Hello Dahlis, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
Tobycat(talk)21:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to start corresponding to you directly on this subject as this might be a major issue. Someone mentioned on the Andrea Doria talk page about SS being the common American usage when it comes to ship prefixes. Most of the ship articles use the SS prefix rather than MS or MV. Since there are a lot of contributors who are American (especially on the English Wikipedia), I doubt they would be familiar with the MS or MV prefix unless they are working for or take an interest in the merchant marine (I certainly wasn't fully aware of it until now).
Since that is the case, I don't know exactly how to bring up this issue. If you could think of some way of doing so (though you mention that you are relatively new here), I would appreciate it. Pentawing 22:47, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, this could be a source of confusion some ships on here are listed as SS some as MS or even M/S. Refering to the ship prefix page that lists all types of prefixes, should articles be made using this list as a guideline? --Dahlis 16:49, 2005 August 30 (UTC)
A possibility, though for now it could be applied for new articles rather than existing articles as a start. My concern with the existing articles is that other articles are linked to them, which would require a lot of link repairs. A possibility that I am thinking about is starting a Wikiproject that might address this issue. Another thing that could be done, in the meantime, is to find sources noting official prefix designations for various ships if possible. Pentawing 21:54, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I guess you dont speak swedish but maybe this link could be interesting to you anyway its not an official page but it contains info about a lot of ships. http://www.faktaomfartyg.com/register.htm --Dahlis 13:13, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
I was looking through your edits and noticed on Category talk:Military ranks that you had problems with adding articles to categories. You should check out Wikipedia:Categorization. I see you made it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships. They have the guidelines on categoring ships there. I've been meaning to work on the Swedish Navy myself, but just haven't found the time for it. Good to see you have taken on the challenge since they have some nice ships that are certainly worth a Wikipedia article. Good luck to you! --Laisak23:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo22:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found a website a while back that had some useful information, however it has since been taken down. There are a few books written on the subject that I have come across, but have never used. I hope this has helped. Johann Wolfgang04:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If I come across any amount of related information I'll be sure to tell you.
No, Volvo is part of Ford Motor as is Jaguar, Land Rover, Lincoln, Mercury, and Aston Matrin. Yes, obviously Volvos are Volvos, we don't need to say that twice. The readers gets that the article is about a Volvo from the title. In the infobox we mention the company which owns the brand under which the vehicle is sold. For example, for Pontiac we don't say Pontiac is the manufacturer, instead we say GM. For Rolls Royce, we don't say Rolls Royce, we say BMW as that is the company under which Rolls Royce is operated. This has nothing to do with the car or the technology used. This has only to do with who owns what. Volvo belongs to Ford, and thus makes Ford the official manufacturer. Please understand that this is policy is widely agreed upon and you're in violation of common accord. I will put Ford back in. If you wish we can consult other editors on the issue, but please leave Ford in for the time being. Thank you. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel05:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The question is about ownership structures, Ford Motor Company ownes Volvo Cars as a separate company it is not incorporated in to FoMoCo as a division. See Subsidiary. --Dahlis12:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the recent Ford Commercial. Here Bill Ford, talks about how Volvo technology is used throughout the Ford line-up. If you haven't notice Fords and Volvos share parts. Besides Volvo belongs to Ford. All Ford marques have their own design teams and workers and dealers. But they all belong to Ford. Ford in detroit can easly tell Volvo to shut down a factory or make use of a different technology. The bottom line is that Volvo is owned by Ford Motor. How much Ford decides to get involved in the making of Volvos is irrelevant (until now they have put Volvo technology in many of the other marques). Volvo was bought by Ford and is now a Ford subsidary. That's a plain old, indisputable fact. And here we don't mention the subsudary as "manufacturer, but only the parent company. Thank you. Regards, Signaturebrendel18:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinions does not change the fact that there is a juridical company called Volvo Cars that owns and runs the factories manufactoring Volvos. If the Volvo Car company was owned by a guy named Carl would you suggest that we list him as the manufactorer? I am not trying to hide the fact that Ford owns Volvo that is very obvious if you look at the main page Volvo Cars. My point is that no Volvos are built in Ford plants in Detroit or anywhere else. --Dahlis18:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, then we would list Cral as the manufacturer. (though he would have probably gone coperate and it would be Carl INC) If Donald Trump was to buy Ford, we would list Trump as the manufacturer, though again it would be owned by one of Trump's companies. YOU CANNOT BE OWNED BY A COMPANY AND STILL BE SEPERATE. Ford owns those factories, and employs those workers. The exectuives in Detrioit could shut down Volvo altogether if they wanted. Let me make this clear. Volvo cars is a subsidary of Ford, a division. yes, its a company buut a company owned by another company. Okay, just like Ford own Land Rover, VW owns Bentley and BMW owns Rolls Royce. It doesn't matter if Volvos are made in Detroit. Ford has complete control over the factories in Sweden. The exectuives in Detroit could order all Volvo production moved to Africa, if they wanted. Besides when you're bought by another company, you become a division. Get it? Besdies, Volvo shares technology and components with many Ford cars and Volvo engineers have been and are working of Fords! Signaturebrendel20:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You do not "become a division" when you are bought by another company, divisions and subsidiaries are two different things stop messing around and admit that you were wrong. Sure Ford could do whatever they want with Volvo but they dont since Volvo is one of the few Ford owned companies that are actually making a good profit. But thats beside the point. Let me give you some examples that proves my point: Lamborghini (Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A.) is owned by AG Audi who in turn is owned by Volkswagen AG still the Lamborghini Gallardo is listed as a car manufactored by lamborghini. Bugatti is also owned by Volkswagen but the Bugatti Veyron is still (as it should) listed as a car manufactored by Bugatti. Another interesting example is Ferrari who is owned by a lot of different companies should all of them be listed as manufactorers? Renault was owned by the French state until 1996 so all pre 1996 Renaults should be listed as manufactored by the Republic of France? Back to Volvo again, older Volvos are listed as cars manufactored by Volvo Personvagnar or Volvo Cars even though back then Volvo Personvagnar AB was owned by AB Volvo. If you want to know who ownes the companies you go to the company article not the article of the products. --Dahlis13:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Volvo belongs to Ford. Ford owns the facotires and employes the workers bu doing so they manfacture the cars. Look at the New Mini article, you will see BMW listed as the manufacturer. For Rolls its also BMW, for Aston martin, Land Rover, and Jaguar we have listed Ford as the manufacturer. For Lexus we have listed Toyota, for Infiniti, Nissan, for Audi, Volkswagen, for Bentley, Volkswagen again, for Dodge, Daimler-Chrysler, and so on. However didn't list VAG as the manufacturer of Lamborghini was wrong and I'll correct those pages ASAP. That's how we do it here. The parent company that is in control is the manufacrer. The user already gets from the title of the article that we are talking about a Volvo, so we mention the company who is in control of Volvo and its manufacturing sites and process as te manufacturer, in this case, that's Ford. Ford is running the show, they are the manufacturer. Ford owns Volvo, they run the show, they are the manufacturer. AND YES YOU SHOULD FIND OUT WHO OWNS VOLVO FROM LOOKING AT THE S80 ARTICLE, you should find out who is behind the manufacture. Signaturebrendel22:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We? Are you schizo? Answer my questions about Renault and Ferrari please! Ford ownes Volvo yes, but they have realised that Volvo runs the show better than they do themselves and they use that. --Dahlis00:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, please refrain from personal attacks (We=the vast, vast majority of car editors here- you're going against common accord, remember). Yes, technically we should mention the republic of France as the manufacturer, but that would confuse our readers, so we don't. Bottom line: There are four factors of production: Land, Labor, Capital, and Entrepreneuralism. Ford controls all factors of production, thus they are the manufacturer. They aquired Volvo's factories, buildings, labor contracts, everything. They don't just run the show, they own it, that's why they're the manufacturer. Also: "ownes Volvo yes, but they have realised that Volvo runs the show better than they do themselves," Wrong. Ford runs the show. Proof? Volvos using Ford platforms, Volvo engineers and desginers working on Fords (Ford 500), Volvo tehcnology used in Ford. Ford has taken over Volvo and cotrols the company. If you control the company, you obviously control the product and the manufacturing process, making you the manufacturer. FYI: Schizophrenia is not the same as Multiple Personalities Disorder. Signaturebrendel02:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry about the personal attacks but the only one that im debating with is you. I am not disputing the fact that Ford Motor Company ownes the car manufactoring company Volvo Personvagnar AB. Its also a fact that the cars manufactored by this company are almost all of them built in factories that they own themselves. One exsption is the new Volvo C70 wich is built in Uddevalla as a joint venture with pininfarina. As with all share companies (Aktiebolag) in Volvos case it does not matter who ownes it, one of the points with share companies the owners dont have to take personal responsibility if the company goes bancrupt. Ford has now taken over the company but it has not removed Volvos status as a aktiebolag. There must be another way to solve all this. --Dahlis15:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was previously discussed at the Wikiproject Automobiles discussion page, and the consensus was to include the parent company as the manufacturer (i.e. Ford in the case of Volvo). Note that I played no part in that discussion, and offer no indication of my personal opinion in this matter. I'd recommend you renew the debate please do so there before reverting others' work.
Well, are all Volvos made as independently from Ford as the C70? I mean, look at the S40, here it absolutely makes sense to say Ford is the manufacturer. Here's what I think => Ford controls the factors of production, thus making them the manufacurer. We can argue that this isn't ture for every Volvo model. Maybe that compromise will work. Regards, Signaturebrendel16:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FoMoCo ownes the factories through Volvo Cars. Just like any shareholder indirectly ownes the factories of the company he ownes shares in. But listing every sharehoder as a manufactorer would just be wrong. Do you see my point? Best Regards --Dahlis16:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do see your point. But do you see mine => Ford and Volvo have swaped technology and workers, Ford does own Volvo (more of it than any shareholder), and it has control over the manufacturing process, a control it which FoMoCo has excerised. You see, my point is that if you own the manufacturing process you are the manufacturer. Anyways, we could on about this issue for a long time, so how about we just mention both in the infobox. Regards, Signaturebrendel20:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do see your point but you try to make things simpler than they really are. Since we probably arent going to agree mentioning both would be an acceptable compromise for now. Cheers! --Dahlis20:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to build a consensus for a Wikiproject Peer review process. I've opened a discussion page here. Would you like to comment? Would you be prepared to take part in the peer review process? Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Chinwag12:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I posted the IG Farben Building on the FAC on the 17th July. It currently has a support consensus, but only from 4 people. I'd be more comfortable with a stronger consensus and was wondering if you might be prepared to comment on the article? Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Chinwag12:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articles related to architecture over the past two weeks are listed automatically by AlexNewArtBot.
This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.
Hi Dahlis, you were on the list of members at WikiProject Automobiles and we are introducing a new way of listing members, as the old list was becoming too long. Our new method involves having all of our members in a category.
To add yourself to the category just add the userbox to your user page by putting {{Wiki Auto Project}} where you want the userbox. Alternatively if you don't like the userbox you can add [[Category:WikiProject Automobiles members|Dahlis]] to your userpage.
A tag has been placed on Bonniers konsthall requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, 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 article's 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
Thanks for uploading File:HMS Drottning victoria.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
Hello Dahlis! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 5 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 35 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
Please add a source for that file. You uploaded it originally. Obviously if you copy&paste 19 KB of content to wikipedia you will have to provide a source - at least the smallest information about where you got it from, right? --Martin H. (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dahlis! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 5 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 35 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}