This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I noticed that you put all the individual Corolla generation articles into Category:Toyota_vehicles . Unfortunately this means Corolla now has 12 entries when one would do. Also notice that most other Toyota models do not have separate generational entries in Category:Toyota_vehicles . My original intention was for most other articles to link to the main Corolla article and then the user could jump to a particular generation article. Regards, Stepho-wrs ( talk) 04:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
That infobox is deprecated. All of the different types of ship infoboxes are being combined into just one. The correct one is listed on that template: {{ Infobox Ship Begin}}. Accordingly, all existing infoboxes need to be converted to the current standard. There is a backlog listed here. - MBK 004 07:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering about your removal of neighborhood from the disambiguation page Hood. The other removals I agree with, but neighborhood seems a likely usage. Also, would you enter an edit summary for such edits, please? — EncMstr ( talk) 17:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem! It was an easy mistake, and I've made more than my share! Drmargi ( talk) 02:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I did not change any units to CID; that was Oilpanhands ( talk · contribs)' change out of compliance with convention, which I was laboriously repairing. All the English engine displacement units in Dodge Ram — and in an increasing number of the other articles Oilpanhands arbitrarily changed to CID — are now expressed as in³, in accordance with convention. Please go read the article and see for yourself; there's not a CID to be found. As for the conversion templates, they are the correct way to express English and Metric units. Oilpanhands has already noted conversion issues with Template:Auto L, and (arbitrarily, but workably) signified the issue with a tilde to indicate approximation. Further work is needed on the template in question to fine-tune the conversion math. — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 20:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I played around with the litre conversion factor and sure enough, there's no factor that can be used that'll make all engines convert correctly. When I bent the conversion factor to make the 318 convert correctly, it broke the Ford 351. When I fixed the 351, the 318 broke again. (I actually ran a couple dozen known conversions through it; the 318 and 351 are only examples). Clearly that approach wasn't going to work (and fudging conversion factors is an ugly way to do things anyhow), so I took a hard look at Template:Auto L and Template:Auto CID and figured out a workaround. I've created a new template Template:Auto Lrev. This is specifically to deal with the problem of engines engineered in cubic inches, but later redesignated in litres (or for articles about American vehicles sold in Metric markets back in America's cubic-inch days). It's essentially the Template:Auto CID template with inverted output. You input the known CID, and you get a correctly-converted, litres-first, dual-units display. Like this:
{{Auto Lrev|318}} yields 5.2 L (318 cu in)
I'll go put this template in Dodge Ram and a few other articles I worked on earlier today. Interested to have your feedback before I announce this template to the auto project in general. — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 23:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Greetings, Flash176. I have over the last couple years put in a great deal of effort on Automotive lighting, and I'm curious about your "C" quality rating for this article. My extensive involvement with the article probably biases me, but it nevertheless seems to me that the article currently meets all six B-class criteria, and may in fact verge on A-class. Can you please explain? Thanks. — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 20:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I would ask that you consult the talk page before removing things that have caused quite a bit of controversy in the past, mostly with people not taking into account the actual definition of the word "alumni." While I doubt anyone likes to see these two idiots get more publicity than their due, there is no doubt that they are notable for the very fact that they shot up an entire high school. If they have their own Wikipedia page, they are notable, which they most certainly are. Not everyone on Wikipedia is notable for good things, remember. And yes, by definition they are alumni. -- ScreaminEagle ( talk) 21:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, as much as I hate to admit it, I guess you're right. Sorry for causing you extra work.-- Flash176 ( talk) 15:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I've redirected this article (which you created and worked on) to Toyota ZZ engine because the content is not substantially different from the section in the main article. If you want to keep it separate, I suggest changing the article title to something like Toyota 2ZZ-GE engine and rewriting the lede so that it's clear that the 2ZZ-GE is one version of the ZZ. If you do that, you should probably also cut the section in the Toyota ZZ engine article and use
to direct readers. Cheers, Pichpich ( talk) 01:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm familiar enough with the importance levels, and being Australian, the Australian market is relatively isolated from the motoring world at large, making assesments even harder to adjudge. Is there an easy guideline with which I might be able judge while keeping in mind the localisationof some of these cars? -- Falcadore ( talk) 02:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Uh, you're supposed to actually follow the procedures at WP:GAN, not just say that it looks good and pass it. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
With respect to Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes, Illinois, I don't mind too much whether an article is 'dmy' or 'mdy' format. However, there appears to be a consensus for US military articles to use dmy and as you probably know, many contain inconsistencies. I was running through US military articles making them consistent to the format of the consensus. That has been documented in wp:mosnum which says:
I don't mind your revert. Nor do I care if the guidance at mosnum is challenged and changed. All I need to know is which of the two formats to apply to military articles. I just wanted you to know the reason for my choice lest you think I was making a personal choice. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse ( talk) 13:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
No worries. Glad to have encountered you. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse ( talk) 16:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
See Template:Infobox Automobile. According to the guidelines on that page, "Production" refers to production calendar years, not model years. Yes, it can be confusing when model years are given too, but, it is production. If you disagree with that guideline, maybe you can get it changed. -- Vossanova o< 14:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
How is the Cobalt SS related to the Opel Astra? What do they share? -- Phoenix 2 03:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Seems the work is endless... --— Typ932 T | C 21:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the barnstar! Now is this aka a gold star, or is it similar to a gold star? ;-) I've been thinking about having a go at adminship...perhaps if I can carve out some spare time I'll look into nominating myself. Not sure how that'll go over, though; last time I looked there was some controversy over whether it was appropriate for one to nominate oneself. Keep the greasy side down, eh! — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 20:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Stepho-wrs! One thing I'm currently struggling with — quite apart from the question of whether to stand for adminship — is how best to deal with intransigence and myopia in the project. It seems like we've got a fair number of editors more passionate about their preferences than interested in coöperatively building consensus. I've certainly been guilty of that very same thing myself; I'm not trying to sound sanctimonious or superior or anything. What I'm trying to do is figure out how to get more people to see, appreciate, and adopt a more coöperative approach to this project. If we could get a critical mass of editors thinking that way, I think it'd probably snowball and eventually the project as a whole would work better. We've got dozens upon dozens of endless wars. AKA vs. related, model year vs. production date, image standards, the Ford 5.0 vs. 4.9 thing never dies...we could get more articles into better shape more quickly if we could move beyond dug-in heels and endless bickering. I don't know if it's even possible. — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 03:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
They are not the same thing, that terminology is incorrect, your edit is wrong. Greg Locock ( talk) 02:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Ta Greg Locock ( talk) 04:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The individual episode articles consisted entirely of plot summary and trivia. A core policy is that Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. Also note that it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available. Individual episode articles should not be created unless the notability of that particular episode can be established through independent, reliable sources, e.g. the episode was nominated for an Emmy or there was significant coverage of a controversial element of the episode (e.g. a particularly violent scene, gay kiss, etc). Even then the plot summary must be kept to a minimum and articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance. McWomble ( talk) 09:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Stop removing this from the disambig page. The character "CJ" is a notable 1970s character from British television (even if you have not heard of him in the USA). Youtube Clip Daily Telegraph: "John Barron, the character actor who died on Saturday aged 83, was best known for his portrayal of CJ, the maniacal head of Sunshine Desserts in The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin." BBC: "A brilliant satire, the programme will also be remembered for its catchphrases including Reggie’s boss CJ's "I didn't get where I am today by..." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add another film called G.I. Joe: Ninja Battles The line I edited would be like:
This is my first edit, so would you please mind to check these out and approve it? Hermano101 ( talk)
Sorry I didn't realize the article has received good status. The links are in Toyota's pressroom. http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/toyota/news.aspx?ncid=12066 2007 model: http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/toyota/TYT2007102409592.aspx?ncid=12066 2010 model: http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/toyota/2010-corolla-matrix-pricing.aspx?ncid=12066
if you don't want to use the press release statements it's likely in worldcarfans.com, if you still can't find a link let me know and I'll try to find them. Feel free to edit my grammar and sentence structure, I know I'm not the most impressive writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. zedy ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I notice that you were involved with the requested rename of Ford Motor Company. The same user who requested (and failed) to get that rename done is doing the same (and using the same arguments) at Ducati Motor Holding. Perhaps you'd like to review and add your opinion (for or against). See Talk:Ducati_Motor_Holding#Requested_move. Thanks. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 16:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Neckpost.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- J Milburn ( talk) 20:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Swivelarm.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- J Milburn ( talk) 20:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Breaker.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- J Milburn ( talk) 20:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
If I'm honest, I don't know why they're different, as I don't write the law. This page explains that cars are "fair game", while further down it is clarified that toys are not. I've been on the wrong end of this too; I uploaded some photos of some miniatures to illustrate a Dungeons & Dragons article that wound up deleted. J Milburn ( talk) 21:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the Snake Eyes Page, would like your input. Thanks. Sgetz ( talk) 19:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone has nominated Nemesis Enforcer for deletion. Can you comment on that? Sgetz ( talk) 22:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
If it's not a disambiguation page, then the content may well need to be deleted since Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Encyclopedias do not normally have articles about words as words. There are a very few exceptions where the word generates significant social controversy or has impact merely by being that particular word. Certain pejoratives come to mind but they are quite rare. None of those exception rules seem to apply in this case.
Purely lexical content, on the other hand, belongs at our sister project Wiktionary. Lexical content includes meaning ("GI is a term describing ..."), etymology (the galvanized iron discussion), false and folk etymologies (the government issue discussion) and usage examples (the GI cans line).
The lexical detail belongs at Wiktionary and, in fact, is already there. There's nothing wrong with having a few lexical notes on a more encyclopedic page like a disambiguation page, which I thought was a reasonable compromise. But I do not see how the current page can be maintained in that format and still be compliant with the "not a dictionary" policy. Rossami (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The release dates focused too much on non-English speaking countries, and excluded the UK. The grosses have no ref (only the 22.3m number is shown on BOM). The plot edits added nothing, the Black Eye Peas is trivia and the reviews had blown out of proportion, there wasn't anything worth keeping. Sometimes a mass revert is the only way to improve a page, otherwise you end up with this. Darrenhusted ( talk) 22:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Ridge Runner! I was just browsing around Wikipedia trying to search for some administrators to assist me. I'm still new to Wikipedia, and I need more information on their policies. Since you seem to be a very experienced administrator (or an experienced user, at least), can you tell me a thing or two about permanent bans? Please tell more about it on my talk page. Thanks!-- ROT9 ( talk) 13:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Basic laws of paragraph structure indicate that statements in a paragraph relate to the topic. It would be related if you changed the title. Without renaming the title of the paragraph your addition doesn't belong due to it being unrelated. If including "liberty locking" is absolutely necessary then I suggest you make the long-needed change to the title. If you don't, I will have to revert the edit. GnarlyLikeWhoa ( talk) 17:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey there! Just letting you know that I am an admin, in case you need something restored, protected, etc. :) BOZ ( talk) 05:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Assuming this is your car, do you happen to know the dimensions of the internal cargo area? I'm considering buying this car but all I can find is the cargo volume. If you don't have this information, no worries. Cheers, Vectro ( talk) 01:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:G.I. Joe - A Real American Hero (logo).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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 16:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I noticed that you put all the individual Corolla generation articles into Category:Toyota_vehicles . Unfortunately this means Corolla now has 12 entries when one would do. Also notice that most other Toyota models do not have separate generational entries in Category:Toyota_vehicles . My original intention was for most other articles to link to the main Corolla article and then the user could jump to a particular generation article. Regards, Stepho-wrs ( talk) 04:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
That infobox is deprecated. All of the different types of ship infoboxes are being combined into just one. The correct one is listed on that template: {{ Infobox Ship Begin}}. Accordingly, all existing infoboxes need to be converted to the current standard. There is a backlog listed here. - MBK 004 07:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering about your removal of neighborhood from the disambiguation page Hood. The other removals I agree with, but neighborhood seems a likely usage. Also, would you enter an edit summary for such edits, please? — EncMstr ( talk) 17:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem! It was an easy mistake, and I've made more than my share! Drmargi ( talk) 02:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I did not change any units to CID; that was Oilpanhands ( talk · contribs)' change out of compliance with convention, which I was laboriously repairing. All the English engine displacement units in Dodge Ram — and in an increasing number of the other articles Oilpanhands arbitrarily changed to CID — are now expressed as in³, in accordance with convention. Please go read the article and see for yourself; there's not a CID to be found. As for the conversion templates, they are the correct way to express English and Metric units. Oilpanhands has already noted conversion issues with Template:Auto L, and (arbitrarily, but workably) signified the issue with a tilde to indicate approximation. Further work is needed on the template in question to fine-tune the conversion math. — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 20:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I played around with the litre conversion factor and sure enough, there's no factor that can be used that'll make all engines convert correctly. When I bent the conversion factor to make the 318 convert correctly, it broke the Ford 351. When I fixed the 351, the 318 broke again. (I actually ran a couple dozen known conversions through it; the 318 and 351 are only examples). Clearly that approach wasn't going to work (and fudging conversion factors is an ugly way to do things anyhow), so I took a hard look at Template:Auto L and Template:Auto CID and figured out a workaround. I've created a new template Template:Auto Lrev. This is specifically to deal with the problem of engines engineered in cubic inches, but later redesignated in litres (or for articles about American vehicles sold in Metric markets back in America's cubic-inch days). It's essentially the Template:Auto CID template with inverted output. You input the known CID, and you get a correctly-converted, litres-first, dual-units display. Like this:
{{Auto Lrev|318}} yields 5.2 L (318 cu in)
I'll go put this template in Dodge Ram and a few other articles I worked on earlier today. Interested to have your feedback before I announce this template to the auto project in general. — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 23:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Greetings, Flash176. I have over the last couple years put in a great deal of effort on Automotive lighting, and I'm curious about your "C" quality rating for this article. My extensive involvement with the article probably biases me, but it nevertheless seems to me that the article currently meets all six B-class criteria, and may in fact verge on A-class. Can you please explain? Thanks. — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 20:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I would ask that you consult the talk page before removing things that have caused quite a bit of controversy in the past, mostly with people not taking into account the actual definition of the word "alumni." While I doubt anyone likes to see these two idiots get more publicity than their due, there is no doubt that they are notable for the very fact that they shot up an entire high school. If they have their own Wikipedia page, they are notable, which they most certainly are. Not everyone on Wikipedia is notable for good things, remember. And yes, by definition they are alumni. -- ScreaminEagle ( talk) 21:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, as much as I hate to admit it, I guess you're right. Sorry for causing you extra work.-- Flash176 ( talk) 15:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I've redirected this article (which you created and worked on) to Toyota ZZ engine because the content is not substantially different from the section in the main article. If you want to keep it separate, I suggest changing the article title to something like Toyota 2ZZ-GE engine and rewriting the lede so that it's clear that the 2ZZ-GE is one version of the ZZ. If you do that, you should probably also cut the section in the Toyota ZZ engine article and use
to direct readers. Cheers, Pichpich ( talk) 01:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm familiar enough with the importance levels, and being Australian, the Australian market is relatively isolated from the motoring world at large, making assesments even harder to adjudge. Is there an easy guideline with which I might be able judge while keeping in mind the localisationof some of these cars? -- Falcadore ( talk) 02:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Uh, you're supposed to actually follow the procedures at WP:GAN, not just say that it looks good and pass it. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
With respect to Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes, Illinois, I don't mind too much whether an article is 'dmy' or 'mdy' format. However, there appears to be a consensus for US military articles to use dmy and as you probably know, many contain inconsistencies. I was running through US military articles making them consistent to the format of the consensus. That has been documented in wp:mosnum which says:
I don't mind your revert. Nor do I care if the guidance at mosnum is challenged and changed. All I need to know is which of the two formats to apply to military articles. I just wanted you to know the reason for my choice lest you think I was making a personal choice. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse ( talk) 13:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
No worries. Glad to have encountered you. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse ( talk) 16:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
See Template:Infobox Automobile. According to the guidelines on that page, "Production" refers to production calendar years, not model years. Yes, it can be confusing when model years are given too, but, it is production. If you disagree with that guideline, maybe you can get it changed. -- Vossanova o< 14:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
How is the Cobalt SS related to the Opel Astra? What do they share? -- Phoenix 2 03:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Seems the work is endless... --— Typ932 T | C 21:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the barnstar! Now is this aka a gold star, or is it similar to a gold star? ;-) I've been thinking about having a go at adminship...perhaps if I can carve out some spare time I'll look into nominating myself. Not sure how that'll go over, though; last time I looked there was some controversy over whether it was appropriate for one to nominate oneself. Keep the greasy side down, eh! — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 20:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Stepho-wrs! One thing I'm currently struggling with — quite apart from the question of whether to stand for adminship — is how best to deal with intransigence and myopia in the project. It seems like we've got a fair number of editors more passionate about their preferences than interested in coöperatively building consensus. I've certainly been guilty of that very same thing myself; I'm not trying to sound sanctimonious or superior or anything. What I'm trying to do is figure out how to get more people to see, appreciate, and adopt a more coöperative approach to this project. If we could get a critical mass of editors thinking that way, I think it'd probably snowball and eventually the project as a whole would work better. We've got dozens upon dozens of endless wars. AKA vs. related, model year vs. production date, image standards, the Ford 5.0 vs. 4.9 thing never dies...we could get more articles into better shape more quickly if we could move beyond dug-in heels and endless bickering. I don't know if it's even possible. — Scheinwerfermann ( talk) 03:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
They are not the same thing, that terminology is incorrect, your edit is wrong. Greg Locock ( talk) 02:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Ta Greg Locock ( talk) 04:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The individual episode articles consisted entirely of plot summary and trivia. A core policy is that Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. Also note that it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available. Individual episode articles should not be created unless the notability of that particular episode can be established through independent, reliable sources, e.g. the episode was nominated for an Emmy or there was significant coverage of a controversial element of the episode (e.g. a particularly violent scene, gay kiss, etc). Even then the plot summary must be kept to a minimum and articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance. McWomble ( talk) 09:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Stop removing this from the disambig page. The character "CJ" is a notable 1970s character from British television (even if you have not heard of him in the USA). Youtube Clip Daily Telegraph: "John Barron, the character actor who died on Saturday aged 83, was best known for his portrayal of CJ, the maniacal head of Sunshine Desserts in The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin." BBC: "A brilliant satire, the programme will also be remembered for its catchphrases including Reggie’s boss CJ's "I didn't get where I am today by..." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add another film called G.I. Joe: Ninja Battles The line I edited would be like:
This is my first edit, so would you please mind to check these out and approve it? Hermano101 ( talk)
Sorry I didn't realize the article has received good status. The links are in Toyota's pressroom. http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/toyota/news.aspx?ncid=12066 2007 model: http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/toyota/TYT2007102409592.aspx?ncid=12066 2010 model: http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/toyota/2010-corolla-matrix-pricing.aspx?ncid=12066
if you don't want to use the press release statements it's likely in worldcarfans.com, if you still can't find a link let me know and I'll try to find them. Feel free to edit my grammar and sentence structure, I know I'm not the most impressive writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. zedy ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I notice that you were involved with the requested rename of Ford Motor Company. The same user who requested (and failed) to get that rename done is doing the same (and using the same arguments) at Ducati Motor Holding. Perhaps you'd like to review and add your opinion (for or against). See Talk:Ducati_Motor_Holding#Requested_move. Thanks. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 16:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Neckpost.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- J Milburn ( talk) 20:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Swivelarm.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- J Milburn ( talk) 20:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Breaker.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- J Milburn ( talk) 20:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
If I'm honest, I don't know why they're different, as I don't write the law. This page explains that cars are "fair game", while further down it is clarified that toys are not. I've been on the wrong end of this too; I uploaded some photos of some miniatures to illustrate a Dungeons & Dragons article that wound up deleted. J Milburn ( talk) 21:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the Snake Eyes Page, would like your input. Thanks. Sgetz ( talk) 19:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone has nominated Nemesis Enforcer for deletion. Can you comment on that? Sgetz ( talk) 22:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
If it's not a disambiguation page, then the content may well need to be deleted since Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Encyclopedias do not normally have articles about words as words. There are a very few exceptions where the word generates significant social controversy or has impact merely by being that particular word. Certain pejoratives come to mind but they are quite rare. None of those exception rules seem to apply in this case.
Purely lexical content, on the other hand, belongs at our sister project Wiktionary. Lexical content includes meaning ("GI is a term describing ..."), etymology (the galvanized iron discussion), false and folk etymologies (the government issue discussion) and usage examples (the GI cans line).
The lexical detail belongs at Wiktionary and, in fact, is already there. There's nothing wrong with having a few lexical notes on a more encyclopedic page like a disambiguation page, which I thought was a reasonable compromise. But I do not see how the current page can be maintained in that format and still be compliant with the "not a dictionary" policy. Rossami (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The release dates focused too much on non-English speaking countries, and excluded the UK. The grosses have no ref (only the 22.3m number is shown on BOM). The plot edits added nothing, the Black Eye Peas is trivia and the reviews had blown out of proportion, there wasn't anything worth keeping. Sometimes a mass revert is the only way to improve a page, otherwise you end up with this. Darrenhusted ( talk) 22:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Ridge Runner! I was just browsing around Wikipedia trying to search for some administrators to assist me. I'm still new to Wikipedia, and I need more information on their policies. Since you seem to be a very experienced administrator (or an experienced user, at least), can you tell me a thing or two about permanent bans? Please tell more about it on my talk page. Thanks!-- ROT9 ( talk) 13:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Basic laws of paragraph structure indicate that statements in a paragraph relate to the topic. It would be related if you changed the title. Without renaming the title of the paragraph your addition doesn't belong due to it being unrelated. If including "liberty locking" is absolutely necessary then I suggest you make the long-needed change to the title. If you don't, I will have to revert the edit. GnarlyLikeWhoa ( talk) 17:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey there! Just letting you know that I am an admin, in case you need something restored, protected, etc. :) BOZ ( talk) 05:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Assuming this is your car, do you happen to know the dimensions of the internal cargo area? I'm considering buying this car but all I can find is the cargo volume. If you don't have this information, no worries. Cheers, Vectro ( talk) 01:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:G.I. Joe - A Real American Hero (logo).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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 16:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)