User talk:Vauxford

Archives

BMW 5 Series (E60)

I changed the image because the previous one is low quality and involves a dirty car. About the cars surrounding the main car, I could say the same about your Blue R8 V10 Plus image which is surrounded by cars. If you want to start warring again, be my guest. U¹ _quattro TALK 03:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxford there was no discussion about the photo on the BMW 5 Series (E60) page. Stop lying. U¹ _quattro TALK 16:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U1Quattro Please read the talkpage discussion again, clearly 4 users including me prefer the previous image over the one you replaced. As usual, you want to be disrupt things and inserting images that were never discussed and make things far more difficult. --Vauxford (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't need to go to a concensous for something as simple as an image. If I find a better one, I change the image.U¹ _quattro TALK 16:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Please can you explain how I have been disruptive? Thanks! :) Joel37 (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures didn't need replacing, most of them are already been used in the articles. I told you stop many times but you wouldn't listen. --Vauxford (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I didn't see your messages....I was replacing the older models with newer photos so that the title photo is of the current model. Joel37 (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to edits like that, It best to discuss it on the talkpage of that article, you were going to article to article replacing them without any summary or reason. --Vauxford (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry about that, I was just trying to update the pages a bit :) Joel37 (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind explaining why the title picture should be left as an old model (such as Fiat Fiorino) instead of the new model? Thanks Joel37 (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is what the model best known for. It what they use as the cover of the article which the user can scroll down and read about it and see the different variant and generation. --Vauxford (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand for cars such as the Fiat Uno (although I think it might be subjective which the car is best known for!) but why the Fiorino, or my VW edits, for example? Thanks Joel37 (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have also removed my edits that were not simply replacing a photo - such as the edits I made to the Citroen Mehari page....why is this? Thanks! Joel37 (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored that edit, seeing that it was useful but the rest of the edits you done were unnecessary and didn't need to be changed. --Vauxford (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So - just to clarify - what is the infobox picture supposed to be of? I was just updating them all but now I see that's not right.... Joel37 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually cite WP:CARPIX since there a problems with it but this explains pretty much why:

The image selected for an article's top (lead) infobox does not need to show any particular version or generation of the vehicle, such as the latest, the last, the first, the best-selling, or any other. However, the image must be representative; low-volume, obscure/unusual, or otherwise unrepresentative variants are generally not preferred for the lead infobox image. Vehicle production date is not a factor when determining the quality of an image and its suitability to illustrate the lead infobox. Regardless of the ages of the vehicle shown, pick a clear, high-quality image according to the image quality guidelines; one that clearly shows a vehicle relevant to the article without photoflash glare or other photographic faults, against a simple and contrasting background. Such an image is always to be preferred over a lower-quality image, such as one that shows photoflash glare or a distracting background. --Vauxford (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right! That's great, I'll try to follow those rules from now on. Thanks a lot and I look forward to working with you in the future :) Joel37 (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Personal opinions don't count as you instated in your reason behind the edits on Chevrolet Camaro (sixth generation) page. So please, keep them out. If you disagree. Discuss matters on the talk page otherwise, I'll take the matters to administration. U¹ _quattro TALK 15:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

You on your recent edits on the Lamborghini Diablo page claimed that the image of a facelift Diablo roadster was on a replica. Please present a proof of that in the article's talkpage. U¹ _quattro TALK 03:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you punch the number plate into the DVLA it comes up as

"Vehicle make: DC SUPERCARS

Date of first registration: August 2015".

You can try it for yourself here vehicleenquiry.service.gov.uk. Toasted Meter (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Toasted Meter, I already knew the car previous was a replica which is why I replaced it. --Vauxford (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Discussion

How exactly is having a discussion of how I feel with an IP is considered name calling? Please have a look at that definition before you further make any claims of personal attacks against me. U¹ _quattro TALK 15:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Okay I apologise I used the wrong word, I mean name dropping." Yeah, sure. Then I was right about you. You are INDEED trying to oust me from editing.U¹ _quattro TALK 16:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U1Quattro But I didn't name call, I mean name dropping. I said that because you have been mentioning my name in other places. I reverted that because I misread what you said. --Vauxford (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxford who is being manipulative now?U¹ _quattro TALK 16:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to say anymore because I know where this is going. --Vauxford (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plus in the last ANI discussion you posted, you brought those other two users when it was meant to showcase your grevience. This shows that you are forming an alliance to oust me. You are also accusing me of manipulation while you do so yourself.U¹ _quattro TALK 16:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also "Currently I'm not in any edit dispute nor planning to any time soon with U1Quattro" this shows that you plan edit disputes against me. U¹ _quattro TALK 16:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Please stop your personal attacks and accusations against me. Those will be used in the current ANI discussion if you continue to do so. Also, give Wikipedia:ANI advice if you can before you start making any further accusations. U¹ _quattro TALK 16:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

refactoring talk pages

You should not put new comments above existing ones in a way that makes it look like the older comment is a reply [[1]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven My bad, I thought part of the comments I made would work better as a support for the proposal you made. But knowing how to position these chronologically can be very confusing. --Vauxford (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We all make that mistake sometimes.Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Vauxford problem

I'm going to maintain my stance that this is not a personal vanity project and I'm kindly telling you to stop the accusation that it is. I replaced it during discussion because at the last min the picture on the article was a replica and I believe it shouldn't be used in the article. I admit I could of waited until the discussion was over but Eddadio seem to have intentionally avoiding my confrontation. He then suggested a picture which nobody said anything about except me which I said it wasn't a good choice due to it being overly blurry, but replaced it anyway. It seem to me that almost every comments you made on discussion over stuff like this is mostly a personal grief rather then actually contributing to the problem. --Vauxford (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your eye-watering arrogance is not in itself the defining issue. But where it leads to appalling behaviour which discourages collaborative and constructive contributions to wikipedia from many other people, your behaviour does indeed become "the problem". I am mightily bored with repeating myself ad nauseam simply because your behaviour has not improved. Indeed, since EurovisionNim quit, your own approach has become more EurovisionNIm-like / Vauxfordy than ever. Your pictures are not universally terrible, but mostly they are mediocre and you damage wikipedia by refusing to differentiate between the ones that are competent, the ones that are mediocre and the ones that are terrible. You damage wikipedia by replacing inages that are perfectly ok with your own pictures even where these are frequently significantly worse. Before you and EurovisionNim came along people only rarely attached pictures that they themselves had taken to wiki-entries, and only when they were, by most mainstream criteria, unambiguously better than the alternatives. That way, little by little, quality improved and variety was sustained. You guys changed the rules and conventions. Not in a good way. Monotonous messy backgrounds in Leamington Spa have their place, and if all your pictures were brilliant no one would mind - or maybe even much notice - a certain uniformity of approach. But they're not. So yes, that is why I object to the Vauxford Vanity Project. Is your suggestion that your behaviour is just fine and your behaviour is constructive and collaborative? Otherwise why do you insist on dumping your little outbursts of self pity when I do something with which you disagree? I freely admit, I don't understand you at all. And your behaviour just seems to get worse. Please make a special effort and improve it! Charles01 (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The way how people edit and conventions on automobile articles has changed, I don't think I have become worst, before I used to be a lot worst and reverted people edit that objected me constantly, without discussing it with them but it obviously not right and I got a 1 day block for edit warring. Now when someone disagree with my edit, I do take it to the talk page and discuss it, the problem is other users aren't playing fair, they go and do their own action before anything could be agreed on. What else could I do, I tried to improve my behaviour by discussing rather then rejecting and I still feel like I been duped.

"people came along people only rarely attached pictures that they themselves had taken to wiki-entries" -- That because their was barely any users who was dedicated to that subject, I presume you are talking what the environment on Wikipedia was like back in 2007-2008 and back then any pictures that weren't your scans were either taken by ancient PowerShot cameras or are super tiny for fair-use because there wasn't any pictures in the Commons that they could use. --Vauxford (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Charles01 has a point (I am not weighing in on this entire conversation; don't exactly know what's happening) in that it was always considered bad form to "push" ones own photos. Mr.choppers | ✎ 21:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.choppers Well I can tell you I'm not the only one who does that practise, of course, I'm going to be the scapegoat and the ones who aren't in the spotlight get off scot-free. --Vauxford (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VF, no, I don't mean to be part of some kind of pile-up, it's not only you. But I honestly don't think anyone has taken it as far as you and EurovisionNim. I noticed that only yesterday you went and replaced one of EurovisionNim's photos in Dutch Wikipedia - exactly the kind of silliness that Charles01 bridles at. Just relax a bit, it's not a competition and you don't get a prize for having your photos in the most places. Best, please stick around, Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vauxford, I'm a bit like you because I take photos of cars (only Vauxhalls such as Astra F,G,H,J,K, Corsa B,C,D,E, Zafira A,B,C, Vectra B,C, Meriva A, Astra J GTC and VXRs). Astra1999 (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I live in Tiverton, Devon. Astra1999 (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

You on your recent edits on the Aston Martin DB11 page are attempting to "match photos with the rear angle photos" are you serious? This is an article, not a photo gallery. If you want to match photos, do it on commons. Charles01 is right about you. You are desperately trying to get your photos on articles. U¹ _quattro TALK 08:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I outcome

Vauxford, the recent AN/I discussion has been closed, with a two-way interaction ban implemented between you and U1Quattro. That means no posting on his talk page, no directly replying to him in article or project talk space, no referring to him - directly or otherwise - in comments or edit summaries, and the other restrictions noted in that link.

As an aside, it appears that there are at least a few other editors expressing concerns with the way you operate on Wikipedia. You should take those concerns into consideration. --Sable232 (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sable232 Who are those few other editors if I may ask? --Vauxford (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

82.7.124.69

I wonder if you are able to throw any light on this IP address, please? (Here's a set of clues!) Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles01 For starters I don't pronounced Saloon and Estate as "Sedan" and "Wagon" and the way of the editing isn't my style, the person used duplicate images on the article. I'm severely disappointed you are still determine to overthrow me with baseless accusation, it almost becoming a unhealthy obsession and I feel utmost pity for you. --Vauxford (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxford

At EI-C's prompting I have now pasted that report which you kindly keep "outing" from my sandbox on one of the admin noticeboards. I'll get you a link in a minute.

I hadn't really decided when or where to publish it, but I guess it was probably going to end up somewhere like this in the end. I'm afraid it's far too long and unfinished to be an easy read and far too short to be a comprehensive indictment. Anyway ... is as is. It's all about you. I guess you'll like that. I'm afraid there may be other things in it that you don't like. I guess you'll let us know. Please try and think a little before you leap to the keyboard, though. Sincerely Charles01 (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's that link! Charles01 (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles01 Don't try and be cocky about it, I written my own defence over this hate paragraph of yours. --Vauxford (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

You're posting very often to ANI. You're probably aware by now that people are getting more annoyed with you every time you post there. My advice is to stop posting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate How can I not post on ANI now that someone is speaking against me and a high chance of getting a topic ban from something I love. I'm trying all I can to try and convince them that I'm not a bad person as person created the ANI think I am. It doesn't seem work though and I just made more people angry, especially when I ignorantly used a slang that meant something horrible and insulting. --Vauxford (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should read about the law of holes. I seriously doubt that anyone thinks you're a bad person. They're frustrated by your behavior, not you as a person. If your behavior changes, they'll stop being so annoyed with you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

I don't really know the situation between you and Charles01 from a hole in the ground, but I have read the recent part of the AN/I thread which dealx with Cullen's suggestion, and I have two pieces of advice I wish to give to you, as a non-partisan, non-participant:

1. Please read Law of holes, which will tell you that if you're in a hole, stop digging.

2. The second is -- and please take this in the spirit in which it is meant -- SHADDUP!. You are best served by not responding incessantly to every comment or group of comments in the thread. You are presenting yourself very badly, and if you keep it up, you're likely to end up with a much harsher sanction than would otherwise be deemed necessary.

That's my advice, You can decide for yourself whether or not to follow it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that NRP -- a good admin -- also suggested you familiarize yourself with the Law of holes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to a community restriction

Per the consensus at ANI, you are topic banned from adding your own photographs to any article which already contains an image. You may propose adding one of your images on the talk page of any such article, and if clearcut consensus emerges, another editor can add that image to the article. Your participation in such talk page discussions will be limited to your original statement and responsive answers to direct questions asked by other editors. I also think the advice from Beyond My Ken above is excellent and endorse it whole-heartedly. GoldenRing (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoldenRing. It was suggested in the ANI that Vauxford has previous edited Wikipedia using other accounts. Is it possible to get a list of the accounts that he has used for uploading photos?
Also, could someone please clarify if the ban include restoring one of his own images that has since been removed by another editor? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1292simon For your info, I haven't used ANY other account to upload photos or edit on Wikipedia for malicious purposes, my only other alt is Vauxford2 which was made to separate my own uploads and Flickr uploads, along with a few accidentally log out edits and one on Vauxford2 because I forgot to log into Vauxford.

GoldenRing I think I have a justified reason why my revert which restored photos taken by me was justified, seeing that the user who made the replacement were using and uploading copyrighted images stolen from several dealership websites which all got deleted shortly after I nominated them on Commons. You can go ahead and block me for violating my TBAN but I really believe this could be a exception for this specific situation, if my photo got replaced by someone else that is actually by them or another person (Like what 1292simon did here), I would not reverted it and have a choice to discuss it on the talkpage.

Honestly, ever since the TBAN people seem to be treating me like I'm some fugitive and think everything I do is classed as something potentially malicious. --Vauxford (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting copyvio images (and thus back to your own image) would be an exemption to the topicban - As can be seen here the image has indeed been deleted due to it being a copyvio so as I can said for this specific circumstance the topicban would not apply. –Davey2010^Talk

And even if it wasn't a copyvio that editor still should've seeked consensus on the talkpage –Davey2010^Talk 23:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per Davey, reverting copyvios is generally exempt from topic bans (see WP:BANEX). But you'd better be absolutely certain it's a copyvio before you do it. If there is any doubt whatsoever, let someone else do it. GoldenRing (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bugatti Centodieci moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Bugatti Centodieci, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Interstellarity (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Since my reply at ANI is already very long and this part is really just a personal suggestion, I've leave this here instead.

I understand you're frustrated by the limits caused by your topic ban but as others (at ANI) have said, the community has found your editing was causing problems and so we needed to limit you to try and avoid that. It's possible that some of what Charles01 is doing is causing more harm than good.

But even given all that, you still have to take responsibility for your editing and put your best foot forward as much as you are able. If you are so frustrated that instead of calmly explaining why your image is better you feel the urge to moan about your topic ban, maybe ignore the issue and do something else (either on wikipedia or elsewhere) and come back to it later.

If you demonstrate consistently good behaviour such as calmly explaining why your image is better, accepting when the community is against you, having patience and allowing others to respond rather than trying to rush a decision after 2 days, and taking on board what people are saying especially when consensus is against you and learning from it so that most of the time consensus is with you; then it will be easy for the community to see if others are causing problems. I'm not saying you can never let your frustrations get the better of you, but you have to do your best so it's rare and you also limit how far it goes. (For example, if you had explained why your image was better before complaining about your topic ban, this would be somewhat better than what happened.)

I note in any case that while WP:BRD often works it's far from perfect. In particular, if there is need for significant discussion ultimately most of the time it shouldn't matter whether it's the B or the R. And from the little I saw, a lot of times where your image is removed or changed, it seems there is a fair amount of discussion. Therefore it doesn't seem like that part of your topic ban means much. Yes you cannot revert but there was often going to be need for significant discussion it makes little difference other than which image is there for the ultimately short time while the discussion goes on. (No consensus may be a little complicated but I think, and I saw some sign of it, that most will accept that the best solution in that case would be to revert to the last stable version. And so someone will do so even if you cannot, if you just give it a little time.)

For cases when you want to add your image rather than revert it, maybe the limits have a bigger effect. I don't know. Ultimately it's something you're going to have to put up with for the reasons I highlighted. What happened before meant the community felt the need to limit you.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne Like I said, I already know why I was sanctioned and I already regretted having that rant on the talkpage, I think that comment has blown far out of a proportion then it should even after twice I said, "Yes I admit whining about my TBAN wasn't a good idea" but it kept carrying on about it. --Vauxford (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas Vauxford
	Hi Vauxford, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia this past year, –Davey2010^talk 01:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation

It would be best not to post on Jamie's talk page anymore, Vauxford. I know you and Jamie have wildly different opinions on who is responsible for you guys aggravating each other, but the fact is you are, and it's always best in that case to go to your separate corners. I've annotated your block log. I'm not telling you to shut up and accept it; if you want to discuss more, do so at ANI, not Jamie's talk page. But if you'd like my free advice, I wouldn't recommend demanding an apology. Be satisfied in knowing that the consensus at ANI is that you deserve one. See ANI thread (in a few minutes, I type slow) for comment on the block log annotation and the unblock conditions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam I thought it was just polite and civil to apologise to someone even if they asked you to, I guess I shouldn't of since I know how frustrating that can be when someone demand it from me, but this is a veteran admin that is acting like this though. --Vauxford (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but veteran admin or not, he's human. Most humans are imperfect. I'm glad you recognize that you're sometimes frustrated when someone demands that you apologize. 95% of conflicts on WP could be resolved if people were better at seeing the world thru other people's eyes. How you feel in that situation: that's how Jamie is feeling now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam Thank you anyway, I already made up my conclusion on ANI so hopefully that should be the end of it on my side. --Vauxford (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Vauxford, Just my 2p and I honestly cannot stress this enough .... but as Floq said at ANI - When reinstating sock edits you need to A) state you're reinserting the sock edits and B) why ..... Edits such as this make you an easy target and obviously like here admins put 2+2 together and come up with 5 .....,

An apology would've been nice but that says more about them then it does about you.

Anyway again please please use edit summaries in future :), Take care and happy editing. –Davey2010^Talk 16:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxford, I would suggest taking this to Arbcom. Jamie's behavior here is unacceptable. Don't drop the matter....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For the appalling treatment you received from Ohnoitsjamie. BTW I commented at the ANI thread. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even begin to say how surprised I was to see your name back at AN/I. You've certainly come a long way from the Automobile pictures-related mess, and I'd have given you a barnstar for it if WilliamJE didn't just beat me to it.

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MJL Indeed, I been posting on the talk page whenever I proposed a new photo on the article rather then me replacing them which seem to be working well. Just unfortunate I got into this trouble. --Vauxford (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Thank you for the ping] I can't say I know what it must be likely to be wrongly blocked, but I certainly know that if there was a person I could trust to get through it, that'd be you. You're a lot tougher than most! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apology for bad block

It occurred to me last night that my stance of “refusing to apologize on principal” was foolish, and not a reflection of my actual principals. I’d like to formally apologize for the way your block and subsequent unblock were handled. I had my vandalism and sockpuppet blinders on, and perhaps some lingering confirmation bias made it difficult for me to reverse my initial belief that your edits were directly connected to the block-evading user. I understand that it’s upsetting to be falsely blocked, and more upsetting to have to agree to a condition that may have carried an underlying assumption of guilt. I also could’ve saved you and the community some time and aggravation had I responded directly to your ANI thread instead of digging my heels in. The experience should make me less likely to make similar errors of judgement in the future. Hopefully the experience hasn’t soured you too much on Wikipedia; I’m glad to see that you’ve resumed editing in the meantime. Regards, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ohnoitsjamie I am utmost grateful, thank you for taking the time to apologise to me. As long as you know your errors and learnt from them just like I have done in the past, water over the bridge. All is forgiven. --Vauxford (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is great, I hate it when nice people have misunderstandings with each other. Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koenigsegg Gemera moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Koenigsegg Gemera, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supra

It seems like we only have one good photo of the new Supra, if you see one a photo would be very much appreciated. Toasted Meter (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toasted Meter I'll try, I hardly see them in the UK. --Vauxford (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good luck finding one. Toasted Meter (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toasted Meter I recently uploaded a Supra photo taken by a friend of mine. What do you think of that? --Vauxford (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Hi again, Just a FYI but when creating SPIs you always needs to put what they're doing wrong (IE "User is changing images") followed by diffs of that, Just putting diffs doesn't tell the person what the other accounts were doing, Not including diffs generally annoys the CU team as they like the evidence there and not have to look for it :),
Thanks, Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 17:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remind me

Hi Vauxford, Hope all's well, Remind me as I've completely forgot - Are you allowed to revert anyone ?,
If memory serves me right wasn't it agreed you had to seek consensus for any image changes you wish to make? I only ask as if someone changes something then they would need to get consensus not you .... so I find it ridiculous you have to constantly seek consensus for someone elses changes ?,

Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 14:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010 I can't add any images taken by me in any article which already contain a image. Although they never state if that applys to replacing a existing image (for example a better example) taken by me in the article. Also the same saloon image got replaced in the Fourth Generation article since the information that was there prior got moved to a separate article. --Vauxford (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for that - Do you have any diffs where IPs or editors have randomly replaced your images for no reason (other than the recent Ford Focus one) ?, –Davey2010^Talk 15:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010 Only the Ford Focus as far as I'm aware. Thanks. --Vauxford (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, Sorry I thought it was more than that not sure why, Okay no worries, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas Vauxford
	Hi Vauxford, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and healthy New Year, Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia, –Davey2010^Talk 20:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010 Thank you, merry Christmas to you too. --Vauxford (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TBAN

Your request to have your topic ban lifted has been successful. Primefac (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alexander-93 (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve AKA (car)

Hello, Vauxford,

Thank you for creating AKA (car).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This article needs more references and information to meet WP:ORG and notability requirements.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Wells Vertige

Hello, Vauxford,

Thank you for creating Wells Vertige.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This article needs more references - independent, reliabale sources. Use of their own website is not an independent source. See WP:NVEHICLES

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Wikov

Hello, Vauxford,

Thank you for creating Wikov.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This article only has one reference. It needs more independent, reliable sources about this company.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkl talk 09:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Hello, Vauxford. I noticed that your recent edit to List of sport utility vehicles added a link to an image on an external website or on your computer, or to a file name that does not exist on Wikipedia's server. For technical and policy reasons it is not possible to use images from external sources on Wikipedia. Most images you find on the internet are copyrighted and cannot be used on Wikipedia, or their use is subject to certain restrictions. If the image meets Wikipedia's image use policy, consider uploading it to Wikipedia yourself or request that someone else upload it. See the image tutorial to learn about wiki syntax used for images. Thank you. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 23:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]