User talk:Karrmann/Archive3

Delete THIS toy picture

Karrmann, if you must persist in removing model car pictures, please remove the one on Dodge Charger (B-body). I would ask you as a courtesy, and in a spirit of positive feelings to cease and desist targeting MY edits for removal if you would like me to reserve the same courtesy for your edits. Thank you and have a really nice day. I'll pray for you too that you will someday edit for the forces of nice people. --matador300 21:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you love to show off all your little toys Wiarthurhu, but Wikipedia isn't the place. Karrmann 00:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be just what we need to get him blocked again.

Will you please knock it off with the blocking threats. The goal of WP is to build up a terrific encyclopedia, not get people kicked out. Does anyone else agree with me, or do you all condone the actions of this misguided youth? I'm sure I'm not the only victim of this behavior, please help me help Karrmann and set up on the straight path of justice and goodness. --matador300 16:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I am so evil and troublesome, then why is it YOU who got indef blocked? Karrmann 19:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiarthurhu

It's done. No need to post flashy signs on his talk page. Move on. --Mmx1 19:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, please stop editing pages related to the unfortunate case of Wiarthurhu. Your own behavior in this has not been exemplary and your continued editing of the RfC, Wiarthurhu's user page etc. is not helpful and could easily be construed as gloating and disruption. Please leave this alone and get on with building the encyclopedia. Thanks, Gwernol 22:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And so do I. Don't kick the man while he's down and indef blocked. BTW, that IP address resolves to Atlanta - unless he's on the lam, I highly doubt it's him. CQJ 16:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the IP is User:Turk71385, judging by his language style. --ApolloBoy 20:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Joey.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Joey.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ytny 08:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot

I noticed that your bot, OrphanBot, is removing GFDL images, and tagging them under no source. Just thought I'd let you know. Visit the history of the Ford Taurus page for an example. Karrmann 19:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot's right to do so. The GFDL requires that the author of the image be specified on the image description page; with no author, our use of the image constitutes a copyright violation. Further, since a source isn't specified, it's impossible to tell if the image is really licensed under the GFDL, or if someone put the wrong tag on the image. --Carnildo 19:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. I see. MK didn't specify the author, so thats why hes removing it. Karrmann 19:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why is it illegal for someone to donate an image to Wikipedia under GDFL but specify that this gift be anonymous? SteveBaker 00:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this guy's racked up quite a rap sheet. Filter1987 05:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SHOupeformance.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SHOupeformance.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crapavan.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Crapavan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 16:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Atlantic Records, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Yuckfoo 01:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Gdo01 01:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry about that telling you to to go to hell and accusing you of vandalism. Im just trying to help keep this site vandal-free. I mistook you edit as vandalism. Sorry. Tweaker4000 00:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I was saying, I am sorry about telling you to go to hell. I personally feel that a picture of a big fat geek much more accurately portrays a geek than one of Bill Gates. But if you would like to concider it vandalism, than I'll stop. Im not the first one to put that image on that page though. I've seen it there several other times LONG before I even added the picture. If it reappears, it's probably one of those annoying people who spam various pages with that image. Block them for vandalism not me. Thank you!

Your recent vandalism

Why have you committed vandalism, Karrmann? I thought you worked against vandalism. Did someone hack into your account maybe? --ApolloBoy 07:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Metro: reply

I've looked. The best I've found is a decent-shape 1st-gen Metro with no hubcaps (which is already on the Commons), but the only 2nd-gen I've ever seen around also has multiple-colored body panels. IFCAR 02:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dampervan.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dampervan.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dampervan2.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dampervan2.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use

Image:MitsubishiEclipse.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:MitsubishiEclipse.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also Image:FordAspire.jpg and Image:Jonlovitz.jpg

"Weird Al" Yankovic FA nomination

Thank you for your support!! Also, Knuckles beats the hell out of Tails. ~ Gromreaper 09:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Um logo 1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Um logo 1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 17:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tbsweetin.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tbsweetin.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Yamla 18:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there.

Never noticed you were a Wikipedian, Karrmann. You should remember me. --SonicChao 00:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Eminem.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Eminem.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 21:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Eminem.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Eminem.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 21:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Toneloc02.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Toneloc02.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 16:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Penguinizer2

Despite the provocation, please don't post threats to other users. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for continuing to violate Wikipedia's image copyright and fair-use policies. Specifically, in this edit, you added an album cover, in violation of WP:FUC, to an article which contained a specific request not to add album covers for this very reason. You are welcome to resume editing once the block expires, but please refrain from any further violations of this policy. --Yamla 21:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Emma Watson

With apologies, I've deleted portions of this edit per WP:BEANS. Please let me know if (and, if so, why) you think it should stand. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section, including your reply, has been removed; please understand, the purpose of an article's talk page is to discuss the article. The section's original poster also will get a similar notice. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial failures list

Hi, Karrmann. I'm sorry to inform you but I put your article about commcercial failures up for deletion (see the discussion on the Project talk page that lead up to my decision). I recently had the article Prestige vehicles which I wrote shortly after joining WP deleted-so I really don't like AfDs. Nonetheless what constitutes a failures is an undefiniable concept; thus any article concerning failures will always suffer from OR and speculation. A List of vehicles that were unprofitable would be acceptable as profit is something you can count and measure, but a list of something as vague as "failures" can't be properly referenced. I'm sorry, Signature ^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 05:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pink civic.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pink civic.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. - crz crztalk 23:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Automobiles Notification

Hi Karrmann, 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|Karrmann]] to your userpage.

If you no longer wish to be a member of the project, simply don't add the userbox or category, there's no pressure. Thanks for your time, James086^{Talk | Contribs} 04:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Phaedriel

I recognize why you removed the box in question, but it is her user page, and there is absolutely 0 confirmation that whoever made that post on the external site is the same person. I'd much prefer to let her have her privacy, as well as control of her own user page, and would greatly appreciate if you would self-revert. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? 22:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Holiday Greeting"

I monitor BD's "contributions page", so I had seen his comment even though he deleted it. Maybe it's his twisted idea of humor. IFCAR 00:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on his talk page, many of his recent pictures are of good quality. If the gallery function on the Commons worked, I'd refer you to it. He also gets many of the newest cars, because I rarely photograph at dealerships. (Salesmen tend to get suspicious if I have the camera out when I'm asking for a test drive.) IFCAR 00:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the AN page, then is then, now is now. And I'm sure they'd have no problem with me just going and taking pictures, but when I'm at a dealership I'm trying to get test-drives for car reviews, so I don't want to risk looking like a joyrider. IFCAR 01:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I've removed your posts from the adminstrator's noticeboard. Try talking a bit more first, there doesn't appear to be a problem here that requires immediate intervention. - brenneman 02:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Taurus FAC

Hi, Karrmann, I just wanted to remind you of the instructions at the top of WP:FAC, since the Taurus nom was overwritten twice now, and it's hard to fix after the fact:

If the article you are submitting has had a previous FAC nomination, use the Move button to archive the previous FAC discussion. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Television → Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Television/archive1. Remember to change the old {{facfailed}} template on the talk page to {{facfailed|Television/archive1}}.

I've fixed it now, but the way I have to fix it after the fact isn't optimal - hopefully you won't have to FAC it again, but if you do, please remember to move (now to archive3) rather than just deleting and writing over the old FAC. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Please use the proper template on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 January 7/Images - {{image-cv}} (I think) not {{copyvio}}. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the two images you've labelled are not present at Wikipedia. They're from Wikimedia Commons, commons:Image:Taupolice92.jpg and commons:Image:Taupolice91.jpg. Please go there and label them as copyvios. Conscious 11:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Talon picture

I'm pretty sure that doesn't fall under self-taken. The image was created by whoever animated that video game. IFCAR 03:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an animation. Did you create the animation, or use a program that positioned someone else's animation? Unless there's a specific Wikipedia policy to the contrary, this does not seem to be a free image. IFCAR 03:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that, if I'm understanding it right, you didn't draw the picture. The animators for the program that you used drew the car at every angle and drew every background, and you're just combining aspects of their work to make an image. If that doesn't make sense or isn't accurate, I'd ask for clarification at the Project talk page. IFCAR 03:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going To The Detroit Auto Show

Hi, it's Bull-Doser here. I was wondering if you could go to the NAIAS this weekend? You should go and take neat pictures of cars. You should take your first '07 pictures of cars, however. By this weekend, I will be going to the Montreal auto show. -- Bull-Doser 19:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you go to the Detroit Auto Show, I wouldn't hafta post fair images from Car & Driver, Autoweek or Insideline.com.

PS: Please take all car pictures (especially debuts and concepts), except for the car pictures I will take in the Montreal Auto Show. While in Montreal, I will take the following vehicles listed on http://www.salonautomontreal.com/Main.asp?s=0&p=3 . -- Bull-Doser 01:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

No photo taken inside under multi-sourced light in a crowd of people will match a good photo taken outside. In every circumstance, they are place-holders until something better comes along, just as a car with brake dust is. With few exceptions, the existing images of current cars in the articles will be better than any auto show image, so again, don't go through and replace. IFCAR 01:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

As I said to him, I can't control what I see. There's no additional effort needed in taking a picture of a car for which there is an existing image, and if I think it's better, in it goes. Kind of like what you did with the Sable twice, not me, only there was a discussion about it and the existing image was kept. If you want to press the Zephyr, bring it up on its talk page. IFCAR 21:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where Did You Get Your Name

Karrmann equals "Car Man," right? -- Bull-Doser 04:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of a German coachbuilder? (with an extra R) --Sable232 05:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sable232 got it. Karrmann 11:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rear end shots

There is no policy in Wikipedia that bans rear-end shots. There is only a convention that front-end infobox images are preferred when available. IFCAR 17:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I thought that most of the ones you uploaded came out very well for inside shots, particularly the Ford Fusion. Remember next time to give the images descriptive names, based on the subject. IFCAR 02:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Stilesyugoad.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Stilesyugoad.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Robth^Talk 02:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have readded this image to both articles it was in. In what way do you assert it contributes necessary encyclopedic content to these articles? --Robth^Talk 04:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Machinead.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Machinead.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mitmlois.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mitmlois.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 17:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Waroftheworldsvan.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Waroftheworldsvan.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 03:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Festiva.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Festiva.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hi, Karrmann Thank you very much for the barnstary, how every kind of you! I really appreciate it! Happy editing, Signature ^brendel 07:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snow

Were you talking to me on BD's talk page? I didn't upload pictures of cars with snow on them, cars were only parked near snow. IFCAR 02:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honda Civic overhaul

Hi, Karmann! I've read that you are working on the Honda Civic article. I want to know if and how you are going to split it, by region or generation. I suggest that, since many generations have been nearly identical everywhere, you could split it by generation, like the Volkswagen Polo article was (with Mk I, Mk II etc after the car name). Please answer in the Civic talk page. Bye! -- NaBUru38 03:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latest photos

I'd like to start out by saying that I hope this doesn't sound harsh. It's good to have lots of users contributing photos to Wikipedia. But you MUST recognize when a previous image is superior to one that you have taken. You have replaced high-quality (or higher quality images) with fuzzier ones, ones with glare, ones with poorer angles, and ones with dirty, damaged, or non-stock cars. I'll revert the ones I think need to be reverted. There are enough that I'd recommend bringing up concerns on the project talk page rather than in each article. Keep taking pictures, but stop going through and putting in every one that you take. IFCAR 21:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daytona, the picture was a bit fuzzy and the car was a bit dirty. Civic, the 6th-gen had aftermarket wheels and the 7th-gen had poor lighting with giant sunblots, previous Navigator wasn't criss-crossed by shadows, Impala angle wasn't as good as the previous, and the Gremlin was rusted out. Whenever you make any change to Wikipedia, you just need to consider why it is better in your version, not why it isn't worse.

I avoid BD's user page. I already know enough about him without reading what car he likes today or what browser he uses. IFCAR 23:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't put on by the manufacturer, it's aftermarket. Don't bother with Photoshop, see if there's something else in the Commons (I'm sure there is) and/or I'll try to beat the current photo. With the Impala, the angle doesn't show the car as well, and neither has distracting shadows. With the Gremlin, I think the advantage yours has is the 3/4 front angle, but the condition of the other car makes it a better article illustration. For the Daytona, the blue image is fuzzier and the car is scuffed up. On the silver car, I don't see headlights being up as a downside, and the washed-out section doesn't actually have any detail that is obscured except for the hood's cut-line.

BD is one to be ignored when he isn't modifying the encyclopedia. IFCAR 23:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Alero was filthy, and the 300 had harsh glare. Corsicas with their wheelcovers are hard to come by where I am. IFCAR 02:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MidCity25Jan06HeartNOLAcar2.jpg

Your description of Image:MidCity25Jan06HeartNOLAcar2.jpg which you added to Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans was wildly inaccurate. It was disabled by being under flood waters, not by vandalism. It was spray painted with graffiti after the city was reopened, as one of thousands of flood trashed cars which took months to haul away from streets and neutral grounds. -- Infrogmation 23:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cleanomni.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cleanomni.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Khatru2 23:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury Sable

User:Heavy1974 recently took all the year-by-year changes and removed all the prose, so they read like lists and look like hell. What do you think? --Sable232 20:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Gran Turismo 4 020.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Gran Turismo 4 020.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Yamla 22:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Because the truck is filthy, and there is already an image of the two-door version. Why do you think that one is better? IFCAR 22:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sable

I think those pictures are far better. They should not violate fair use....Pautlorius 01:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sable 2

Thanks. But I can update these image files under new copyrights. What type of copyright would i put for those specific images? :) Pautlorius 01:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Pautlorius

I really want to contibute n' stuff and im kind of new to wiki editing. I would appreciate your help. ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pautlorius (talk • contribs) 01:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

its not a big deal. im leavin it as is, but sable 232 said he will get pictures when he test drives it. Pautlorius 02:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images again

I hate to use this wording, but you seem to be showing no discretion when inserting your images into articles. Replacing inferior images is all well and good (and strongly encouraged) but I'm not seeing any indication that you could justify the image switches. As last time, I'm reverting where I see fit. If you continue your current course of replacement, I will bring it up on WikiProject Autos for other users to intercede. As it is, I'd like to ask that you leave a note on my (or any other Autos regular) Talk page when you have a new batch of photos on the Commons and let the impartial party insert them where they need to be. I think that's for the best, as it would save both of us a great deal of time. As always, don't stop taking pictures. But please stop replacing better images with them. IFCAR 02:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And I apologize for putting it in the wrong place first. It's nice to know that you read my talk page, though. IFCAR 03:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the image insertion/placement was done by you, and what wasn't you could have reverted as easily as I could have. (And more quickly.) IFCAR 03:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bull-Doser made poor image choices, and so did you. As the photographer (and as someone who responds to suggestions) you have some responsibility for all the edits, and many of them were poor. And most of the "contradictions" between us seem to be your ignoring of the Wikiproject standards for pictures of clean cars. IFCAR 04:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a serious problem with the picture of the clean car, there is absolutely no reason to replace it with a picture of a dirty car. As I've said before, when you replace an image you must have a convincing argument prepared for why it is better than the image that was already there. And if the new image is of a dirty car and the old image is of a clean car, that's a big hole in such an argument. IFCAR 04:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karrmann, I bet you should use some photo-editing software to crop images, just like me & IFCAR. -- Bull-Doser 06:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do crop my images if they need, but what does this have to do with the price of images. I don't think the cropping is what makes IFCAR think they are inferior to the previous image. Karrmann 13:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to take pictures of only clean cars. If there is no better image, a dirty car is fine. If there is already an image of a clean car, why put in a dirty one? But looking back, I can't tell whether the cars are covered in salt or just overexposed. But the Grand Am is definitely salt-coated, and the Charger and Lucerne may be. But being overexposed is just as bad when an image exists without the problem. Again, prepare a justification for each replacement. If you continue to be blind to flaws with the images, I will request intervention as I outlined above. IFCAR 14:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to replace a properly exposed picture of a clean car with any overexposed one either. Dirty or overexposed pictures can be used, but only when there is no better alternative. IFCAR 17:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charger and Lucerne are the worst, and the 300M, Edge, Tempo, Explorer and last-gen Grand Am are up there if that isn't just salt. Also Torrent, TrailBlazer, Lumina, and last-gen Taurus seem overexposed as well. I also get the impression that the Lumina wasn't taken at eye level, as the WikiProject standards recommend. Also, you need to give the pictures descriptive names rather than "wikicars 93" or "pushthetempo". IFCAR 18:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metro and Caprice

Both seem a rather rather brightened and fuzzy (using that description because I'm no longer sure enough in my photography lingo to call that "overexposed") but I left the Caprice because the existing image had a broken hubcap. Just remember to have an explanation for whenever you make a change (of any kind) to Wikipedia. I've said this a lot of times, but that's just because it's a key tenet, and one that should reduce reverts to near zero. There have been a number of times when I've been asked about why I was photographing cars, and there have been a number of times when I didn't photograph certain cars because there were people in or near them. Three incidents of taking photos of cars with people in them come immediately to mind (I'm sure there are more that I do and don't know about). I had one F-150 image in which there was a hand blocking a face in the passenger's seat that I saw only when I was processing the photo on the computer (when I was there in person, I never noticed an occupant). I didn't use that picture. Then there were two images where I got an angle to avoid showing the occupant who (as far as I know) had no idea their car was being photographed.

Woman was sleeping in the front passenger's seat
Workman was going in and out of the cargo area, and one of the dutch doors was opened.

Don't let the people scare you off, and don't be afraid to explain what you're doing. IFCAR 02:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Tlg3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tlg3.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I had already switched back some (Impala and Camry come immediately to mind, there might have been another). Could you explain why you thought your edits improved the article? (I've said this countless times, but it seems to be falling on deaf ears.) IFCAR 00:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Camry and the Impala are covered with distracting reflections, the Camry image redundantly replaces the only pre-facelift image (which has no reflections and an uncluttered background), and the SC is fuzzier and has shadows running across it. IFCAR 00:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call any of it "small stuff." IFCAR 00:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Bull-Doser

I can only guess what was going through your head when you wrote this tirade of profane abuse. And I sincerely hope you've calmed down. Because unless I see an apology/retraction on BD's talk page fairly shortly (and I'm not talking about merely deleting or striking out your comments), I'm taking this further. In the meantime, I'm going to start compiling a list of your most offensive diffs in case it's required. --DeLarge 17:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

honda civic

You seem a little miffed with the civic article. Might I suggest this magic voodoo link where your work will be appreciated and you can make money for your efforts. I tried a month or so ago to actually site sources and clean up non fair use images on the page but to no avail. At least my first gen section isn't too chewed up by idiot IPs. I started feeling wikipedia was a sinking ship a while back and now I'm certain. Andman8 19:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the civic si listing I created complete with embedded video and my own google ads.civic si I'm the only person that can edit the page and can put in whatever I want. Individualism always beats out collectivism. Andman8 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dodge Magnum

You write the current European Chrysler 300C Touring will become a Dodge Magnum (like in the North American market). Where did you get that info? True, DaimlerChrysler is trying to introduce the Dodge brand in Europe (as can be seen easily on the Geneva motor show which is currently on). But this rebranding would surprise me endlessly because the European Chrysler 300C Touring has been successfully positioned ex aequo or even above the 300C Sedan. "Downgrading" it to a Dodge makes little sense. Berndf 12:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Karmann, thx for the GA nomination on the Lexus article! Enigma3542002 07:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pacifica image

What do you feel is better about yours? IFCAR 21:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The angle is nearly identical. There is no "palm tree shadow", there is the reflection of a tree on part of the hood. If you think that reflections are so distracting, look at the cars all over the side of the Pacifica you photographed. And there is no brake dust at all. I'm reverting. IFCAR 01:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there were brake dust, the front wheels would be much darker than the rear wheels. There isn't. Yours has reflections all over the side, and isn't as sharp. IFCAR 11:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha

This made me laugh, as I have often done similar things. - Bagel7 07:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did here: User talk:64.88.7.112. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 11:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, that IP is now blocked for six months. I notice you put up an RfP because of this that was declined. Not a problem now, the dork won't be coming back. --Sable232 03:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review

I saw the note at the top of your userpage requesting an editor review. I am sorry that it has taken so long for anyone to respond there; that part of the project must be more backlogged than I thought. It may be a couple of days, but I will take a look at your contributions and post some comments. Feel free to let me know if there is anything in particular you are seeking feedback on. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoaxer

He's back... and he's created a hoax Saturn vehicle article. --sunstar net^talk 17:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Saturn Avaze. --sunstar net^talk 17:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone remember what the hoaxer's previous username was? The one who created this (User:Dathe remoncado) seems like a new one. If there was a previous name, we'll get this one indef blocked as a sockpuppet. --Sable232 19:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, you DID mention something about the Saturn articles when this was discussed the last time. The article seems to be written in the same style as the other hoaxes. Either way, any way to take care of this fool would be nice. I think I'll go ahead and take action on this, unless there's a reason for us to wait. --Sable232 20:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take it to ANI. I'll refrain from giving any sockpuppet notices since I'm unfamiliar with the procedure. --Sable232 20:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on. We've got User:Teddy.Coughlin, who was adding misinformation to articles. We've got User:Hardlinger, who was creating hoax articles. Was Teddy Coughlin creating hoax articles too? If that's the case, I'd be willing to guess that all three are the same person. --Sable232 20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Hi there, I'm not a sysop but I have removed your report of Teddy.Coughlin (talk · contribs) as you did not use {{Vandal|insert username here}}, you left no explanation as to why and administrators can only block users if they vandalise after the fourth and final warning, this user only had one warning, please be more careful in the future and happy editing! Telly addict 20:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think their is enough evidence, file a Wikipedia:Request for checkuser. Thanks - Telly addict 20:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user you informed me about has been indefinitely blocked, when blocked it should prevent accoutn creation from that IP, if you want then you can give me a list of the users in which you suspect are socks and evidence to support this and I'll see if they are/were blocked. Thanks - Telly addict 19:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoaxer returns

The hoaxer's returned, and now has created Fiat Maritza and Holden Camira (2008). It really is annoying, he's distracting us from the project.

This seems to be the automotive version of MascotGuy - and he needs to be blocked! --SunStar Net ^talk 18:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Gran Turismo 4 020.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gran Turismo 4 020.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

That edit was mage by User:24.211.252.124, who has been known to vandalize userpages in the past. I've found this user replacing almost every instance he finds of Toyota Camry with Mercury Milan, and I assume that was what he did to BD's userpage. See this diff. --Sable232 21:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary deletion of information

So I'm assuming that you align yourself with the 'deletionist' line of thiking. How grand. I'm pleased that you've chosen this particular article for your latest profound deletions, but I'm afraid you're way off base. I think it's terribly ironic that some folks think they can determine what information is 'unencyclopedic' in nature - and then delete it at their whim, because they think they're an up-and-coming wiki editor. Car articles are, by and large, unencyclopedic themselves - so why don't we just go delete all of them? Wouldn't that be nice? Oh, and "prose" means "any writing which is not in verse". Don't let your editorial "powers" go to your head - just let this one go...the article is concise and useful as it is, thank you.--MackOSU 20:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't an attack - but merely a suggestion that things were fine as they were. You said "I personally am going to see if the page can get protected. That is the only way that we can seem to iron this out." - Iron what out? The fact that the article is factual and useful, but multiple folks seem to feel the need to apply "standards" to some articles, whilst others remain terribly un-standardized in content? And you said "You are the only one who seems to think that those belong in the article." - which is entirely false. Multiple users have expressed their support for that information's inclusion in the article, but most others have given up on trying to maintain the article against such resistence. "Plus, please try to work with us, not against us." - who's us? (And don't you have several requests to cease "editing" many articles on this very talk page? Talk about irony!) Supposedly, we're all editing these articles until the "truth" is revealed, but what it boils down to is that some folks are obviously on a bit of a power trip when it comes to "fixing" articles that don't meet the oft-spoke of, but ill-defined, "standards". People keep posting wonderful "model" articles - but they fail to post countless others that don't fit said "standards". No one has tried to answer my question that I bolded in the original comment above...because no one has an answer, I suppose. But you know what? I've given up - I'm not going to try anymore, you can rest easy - consider the paint codes gone, I'm not putting them up again.--MackOSU 00:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where should I begin?

1) I never said that you're inferior to me. You've read such meaning into my words, but had you heard me speak those comments, you'd know this has nothing to do with the belief that I'm superior. I'm not. I never said that I knew policies better than you, either, but thanks for putting those words in my mouth.

2) 2.5 years or 2.5 weeks - it shouldn't matter! That's one of the greatest flaws of Wikipedia today - that users, such as yourself, consider your edits to carry more weight because of the length of time you've been involved. That's a fallacy. Plus, this "Wikipedia policy" that you keep throwing around has many gray areas, in that there's much personal interpretation into what falls under "unencyclopedic" material and so on. It's like interpreting the Bible - who's to say who is correct?

3) Your latest edits to the "reliability issues" section of the G20 article were reckless, and you were obviously working so quickly that you used words that don't even exist, like "intermitt" (?). Plus, you left out crucial information. For instance, you stated that "the transmission can pop out of gear under a heavy load" (?). Huh? Please explain how a transmission "pops out". This is reckless deletion of important details. The truth in this case is that G20 manual transmissions prior to 1994 encounter 5th gear pop-out due to a faulty gear synchro. For an experienced editor of 2.5 years, you should know not to remove the important details of a sentence such as that.

4) Anther edit you made was to say "...or the power steering can leak due to faulty seals..." (?). The original document (the truth) said that the power steering can leak due to faulty clamps. Your heedless editing has again placed a fallacy in this article...you do realize that you are putting blatant errors into this article, right?

5) "Intermitt" is not a word, but "intermittent" is. And no, not "all of these problems are intermitt(ent)". Once your power steering springs a leak, I wouldn't call that problem intermittent, it is leaking and probably will continue to deteriorate. The correct word choice here would have been, "the occurrence of these problems is variable from vehicle to vehicle".

6) In your haste, you typed "occured" (occurred) and "highet" (highest) as well. I'd suggest combing through your edits a little bit more to check for spelling errors. I type so fast sometimes that typos are extremely easy to make...but in the interest of putting together the best article possible, you'll want to watch that. The newest version of Firefox will check spelling for you, which has helped me out - you might check it out.

So I'd say that you have a ways to go in honing your editorial skills. I would suggest that such wanton deletion of important information should be ceased - you've been asked to do so with other articles in the past. You "win" with the paint codes, I'll never place them in that article again (you have my word).--MackOSU 04:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you need to read what I've said before you go on a worthless rant about 'ideal' articles and 'avenues' for my personal interests.

1 - I'm done with the paint codes. They're gone, and if they come back, it won't be because of me.

2 - Why won't you address the fact that your last edits to the "reliability issues" section were reckless? I'm not being mean. You're the one proclaiming your astute editing skills - yet you removed important facts (5th gear pop-out) and re-wrote history (replacing the word "clamp" with "seal"). Who is in the wrong here? I left that section in paragraph form (which you've mistakenly called "prose" - you might want to look that word up) as you wanted, but I re-inserted the facts that you removed, and the misinformation that you put in there, too.

3 - You also put multiple spelling errors in the section that you "edited". Please note, I'm not saying that I don't make spelling errors (because I do!) but for someone with such a chip on their shoulder about being an experienced editor, you recklessly made that article worse with your useless revisions.

4 - Wow, the Tagora is an ideal article? How cool! For every "wonderful" article you post, there's 10 more that don't conveniently fit your interpretations of the "standards". Again, your edits carry no more weight than anyone else's. Don't fall into the line of thinking that somehow your astounding editorial skills have made you an authority. You don't own this place, and nor do I.

5 - I'm not being difficult - I've stopped with the paint codes. What else am I being "difficult" about? Um, perhaps your hack-job edits on the aforementioned 'reliability' section - but why shouldn't I be? You filled that section with spelling errors, lies, and general misinformation. Does that fall under "policy"?

6 - You keep bringing up things that aren't even relevant. Who brought up putting "how to's" in the article? All I asked was that next time you decide to share your experienced editorial skills, try and make sure that you don't insert misinformation and non-words. I didn't put any "how to's" in that article, I only fixed the errors that you introduced. Can you not see that?

7 - And as far as being difficult, I see it that you are guilty of that. Perhaps you're not 100% sure about policy yet.

8 - You have yet to answer my question - if everyone is so consumed with removing 'unencyclopedic' info from car articles, how do you explain that car articles are 'unencyclopedic' in and of themselves?

9 - And, no, by reading your above comments section, I see that you've been asked to not edit several articles, not just your personal grudge with the guy you mentioned. It seems as if you want to be a serious editor 75% of the time, and then the other 25% you put misinformation in articles and make unnecessary edits.

In summation, I've agreed to stop placing the paint codes in the article as requested. I understand, the Internet is running out of space. Plus, I left the "reliability" section in paragraph form (aka "prose") per your liking. My latest edits have been to remove the errors you introduced. Please tell me who is being difficult here? Please cease causing problems - you need to just let this go.--MackOSU 13:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I have been talking to one of the editors, MackOSU, and it seems that all he is worried about is being difficult, more than improving the article."

You're treading a fine line here (lying), since my latest edits were done in order to remove the false information and typos you inserted into the article. Call it an "attack", but I'm just telling the truth. You made an edit, it was erroneous and contained false information, and so I edited it to maintain the accuracy of the article.

You act as if I've called you names or done awful things to the article, but that's just not true. It's unfortunate that you'd feel the need to do that.--MackOSU 18:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the lies, please

You might want to avoid making blatant lies. I never called IFCAR any names at all - that was another user on that message board. You might want to go back to make sure you got the "facts" straight. I've also never called you any names, or made any comment about your age playing a part in this. I think it's great that you're so enthusiastic about cars and that you desire to improve articles on this site. I do think you could learn that just because you are able to make edits, there's a difference between editing to improve an article, and just editing because you can. Again, not personal "attack", just my $0.02.

Nor have I ever used any harsh language toward you, or "attacked" you, as you've claimed. The truth of the matter is that your last edit to that oft-spoke of section was chock full of errors, but then you tell me that you've been editing for 2.5 years - I was merely trying to get you to at least admit that was not a constructive edit...but I guess that point was lost.

It's one thing to have a civil debate, and it's another entirely to spread lies and go off the deep end with foul language. As you can see, I'm not trying to make the G20 article my personal page, and nor am I filling it up with 'unencyclopedic' info...I haven't touched 90% of the text that was already in that article long ago. You keep comparing me with some user that you had issues with not too long ago...apparently he was putting his "POV" in the articles in question. Have I done that? Have I made edits with false information and typos? Nope, I sure haven't.

Instead of blowing up over the issue, you could have just answered my questions - but you never addressed any of them. I'm sorry this has upset you so, but please know that you are a) not my enemy, and b) I don't "hate" you or desire to "attack" you, I just wanted honest answers. You think you could at least admit that your comments about me have been false? That would be the nice, civil thing to do according to Wikipedia policy.--MackOSU 18:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]