User talk:Sable232/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sable232. 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.

Archives

Archive 1, 3-18-06 thru 3-18-07 Archive 2, 3-18-07 thru 4-13-08 Archive 3, 5-8-08 thru 12-31-10

Hi, Sable232. I'm trying to move the ball forward on this topic and hold namecalling and invective to a minimum here on WPA. If you have a moment and can add your thoughts, the odds of a productive outcome would likely improve. Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sable232. Some Mercury vehicles are missing from Template:Mercury historic timeline, which you recently edited. Please look over my posting on the template talk page. Thanks. Williamhortner (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:1979 Grand Marquis coupe.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Manitoba Highway 18.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the unit formatting, it's a habit of mine when I really get into typing statistics or other information. I'll try to keep an eye on it. --MN12Fan (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Thanks for letting know about my F250 pic I uploaded, I did't think there would be a problem with it, it comes from a website that puts out a free off road magazine called "Off Road Adventures" that I get, I first saw this image in thier magazine back in like november and thougt it would be a good addition to the F series artical.

I'm not trying to cheat anyone or lie about it's status, I just was'nt quite sure how to label the copywrite properly

I am new to wikipedia so if you would help me out that would Thanksbe great.

Yankeesfan245 (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok I retagged it to "Non-free promotional"please go ahead and check it for me to see if it's correct thank you very much for your help.Yankeesfan245 (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks sable for all of your help I learned a lot. Yankeesfan245 (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I highly resent the fact that my edits are called vandalism. I simply removed talk that doesn't apply to the page anymore to clean-up the discussion page. Why should we keep topics that are no longer relevant on the discussion page (ie, Johnny lightening photo, long ago removed, or random comments that have no purpose to further improve the article). I can understand that your job is to prevent people from deleting others conversations, but I fail to see how this clean-up is a bad thing, let alone be classified as vandalism.

Did you actually read what was removed and read the article? Perhaps you'll see why I removed the edits in the first place. Furthermore I don't appreciate threats of being banned. Perhaps you could explained what I did wrong and why I should have done it, instead of going right to a threat. I believe both of my edits to the talk page had comments to state the reasons why the edits were done. They were done in good faith.

Please clarify.

Caprice 96 (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Then archive the older non-applictable comments (I don't know how, or didn't know it was possible until now). I am sorry for not being familiar with all the wiki rules, but this place is run like a beauracracy. It's unbelievable the amount or rules and "red tape" that exist. And yes, I suppose the "Article is Overbearing" section is applicable and shouldn't have been removed. However, the other sections are all non-applicable or no longer relevant.

Caprice 96 (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you really didn't need to say that, either. I wasn't going to get involved simply because BD as not done anything that would involve me. I simply found out about it, and I thought that I would just warn you that an RfC would probably get nowhere, because of his notoriety of consistently ignoring warnings and making disruptive edits. Yes, I was highly incivil during the TMH RfC, but it wasn't helped by the fact that he completely ignored it and blew it off, and continued to act in the manner that got the RfC created in the first place. Just in case you didn't know, I have not been very active on Wikipedia as of late, and when I am, there are only two things that really concern me: Keeping Ford Taurus and related articles clean and up to snuff, and dealing with the GM Minivan vandal. I have no reason to get involved, nor do I have any reason to care. I am just saying, it will not be too surprising to me if the RfC against Bull-Doser ends up going nowhere and being nothing than a waste. He has never listened or followed warnings. How is this time going to be any different? Just sayin. Karrmann (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not only heading or whitespace formattting if you look carefully, it is just easier to add fast edit summary.... --— Typ932^{T | C}  01:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Apropos http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_Bronco_II&diff=prev&oldid=251139623 , I'm curious if there's a javascript tool you use to make raw url references into full citations. I'd like to use one, e.g. for edits like the ones I just did on State of Connecticut v. Julie Amero.--Elvey (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I think I found what I was looking for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar --Elvey (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Mercury Monterey at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

On 12 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mercury Monterey, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to see "waste of time and server resources", look at this. I usually just try to avoid double redirects which are discouraged on Wikipedia, sometimes that also means I'm changing simple redirects to the correct article title (unlike you did).

I don't wikilink "every instance of every term in an article". I usually try to link only some, to the average reader probably not immediately understandable terms and only once in a section.

"If you don't have anything productive to do, there is always the option of not editing." Well, that applies to you too. With all the vandalism/sneaky destruction on Wikipedia you decided to warn someone whose either harmless or definitely useful edits "annoy" you. Squash Racket (talk) 07:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:1972 Marquis 4dr.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 08:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You've uploaded File:Manitoba Highway 5.png, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Leaving a note on someones talk page is often a lot more effective than a level-4 warning. Your actions seem a little bitey. Thanks for your edits, though. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 19:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I seem harsh...I had no doubt you were acting in good faith, but I've been on a bit of a mission to cut down on the biting on good faith and test edits.

You say it's happened at least three times, but I can't seem to find the third IP address. If it happens again, be sure to include old difs at WP:AIV so the next admin can see it is a pattern of abuse. I don't see what good blocking is going to do, since it seems they have a dynamic IP address, but I suppose it's worth a shot. Thanks for monitoring the situation. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 21:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I did propose it, almost a month ago, under the topic of "Length". My goal is to model the Thunderbird article after that of the Mustang and others that have particularly long histories. The main article will summarize each generation while the individual articles can go in to more detail on each generation. For now I'm just making the new articles for each generation and will add links to the main article. I don't intend on creating summaries for each generation yet but if others choose to I won't object. --MN12Fan (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but there is much more to be said about each generation. I, after all, found plenty to say about my own. Furthermore, from other sources I've been seeing, thirteen generations is technically inaccurate. I've found sources that only say there are eleven generation, and reading the main Thunderbird article you can see where a couple generations have been "created" when really the changes aren't significant. Edmunds has a good generation-by-generation overview on the Thunderbird, http://www.edmunds.com/ford/thunderbird/history.html, that I think is a good template and source of information. They say there are twelve generations, considering the '87-'88 Thunderbird to be unique, but I disagree. The car was made more aerodynamic through new sheet metal and head lamps but it was still clearly related to the '83-'86 T-birds, which the author admits. To say the '87-'88 Thunderbird is a unique generation would be like calling the 2010 Mustang a new generation relative to the '05-'09s. Different, yes, but not brand new. In any case, I would say there are realistically only eleven Thunderbird generations, which I believe the Thunderbird article stopped at some time ago. --MN12Fan (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There were too many images on the page. You need not resort to threats! Overpush (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(posted here for clarity/posterity/defense/etc.)

A boilerplate warning template is just that, a warning. It is not a "threat." Given the lack of an edit summary explaining the removal of images from a page and the pattern of disruption found in the history of your talk page, the level 3 warning was justified. --Sable232 (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Lies and slander. Stop it. Any further communication of similar nature from you will be considered an attack Overpush (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Lies and slander? I said nothing of the sort. You're getting dangerously close to incivility, especially insinuating that my explaining myself is an "attack." --Sable232 (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sable232 you have a long history of threatening other users, verbally abusing of other users, cyber-bullying other users, and malicious behavior in general. You are making the wikipedia experience unpleasant for other users and therefor you have been reported again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.42.217 (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe this quacking IP is referring to this thread [1]. It was also forum shopped at WQ, which I removed. Dayewalker (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Following your comments in Talk:Ford_Motor_Company#Requested_move, you may be interested to know that the same editor is using the exact same arguments at Ducati Motor Holding. Perhaps you could consider commenting (for or against) the move. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have placed the above in a collapse box to keep a passing reader from thinking that these were legitimate warnings. See here for the thread at AN/I involving the vandal who left them. --Sable232 (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. Can I suggest that you disengage from this user for a little while? I appreciate that his actions are frustrating you, but it's best to let the process do its thing now that you've made a report. Let some admins look it over, and avoid commenting for now - that will save further stress, I'm sure. Thanks! Tony Fox (arf!) 17:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi can you hold off reverting my edits, as I was in the middle of correcting my formating error! thanks 78.32.143.113 (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I did look on the talk page first, but there was a distinct lack of discussion. Anyway, I seem to have messed up something, as you rightly said, re bore and stroke. It appears correctly here: Template:Infobox Automobile engine/doc, but not here: Template:Infobox Automobile engine - can you help? (copied from my talk page)78.32.143.113 (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Sable232. Take a look here and here.—Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C14:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

…and especially here. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

When you said my edit was vandalism, where did you get the idea from? The TheBalance's posting in the Ford Boss engine talk page claimed Coyote is a separate engine family from Boss engine based on 'insider info', and yet the original poster never specified the source of such information. On that reason alone, the information from TheBalance should not be considered as valid. And unless you can find a better sources me or the talk page poster, your vandalism accusation was unfounded. --Jacob Poon (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish I could work this out with you, but you chose to make false accusations of me making frivolous editing just because you don't like my editing style. Do you have any idea how often articles go out of control and information become hard to find because there are too many narrative statements? I understand there are needs for narratives an encyclopedia, but not when it comes to technical data. As you can see, I have dealt with a lot of auto articles, and many involve technical data. Making modularized edits solves the problem when growing an article, yet you mistakenly see it as nuisance.

If you have any specific issue over my editing style, please be more specific so that we can work out a mutually agreeable solution. If not, it should be up to the arbitrator to decide. Stop trying to make vandalism threat over editorial preferences. --Jacob Poon (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up the "was" v/s "is" on the Buick Terraza page, now there is a lot of cleanup to do as I looked up 27 different wikipedia article on automobiles and all of them used "was"Tonkatracker (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. To avoid swamping the current monthly category I'm using the creation date of the articles. Rich Farmbrough, 19:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC).

You might want to consider using a template similar to {{London Gazette}} or one of the other Specific-source templates. The advantage is that if the web site referred to makes a systemic change only the template needs to be fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 20:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC).

Ok I fixed up {{Riner}} for what it's worth. Rich Farmbrough, 21:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC).

Hi, I saw and replied to your comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Illicit Chinese knockoffs in AKA field removed. The same user has also been adding false claims about supposed North Korean versions of the Mercedes-Benz W201 and Hyundai Santa Fe. For the details please see my reply there.--GagHalfrunt (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! Just thought I'd link you to this, since you reported it. Cheers, m.o.p 18:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the time or ambition to debate your opinion of what's better. (Vegavairbob (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:1979 Grand Marquis coupe.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

When you convert a page to a redir, please don't use {{db-talk}} on its talk page, as the page isn't gone, merely changed. If the conversion to a redir were ever reverted, the talk page should ideally be available. So either leave the talk page alone, or convert it to a redir to the talk page of the target article, please. DES ^(talk) 07:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of my leaving off that assessment is just forgetting... Sorry. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded a picture of my 1979 mercury marquis 2 door copue and wanted to know how to go about getting it out there for people to see just how beasutiful these cars were. I took the photo myself and it came straight from my camera 5 years ago. im not sure if i put the right correctly, please feel free to let me know if i need to change anything to allow use of the picture. I still own the car and am actually waiting for it to be shipped to me right now, i will have loads of pictures for it when it gets here. in the picture it doesnt have the hub caps, because someone stole one of them and i removed the rest to save them. I really love this car and plan to do a full restoration, then we will really have nice photos. Thank you very much for your time and support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwinnett (talk • contribs) 23:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I will get some new pictures as soon as the car gets here, it should be here by the weekend. thank you for helping me with the pictures. David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwinnett (talk • contribs) 00:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Manitoba Highway 5A.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This section contained usefull information and did not need too be romoved. U just wanted too remove it like U removed all of my images from other pages. I want too contribute, but u wont let me. I feel u are targeting me and I don't know why. relax and let others join aswell. wiki is not yours.Angela2109 (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right, it was poorly worded and already repersented on another page. It needed to be removed. I will let it go. I just didn't understand what the problem was. Now I do. I thank you for your time.Angela2109 (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Restored sources which were inadvertently removed. Responded on the Olsmobile Auora discussion page. Please explain objection to Olds Aurora additions on Aurora discussion page, what weasel words, there are no weasel words? All the sources out there list the Aurora as a midsize including the fueleconomy.gov website. The STS is is also a midsize. The Aurora replaced the Toronado Trofeo in the line-up, even though the two cars are not the same. The Olds 98 continued until 1996.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I undid your edit because I thought there should be a merge discussion before you did it. You did just merge an article about the best-selling truck of the day...it seemed notable enough to warrant a discussion first Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Trails blazed)} 19:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your recent reassessment of MN highway articles is much appreciated. WP:USRD is currently in the middle of a year-long drive to reduce the number of stub articles throughout the project. The goal is to reduce the total by 3,000 over the level on December 1, 2009. I just would like to mention something though. C-Class ratings require all three of the "Big 3" sections (Route description, History, jct/exit list) to be present in an article. Only two of them ranks the article at Start-Class. Please keep up the good work on expanding and reassessing articles! Imzadi 1979 → 22:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! The C-class assessments were an oversight on my part, I didn't read the USRD quality scale closely enough. Thanks a ton for fixing those and going through and assessing the rest of the expanded stubs. --Sable232 (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully you'll continue to expand articles. I've recently found the MnDOT District logs, and I'm hoping that when I gather some additional information, I can start helping out. I don't know how good my work will be, since I live in Michigan and it's been almost 6 years since I last visited family near St. Cloud, but I'll try to do what I can to help finish de-stubbing the state's articles. Imzadi 1979 → 21:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I'll keep at it as time allows. I too found the Mn/DOT log point files which are a big help.

One question though: do we try to get mile points for junctions on decommissioned highways or is it acceptable to leave them off? --Sable232 (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The short answer, I try to get them when I can. In cases of former state highways in Michigan, several of them have mileposts listed. That's because they were decommissioned between the publication of the 2001 and 2009 editions of the Control Section atlas, so MP information was present about them at the time. Other short highways had their whole lengths listed in the Memoranda of Understanding or press releases about the transfers of the roadways to local control, also making it possible to get the length, and as a result the ending MP. (In those cases, the starting MP is of course 0.000, the number of decimal places to match the precision given for the ending MP, usually 3 DPs).

One tool though that I've found that will affect all Michigan highway articles, is MDOT's "Physical Reference Finder Application", which is like Google or Yahoo Maps, but it gives milepost data for most roads in the state. Using that, I was actually able to MP M-28 Business (Newberry, Michigan) to 3 DPs, even though the highway was decommissioned in the 1950s. The PRFA has major county roads listed in it with MP data, so over time, I'll be able to update the articles as long as the roadways used in a former highway still exist. Since I have such a tool, expect Michigan to have complete milepost information. Now MnDOT's log files are actually nicer in that I can just look up the MPs on the log for junctions, like I did with U.S. Route 8, instead of running calculations because MDOT resets internal control section MPs at county lines. With MnDOT though, you'll need access to logs that are contemporary to the time that a decommissioned highway existed, unless the roads are still a highway with different numbering. In that last case, we could calculate what the MPs would be using the modern highway designations, assuming no major realignments were made. Otherwise, I wouldn't worry about it and just complete the information in the articles as best as you can. Imzadi 1979 → 00:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so I was playing around with something. WOSlinker is in the process of consolidating all of the various infobox variants to use just {{infobox road}}. That got me to thinking that CA and WA have parameters set up to list the legal definition of the highways from their statutes. The 4 sections of the Minnesota Statutes that define the various Constitutional Routes and Legislative Routes are now listed on Wikisource.

• Minnesota Statutes/Section 161.114
• Minnesota Statutes/Section 161.115
• Minnesota Statutes/Section 161.117
• Minnesota Statutes/Section 161.12

The second part is slightly confusing, but it works this way because it is using code set up for CA and WA, and the terminology doesn't match up perfectly. If you know what subsection of MS §161 defines the highway, enter that in the section parameter of the infobox. If the highway is completely defined by one CR/LR, then you can input the subdivision that lists the definition as the subsection. As long as the |section parameter is defined, it will produce the link, if the |subsection parameter is also defined, then it will link to the specific part of the statute. MN 610 is Route 333 in the Minnesota Statutes § 161.115(264). So for that article, input |section=115 |subsection=264, and the infobox links to Minnesota Statutes/Section 161.115#Subdivision 264 with the nicer looking MS § 161.115(264) link in the infobox. Imzadi 1979 → 07:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

How is it that i get a final warning for editing a page 1 time? sorry for reverting something that seemed legit my mistake —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spun883 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Because you had previously been editing that page with your IP sock, as I indicated in the warning. --Sable232 (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume Sable2322 is not you as he made edits to Pickup truck exactly opposite to yours. You might want to report him?  Stepho  (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to make peace for all the so called unconstuctive editing if I ever have a issue I will always disscuss on the proper page first for the most part my other edits have been constructive and helpful sorry that we seem to have diffrent opinions on a pick up I'll belive my way and you can belive your s I just think it's silly to argue back and forth on here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.219.69.249 (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if you could explain why you reverted my edits to Mercury Marquis. Clearly the car is not in production anymore and using proper grammar would be relevant to an encyclopedia. thanks! Monterey Bay (talk) 06:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You still have not given me a suitable answer to my question. Monterey Bay (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"Hi please respond to AmericanTaurusDriver talk" was added to your user page by AmericanTaurusDriver (talk · contribs) at 21:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC) . Imzadi 1979 → 22:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Manitoba Highway 18.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Are citations needed in infox because there were gaps in the production of the nameplate? If not why are they needed here?(Vegavairbob (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC))

Actually, all those spaces add information to the page, which makes it take longer to load... I mean, we're only talking bytes at a time, but with internet speeds measured in kilobits per second, everything goes slower with even a few extra bits, and all those spaces add up...Magus732 (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you threatening me, Sable? I'm trying to put in proper conversion sequences where there are none... See, this is why I feel singled out sometimes... first, someone tells me to round the figures a certain way... then, someone else tells me to do it differently... I've been told by numerous admins that one should have the converstions set so that they round to a number with a zero on the end... if that's not how it's done, then I'm not at fault... I'll stop damaging articles, certainly, but I need to know for sure what the rules say before I take any one person's word for it... Magus732 (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, recieving conflicting instructions only makes me trust you less... so, find me where it says that in the rulebook, and I'll take it as fact... otherwise, I'll ignore the articles until I hear that I've actually damaged them... Magus732 (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is that when I recieve contradictory information, I try to sort it out before I do anything rash... that's all... look, from now on, I'll make sure the car articles match that pattern, okay? Magus732 (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you found that makes me happy. I've had a theory that CSAHs are signed with a pentagon while the other CRs are signed with white squares. If there are other manuals, this would take my theory out of the realm of OR. Do you know if the other counties have a similar manual? –Fredddie™ 21:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in Dakota County only those CSAHs mentioned have the pentagonal shield, the others have the square one like the non-CSAHs do. Somewhere in that manual it mentions them as "major highways that serve the highest level need."

The only other county I've found so far who had a document online specifying shields was Lake, which uses the square for all of them.

Since each county has its own system, so there's no easy rule. The only ones that do (or probably) use the pentagon for CSAHs and the square for the others are Freeborn, Goodhue, Stearns, and Washington. I know Washington is that way for sure. Nobles and Scott might be too but I'm not sure. The rest either use all of one or the other or do something similar to Dakota (while Chisago seems to be completely random according to their GIS map).

I've been trying to put together a guide for the shield usage in each county. In most cases there's nothing on the county's website that gives anything concrete (sometimes their maps will show something, but those aren't always correct). In lieu of that I've been using the street view on Google Maps, but that's not infallible either because signs aren't always current (I've seen a couple square shields for CSAHs in Washington county and they started switching over quite a long time ago).

I've got the list about half done, and I figured once I'd gotten everything I could find I'd put it up and see if people from WP:MINN can verify or correct what I don't know for certain. --Sable232 (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It figures that each county does their own thing. I would probably put up the list now to see if WP:MINN can help complete it. –Fredddie™ 23:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota State Highways/County shield usage

Hello. My name is Tadzio Latynski-Rossiter. I am a Buick fan, and I follow the Lucerne closely. You see, the reason I know that the Lucerne is getting discontinued after 2011 is because of two sources:

a) Consumer Reports Auto Issue Summer 2010. It's stated under the listing for Buick Lucerne that "2011 is that last year for the Lucerne".

b) Motor Trend Magazine has also announced the fact in its September 2010 Issue on New Cars for 2011-2012. "Lucerne rides off into the sunset..."

So, as you can see, I've given you my sources. Please be kind, and not delete the section where I added my words. It just needs footnotes to clarify and the texts need to be added.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions, so we can sort this out in a better way.

My user name on here is KingBuick.

Thanks for your time. KingBuick 02:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)KingBuickKingBuick 02:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingBuick (talk • contribs)

While this was unproductive, it seems obvious to me that that user was editing in good faith. Perhaps you could try a lesser warning the next time something like this happens. Thanks, Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I commented on the AMC vs American Motors renaming (our man Vega doesn't seem to enjoy the consensus building process), is there a conversation anywhere else or am I done?  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Gremlin ad says at the bottom - American Motors (logo). The last name change Inline-4 engine took a week... I won't be changing any more incorrect titles...not to worry. Regards. Vegavairbob (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I know now! I made a mistake. I only put in for one change as stated. I saw some titles changed without a discussion and assumed it was OK provided it was referenced. Also I forgot how to bring up the discussion, but no excuse. I should not have changed them. Sorry. I apologise for being a pain...You're right, but I mean well. I will follow the rules more carefully..Regards. Vegavairbob (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

How is that according to You there's a "DeVille" sedan, but "de Ville" coupe?

In brochures I see there's sometimes indeed a de Ville spelling, but sometimes deVille, also in newer it was Deville.

I don't wanna argue over that, just unify name along these two articles, and also timeline which for now also says DeVille.

SHAMAN 15:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

So I say let's change everywhere DeVille to de Ville, to avoid confusion. SHAMAN 17:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Then page Cadillac DeVille should be renamed Cadillac Sedan de ville and in this template http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cadillac_timeline_1980_to_date "DeVille" should be changed into "Coupe de Ville/Sedan de Ville"

Well at least I cleaned them up, maybe one day they'll be merged but for now it was huge mess not only with titles, but also inside of those articles. Deville redirects there so everyone's gonna find it, but the title should contain sedan as it's about sedan only at this moment. Improve them if You're a Cadillac guru. SHAMAN 19:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

In the area? You're invited to the
May 2018 Minnesota User Group Meeting
	Date: 31 October 2010
	Time: noon
	Place: Midtown Exchange Global Market, East Lake Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 44°56′57″N 93°15′40″W / 44.9493°N 93.2612°W / 44.9493; -93.2612

Sable232, may I suggest that when you encounter edits that don't conform to your personal view of what is Wikipedia-worthy, you don't summarily revert the edits. Rather, it is good form to take it to the discussion page. Petty jabs and name-calling in the notes to your revert also undermine your credibility. Lastly, if you wish to be taken seriously, you should have some "skin in the game" by making an effort to actually contribute to the article rather than just busting on someone else's contributions. In this vein, I'm restoring my edits to the 442 page, and look forward to a civil discussion on the Discussion page in hopes of further improving the article. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrh442 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I edited Template:Infobox road/MN/link CR to allow counties which have lists, like St. Louis, to have their CRs link to their spots on the list. Off hand, do you know any more counties which have lists and can be added to the template? –Fredddie™ 05:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The only other two I know of are County roads in Goodhue County, Minnesota and County roads in Hennepin County, Minnesota.

OK. Added Goodhue finally, but Hennepin's list needs to be reworked before it can be used like that, plus I'm pretty sure CR 81 has an article already. –Fredddie™ 00:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

How does it need to be reworked? Yes, CR 81 has an article, as does 122. --Sable232 (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

In a similar vein, I was thinking of requesting a full set of square county road shields (at least from 1-199) since there's now a bot that can do it. However, I haven't the faintest clue how they'd work with the jct template or how to name them so they'd be usable with it. --Sable232 (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think something along the lines of County X square.svg would work. It would be really easy to get {{Jct}} to work with that, and I'm fairly adept at that.

Hindsight being 20/20, when I created the generic pentagons, I should have named them County X pentagon.svg We could have the bot create those with normal sized numbers. They do look a bit odd with the larger numbers... –Fredddie™ 00:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. Just let me know how to call the right shields in the jct template and I'll add them in. --Sable232 (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This will be tricky. Basically, we'll need to know every what every CR shield is (pentagon or square) and have all the generic shields ready to go. It would almost be easier to create the specific shields. –Fredddie™ 00:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Before you report a vandal to AIV, remember that they have to have been sufficiently warned to stop, much less warned at all. Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

When you're making junction lists, what's your criteria for including a junction? When I make them, I usually don't include anything lower than a state highway unless there's a really, really good reason to include them. When I did the list for TH 26, I included a CSAH, so I could be persuaded to include them in Minnesota lists. I definitely wouldn't include every CR junction. –Fredddie™ 23:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It depends on how many junctions there are on the highway. On Minnesota State Highway 1, the list is long enough as it is. But on shorter routes that don't have very many, I'll include county roads that appear on the state highway map, and on especially short routes (like ones that have few or no highway junctions other than termini) I'll include all CSAHs or all county roads, depending on the situation. --Sable232 (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In the area? You're invited to the
May 2018 Minnesota User Group Meeting
	Date: 20 November 2010
	Time: 1:00-3:30 (click here for full agenda) R.S.V.P. by Nov. 17 for free lunch + parking
	Place: Minnesota History Center 345 Kellogg Blvd, St. Paul, Minnesota 44°57′00″N 93°06′20″W / 44.95°N 93.1055°W / 44.95; -93.1055

I am writing a better route description and creating a junction list for the Iowa section of U.S. Route 218. I was hoping that you and I could tag-team the article and get it out of the start category. –Fredddie™ 00:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Great idea. I'll do that junction list next. I don't know how much help I'll be on improving and expanding the route description though. I really haven't done much of that yet, but I'll see what I can do.

Do you want me to just add the MN junction list into the article when I do it or should I hang on to it until you've got the Iowa portion in? --Sable232 (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Just add in the MN parts whenever. –Fredddie™ 22:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The junction list is in. Feel free to reformat the heading and such to fit with yours. --Sable232 (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. I was planning on giving it the US 8 treatment. –Fredddie™ 00:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep on reverting your CN. Wanting a CN on the easy stuff while the article lacks gobs of other info like Shift-on-the-fly option details, is foolish and makes articles look like garbage. Don't post on my talk page again. Thanks. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I see, you're a dick. Duly noted. --Sable232 (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello sable 232 Why do some article with infoboxes have flag icons, while others aren't allowed to? Also one thing I was trying to do to the Cadillac Escalade page was to provide a front and rear view image of the vehicle, same for the Chevrolet Suburban page. Sorry for any inconveniences I may have caused.

--Aikidockd (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to talkpage stalk or anything, but flag icons are discouraged by WP:MOSFLAG, specifically "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason". For instance, it would cause confusion to readers if a Mexico flag icon was placed on an American car's page because it was made in Mexico. –Fredddie™ 21:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

But they are american car companies, there headquarters are in Michigan, USA.

Aikidockd™ 23:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I would take a look at 10-20 car articles and see if they have icons. Without looking myself, I would bet that most of them do not. –Fredddie™ 02:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

All I'm trying to say is that they should make it policy to have the flag icon in automaker infoboxes to emphasize where that country is based, for example-Toyota should have a japanese flag, while Ford should have an American flag.

Aikidockd™ 23:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That goes against the exact policy I already cited "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason". From what I've read, the only reason why you want to do this is "just because". –Fredddie™ 04:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

My replies to the above are in the original thread at Talk:Aikidockd. --Sable232 (talk)