User talk:Brossow/Archives/2006-02

User	Talk	Talk Archives	Images	Watchlist	eMail

Leave a new message.

---

Comments on 1957 Chevrolet

I read your comments on the Bel Air not being a series regarding Chevrolet Just curious about that comment. Stude62 22:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The Bel Air was an option package on a single body style, much like the Z28 or SS was an option package for the Camaro. The full-size Chevrolet in 1957 had one body style with various trim levels, including 150, 210, and Bel Air. The Bel Air was not a distinct model as the article seemed to indicate. --BRossow 00:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did significant editing of the article you started on the Del Ray. The Del Ray was around years before 1958. --BRossow 03:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I find this confusing because Chevrolet lists the Bel Air as a seperate series, not trim option, beginning in 1953 when the "150" was designated as Series 1500 A, the "210" 2100 B and the "Bel Air" as 2400 C. As for the 1957 the production breakdown according to Chevrolet is:

"150" (Series-1500)

Model 1503, body style 1219, "150" 4-dr Sedan (52,266)

Model 1502, body style 1211, "150" 2-dr Sedan (70,774)

Model 1512, body style 1211B, "150" 2-dr Utility Wagon (8,300 units)

Model 1563, body style 1263B, "150" 2-dr Station Wagon (14,740 units)

"210" (Series-2100)

Model 2103, body style 1019, "210" 4-dr Sedan (260,401)

Model 2113, body style 1039, "210" 4-dr Hardtop Sedan (16,178, units)

Model 2102, body style 1011, "150" 2-dr Del Ray Coupe (25,664)

Model 2154, body style 1037, "210" 2-dr HT Sport Coupe (22,631 units)

Model 2109, body style 1062F, "210" 4-dr Sta Wagon-6p, (27,803 units)

Model 2119, body style 1062FC, "210" 4-dr Sta Wagon-9p, Station Wagon (21,083units)

Model 2129, body style 1063B, "210" 2-dr Station Wagon (17,528 units)

Bel Air (Series-2400)

Model 2403, body style 1019D, Bel Air 4-dr Sedan (254,331, units)

Model 2413, body style 1039D, Bel Air 4-dr Hardtop Sedan (137,672, units)

Model 2402, body style 1011D, Bel Air 2-dr Sedan (62,751, units)

Model 2454, body style 1011D, Bel Air 2-dr HT Sport Coupe (166,424 units)

Model 2434, body style 1067D, Bel Air 2-dr Convertible Coupe (47,562 units)

Model 2409, body style 1062DFC, Bel Air 4-dr Sta Wagon-6p, (27,375 units)

Model 2429, body style 1064DF, 2-dr Nomad-6 (6,103 units)

While Chevrolet models used the same bodies, my manufacturers source records and production records list them as distinct series, not just trim levels, and for all years 1954-1958 Chevrolet counted these Series production seperate from one and other.

Also, can you provide me with your source information of Del Ray trim package (some of which I did find in my records and thank you for correcting that point in the Chevrolet Del Ray) for years outside 1958 - I would like to read up on it. I did however revert the information on the article page regarding it being a seperate series for, and only for, 1958; I included the series model numbers (1100 Series 6-cyl and 1200 Series V-8) - again, based on Chevrolet Division documentation.

Now I whole hearted agree with the statement that the 1958 Impala was a member of the Bel Air range, just as Pontiac's 1957 Bonneville was classified as the Star Chief Bonneville - in these two cases, there is clear information showing the specially trimmed (and the case of the Impala, differing body parts, not just juggleing trim) cars in their parents series before being broken out on their own. Stude62 13:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A series as you've described it does not constitute a separate model, at least in modern terms (your cited nomenclature notwithstanding.) For example, there were two- and four-door versions of the 1980 Chevrolet Caprice. But the two-door version was not a distinct, separate model from the four-door version (unlike the Camaro and Malibu, for example, which were separate models.) In addition, there was an option available to bump it up, so to speak, to a Caprice Classic. This option had more creature comforts, more appearance doodads, etc., but it was not a distinct model.

Generally speaking, the taxonomy of modern automobiles is broken down as model year >> make >> model >> option packages. Applying this to the case of the first Del Ray, the breakdown looks like this: 1953 >> Chevrolet >> full-size >> 210 coupe + Del Ray package. I don't have a problem with describing the Del Ray as a series, but your own reference material above makes it clear that it's not a "model," even in Chevy's older nomenclature as you've cited. Furthermore, if we were to create an article for each distinct "model" as defined in your example above, we'd have 18 separate entries here. But again, I have NO problem with "series" and am editing the Del Ray article to reflect this discussion.

Hope this makes sense. I'm sure we can hash out the language to be factually accurate and aesthetically pleasing as well as blending with your historical documentation. My primary interest with regard to the Del Ray was to clear up the misinformation about year of release; the rest can be hashed out later.

Oh, and as for my source of this information, I must admit that most of it comes simply from growing up with these cars. My father has a '55 150 2-door sedan, two '55 (Series 2) 1500 pickups, two '56 2-door sedans (one 150 and one 210), a '57 210 2-door hardtop, and a '58 Del Ray 2-door sedan. I don't have a book in front of me, but I knows what I knows. Having said that, any cited documentation you or anyone else can provide would be a welcome addition to the article — real references trump the ramblings of a semi-anonymous chump from Minnesota any day.  :-) --BRossow 14:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually enjoying the exchange! As I read the above the chart there are three Series, "150", "210" and "Bel Air", which goes hand and hand with the badgeing that each received. As such, I would say that there are three articles, each of which would span the length that the model was on the market. In the 1980s, there was a shift from bestowing cars with different trim level names, to simply tacking on two or three letters off the back of the name - this is how one ends up with the Honda Accord DX, LX and EX. These varients wouldn't require different entries because there is a difference between a 1955 Buick Special and 1955 Buick Century, whereas with the Accord DX you got black door handles and stick, but with the EX you body colored handles and an automtatic. Hey, you've been really super just talking this through - like I said, I have enjoyed the exchange. Best wishes, Stude62 21:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

My signature

'''⇒ [[User:Brossow|BRossow]]''' ^{[[User_talk:Brossow|T]]}/_{[[Special:Contributions/Brossow|C]]} ~~~~~

American (US) English

While I'm fully aware that punctuation goes inside quotations (nearly all of the time), you are really going to have to show me a legitimate source which says that punctuation goes inside the parenthesis mark, in all but certain situations. While I realize that they should if there's a quote at the very end of your qualifying parentheses, I have always believed that "quotes are like this," and (parentheses are like this). Granted, I don't have a Chicago Manual of Style handy, nor have I even finished my first year of college yet, but I'm still incredibly skeptical- especially since this is how I've always seen it in American English texts ;P

I'm not reverting it because I suppose it would be fairly stupid to change based upon what I'm almost certain is correct, but even the places I've just checked seem to corroborate my belief..

Oh.. right.. and unless this is an exception, why didn't you correct any of the other ")." instances? :D Dan 04:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Just did a quick search and found it referenced both ways. I have a degree in English education and was taught consistently from high school through college that the period goes inside the parentheses, but I have seen a large number of references this morning saying just the opposite. FWIW, I did correct all of the other instances. If you want to change it back, that's fine with me, given that I've seen legit sites saying it is considered correct. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 13:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:UBX/pepsi

I've removed the image from this template, since it is fair use (contrary to what the copyright info said when you added it.) It's still covered by copyright. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Ral315 (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder/Anal retentive merger

Hi,

I noticed you disagreed with my proposal to merge the article Anal retentive into the article Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. While I certainly respect your opinion and your vote, I would like to call to your attention the fact that anal retentive is a psychoanalytical term that has evolved into the obsessive-compulsive personality disorder of contemporary psychiatry. OCPD is not at all the same thing as obsessive-compulsive (anxiety) disorder, although the names definitely lead to much confusion (this is probably why the ICD-10 calls OCPD anankastic personality disorder). Personality disorders can be thought to be dimensional such that obsessive-compulsive (i.e., anal-retentive) personality traits blend from the severely maladaptive (e.g., a person who spends hours a day correcting minor punctuation errors instead of improving the concepts expressed, lines everything up, must have control over evetything, etc.) to normality and then over to the antithesis of these traits.

--NeantHumain 00:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. Sorry. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 00:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I was just checking to make sure you were at least aware of the facts. It seems many people were making the vote under the confusion that obsessive-compulsive personality disorder is obsessive-compulsive disorder.--NeantHumain 02:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Automobile generation

I just had a user ask for some help due to problems he was having with Ford Mustang SSP. I thus altered the Template:Infobox Automobile generation first so the boxcolor could be altered to match the boxcolor of the Template:Infobox Automobile. This left the default font (darkgreen) hard to read so I altered that in a similar style. If this is not to your liking and you are going to change it back can you let User:Cantthinkofausername know and why. Will cross post this to the other two editors tha worked on the template. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem here, but thanks for the heads-up! ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 17:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

After looking at how this editor was [ab]using the template, I have reverted it and will explain it on his/her Talk page. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 18:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've given the user the link to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles, which is what I should have done in the first place and I should have also warned him that the template was likly to get changed back. I think part of the problem is also the Template:Infobox Automobile can be changed to give the box different colours, so I "guess" he assumed that the generation bax should work the same way. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've questioned on its Talk page why the Template:Infobox Automobile color can be changed. Makes no sense to me, so I'm hoping to get an answer. Thanks for the help! ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 20:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And my answer is that since the article is about a Police Package car, that the useage of black would be best represent the police roots of said car instead of green. I apologize if this was wrong, but I do believe that given the origins of this car, it would suit more better to use black with white text instead of green with a light green text. To illustrate my point and perhaps explain my reasons for the color change, please have a look at this page.] You will note that some of the more noteable examples of the Mustang SSP (The California Highway Patrol, the Florida Highway Patrol, and Texas Highway Patrol) have a black paint scheme and/or white accents/bodyparts as part of their colors. --Cantthinkofausername 08:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Lynn Shawcroft

Hi, Mitch Hedberg fan here. Thank you for your attention to his page.

Lynn Shawcroft is Mitch Hedberg's widow. Her blog, LynnShawcroft.com, is filled with personal stories about him unlikely to be found anywhere else, information on upcoming merchandise and other memorial-related projects, and chronicles the grief of the woman he loved and to whom he was married for six years. I am extremely curious as to how you find this irrelevant to his life.

Thank you. Layla12275 02:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Checked the site, didn't find anything immediately relevant to Hedberg aside from appearing, at a glance, like perhaps a fan's blog. I'll restore the link along with a note about what exactly the link is to. Sorry! ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 04:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that very much. Thank you again for your consideration regarding Mitch's page. Layla12275 00:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

Hello, Brossow! Would you mind taking a look at Talk:Apple_Macintosh#Grammar? I've left a comment explaining why I think that "run" should be "runs" in the Mac FA article. Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Comma

Hey, I saw that you rv the comma on the article on Rape. Do you mean that the word "propertionally more" is a phrase two words that belong together, and should therefore not have a comma after "propertionally"? This is for my personal knowledge. You can reply here. --Candide, or Optimism 23:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean. :-) ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 23:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I see. I didn't realized that, either. Thanks! --Candide, or Optimism 23:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

tHANKS

Mikereichold 15:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

tdrtis.jpg

Go ahead, delete it. I uploaded it by accident and never used it.--CyberGhostface 20:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: Image copyright problem with Image:TesIIIbox.jpg and

It can be deleted. It had a copyright tag on it but in the history I see an anon removed it. Oh well. Thunderbrand 15:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Brossow/Images I Uploaded

You placed User:Brossow/Images I Uploaded into the CSD category, but left it a redirect. Would you like it deleted? Chick Bowen 16:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please. I'm going to delete the redirect now. Thanks! ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 16:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Gone. Chick Bowen 16:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:MarisolGeneral.jpg

I'll look around for copyright info, but I'm not optimistic. Fair use rules are great for drawings and paintings, but 3D art is a different story.Bjones 17:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Marion wetlands.jpg

No copyright. Kill it. michael ^talk 23:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Template

No problem! It was actually Tawker's suggestion; I just carried it out. So I think he deserves some of the credit too ;)--Shanel 01:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

MastaKillaMastaKilla.ogg

Thanks for notifying me of this not having a copyright tag. I have added the fair use music sample tag accordingly. --Jamieli 16:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Urdu alphabets.png

Thanks for notifying me for my image not having a liscence tag. I have added the GFDL tag. --Girish 09:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

hey

You reverted my edit. Why? Tomer^talk 19:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said in my most recent comment, are you planning to change the numbers every time someone drops out, transfers in, graduates mid-year, etc.? These are the official numbers from UWEC as posted on their website. Decreasing the numbers by one due to a student death or disappearance seems tasteless, arbitrary, and pointless given the many other changes to student population for a variety of other factors. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 21:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Nah... I had just been editing for hours and needed to do something small and unexpected (of me) but harmless. That said, I object to your calling it tasteless. Memorializing Brian by decrementing (even briefly) the student count of UWEC's wikipedia article may be pointless and arbitrary, even frivolous, but tasteless is an entirely different critter; your assertion that what I did was tasteless is, frankly, mildly offensive. Tomer^talk 02:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

From my perspective, your edit reduced him to a number: "Whoops — Brian's gone. Gotta go change the stats on Wikipedia...." Sorry if I offended you. It seemed mildly offensive to me, given my interpretation of the edit, but no big deal. Just don't see the point in contradicting the "official" numbers over one student when others come and go without mention. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 02:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are a grammar Nazi

"About which I don't really care"? Sounds like my dad's (spoof) example, "This is the sort of nonsense, up with which I will not put!" (He probably got it from somewhere else.)

But seriously, here: Are there no exceptions to the rule? OneWeirdDude 01:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I made the "mistake" of "helping" by organizing, in my opinion, the TOC. Hope you don't mind. OneWeirdDude

I ain't got no problem with that! ;-) ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 01:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:DPL

About the progress tally at WP:DPL. The reason why I removed can be seen in a recent edit by Rocketgoat: diff. They have inserted a done entry above the tally. This makes the tally count innaccurate - and there is no way to tell. Having a tally always at the bottom of the list only works if every editor understands and chooses to update it. No one should feel obliged to keep it up-to-date. That's why I removed it.--Commander Keane 02:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I see the problem. I guess that we just re-total the last X number of entries until there are at least ten entries and someone adds the "partition" and a new entry? Seems workable. My hope was that people doing this work would be "with it" enough to handle it, but as you've pointed out this isn't necessarily the case. Sorry about the revert. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 03:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)