Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Devaynes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pall Mall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I'm Dennis Bratland. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you.
I noticed some personal attacks against User:SamBlob in your previous edit summaries, like this that you repeated a half dozen times. Later, it appeared you two were making good progress in resolving your disputes. But now you are mocking his suggestion at the Automobiles project talk page with this. Please stop. Keep your comments on topic and civil. Thank you.Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many of us have been able to collaborate just fine with SamBlob for a couple years now and there has never been a problem. Please solve your content disupte with no more sarcasm, insults and harassment. You seem quite confident but I'm convinced if you don't stop you will be blocked from editing. Focus on content, not personality. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Sorry for the cryptic edit summary. Usually we stick to using succession boxes for offices that are occupied by multiple people over time, rather than ranks held by one person. So things like the colonelcies of regiments, governorships, commanderships-in-chief of certain theatres, and so forth get them, while promotion through the ranks (brigadier on this date, major-general on that) are left to the prose, since the person doesn't really have a predecessor and successor in those ranks. It looked like you'd covered the dates of commissions in the prose above. Also, you don't need to end and begin a new box with each new heading; they can all go in one structure. Usually we just put years in the boxes, else they tend to get large and sprawling; dates can also go in the prose. There is a wikiproject for this, but it hasn't been very active of late. Best, Choess (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for everything. An elder brother had a TF1500, red like the one in the Italian photos and he would, very generously, let me borrow it! I think it is wonderful that you were able to keep your car and long may it please you! Have been wearing blinkers for days to concentrate on something else, apologies for my slow response. Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Andy Dingley. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to Bentley_Speed_Six. Please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you.
Please do not play your usual part of the bully. True you are very experienced at it, I know. The epithet applied to the dogging editor is fully earned - "acres" of sorry "hectares" of WP are covered with the evidence. Eddaido (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summaries used for personal attacks
Greetings. There's an ongoing pattern of sarcastic personal attacks, harassment, and belittlement in your edit comments directed at User:SamBlob:
It is my understanding that you've received several requests to desist. In future please use edit summaries to explain and support your edits and not to attack other users. Thank you! Writegeist (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fat chance. He's been doing it for years, aimed at the same couple of editors. As always, no-one gives a damn and admins (ha!) certainly don't act to prevent this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Historically, true. But now there are three people in this thread who give a damn, one of us an administrator who has added a clear warning of a block if there's a repetition. Writegeist (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that diff had been current I would have blocked the user on the spot; I am not convinced I can justify it on a two-month-old edit. The editor is, hopefully, now clear that they cannot continue to belittle other editors in edit-summaries. I will keep an eye out but feel free to ping me with any further issues. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Black Kite. Today (12/23 my time) yields these three charming edit summaries targeting the same editor: [25], [26], the third without content revision and posted purely to insult the other editor ("What's that smell?"). [27]. Writegeist (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had not noticed that. Given that, and the posting below from the editor which suggests that further attacks are likely, a block is now in order. Black Kite (talk) 13:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let us be very clear about this. You were previously blocked for a week for harassing another editor with unpleasant edit summaries and now you come back from your block with this. This is a final warning - one more of these and the next block will be indefinite. Please don't let it come to that. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Parlboxes
Re this edit with the edit summary "repositioned parliament box but is it a duplicate?", every New Zealand MP article has a parlbox, and the convention is that they go into the section that discusses the political career. As such, it is not a duplicate to a succession box. Good on you for using proper edit summaries! Schwede6623:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then I am afraid I have to tell you its a bad idea and at least in that particular article's layout looks weird! I don't usually take any interest in Kiwi-style MPs. I hope you provide good edit summaries too! Eddaido (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lanchester Ten, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page S.U. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Weymann Fabric Bodies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Arnold (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coventry Ordnance Works, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fuzes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Felix Schuster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Willans & Robinson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Hooker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BSA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I have replaced your inclusion of the Tiger Moth, but I have changed "innovative" to "notable", as the notability of the Tiger Moth is more readily apparent than its supposed innovation.
I have also edited the sentence so that the reader will be clear that the first jetliner was the Comet, as your version introduces confusion as to whether the first jetliner was the Comet or the Tiger Moth.
Following this good-faith collaborative edit by User:SamBlob, which corrected inaccurate content and made a perfectly reasonable addition to the lead of the de Havilland article, you removed the addition and attacked Samblob with this edit summary.
Next, when he reworded specifically to try to appease you, you undid his revision, reverted to your "own" version, and again wrote an attacking edsum [28].
You were blocked after a string of attacking edit summaries directed at this editor. When you came off the block you attacked him again. And now, yet again. This pattern of bullying, intimidatory behaviour is unacceptable. You can either stop repeating the behaviour or continue and be blocked indefinitely. Writegeist (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As ever, the war comes from your (apparent) pal Samblob so here's some of your own words for you:
"Get back under your bridge and stop posting to my talk. If you want your crap on a talk page use yours, not mine. Writegeist (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)"
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ferries in Wellington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gravesend (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Congratulations on re-opening this and related cans of worms. I applaud your "rewrite the darned thing! We will ALWYS trip over ourselves if we keep up the Yankification of Wikipedia - same words have different terms in different parts of the world". Though startled by the quite remarkable lapse of the succeeding editor. Mind you I'm not sure your re-write was correct but then neither is what you were re-writing. I look forward to a "re-development" of the little article this time using reliable references. Best wishes to you, Eddaido (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message - I hope that I find you well! I think certain cans of worms are worth reopening - have a look at the definition of Biscuit, which had become in the seemingly continual process of Yankification as something which was definitively (and not to be argued with) soft doughy objects in gravy. We now have Biscuits (European) and Biscuit has become a big-link/virtual disambiguation page. If you read the German and French Wiki articles on the same Coupe de Ville subject (translations available via Google), then they follow the same form as I did in the rewrite - hence why I did as I did to improve the article. These accept that the words can have different interpretations in different countries - why should we as an encyclopaedia be afraid of this? As a Brit (much as though I spent 20 years working in North America), I haven't got a clue what a Town Car is above a Lincoln model. If you ask me to define an open front topped/enclosed rear car then I'd call it a Sedanca de Ville, as (a) I own one, and (b) the UK dealer chap who I bought it from described it as such, as that's what the Rolls Royce/HJ Mulliner build sheet described it as such. I also accept that if I went to France and Germany, they would define it as a Coupe de Ville, which would have a very different interpretation in North America (hence why I added a North America section in the rewrite - plus it keeps them happy). I personally don't think that if there are major reference sources that clash we should be worried as an encyclopaedia to provide reader guidance around the wording - the article before I started my rewrite didn't even define the term as French language in origin! I think that there is a lot more to go on the article, but the opportunity here is in (1) the definition of what the word means and then (2) how then each area of the world interprets it. Best Regards, --Trident13 (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don’t want to get involved myself for a couple of reasons. The most important is that for the moment I’m minimising my WP involvement, the other is that I found what seemed to be a suitable reference maybe three years back. It may have been this Illustrated dictionary of automobile body styles / Lennart W. Haajanen ; illustrations by Bertil Nyden ; foreword by Karl Ludvigsen.
This book (if its the right one and it probably is) was downright upsetting because the author gives the right definitions then kinda takes a deep breath, and provides a few more alongside that seem to contradict what he has just said. I don’t know your level of experience with publishers but I suggest an agent or publisher sent it to USA for an opinion on its saleability and the simple response could have been along the lines of "Few buyers unless you try to fit with all USA’s most casual uninformed usages, them’s the kind what (you hope) will be buying your book". So I stopped worrying and tried to ignore WP's (to my mind) often moderately out of wack versions.
Here is the (USA) library association’s Booklist description of that book: “As the preface states, "Few things have been subject to so many confusing type names and designations as automobile models and body styles." Where did the terms station wagon, sedan, or spider originate, and how have they come to be used? This dictionary is intended for students of automotive history and other car buffs to help them sort out this confusion. Both modern terms (All wheel drive, Flattop, Hatchback) and those inherited from the horse-and-buggy era (Brougham, Cabriolet, Landau) are included. More coverage is given to innovations and developments in auto body styles in the early twentieth century. Entries include one- or two-paragraph descriptions of the term, including the period of usage, origins and history, variations, and language varieties. American, British, French, German, and Italian varieties are given, but there is no mention of Japanese, Korean, or other designs. Trucks are excluded, but SUVs and minivans are included. Cross-references include backward and forward pointing arrows for earlier and later usages. Terms in all capital letters have their own entries. Some entries illustrate body styles with generic-looking line drawings. There are many car books, but no other source provides definitions of body styles. Recommended for libraries with specialized automobile collections.” -- RBB Copyright 2003 Booklist
Our local library’s copy is out until the end of this month (well, 1 July). Should I put my name down for when it comes available?
I think WP should try to set some standards (while holding to its own rules) in the naming of old models and styles. Maybe like you suggest by lining up usages into regions. WP should lend its weight to clarification and codifying rather than adding to the confusion. I envy you your car which is bound to be very nice indeed. A sedanca de ville must have been the most distinguished formal motor transport a man could have. Fully enclosed — stuffy (twice over).
An article that you have been involved in editing, Town car, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you have been involved in editing, Coupe de Ville, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Morris Cowley may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
| successor =[[Morris Cowley#Morris Cowley (1926-1931))|Morris Cowley (1926-1931)]]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Morris Oxford may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
[[File:Morris Oxford Traveller 1953 4659310521).jpg|thumb|Traveller registered November 1953]]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Triumph Dolomite (1934–40), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Triumph. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wolseley Hornet (1930), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page S.U.. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to MG Magnette may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
by the '''Magnette ZB''' announced 12 October 1956.<ref>Higher Speed Of Nuffield Cars. ''The Times (London'', Friday, Oct 12, 1956; pg. 7; Issue 53660</ref> Power was increased to 64 hp (48&
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Wolseley automobiles, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wolseley Hornet and Wolseley 18/85. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rover P4 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
was designed and built by Rover and at the time was the only British-built automatic transmission (others had bought in units from American manufacturers such as Borg-Warner. This unit was actually
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rover P4, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rover 2000. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Standard Motor Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norm. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
With regards to your question I'm afraid I cannot agree with this. The facts are that Lyons and Harriman agreed to merge the two companies and stated this at the press conference and in subsequent written comments. What a journalist may have interpreted from the announcement - or if some other companies have used the term 'merge' for other reasons - is not relevant to what was actually agreed and took place.
Hello, I'm Dennis Bratland. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. 
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Croall & Sons Edinburgh may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
