User talk:Teutonic Tamer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill 20:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Teutonic Tamer

I see from the History of the article A149 road that on the 26 Nov 2007 you were responsible for several minor edits to the page. One of your edits has the edit summary (the Broads are NOT a National Park, + minor text edits). This statement is incorrect. The Norfolk Broads have been made a national park, the most recent area to gain this status. You may want to amend your edit. [1]Norfolk Broads Authority Website, see the opening statement in the Blue shaded area on this page. Stavros1 (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Stavros. This is a tricky one. Technically, the "Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Authority" (for brevity, I'll now call it the "Broads") is not a "National Park" in the official sense. Unlike all the other traditional National Parks, such as the Peak District, Lakes, North York Moors, etc (which has specific "National Parks" legislation), the Broads were set up through a special Act of Parliament in 1988, and were officially designated as a "Special Statutory Authority" in 1989. Although considerable lobbying of relevent parliamentarians to get the Broads as an "official" National Park has continued for some time, the legal status of the Broads as a Special Statutory Authority remains. See here: [2]. What has changed in recent years is that the Broads are now offered a very similar status to the official National Parks, as can be seen from this official Government link: [3].
So whilst the original text and my subsequent edit both appear to be roughly correct, I think Wiki aims to be as factually correct as possible. Can I suggest that instead of reverting back to the original, perhaps we should clarify with something like "Heading towards the Norfolk Broads (part of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Authority, which has equivalent status to a UK National Park), - the new text in italics???
Does that clear it up - or muddy the waters more?? Regards -- Teutonic Tamer 09:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haldex all wheel drive torque transfer

Dear Tamer,

about the torque transfer in Haldex all wheel drive system: please understand the difference between torque and power (google it). when a haldex clutch is locked, power is transferred to both rear and front axles in the 50:50 proportion. this is correct. but if front wheels happen to be in the air, torque, sensed on the front wheels equals 0. if at the same time, rear wheels happen to be on a dry surface, they will drive the car and torque sensed on the rear wheels will be up to 100% of the torque the car can deliver. this is why specialists say that haldex can transfer up to 100% of torque to the rear wheels. Thanks --Zello (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zello, thanks for the message :)
This Haldex lark is getting a little unreal. I'll just state my point of view. Firstly, I'm a very highly qualified Automobile Engineer, and have spent my entire life working on various four (and six) wheel drive systems. I still have all my relevent text books and technical documents amassed over the years. More recently, I have started to specialise in VW group vehicles, so I have a detailed understanding - on both a 'personal' and 'professional' level.
Regarding the power vs torque comment - I certainly don't need to trawl through the realms of mis-information that Google (or any other search engine) will display. Torque is a twisting force (which effectively is what provides traction), whereas power is merely a measurement of a rate of work (and generaly is in proportion to top speeds). Power has no effect on "tractive effort". It is the transmission of torque which propels a motor vehicle.
Onto the 'nitty-gritty' of the Haldex unit - so it seems we both agree that when the Haldex clutch locks fully, the torque transmission is exactly front to rear 50:50, so why the disagreement? Your comment regarding the 'front wheels being in the air' - I'm sorry, but I find that a perplexing comment. Firstly, if a Haldex car is driven at a ramp-like object at a rate which makes the car leave the ground, then the rear wheels will be in the air notably longer than the front, due to the fact that virtually all Haldex VWs/Audis are much heavier at the front end (usually due to the heavy VR6 engine). Secondly, I have never, throughout my entire professional life, ever come across your scenario (one axle in the air) to attempt to describe the traits of four wheel drive systems! However, using this scenario, if the front wheels are airborne, and the rears are on dry tarmac, and the Haldex clutch is fully engaged, then the transmission of torque between the front and rear axles is still 50:50. The momentary fact that the front axle is not transmitting the tractive force to the tarmac still does not alter the torque split. Remember, the front axle is driven all the time, and Haldex can not "turn off" or disengage the drive to the front axle.
Your final comment about "specialists", and the 100% transfer to the rear axle. They are best described as mistaken enthusiasts. They are obviously confusing the clear fact that the Haldex is simply a clutch device, and not a differential. Yes, the Haldex can lock the clutch at a 100% rate, but that simply gives a maximum torque split of 50:50. A Haldex equiped VW/Audi can only transmit upto a maximum of 50% of the 'drive' to the rear axle.
If you happen to be in the UK (or wish to use Amazon or similar), can I suggest you read "Hillier's Fundamentals of Motor Vehicle Technology" (5th Ed, Book1) ISBN 0-7487-8082-3 (an academic text book), where you can better understand how automotive systems work (without having to rely on the various 'rumour stores' found on many web forums).
Kind regards - -- Teutonic Tamer 10:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Tamer

I repeat my point of view. Haldex clutch locks fully. If all wheels are on the ground and spinning (let's say in snow) the torque transfer can be 50:50 indeed. If front wheels are in snow and rear wheels are on a dry surface, the percentage of available engine torque applied to the front wheels is, let's assume, 20%; in this case the percentage of torque applied to the rear is 80%. In an extreme situation, where front axle has zero traction (front wheels are in the air - this is just an example, no matter how it is achieved) the front wheels receive 0% torque; rear wheels get all 100% of the torque the engine can deliver. Why? Because you cannot have torque in absence of a load.

You do state in the article that Torsen can transfer up to 80% of torque to the axle that has traction, why can't Haldex? Do you know why Torsen can't do 100%?

here is some reading: http://www.tyresmoke.net/ubbthreads/printthread.php/Board/VWR/main/402861/type/post

P.S. The torque transfer is not the only issue you are mistaken about. I suggest you to think about it.

Nothing personal

--Zello (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zello
I thought we had already agreed that the Haldex locks fully? !! <confused>
Your comment about the snow is interesting, particularly the bit where both fronts are spinning in the snow and the rears have traction. However, the fact that the front tyres can not transmit the applied torque to the road surface (when the rears can) still does not escape the fundamental fact that when the Haldex locks fully, exactly 50% of the available torque goes to the front axle, and the same to the rear. This simply means that the rears are able to "use" 100% of the available torque. That is the point you are getting confused on.
The Torsen vs Haldex - firstly, Haldex can NOT transmit more than 50% of the torque to the front axle simply because it is NOT a differential. Regarding the distribution in the Torsen, and the lack of 100% to one axle - well, the reason is quite simple. The original Torsen diffs were specifically engineered to allow a 25% deviation and physically limit torque transfer upto a max of 75% (ie, 25:75 or 75:25) (this was because they get effing hot when working at extremes of distribution). This original 75% limit was probably specified due to the basic mineral oil based gearbox lubes. The current "standard" Torsens (ie, those with the default 50:50 bias) can now go upto 80:20 either end, which is why Audi specify a high grade fully synthetic gear lube. The very latest assymetric Torsen (used on the current RS4) has a slightly increased threshold, but because the "defualt" bias is 40:60 front to rear, that simply means a maximum of 0:100 front to rear, or 80:20 at the other extreme. The Torsen unit is physically quite small (would fit in the palm of your hand), and having to cope with large torque outputs - and working as a "true" differential, put it under a great deal of mechanical stress. AFAIK, no Torsen unit has failed - yet, but these new assymetric ones will be a new test for the future.
That TyreSmoke article is interesting, but it basically mirrors what I have been saying.
So what else do you think I'm mistaken with ???
I've fairly thick skin, so I don't mind a bit of "enthusiastic" discussion ;-) Regards, -- Teutonic Tamer 23:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the "tyresmoke" article at all? Do you know what torque is? Have you ever heard about 3:1 and 4:1 torque balance ratio of Torsens? Do you know that torsen mechanically and mathematically cannot deliver 100% of torque to an axle? Do you know what and why happens when you raise one wheel of a torsen-based Audi Quattro in the air?

I wanted to give you a link to a good article about Torsens, but no, this is just another marketing stuff, written by "mistaken enthusiasts" wanting to "sell things".

Yes, Haldex locks fully, we have agreed on that.

--Zello (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to quattro

I didn't make any "claims". I've tried to change those sections into normal text because, as it is now, I've found impossible to read the "what" and "how" sections as lists. That, and normal words inside the text are not supposed to be bold, italic or allcaps. If the information got garbled, sorry. What I have also changed, and I'd like you not to change back, is the removal of the ® symbol from the use of the word "quattro" in several Audi articles. We don't need to add registered trademark notices, and it gives people the impression the (r) is supposed to be read. --Pc13 (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, but I don't think I suggested anything about making any "claims" ???
I personally think the "what" and "how" sections work quite well (they seem to have been created in that format some time ago). I suppose layout is a matter of personal preference, so some people may like it whilst others don't.
Can you point me to the relevent section regarding the use of bold, italics etc? In my understanding of the English Language when written was that boldening, italicising, underlining, etc are simply an effective way of emphasising certain aspects of the written word (which would be obvious when listening to the spoken word). If I have breached any Wiki guidelines, then I'll gladly correct them.
Interesting comment about the ® trademark symbol - I sort of agree with you. The reason I inserted the ® trademark symbol is that Audi AG, the owner of the trademark, display the trademark symbol in their own literature (sales brochures and websites), although they are not consistent - this link [4] shows what I am trying to explain, and shows that Audi wish for it to be displayed "quattro®". Do you happen to know what are Wikis guidelines on displaying registered trademarks?
Kind regards -- Teutonic Tamer 14:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
You said some sentences had mistakes after I changed them. My fault, really. I do have a preference for normal prose style, and I believe that, as it is now, the description of how the Torsen system performs under different conditions seems devoid of context.
As for the bolds and italics, WP:MOS#Italics suggests using emphasis in italics, but only sparingly. Quattro had bolds, italics, allcaps and apostrophes-as-quotation marks, so it was a mess. There's nothing for registered trademark symbols, though. I took a quick glance through the trademark article, where it explains the need to maintain trademarks, which is the reason Audi adds the ® symbol on their literature, to prevent it from becoming a generic word and defend their claim. From my POV, we, Wikipedia editors, are not Audi and therefore under no obligation to protect the mark. --Pc13 (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template changes

Have you any specific reason for making stylistic edits to so many templates? I noticed your changes to Template:Mitsubishi Motors North America timeline‎, which seemed to do little except shrink one MMC template to a different size to all the other Mitsubishi Motors templates. The undesirable effect in this instance was noted at Mitsubishi Motors North America, where the two stacked templates were staggered relative to each other.

I haven't looked at other automotive pages, but you may be causing a similar effect elsewhere (e.g. by setting Template:Mercedes-Benz vehicles and Template:Classic Mercedes-Benz vehicles to two different widths. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stub articles

A heads up: as per WP:STUB#Categorizing stubs, stub templates should be placed at the end of articles. Your recent edits to move them to the top of the page should be reverted. --DeLarge (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops - thanks for the heads-up. Still learning the detail of how Wiki works. I merely placed them at the top of the article so they might attract more attention. I'll try to revert them shortly. Rgds -- Teutonic Tamer 21:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] quattro (all wheel drive system) - Book citations

Hi there, read your problem with the above on the automobile project page so thought you might like some help with the book citations.

The main page for the book citation template is here

There is more than one way to add citations to pages but with ref to Wikipedia:Verifiability, specifically The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. I recommend adopting the boilerplate technique and adding a citation to every paragraph. This can look a bit silly when you're the only one citing material in an article, but think 300 edits ahead when the material you've added is interlocked with material from another 200 editors and you'll appreciate it's time well spent.

Here is the basic template for your book which you can cut and paste and use on your next edit:-

<ref>{{cite book |last=Hillier |first=V.A. (Editor) |authorlink= |coauthors=Peter Coombes |title=Hillier's fundamentals of motor vehicle technology. 5th ed Book 1|year=2004 |publisher= Nelson Thornes|location= Cheltenham |isbn=0748780823}}</ref>

The template can go before or after punctuation as long as you are consistent (see Wikipedia:Citing sources)

This above will give you a unique citation each time you use it on the page.

You might however want to add the page number e.g.

<ref>{{cite book |last=Hillier |first=V.A. (Editor) |authorlink= |coauthors=Peter Coombes |title=Hillier's fundamentals of motor vehicle technology. 5th ed Book 1|year=2004 |publisher= Nelson Thornes|location= Cheltenham |isbn=0748780823|pages=3-4 }}</ref>

or a quote or something else in which case just add the fields on the template page.

If you want to use the exact same citation several times, use this variation:-

<ref name="Tech1">{{cite book |last=Hillier |first=V.A. (Editor) |authorlink= |coauthors=Peter Coombes |title=Hillier's fundamentals of motor vehicle technology. 5th ed Book 1|year=2004 |publisher= Nelson Thornes|location= Cheltenham |isbn=0748780823}}</ref>

The name tag will call all those individual citations together,listing them a,b,c etc. against that reference. Change the name to Tech2 or whatever you want to call it if you need another grouping.

Don't forget to preview before you save just to check it looks ok.

Hope this helps. Mighty Antar (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Audi F103

There was written 60L, for details....its better than nothing details, you can find details also for 75 from same page, and I think all those cars are about same size--— Typ932T | C  11:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is other details http://www.auto-mobil-forum.de/modelle_erfahrungsberichte/index.php?seite=modelle&h=audi&m=1250501101

if you want add those.--— Typ932T | C  11:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RAF articles

You have created at least two articles like ‎RAF Celle, which are empty except for a category. These kind of articles are quite useless and can be deleted as being empty and lacking context. Could you please create one article at a time and first give it some contents before moving on to another article? Otherwise your efforts will probably be wasted. Fram (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RAF Fassberg

A tag has been placed on RAF Fassberg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there; I have not deleted your article, although I hope that you will be able to flesh it out fairly soon. Let me give you some advice; when you want to write a complex or long article, or one which you cannot finish in one session, it is a good idea either to create it in a subpage (WP:SUBPAGE) or in your {{sandbox}}, and then when complete move it into the mainspace. This avoids the potential difficulty which your article now faces! --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of RAF Stations

Apology for editing while you were in the middle of something - I did not notice you In use flag. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are doing a good job, nothing to do with your changes but I am not sure that we should have some of the comments next to the stations as it really is just a list. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Europe topic

Rather than change the entries in this template create redirects from the pages it refers to. This template is very intricate and is used in many pages of various subjects. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 08:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Newline in templates

I've removed the line break you added between the template content and the <noinclude> tag in Template:Nuclear weapons and Template:War. I can't explain why, but the the added line break somehow affected the layout in articles using the templates. Cheers. — Nivix talk 02:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories and sub-categories

Greetings - it's good to see others who are interested in RAF-related matters. I've noticed that you've been making some modifications to the category structure, eg Category:Royal Air Force stations. It's my view that some of your edits tend to overcategorize. For example, the aforementioned category is in Category:British military bases and so putting it in Category:Military bases as well tends to make it harder for readers to find what they're looking for. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories for more information. Greenshed (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Woody (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Year links

Hi, the year links are removed by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Autoformatting_and_linking, those date linking doesnt give any helpful info about the article subject, car articles should be linking only relevant bits like suspension, [steering]] etc. if the date has some historical or other relevant info it can be included. But this case linking eg. 1984 doesnt give anything.... and I have removed those from all car articles I have edited, especially from infoboxes.. --— Typ932T | C  09:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You can read more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Years_linked_in_a_list or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lightmouse, what do you think linking those years will it give somekind of extra info?? --— Typ932T | C  10:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

More "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. As a general rule of thumb, link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Dates --— Typ932T | C  10:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe but almost all other car articles are now without year links, especially infobox years and they should be similar in every car article, in certain car model the years arent so meaninfull but in the brand mainpage they can be useful, its very rare to see any car related in certain year page --— Typ932T | C  12:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I put the question to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles --— Typ932T | C  12:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking of redirects

Please do not blank redirects, as you have done to RAF Chivenor‎, RAF Tengah‎, and RAF Changi‎. If you have problems with these redirects, the proper way to deal with bad redirects is to take them to Redirects for Deletion to get them properly deleted. Blanking pages is almost never the proper way to handle bad content on the project. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple Audi sites

Hit enter before finishing my comment on the Audi article. Please see WP:EL#Important points to remember number 3: "Try to avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site." We don't need every, or even more than one, international audi site listed on the article. www.audi.com should redirect people to their international domains. Thanks! --Matt (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supercar Category

I noticed you have added the Supercar category. In case you didn't know, this category had existed before but was removed as per this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_11#Supercar_eradication. The Supercar category will probably be removed again, just giving you a heads up. swaq 18:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Category:Supercar

A tag has been placed on Category:Supercar, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. BelovedFreak 12:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible consequences of Axis victory in World War II

Since you have contribution in World War II related articles, I am asking you how about an article titled Possible consequences of Axis victory in World War II. The article may be somewhat speculative, but there certainly may be scholarly works available on this. The article is in my thought, I will like some opinion or will like to see someone started the article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Porsche 3512 > Porsche 3512 engine

What's your rationale for the above move? As far as I can tell, there's no other Porsche 3512 so the disambig is unnecessary. In any case, if it was needed it should be "Porsche 3512 (engine)". AlexJ (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Audi Allroad Quattro Concept

An article that you have been involved in editing, Audi Allroad Quattro Concept, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audi Allroad Quattro Concept. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 11:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Audi A4 dates

I'm 100% certain the dates in the Audi A4 article are correct as I've added them. Those dates are for production years and not delivery dates in the British market. As you can see here the B6 was introduced in Germany in October 2000 and the B7 in in September 2004. --Pc13 (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Reproduction of press release from October 2000 for German release.[5] Supported by second press release dated January 8th 2001 stating the launch of the new A4 in Germany was in 2000.[6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.116.17 (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The preceding comment was not by me. That's a US IP and I'm in Portugal (I don't trust car-specific enthusiast forums much either). The Audi Press website was revamped in mid 2005 and previous information was deleted, and I didn't go to the B7 media presentation so I didn't take any notes. I tried looking up Newspress.co.uk but the press-release was specifically for the UK launch, and a search in the Auto Bild and Auto Motor und Sport website archives was inconclusive (IOW, their archive blows). I'll see if I can locate the Automobile Revue Katalogs for 2001 and 2005 (they're published for the Geneva Motor Show) in my paper's archive to check for dates. But for the B7, at least, with a January release (in Portugal, I think the cars arrived in dealerships in the first weeks of January as well), full production has to have started in December. --Pc13 (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
AudiWorld is a better source than "I specifically remember...", "...whilst there may...", "I think that...", or "...I reckon..." [7]. But since your not happy heres the same press release at AutoIntell [8] and Pressportal [9]. So the new A4 was launched in 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by How-where-why-when-de (talk • contribs) 18:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Volkswagen Group

I've responded to your message re. the lead sentence on Talk:Volkswagen Group. Gr1st (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lancia template

Now I have to resort to your talk page as I would breach 3RR - I must say this is most unfortunate, I hate blind insistence.

The guideline you referred to advises against using font parametres, but does not state any limit or preferable value of either relative or absolute font size. You cannot possibly argue that a font "is too large" using Wikipedia. You could argue against using the font size parametre, serif font etc. altogether, but not for specific value.

That said, I do not find this guideline applicable to navigational templates, which also serve a decorative purpose. The MoS does not mention such templates by name even once, and I do not find it applicable - it is written so as to refer to article's body text. I also believe there is valid aesthetic reason to have the template looking as it did, which does not contradict the spirit of the guideline you linked to, i.e. I don't think it will "reduce consistency", as consistency is not a factor here, reduce usability, it will only possibly induce arguments such as that, but I find that resolved by MoS's main provision of not modifying existing style unless there is a reason to do so beyond aesthetics - you have changed the template because you don't like it, and I like it, so in this case it is preferred to leave it unchanged.

Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RAF Rheindahlen

I see you have a history of working on the article RAF Rheindahlen. I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest {{unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. PhilKnight (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Air Bags

Excuse me, what are you doing? I work in the field of occupant safety as an engineer, and you just came in and blew the entire article. Your reference is substandard, because I already have shown the correct spelling with references to official govt safety agencies and dictionaries. You don't just come in and make drastic changes with a single source. This will take a lot of work to fix. Please discuss next time.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 14:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikicookie

I am awarding you this WikiCookie for your constructive edits on Wikipedia--LAAFan 16:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I am awarding you this WikiCookie for your constructive edits on Wikipedia--LAAFan 16:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Not one particular article, but rather all of your contribs to articles about car companies.--LAAFan 16:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links sections

Those links I had removed from Audi S and RS models were mostly for forums. Forums are not reliable and should not be linked to. They do break WP:EL, more specifically the part "meant to promote a website" and about networking. As for the GermanCarBlog.com link, it had no information itself, it only linked to the AutoBild site, but the newsitem was not available there anymore. --Pc13 (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AAM quattro center differentials

Hi Teutonic Tamer: The link I posted on Quattro (all wheel drive system) (http://www.aam.com/file.php/729/AAM06_AR.pdf) is not an advertisement...it is a Fortune 500 company's annual financial report. Why do you doubt this? UrPQ31 (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Audi R8 TDI Le Mans

An article that you have been involved in editing, Audi R8 TDI Le Mans, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audi R8 TDI Le Mans. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 11:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears you have listed the above article for deletion. However, there does not appear to be any debate listed for the Afd, which is causing it to display improperly on the AfD log. You may want to look here to correct the issue. If you have any questions, drop me a line on my talk page. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 12:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem. If there's anything else I can do, let me know. Happy editing! TN‑X-Man 17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles

Thanks for your input on this page.

If you need further info on the brand contact me on my talk page--VWphaetonfan (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] word2

Hi, better maybe to talk in talk pages first to avoid conflicts , but generally Im following general trend or consensus of WP:Auto, Ill like more encyclopedic style than "advert" or fan page style in car articles, all facts should be written without bias like written in encylopedia. I have no bad or good car brands but I like that every car brand gets similar treatment and all car articles should be look like standardized and no exceptions are allowed. Im not trying to attack or anything, peace .) — Typ932T | C  14:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi yes I meant WP:CARS, maybe we should try to use little bit more project page or article talk page before making big layout or other changes.. I have general intrest of Italian cars, but I do know other brands aswell (been petrolhead all of my life, born in the end of 60s), and I dont dislike any brand Ill try to treat every brand same way. So better to talk than making conflicts rgds --— Typ932T | C  15:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)