User talk:Bull-Doser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive
Archives

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. Again, welcome!

--WillMak050389 03:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Automotive timeline templates

Please, stop. Or at the very least, do some maths -- every one of your templates so far has some seriously skewy formatting. 2004 is twice as wide as every other year, and about four times as wide as 2007. Are you just copy/pasting from somewhere else, because that somewhere else needs fixing, not spread all over other articles like a layout virus. And why are you only doing North American markets? How encyclopedic is it to just omit the rest of the world? If you don't know about the rest of the world, maybe you're not the ideal author to create such templates? That's certainly true if you're not willing to do any research to discover what's beyond your shores.

The annoying thing is, Mitsubishi Motors has a .pdf, freely available from its global website, which gives a complete automotive timeline including the first years of its existence. --DeLarge 20:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

And here's a little warning. If you start deleting the work of others, as with this edit, I'm reverting on sight. Don't think for one second that your contributions are somehow worthy of overwriting those of others. --DeLarge 20:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Bull-Doser, I recommend not separating car generations in the timelines. That's why the year columns get screwed up. --Sable232 16:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning for deletion of material

Please stop. If you continue to delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Mitsubishi Diamante, you will be blocked.

See also: Mitsubishi Raider (as previously mentioned), Nissan Rogue, Nissan Altima, Nissan Armada, Nissan Frontier, Nissan Quest, Nissan Titan, and Nissan Murano. --DeLarge 11:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Replacing a list template with a timeline is not vandalism. I did that to several articles a while back, so the article for a specific car would have more relevant context. It makes little sense to have a huge template for every vehicle Ford has built worldwide on something like Ford Galaxie. It is far more useful to have a timeline for that market during that time period.
Now, I can't speak for what he's doing here and I don't know if it's right or not, but I do not believe the intent is vandalism. --Sable232 16:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Boy, where to start...
  • "Replacing a list template with a timeline is not vandalism...I do not believe the intent is vandalism." Who said it was vandalism? The above template is not {{uw-test3}}, it's {{uw-delete3}}, for "Page blanking, removal of content or templates". Please read WP:TUSER if you need to familiarise yourself further with maintenance templates. Meanwhile, you might consider retracting that particular comment.
  • "I did that to several articles a while back..." Great, so if someone like myself prefers a single template covering a company's entire history, we're to have our preferences disregarded entirely, even if our style of navigation template is there first? How would you like it if someone started over-writing your templates without discussion? I dare say there might be mitigating circumstances in your situation though. I'm guessing here that your timelines were to stuff like Mercury, which is primarily a North America-only marque? You can therefore provide a timeline which will include all the vehicles the company sold, and will still be comprehensive? And your edits, I assume, did not therefore involve the removal of useful navigation links? Read my fourth bullet point with regards to this...
  • "...so the article for a specific car would have more relevant context." The article already has that context. Predecessor, successor, years of production and car classification are all included in the infobox, and to my knowledge almost every MMC vehicle now has at least one infobox containing such info.
  • "It makes little sense to have a huge template..." Please compare "BD's" {{Mitsubishi Motors}} with "my" {{Mitsubishi Motors vehicles}}. Despite the fact that the latter is a far more comprehensive template, offering links to 117 vehicles (including regional naming variations) and three MMC categories, and includes almost every one of the company's passenger vehicle since 1960, it takes up less space on the page than the North American timeline template which has only 17 discreet vehicle listings and covers only the period since 1980. 320 pixels deep compared to the timeline's 357, at a screen res 1024 pixels wide. And bear in mind that since the Diamante (one of the articles where a substitution was made) is a globally available car, if it deserves a North American template it also deserves a Japanese, Australian and European template too -- Mitsubshi sold the car at different times to each of those markets. So how big is a truly encyclopedic set of templates going to be? Four times bigger? More? I don't think size is a big issue here, but if other people want to make it an issue, my template is far, far more compact and space-efficient.
  • On the same topic, a single global timeline would be much bigger. Before the "compact" row we're going to need to put a subcompact segment (for the Colt) and a kei car section which would have to be four rows high to accommodate the eK, Minica, Pajero Mini and i, which have been sold concurrently.
  • Expounding further on the same topic, I personally dislike timelines because they expand widthways. This limitation is why timelines only ever cover short time periods,and why there's so many "early" and "late" timelines in the Automotive timeline templates category. Web pages expand down the way as they get bigger. Templates do not, therefore, offer "more context" unless you're willing to accept the compromise of only looking at a relatively short timescale (which rather renders the point of a timeline redundant). But that's my personal opinion, so I'm not going to just arbirarily start over-writing them with my preferred nav-template layout.
  • There wasn't a single undoing of his edits where he simply added the template alongside what was already there. That brings us full circle. If we're to cater to different personal preferences, we shouldn't be deleting one template in favour of another. That's what BD was doing, and that's what I reverted. He apparently arbitrarily decided that someone reading the Mitsubishi Diamante article was going to be allowed to navigate directly only to other vehicles sold in the United States. Despite the global market MMC operates in (it sells cars in 170 countries), readers are no longer going to be provided with a link to non-U.S. cars.
Two more minor points I should also mention. First, I can spot a couple of factual errors in the template. No surprise there; I'd be surprised if BD's used the <ref> tag once in his 5,000+ edits. That's why so much of his factually incorrect original research has to be reverted. Second, it's named "Mitsubishi Motors", as if it's some kind of overall template covering the whole company. On that issue alone I'm going to move/rename it, so that it will better match any future MMC regional timeline templates which have to be created. --DeLarge 19:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I should have looked harder. I saw the notice but didn't read it. You're absolutely right about the global vehicles, actually I agree with you about the full list template. But on something like Mitsubishi Raider or Nissan Quest, which were single-market cars, the timeline (if cleaned up) is as valid as the full list. I'm sorry if I was unclear.
Maybe, for the timelines, we could add a link to the comprehensive list? That would bring a reader from the specific-market car right to the global.
Again, sorry I wasn't very specific. I shouldn't write these things in a hurry. --Sable232 19:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting wikilinks

Do you have any reason whatsoever for deleting links to such things as [[Litre|L]], [[kilowatt|kW]], [[millimetre|mm]], etc, as you did here, here, and possibly elsewhere? Please stop this. This is the very point of wikilinking. You cannot assume that the reader will automatically know what these abbreviations mean. --DeLarge 20:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Because I wanted to do cleanups of pages, like Sable232 or NaBUru38. -- Bull-Doser 23:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between cleanups and downright deleting useful information. Karrmann 01:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snow

I think you misunderstand complaints about images with snow. The complaint is when there is snow on the car, not on the ground near a car. I'm reverting your changes. IFCAR 01:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Snow on cars takes away from vital details of teh car, which is the reason why the images are here. Please stop. I found one of your snow images. It is annoying, and detracts from the encyclopedia. Karrmann 02:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mitsubishi Eclipse

Your most recent edits to this article changed its predecessor from the Mitsubishi Starion to Mitsubishi Cordia. Do you have a reliable source for this? As usual, aside from declarations in your edit summaries you offer no indication of this being anything other than original research. The edit directly conflicts with Edmunds.com, which claims that the Starion was replaced by both the Eclipse and 3000GT.[1]

You've now been at Wikipedia for over a year, and yet I don't think I've ever seen you cite a source; certainly not in an article. WP's core policies with regards to editing are that everything should be verifiable from reliable sources, and that there should be absolutely no original research. I have no idea if you're simply unaware of these policies, or whether you choose to ignore them. However, I expect you to provide a reliable source for this discussed edit, or for you to revert it. --DeLarge 00:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I would really like if you would stop this. Please quit messing up the encyclopedia. Karrmann 01:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] replacing images

I see that a lot of times that you have replaced high quality images with images that of an inferior quality. Ford Fusion, Ford Edge, and Infiniti J, amoung others. Please stop. Please stop doing all this stuff we are warning you on, before we get admins involved. Karrmann 15:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

I removed the IF CAR userbox because it violiates WP's policy of userpages not singling out adn comparing yourself to other editors. Karrmann 23:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Errr

I noticed that the quality of your latest images are.......totally inferior to all WP policies. They are badly lit, bad angles, fuzzy, blurry, and the cars are full of salt. I think it is your camera phone and poor taste of cars to photograph. Camera phones are known for the bad quality of the pictures they take, and are not meant to replace digital cameras. They are meant for low resolution on etime use pics. As a result, your images are fuzzy and blurry. So, throw that camera phone in the garbage, get that camera back out, and judge the cars you take images of better. When I and your hero IFCAR take pics, we pick out cars that aren't currounded by other cars, that are mostly clean of salt erosion, and are not in bright sunlight. So, please do that, and quit uploading inferior quality pictures to wikipedia. Please let me know that you get what I am saying, adn please stop putting bad pictures on Wikipedia. Cause, if you continue u0ploading all these bad pics, you might be seeing a RfC. Karrmann 00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It was my HP Photosmart camera, not my camera phone! -- Bull-Doser 00:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, you claim on your userpage that you use a camera phone. "I now use a camera phone to take car pictures." But if you are using a digital camera, why are your images coming out all fuzzy and blurry? Is the flash on? Karrmann 01:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
No it isn't, but I turned on the flash with my Ford Focus station wagon, and that Nissan Versa sedan! -- Bull-Doser 01:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, flash should be used full time. That is how my images come out so clear. Karrmann 01:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
No, flash should (almost) NEVER be used when photographing a car (in normal conditions). Case in point: Image:2nd-Sable-GS.JPG. That image, by the way, has not been edited at all. Taking pictures is primarily about technique. Camera quality is a factor, however I do not believe the one I use (a Canon) is very expensive. I have used one that is a royal POS, but I can't recall what the damn thing was. --Sable232 01:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I conflict that. When I didn't use flash, my images came out blurry, adn when I did, they came out clear. Keep in mind I use a good digital camera, so the flash is smart, and applies the right amount of flash for the conditions. Karrmann 02:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Good cameras with an automatic flash know exactly when the flash needs to go off, and generally should be left on automatic. An overlit image is undesirable, and a flash shouldn't make an image any sharper in normal lighting. IFCAR 03:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
That is what I have, automatic flash. Then, for the Grand Am pic to be that blurry, it had to be driving by. Karrmann 03:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

<de-indent> Sorry to step in here, but I'm also an automobile photographer when I can find the time to do so. I use a DXG DVC305 camera, which is by no stretch of the imagination a great one. I also use my mom's Kodak DX7630, which is somewhat better. Image:Mercedes-Benz ML350 2003.jpg is an example of the Kodak's output. Image:Chevrolet Cobalt sedan 2005.jpg is from my DXG camera. They're both about average examples of the quality from the two cameras. What I really find maddening, though, is that your images seem to vary so much in quality. Image:Ford_Aerostar_LWB_1992-97.jpg is a quite nice photo of yours. However, Image:Olds_Calais_Coupe.jpg is quite bad; it looks like you took that whilst the car was moving. Can you think of anything you did differently between the two images? ~Crazytales (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turbodiesel links

Please, read my reply to your message at my talk, and if possible reply to it. -- NaBUru38 17:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] STOP NOW

Stop replacing pictures of execeptional quailty with inferior pictures. I don't know why you feeel obligated to constantly insert IFCAR's pictures into articles. Is there a clause in the encyclopedia that says "All car pictures must be IFCAR's car pictures" or something? Mazda RX-8, Infiniti J, and Toyota Celica are examples. Every time I have seen you swapping otu pictures, you have always replaced a super high quality picture with a parking lot shot. Why? Are you blind? It seems that every time you mess with the pictures on articles, you just mess everythign up. Ok, stop all the IFCAR butkissing. Maybe he would like you if you wouldn't be leaving crap like "FUCK YOU!" and comparisons of you to him on your talk page. And anyways, I am getting tired of you constantly making a mess in each article, and I having to constantly clean them up. STOP. Karrmann 14:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition, BD, I seem to find you following around Karmann's contributions and editing those articles in direct succession. Is there a reason for this? --Sable232 15:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
You did it again, on Honda Civic. [2] DID A SINGLE FUCKING WORD I SAY PENETRATE THAT THICK FUCKING SKULL? JUST STOP EDING ARTICLES PICTURES AS YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO KNOW A GOOD ONE FROM A BAD ONE! Karrmann 12:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
WOah. I didn't mean tthat. I was just very irritated when I wrote that, hat edit just kinda pushed me over teh edge. Please accept my most sincere apoligies. I am not like tha tkinda person. but I wish you would listen to what we have to say. When we say stop, we mean stop, and you still doing it really upsets us. Karrmann 19:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mazda MX-5

Reading the above sections, looks like your fame precedes you. On Mazda MX-5, you just removed all of the date-formatting date links. Please read the Manual of Style - there's a reason to write a date like this: March 13, 2007, and the reason is not to make the date clickable, the reason is to format the date according to your preferences.

Oh, and you also dropped in a photo on the article. Guidelines: place the photo either left or right so that the car points to the center of the article. That's why I'm moving your photo from one side to the other. OK? --maf 01:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That's Karrmann's photo. I like to mimic Sable232 & NaBUru38 for delinking years. -- Bull-Doser 02:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Clarification: Years and months ONLY are delinked by myself. Full dates are left linked so, for example, Americans can see "March 14, 2007" and Europeans can see "14 March 2007". I delinked a full date once and was told why not to. Once was enough for me. Maybe in the future the software will change so dates will be formatted to preferences without being linked. Until then, stop. --Sable232 16:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
IS THAT AN EXCUSE? Stop 'mimicking' and start using your own head, although I suspect you may be impaired in that respect, no offense intended. --maf 09:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I had missed another change of yours to the article. YOU DELETED AND REPLACED the similar-models content. DON'T DELETE OTHER PEOPLE'S CONTRIBUTIONS. But I guess you won't take notice of this warning yet again.

If there's a motion to block this user, I'll second it. --maf 09:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll third it. I have offically run out of patience with him. Read my comment in teh above section. Karrmann 10:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asperger syndrome

I just noticed you have A.S. I know A.S. well and it certainly explains your consistent behaviour. BUT, it does not excuse, it does not justify, and it does not permit your behaviour on Wikipedia. Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia is a collective effort and there is limited space for gifted people. You ARE gifted and you will certainly find an activity that can suit your giftness and let you make the most of it. But Wikipedia does not seem to be that activity. Unless you accept (subject to being able to) to conform to the Wikipedia guidelines, you will only grow increasingly frustrated with Wikipedian's reactions to your behaviours, and there are so many things out there, even without leaving the Internet, that need you and to which you can give your best. Please take a moment to reflect on this, as it would be much better for the decision to be made by you, on your own, instead of by the community. Take care. --maf 10:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:2008 Scion xD.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:2008 Scion xD.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Roguegeek (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:'08 Volvo V70.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:'08 Volvo V70.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 48 hours after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 06:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:'08 C-Class.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:'08 C-Class.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 48 hours after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 06:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mitsubishi GTO

Here we go again. Cut/pasted from the section above on your edits to Mitsubishi Eclipse, with adjustments as required. Apparently you haven't learned a thing since last month...

Your most recent edit to this article added its successor as the Dodge Avenger. Do you have a reliable source for this? As usual, aside from declarations in your edit summaries you offer no indication of this being anything other than original research. According to Carsdirect.com, the 1996 Dodge Avenger coupe range had a MSRP of $14,040 - $18,121. This compared with the 1996 Stealth range's $24,461 - $34,820. Clearly, one absolutely did NOT replace the other.

So for the second time: you've now been at Wikipedia for over a year, and yet I don't think I've ever seen you cite a source; certainly not in an article. WP's core policies with regards to editing are that everything should be verifiable from reliable sources, and that there should be absolutely no original research. I know that you are aware of these policies because I've already told you about them, but you choose to ignore them. However, I expect you to provide a reliable source for these and future edits, or for you to revert them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DeLarge (talk • contribs) 11:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/u/l/User_talk%7EBull-Doser_1f1c.html"