User talk:Gwafton/Archive 3

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sisu M-161, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tanker (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers for the note. Fixed. --Gwafton (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Sisu S-321) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Sisu S-321, Gwafton!

Wikipedia editor OccultZone just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice article, you should add more categories.

To reply, leave a comment on OccultZone's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Commented on the talk page. --Gwafton (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vanaja VAKS, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ford Trader (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops, again. Fixed. --Gwafton (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Vanajan Autotehdas

Thank you for your work. I will check out the result in detail in near future and give you feedback after. --Gwafton (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You had removed the part of text that summarises up the production figures. It was at the end of chapter End of Vanaja. I find it as an obvious place for this piece of information, what is wrong with it?

At the beginning of the same chapter you have requested more information about the source of speculations of merging VAT and SAT. The source text says as follows. It comes after an overview about negotiations between Scania-Vabis and VAT. My translation tries to follow the exact meaning of the text, that is why it looks a bit silly.

“ According to a general notion, soon after this among the largest shareholders of VAT would have arose discussion about putting together the two utility vehicle factories of our country – one way or another. However, certainty to this view has not been obtained. ”

Have you got suggestions how to put the sentence in the article a better way? The text is as vague as it is (due to the common practice of using passive in Finnish language).

I saw you had removed a number of wikilinks. I trust that you know the linking policy better and I don't question it.

I did not spot any such edits which would have changed the meaning. The language is certainly better than it was. --Gwafton (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gwafton; thanks for your comments. Firstly, yes I did remove some text relating to production figures here. I probably intended to place them in a more appropriate section but did not do so. "End of Vanaja" is about the merger that ended the company. There's nothing wrong with the text per se and I'll replace it for you. Sorry about that.

What is "Kiitokori" (first paragraph of text mentioned above)?

About the quotation—According to a general notion, soon after this among the largest shareholders of VAT would have arose discussion about putting together the two utility vehicle factories of our country – one way or another. However, certainty to this view has not been obtained. --> "According to a general notion (rumour? idea? opinion?) soon afterwards among the largest shareholders of VAT, a discussion about merging the two utility vehicle factories in Finland would have arisen; however this view is uncertain." In English, "one way or another" (somehow) is usually used for emphasis but in formal contexts it's usually redundant. As you rightly say, the quotation is vague and doesn't really say much except "shareholders were talking about a possible merger, but we don't know". It's up to you, but I'd leave that out of the articlet. If you want to leave it in, it should be placed in a {{quote box}}. Pull quotes are used for quotations extracted from the main body of the article.

I did remove lots of wikilinks; they were either repeated ones or linked to common words or phrases that most English-speakers would understand and are thus unnecessary. Similarly, we don't usually link to large, geopolitical or geographic entities (countries, continents etc) unless they're archaic (Abyssinia, Pangea), ususual or otherwise unfamiliar. The guideline is WP:OVERLINK.

I hope that answers your questions; if there's anything else you need just ask. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Kiitokori is a coachbuilder which used to make cabins on Vanaja chassis.

I'll consider if I can put the sentence better way. In my opinion using of quotations in the middle of text shatters the article structure unnecessarily and therefore I generally try to avoid them. It is difficult to write the text such way that it is informative and fluent and in the meantime remains loyal to the source. Maybe I'll end up removing the whole part as you suggested. The general notion may mean any of those you suggested (rumour, idea, opinion). The book basically just says that "someone claims that the main owners started some discussions about putting VAT and SAT together somehow" (which virtually means either acquisition or merger).

I have already signed up the article to GA review – I don't know if it reaches the criteria but it won't be easy to make the article much better because I am quite certain that I have used the most relevant parts of the best available written sources. You have helped a lot and I am open to your suggestions how to further improve the article. Once it has reached an acceptable level I'll translate it in few other languages. Cheers, Gwafton (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Kiitokori; thanks for the information; I see it's actually mentioned earlier in the article. I've explained it on the article and have restructured that sentence accordingly. Thanks also for explaining the context of the quotation; you could use the quotation indirectly in text by mentioning that rumours/ideas/opinions or a merger were being talked about by shareholders; paraphrase and shorten the quotation and use the source as a reference, or use the quotation as a footnote.

I don't think I can help much more with the content of the article, but it does use lots of images. Are they all needed? You could move some to the left of the screen or perhaps move some to a {{gallery}}. Have a look at WP:IMGSYN for information on image placements. You could also expand some of the captions: "Sisu S-22" doesn't explain the image's significance to the reader. Something like: "The Sisu S-22 was the first vehicle manufactured by Yhteissisu." would suffice.

Good luck with your GA nomination; I think this certainly has the potential for GA status. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I edited the captions a bit. I didn't remove any of the photos however; I find all of them informative. Unfortunately, there are not many colour photos in Commons. I considered moving some of the photos on the left side but if reasonably sized they make the text to look a bit too packed on laptop screen. If you think some of the photos in the article are not needed or you prefer changing the layout, please feel free to do so; I have worked for too long on this article and become "blind" on it. Therefore, I will leave the article as it is for now, until someone comes up with new ideas for improvement. Instead, I'll start to write it in other languages.

Once again, thank you for your help! No matter whether VAT will be selected GA or not, Wikipedia is now more rich by one properly sourced and written article. --Gwafton (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Awarded for your continuous creation of high-quality articles about vehicles. Keep up the good work. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the recognition – also nice to know that someone is interested in those articles. --Gwafton (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Vanajan Autotehdas Good Article Nomination

Hi. I am thinking of reviewing the Vanajan Autotehdas article, but in view of the length of time it has been in the queue, I just wanted to check that you would still be available to deal with any issues (though having read through it several times, it looks to be in pretty good shape). Bob1960evens (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bob1960evens. I will be available if not in 24 hours, then 48 hours notice period. In case any questions raise from the content, I also have all the sources in my bookshelf (i.e. they are not from library or something). --Gwafton (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Crichton-Vulcan

If you think there are good grounds for deleting the redirects to Crichton-Vulcan, please raise the matter at WP:RFD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I'll do that. --Gwafton (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vanajan Autotehdas

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vanajan Autotehdas you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bob1960evens -- Bob1960evens (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vanajan Autotehdas

The article Vanajan Autotehdas you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Vanajan Autotehdas for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bob1960evens -- Bob1960evens (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vanajan Autotehdas

The article Vanajan Autotehdas you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Vanajan Autotehdas for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bob1960evens -- Bob1960evens (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MS Color Magic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rauma. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Fixed. --Gwafton (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Winter War article

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Constantly reverting sourced text without even attempting to start a discussion is not how things are done here. -YMB29 (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

To YMB29: Commented on the talk page.

To all others: see this. --Gwafton (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that you did not edit war? If so then why did an admin have to protect the page?

Also, see WP:TALKDONTREVERT. -YMB29 (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No. --Gwafton (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Vanajan Autotehdas

Harrias ^talk 09:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)