... first of all, I'm not an admin. I'm just someone who edits a lot and gets grumpy about other people's edits.

I am of two minds about your idea.

1. . First of all, from a realistic point of view, it's a very good idea. It's an ongoing war to try and keep "fan speculation" out of the Harry Potter pages, and you're correct that not all fan speculation is equal. "We don't know the whole story behind Snape, and there is more to his character, his allegience, and his 'defection' (which may, or may not be real)" is not on the same level as "Neville's wart is a Horcrux" or "Harry really is Lord Voldemort". Such a template might "bleed off" some of the fan
2. On an ideal level, it may not be a wise idea. It may simply encourage fan speculation inclusion. Additionally, Wikipedia is really supposed to be an encyclopedia. Would such speculation be included in Britannica?

I certainly see the issue and the reasoning you have put behind it, and I think it's a well thought out solution. I am not, however, totally sure what the results would be.

I think it's something to consider, however. Perhaps you could open it up to wider discussion on the Harry Potter project discussion page(s)?

Beowulf314159 12:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi T-dot, and thanks for the recognition! I agree there are a lot of speculation, but I agree with the points that Beowulf made above. I think the reactive comments that we've added discouraging people from adding speculation might be good enough for now, but I'd like to echo Beowulf's sentiments by suggesting that you post this proposal to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter or perhaps to WP:VPP and see what they think. --Deathphoenix 20:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Severus Snape Dates

Hi, T-dot. Just wanted to say I didn't revert the date on purpose. I have no informed view on which of the two dating systems is correct. I was reverting some other deletions and this got put back as it had been. I can't really choose which is correct Sandpiper 19:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ford...

Hi there -- do you believe it is untrue that the Ford family retains complete control over the company? I didn't think that it was a controversial point. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Your tone was all wrong - and it is also untrue. The family controls 40% of the Non-Voting shares in a Class B stock arrangement. They do not have "complete control over the Company" by any means. It is a publicly traded company, controlled by a Board of Directors. Your tone suggested something completely different. -- T-dot 20:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln Flagship

You're right the term flagship is a marketing gimmic. The Pheaton for example is not really representative of VW, yet its their flagship. The explaination used for flagship is usually: "The most expenisve vehicle of the brand's most iconic body style, unless the manufacturer states otherwise. Maybe the Lincoln line up should go by line-up position.

• Entry-level
• Mid-level
• top-of-the-line
• Full-size SUV
• Mid-size SUV

Or as you said by size only. Either way, you're right the current flagship description is not a very good one, and is not used in the template of other brands. Signature^brendel 03:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ignorance in revert of Harry Potter book 7 speculation

Hi, t-dot, please read my comment posted on Harry Potter talk page. I encourage you to reconsider your actions. Cheers. TydeNet 08:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Aviator MKS

Okay, I see. I thought by Aviator you were referring to the mid-size Explorer based SUV Lincoln sold until '05. I know that the MKS crossover was originally badged the Aviator, maybe we need to clarify in the article that by Aviator we mean the crossover prototype and not the Mid-size SUV. Thanks. Regards, Signature^brendel 02:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln Flagship

Well, the only way to really tell if a vehicle is the flagship of a marque or not is if the manufacturer says so. Otherwise the rule is: The most expenisve vehicle of the brand's most iconic body style. Since Lincoln's most iconic body style is the full-size sedan, and the Town Car the most expensive sedan, its the flagship. Only if Lincoln says the MKS is the flagship will it indeed be the flagship. Any other defenition is way to POV. For example: I think the TC should be the flagship because its the most luxurious and comnfortable, you might think its the MKS because it has the most advanced techonology and other just say its the best selling model. I do, however, agree that the word flagship is, for the reasons stated above, to POV in order to be used in the template. Also, I changed the chart for the MKS to start in '08. I just reduced the colspan for the MKS by one, and increased the colspan for the empty space preceeding the MKS box by one. Thank you. Regards, Signature^brendel 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, yes its is a repeated pragraph, sorry! Yes the MKS is defenitely not fit to be in the same category w/ the Town Car. Not only is the MKS substantially smaller but Lincoln put its emphasis on preformance in the MKS, whereas the TC's emphsis is on being a comfortable luxury cruiser. The MKS' emphasis on preformance and technology also make the Continental its perfect predecessor but the LS V8, I don't know. Yes the LS V8 is not really entry-level and its mid-size. I guess, since the MKZ only comes as a V6 and the MKS will be V8, its appropriate, unless you know of any plans Lincoln has to start making a MKZ with a V8, because I havn't heard any reports indicating such a move by Ford. Also, I read the qoute as the MKS being the flagship concept car, not neccesarly meaning that the vehicle will actually become the flagship once production starts. Thanks. Regards, Signature^brendel 22:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar for T-dot

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you T-dot for your high quality edits. Your tireless contributions and strive for increasing the standard of our articles is truly appreciated. Keep up the good work! Thank you, Signaturebrendel 03:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Dumbledore speculation

I am very sorry. I do not know all the rules of Wikipedia and apoligize for any incovenience. However, I wonder why nobody has stopped me from removing speculation from other pages. Can you please explain why that is?

Hi - Well there are different levels of speculation. Some is appropriate for the wikipedia and some is not. It depends on the context and how it is presented. For example - posting something like "Dumbledore is NOT dead" or "Snape did NOT kill Dumbledore" or "Dumbledore commanded Snape to kill him" as if these were "facts", would be pure (and probably false) speculation, and thus disallowed. Posting the fact that there is a lot of controversy over the circumstances of Dumbledore's death, and a brief description of the thinking behind it, may be allowed. The question boils down to whether the information is factual, useful, and significant to most readers. I am not a fan of posting pure fan speculation as if it were encyclopedic fact. But we also need to be careful about anonymously and arbitrarily deleting entire sections of wiki pages, without explanation in the "Edit summary", or at least bringing it up for review in the discussions on the article's "discussion" tab. These issues are usually discussed at great length in that "discussion" tab you see off each main article, and you are welcome to add your thoughts there. Since you clearly did not mean to vandalize the Dumbledore article, I'll remove the vandalism warning on your page. Thanks, and welcome to the Wikipedia, and please feel free to edit wherever you please. Again, however, it would be helpful to the rest of us if you explain any such non-minor edits in the Edit summary box (or on the discussion page or both) so other editors do not assume you are not just another drive-by vandal who is arbitrarily and maliciously deleting valid information. Thanks again, and have fun! --T-dot 13:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"deep" reverts

Please be careful when reverting articles and give preference to editing the appropriate section and only reverting in cases of clear vandalism. Your reverting of the Harry Potter article caused a corrected piece of information to become un-corrected. Thanks! -- goatasaur 21:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, and my bad. Just what "corrected" information was uncorrected? We were engaged in reverting disallowed and unauthoritative speculation on the release dates (until it was clear that this would result in a reversion war with those insane fanatics who insisted on being the first to post a rumored "target release date" as a "confirmed release date", in spite of much discussion and attempted administrative corrections). The mob mentality ruled after a few hours, and the administrators and veterans took a wait-and-see position, rather than constantly reverting and counselling the rabid fanatics not to post unverifiable information. --T-dot 15:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

PS - I reviewed my reversions - the other material that was removed in reversion was a rather non-NPOV "Criticism" section added without any explanation by an anonymous IP address editor - stating essentially that "some fans of the LOTR and Narnia fantasy genre feel that the Harry Potter series is inferior..." (paraphrased) and went on to cite numerous examples to illustrate the point. This information is hardly startling - comparing classic Tolkien and Lewis literature to contemporary Rowling material - but it is completely irrelevant to the HP article. It smelled like a 9th grade book report on comparisons of English Literature. But OK fine. --T-dot 15:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

For your hard work on Harry Potter -related articles, I hereby award you the Original Barnstar --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)(KC)

For your hard work on Harry Potter-related articles, I hereby award you the Original Barnstar. You are free to put this on your user page (or not), as you desire. Congratulations! --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Good edit on Edsel Ford

Good edit on Edsel Ford! Stude62 01:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Dumbledore

Hmm. seems I reverted "(by popular view)" back in to the article instead of reverting it back out, which is what I meant to do. I guess I misread the diff or something. Nice work. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 22:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Randazzo56

Thanks for letting me know -- I've blocked him for a month for his activities today. Nobody should have to put up with that sort of trolling or personal abuse. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"Throwing the baby out with the bath water"

(Regarding Ford external links) - I was pleasantly suprised to see me edit provoked a positive response! It's the sort of thing that can really get some people worked up. I take your point about the main Ford homepage, however my thinking was that it is featured prominently at the top of the page in the company infobox. You're right to suggest that a heading "external links" probably should include the homepage of the article subject. Thanks for your comments. Mark83 17:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

There is a consensus discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Infobox Aicraft consensus discussion on adopting a non-specifications summary infobox for aircraft articles. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Why so few Wikipedians are engineers?

I am trying to understand why there are so few Wikipedians who are graduate engineers. Once I get a grasp on that, perhaps I may be able to formulate some ideas on how to attract more experienced engineers to become Wikipedians. It would be very helpful if you would respond to these a few questions:

• Are you a university graduate engineer?
• Please indicate in which of these engineering disciplines you obtained your degree:
  1. Aeronautical or aerospace engineering
  2. Bioengineer or biological engineering
  3. Chemical engineering
  4. Civil engineering
  5. Electrical engineering
  6. Environmental engineering
  7. Mechanical engineering
  8. Petroleum engineering
  9. Other
• In what year did you obtain your degree?
• What attracted you to participate in Wikipedia?

If you would rather not answer these questions on your Talk page, then you may respond on my User talk:mbeychok page. Or you may respond to me via Wikipedia's email which I have enabled on my User:mbeychok page.

If you would rather not respond at all, that's fine also. Regards, - mbeychok 04:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Aeronautical/Aerospace, completed degrees early to mid 1980's. Wikipedia history summary and other information is already posted on the front "user page".

Most Engineers have little time for wiki-work, with career, innovations and inventions, family, personal life, and other issues going on all the time. Engineers are, by definition, "by the book", and yet also creative and innovative. "Original Research" is not permitted on the Wikipedia (even if it is valid), so most of what an Engineer does for a living is banned, and thus they are relegated to proofreading other people's work, which is not particularly interesting as a pastime. Engineers are usually full of "inside information" on modern technologies, and have to be careful about revealing confidential information, and yet they are compelled to correct false information and rumors. Engineers are "never wrong" - and thus refuse to get into reversion wars or engage in wiki-arguments with the "ignorant masses". Engineers will only contribute to articles they consider themselves to be an authoritative expert in, and will ignore anything they consider not of particular interest to them, unless they stumble upon a typo or outright falsehood that they can fix, in an article they were reading something about anyway. Engineers also understand the shortcomings of the Wikipedia, as discussed by anti-Wikipedia commentators, and generally refuse to "put their good name" on something that might be considered total garbage by their peers. Engineers are all about publishing their knowledge, and new and innovative inventions and other discoveries in Journals, as professionals and authorities in their respective fields. They cannot possibly be bothered, and have no particularly compelling reason, to join in on publishing their vast knowledge in something so "low-brow" as a "truth established by public consensus" forum, when that consensus is significantly contaminated by the uneducated, ignorant, and biased agenda-driven masses. If they do get involved in wiki-work, it is only as a hobby, that only lasts as long as they don't find something more useful to do with their spare time. After all, thats when we often come up with most of the really good inventions and innovations, and thats how we keep the world a-turning. Did I mention that we Engineers are cocky, conceited bastards (or the female equivalent)? Sometimes, the brutal truth hurts. --T-dot 15:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Assumptively

I laughed out loud when I saw your edit summary [1] on Lord Voldemort. I thought assumptively sounded fairly prepostrous myself, but apparently it's a word (or at least used to be): [2], [3]. Anyway, no big deal; I don't think I've ever heard the word used, and it would be difficult for me to use it in a sentence. Good job on the cleanup! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

what the ...

Could you be so kind to go and read what is on Talk:Ford!

P.S. Please ... --Goldie (tell me) 19:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - I read it; but I have no idea what it might be in regards to, or why you wanted me to read it. I gather I must have missed out on an earlier discussion, consensus vote, or dispute...? --T-dot 19:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)