User talk:Bull-Doser/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Why are ur pictures from west island

Hi, i was wondering why all the pictures you take are from the west island (fairview mall, galleries des sources etc..)all from dollard des ormeaux, pierrefonds, pointe claire???

[edit] STOP THE POOR PICS

WHY CAN'T YOU TAKE A PICTURE OF A CAR FROM THE FRONT? I EFFORTLESSLY TAKE PICTURES OF CARS FROM THE FRONT BECAUSE I DON'T GO LOOKING FOR THEM IN CROWDED PARKING LOTS! YOU THINK THAT ANY CRAP WILL QUALIFY AS A GOOD PIC, BUT IT WONT! LOOK AT THE IMAGES Image:Cars 008.jpg and Image:Cars 011.jpg SEE, I TOOK A IMAGE OF A CAR FROM THE FRONT, AND I'M STILL ALIVE. THESE IMAGES ACTUALLY ILLUSTRATE THE ARTICLE INSTEAD OF CLUTTERING THEM UP WITH NONSENSE! I AM SO FED UP WITH YOUR CRAPPY PICS! IF YOU KNOW WHATS GOOD FOR YOU, YOU WILL TAKE A GOOD PIC, USING THE TWO I POSTED AS EXAMPLES (mainly the Escort) GOT IT! MAKE A GOOD PIC FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THAT IT HOLY!Karrmann 13:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't want to shout, but I need you to please listen to us and STOP uploading poor quality pictures. You are getting us so frustrated to the point where some people need to yell at you. We welcome your contributions under your new name, but this ("this" meaning not listening to us) is not acceptable in the least bit. --ApolloBoy 00:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I thought I told you to stop

Ok, I will be civil. Stop now. NO MORE POOR QUALITY PICS. No more [ictures of the car from the back. No more pictures of cars sitting in traffic. No more pictures of cars in driveways facing garages. No more pictures of cars in bad lighting. JUST STOP! If you don't comply, then further action will have to be taken. Karrmann 02:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, Montréal is one of my favorite cities. I wish I could live there year-round. There are so many fun things to do there, but wandering through parking lots taking pictures of banged-up cars from the rear isn't one of them. May I suggest Biéres et Cie (coin St-Denis & Marie-Anne) or Réservoir (coin St-Laurent & Duluth)? DonIncognito 03:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
We've told you once, and we'll tell you again Bull-Doser, STOP adding poor quality pictures. We want you to listen to us, but it seems as if you're ignoring us... --ApolloBoy 20:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where Are You From?

Where is Don Incognito from, Toronto?

Bull-Doser 04:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No Sir, I live in Miami :-) DonIncognito 04:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Pre-2004 Avalons

Weren't the pre-2004 Avalons midsize cars? Now Toyota's got 2 midsize cars, the Camry & the Prius.

Bull-Doser 01:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the Avalon was never a mid-size. --ApolloBoy 02:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dodge's Cars

First off, the Shadow & Colt were subcompacts. The Colt surpassed the Shadow in size for '92, because the Colt was still considered a subcompact. The Spirit was a compact, and its twins were the LeBaron & Acclaim, and were competitors of other compacts at the time (Accord, Corsica, Stanza, Tempo, etc.). The Accord became a midsize in 1994. The Dynasty & Monaco were midsize cars.

Bull-Doser 17:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right about the Colt being a subcompact, but the Shadow was a compact, not a subcompact. The Spirit, LeBaron sedan and Acclaim are mid-sized. Don't assume a car is a certain class just because its competitors were of a different class. Please stop doing this. Thanks. --ApolloBoy 19:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last warning

What you are continuing to do is not acceptible anymore. It is less of your pics and more of your attitude. We tried to be nice, but you just ignored us and uploaded the same bad pics, despite numerous warnings. Your pics compromise the integrity of every article they appear in. If you continue, you can be temporarly blocked, as you have everybody really ticked off. Karrmann 21:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that you went through the liberty of uploading more bad pictures. I see you posting on your talk page, so you visit here, and you see our messages, but you do not choose to read them, and that has a lot of members in flames. So let me reiderate: NO MORE PICTURES OF CARS WITH PEOPLE IN THEM, MO MORE PICTURES OF CARS FROM THE BACK, NO MORE PICTURES OF CARS IN CROWDED PARKING LOTS, NO PICTURES OF CARS PASSING BY IN THE STREET, NO MORE PICTURES OF CARS IN TRAFFIC, NO MORE PICTURES OF BANGED UP CARS. Got it? If this doesn't penetrate, then we could use force to stop you from uploading bad pictures. Karrmann 13:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you uploaded ANOTHER bad pic, even after my warnings. PLEASE STOP. Karrmann 01:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Getting there

Shoot more pictures like this! - From the front without any persons of a clean and well maintained car.
Shoot more pictures like this! - From the front without any persons of a clean and well maintained car.

Hi, I looked over the past few pictures you uploaded, and they're getting better. The resolution is now much better and you have blocked out the license plates and added the corrected licensing tags. While that's great, there are just a few more things to consider. If you could start photographing the cars from the front and make sure the car is clean and well maintained your pics would be much better. I think if you could take more picures like that of the 2003-05 Honda Pilot you uploaded recently, your edits would be much more appreciated. Thanks for contributing. Regards, Signaturebrendel 17:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You Killed The Sequoia Image I Took!

So Bavaria, willya look on Consumerguide for a Sequoia image?

Bull-Doser 14:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


The image was not a good one. More pics like that Pilot above would be great. DonIncognito 23:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entry Compact SUV Competition

This is for companies only with more than 1 compact SUV. I won't include HHR & xB, due to the fact they're station wagons or hatchbacks.

Ford Escape/Mazda Tribute (I won't include Mariner due to Mercury being a semi-luxury division)
Honda Element
Jeep Compass
Nissan X-Trail (I wonder if the 2nd gen of this one shares the Sentra platform?)
Suzuki SX4
Toyota RAV4

Bull-Doser 00:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pontiac G5

Regarding your last change.. the Pontiac G5 and Chevrolet Cobalt are related. The G5 is not known as the Cobalt in the US. The Cobalt is also sold in Canada, and the G5 will be sold in the US this summer. If a car is sold under a different brand or model outside of its home market, that is an "a.k.a." - for example, the Daewoo Magnus from South Korea is sold as the Chevrolet Epica in Canada, and the Suzuki Verona in the US, since Daewoo as a brand is no longer in either country. When two similar cars or brands are sold in the same market (country), that makes them "related" instead. Does this make sense? --Vossanova o< 11:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Verona & Epica are both sold in Canada. In the U.S. the Aerio (while a compact car) competes with subcompacts, while in Canada (where it's got the Swift+ instead of the Forenza) it competes with compacts. The U.S. couldn't sell the Swift+, since the Aerio is served as the entry-level model, and the Forenza (which replaced the Suzuki Esteem & Daewoo Nubira for the U.S.) competes with compacts in the U.S. I know the Aerio was replaced by the Esteem. However, I heard on MSN News Suzuki will be dropping the Verona due to poor sales, and I think it'll be replaced by the Suzuki Tosca.

Bull-Doser 14:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but it was just an example, I wanted to be clear regarding the G5/Cobalt relationship - that North American, Pontiac/Chevy "badge engineered" siblings go under "related" - also see Pontiac Sunfire. --Vossanova o< 15:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GM platform successors

In the mid-1980s, here's what those platforms became. One platform became two platforms, just like when the GM A platform (RWD) became the G-body and the FWD A-body. The GM G platform (RWD) was succeded into 2 platforms -- the mid-size W platform (introduced in 1988) we all know of, and the GM H platform (FWD) introduced in 1986, although it would overlap for 3 years with the GM G platform (RWD). Most RWD G-body cars moved to the W platform, although the Pontiac Bonneville moved to the FWD H-body. And the GM X platform was succeded by the N platform (where the Buick, Olds & Pontiac compacts went), and the Citation became the Corsica on the L-body. I recently updated the GM G platform (RWD) and GM H platform (FWD) pages to lists its successors/predecessors.

Bull-Doser 17:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where I live?

You sick b-st-rd! You have no right to know where I live. Asking private questions like that will get you into serious trouble. Bavaria 13:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we drop the insult, please? I know you're concerned, but it doesn't give you the right to call him a "sick bastard". --ApolloBoy 17:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, seriously, chill out dude. It's not like telling him your home state or town constitutes any sort of threat. He's probably being friendly, and it's not like he's asking for your bloody address. DonIncognito 05:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Images

After editing and improving the few salvageable images in your recent batch of uploads, your utter inability to take an attractive photograph of an automobile (proper angle, exposure, colors, cropping, etc.) continues to completely baffle me. If you would do us the honor of at least acknowledging our issues with your images, we could work together to improve their quality. Your stonewalling of everyone on this matter is likewise incomprehensible. DonIncognito 19:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This ignoring of us and your continuing uploading of poor quality images of badly exposed cars from the back has to stop this instant. You are acting like uploading a good picture will kill you. When you upload pictures of grimy cars from the back, in bright sunlight, it does not do a good jpb of illustrating the article, and when I look at the pictures you take, My eyes wander off looking at the other cars and the scenery, distracting me from the subject automobile it'self. Please answer us on this issue, because your ignoring us and you uploading pictures of poorly exposed cars, and placing them as head images may just be good enough for a Vandalism in progress report, so I hope that convinces you to stop. Karrmann 02:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln's Replacements

Now, let's see if the flagship Lincoln MKS gets a limo after the Town Car dies. The MKS will be a fullsize car, and will be larger than the 2007 model year Lexus LS in length.

Entry-Level: Versailles -> Continental (Downsized) -> LS -> Zephyr/MKZ
Top-Line: Continental -> Town Car -> MKS

Lincoln will be back to 2 sedans again since 2000-02, and 2006 was the only 4 years Lincoln had 3 sedans.Bull-Doser 04:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The Town Car is NOT going to die, production will move to where the Ford Crown Victoria and the Mercury Grand Marquis are made. Karrmann 11:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
No. On the Town Car page, Ford does not plan to move the Town Car to St. Thomas (listed on a news article), likely for the Town Car to end production permanently.

Bull-Doser 12:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wierd, because the Town Car is one of Lincoln's best selling models. Karrmann 14:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The MKS will be similar in size to a Q45, 7-Series or Lexus LS, but will be shorter than the DTS.Bull-Doser 00:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes the MKS is much smaller than the Town Car or DTS, but comparable to size to the 7-Series. Here is the Lincoln history:
Entry-level: Versailler -> LS V6 -> Zephyr -> MKZ
Mid-level: Continental -> LS V8 -> MKZ (upscale trim)
Top-of-the-line: Contiental -> Town Car -> MKS
Personal Lux: Mark -> LS -> MKZ (the sport sedan are also aimed at this audience)
FYI: It is expected that limo version of the Chrysler 300C will become a new favorite among livery services, the MKS might also be streched, but the body on frame design, which makes the Town Car so easy to stretch and is the primary reason for its poularity among livery services will be retires thus making the MKS as difficult to stretch as any other luxury car. Regards, Signaturebrendel 21:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dodge Neon Page Update

Okay. Now that the Plymouth Sundance page is seperate from the Dodge Shadow page, I just added a link for the Plymouth Sundance on the Dodge Neon's predecessors.

Bull-Doser 02:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Now, Breaking Chevrolet News

The Chevette was discontinued in 1987, and the subcompact Chevrolet Spectrum and Chevrolet Sprint (renamed Geo Spectrum and Geo Metro for 1989) were considered its successors. The Toyota Corolla-based Nova was considered a Citation successor, although the Citation's true successors were the Corsica sedan & hatchback and Beretta sport compact coupe.

Bull-Doser 03:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sunfire's Predecessors

In North America, the Pontiac Sunfire replaced both the Pontiac LeMans/Asuna SE and Pontiac Sunbird. But didn't it also replace the Asuna Sunfire?

Bull-Doser 19:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sunfire replaced Sunbird, and that's it. The LeMans had no predecessor nor successor. --93JC 15:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lexus

Since when is the ES 300/330 a small car? Oh and it's also not necessary to link every instance of a year or country name in an automotive article. Keep your links relevant. DonIncognito 17:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The ES was the entry-level Lexus until 2001. Bull-Doser 22:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless, that doesn't make it a small car. DonIncognito 07:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Don is right, the ES is a mid-size. The position a car takes in a marque's line-up is not neccessarily related to its actual size. The Lincoln LS was hardly a small car, yet it was the entry-level Lincoln. Regards, Signaturebrendel 21:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New batch of pics

Most of your new batch of car photos are very nice. Keep up the good work! A couple of suggestions: If taking a picture in bright sunlight, lower the exposure on your camera or try to avoid direct reflections of the sun. That would improve your camera's ability to focus on the car. Also, after you have taken the picture, try cropping the photo so as to draw the focus to the car and not the surroundings. Merci! DonIncognito 07:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That's why I got into using ACDSee Pro 8.1; it is slightly smaller in size than Photoshop. Bull-Doser 07:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, your images really have improved! Keep it up! --ApolloBoy 00:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your continuing image contributions. A tip: For better results, try to increase the contrast in your pictures, and also try not to have direct reflections in your camera. For example, looks much nicer than DonIncognito 01:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ford Tempo Page Images

For the first time, the first-generation Ford Tempo sedan is shown on the Ford Tempo page. I also added the Tempo coupe there. Bull-Doser 21:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ConsumerGuide Images

By continuing as an automobile photographer, I will post images from ConsumerGuide for cars that were never sold in Canada, and post differently-badged images for the U.S. Bull-Doser 23:50, 7 July 2006 (EST)

[edit] Neon Page Undergone Update!

Here on the Dodge Neon page, I've added a gallery of images, including the Dodge/Chrysler/Plymouth Neon variants. There is now only one fair use image, which is the U.S. market 2000-02 Dodge Neon. And I've moved the second-generation column to the way bottom. Bull-Doser 00:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 1980 Mazda 626

Here then, I updated the Mazda 626 page. I uploaded a 1980 Mazda 626 (which was photographed outside my old house in 1990), and scanned it for 2006. The second-generation 626 is uploaded there as well! Bull-Doser 21:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln's First Rebadged Ford

Hi, wasn't it the Lincoln Mark VII (1980s) that was the first rebadged Ford? I know it was a rebadged Ford Thunderbird that time.

Bull-Doser 22:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the Lincoln Versailles was. FYI: The iterior of a Mark VII diffes greatly from the Thunderbird. Signaturebrendel 17:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, most of the Mark VII's body panels are not shared with the T-Bird. --ApolloBoy 19:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acuras, Lexuses, Mercedes, Etc.

TSX & CSX Vs. IS Vs. C-Class
TL Vs. ES Vs. E-Class
RL Vs. GS Vs. CLS-Class
LS Vs. S-Class

The current C-Class is a compact car. The Acura TL is similar in length to an E-Class. Mercedes brought the CLS-Class as a fighter for the Lexus GS, Acura RL & Cadillac STS.

Bull-Doser 03:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Japanese vehicles tend to be cheaper than German vehicles. For example the LS competes for colsely in price, and according to Forbes also in handling with TC or DTS, than the S-Class. Yet it is a flaghsip sedan and thereby also directed at the S-Class.

Also, consider that the TSX is a rebadged European Honda Accord, it competes w/ the MB B-Class, which is not sold in North America yet. Regards, Signaturebrendel 17:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd consider the B-Class a CSX competitor, and both the B-Class & CSX are sold in Canada. Bull-Doser 19:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The B-Class is not a CSX competitor. Don't be ridiculous. The B-Class is a compact MPV, not a sedan, and competes with cars such as the Opel Zafira and Renault Scénic. There is no equivalent to it in North America. --Pc13 20:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right only in terms of price is the B-Class an Acura competitor. I still think the TSX is not quite a competitor for the C-Class. Interesting though- the B Class is sold in Canada. Signaturebrendel 22:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acadia/Enclave/Outlook Info!

First off, the Acadia/Enclave/Outlook are all full-size SUVs. The TB/Envoy will continue as competition for the 4Runner & Explorer, while the Acadia/Enclave/Outlook would compete with a Ford Expedition, Nissan Armada & Toyota Sequoia.

Bull-Doser 02:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dodge Successors Of The 80's/90's

The Shadow only replaced the Charger & Omni. The Spirit replaced the Aries & Lancer. The Dynasty replaced the 600 & Diplomat. Even the LeBaron was a rebadged Aries, and after 1990 became a rebadged Spirit. And the pre-1988 New Yorker was based on the 600, and the post-1989 New Yorker became a Dynasty. Because the Shadow was a hatchback, it did NOT replace the Aries sedan. It replaced the Charger & Omni as the "hatchback" Dodge.

Bull-Doser 17:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The Daytona replaced the Charger, not the Shadow. BTW, sorry I was so hard on you. Karrmann 18:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
No it didn't. The Charger was released in 1983, and the Daytona in 1984. The Daytona's predecessor was the Mitsubishi-based Challenger. Bull-Doser 19:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Erm...what is it with all these imaginative edits you're making regarding Chrysler Corp. passenger car lineage? Omni replacing Dart/Aspen, Horizon replacing Valiant/Volaré? Absolutely not. No way, nohow, not even if you read it in ConsumerGuide. Please, don't make random edits just to create extra work for others. Scheinwerfermann 02:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.
This isn't to devalue your contributions or anything. They're just fine. Coincidentally, I'm refering to edits to Buick Park Avenue

Thanks and Regards, Alphachimp talk 00:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your help

I appreciate that you've inserted some of my Commons photos into their appropriate articles when I never got around to doing so. I like the idea of there being a second opinion that the image is good enough to go into its article, and someone else putting it in is definite confirmation. Plus, it gets the articles up-to-date faster and relieves the rush of one person trying to fit everything in. Thanks again. IFCAR 10:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Sunfire Coupe (1995-1999).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sunfire Coupe (1995-1999).jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Also posted at User talk:Take Me Higher, but I was informed by User:Karrmann that you don't read that any more. —Bkell (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IFCAR Vs. Bull-Doser Vs. Bavaria

IFCAR - Only uploads free images
Bull-Doser - Uploads free & fair images
Bavaria - Only uploads fair images

And the winner is? Stay tuned! -- Bull-Doser 20:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you comparing them, I'm confused. Karrmann 20:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I like your comical way of putting this situation. Bavaria 21:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:CHQMLogo.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:CHQMLogo.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ford Ranger

Just wanted to say thank you for fixing the link to that image. Also wanted to ask why you pit in this line: "In 2005, the Toyota Tacoma took over from the Ranger the best-selling small pickup." I don't believe that it belongs on the ford Ranger page, if it belongs anywhere it is on a Toyota Tacoma page. Josh 17:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If the Chevrolet Silverado began to outsell the Ford F-150, it would be on the Ford F-150 page. It's relevent to the car's market position. IFCAR 09:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok I think I can accept that fact, but where did this information come from? I just did a search and everything I've come up with still states that the Ranger was the best seller in 2005. Just trying to keep the facts straight and fair, if you are going to make that claim I would like to see a source. Josh 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't recall last year's data, but I don't doubt its accuracy. The Tacoma's sales for last month, which I have seen recently, were in the neighborhood of 50% higher than the Ranger's. IFCAR 18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but this isn't a guessing game here. Dosn't matter wether or not you doubt it's accuracy or if the Tacoma has higher numbers for last month, that is discussing last year. I do doubt it's accuracy I've been searching and have found nothing that states that the tacoma was the best selling in 2005 but have found numerous that say that point to Ranger. This really belongs more in the Tacoma page anyway. You just say that it took over in 2005 you didn't say anything about the Ranger's over 20 years as the best seller. Josh 18:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the Ranger was the best seller for that long and was recently unseated deserves mention here, even if it isn't obvious how recently. IFCAR 23:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
And the DAKOTA had outsold the Ranger once! -- Bull-Doser 05:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Who gives a **** if the Dakota outsold it once, that's not the topic of discussion here. We are discussing the Tacoma replacing the Ranger as best seller in 2005, which you still haven't showed me any proof of. Yall are just going to show what I've thaught since I joined this place, a user editable encyclopedia is a very bad idea. If this discussion is any sign as to what yall put into the articles yall work on, how the hell do yall belong on a project to further the resources here. Whatever... yall go on and **** up the pages as much as you want to I nolonger give a ****. Since yall started messing with the Ford Ranger page all you've done is to run off knowledgable people who know more about the Rangers than you'll ever hope to know. Josh 20:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that preventive administrative action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! --ApolloBoy 06:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Civil!!! I'll be civil as soon as you learn WTH you are talking about. It is kinda hard to be civil when every thing you fix gets deleted by the same bunch that that is supposed to be for the improvement of wikipedia automobile pages. Oh and I'm not getting hot headed merely at a single person, but at everymember of the group that is doing the same thing, and at the website (encyclopedia if you prefer) that's allowing it to continue.
Read this please. "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." --ApolloBoy 04:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spirit

Please look at Dodge Spirit again, you and I are right. You've run into Wiki-bad-guys too?? --matador300 00:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC) See my talk page, maybe you'll recognize some of the tactics I've noticed too. The Spirit even looks like a K-car.

"The Spirit even looks like a K-car"...? Are you seriously advancing this as proof of your revisionist view that Spirit replaced Aries? If so, and you cling to that "proof", then you've got trouble headed your way; almost every passenger car Chrysler Corp made from 1981 through 1993 looked like a K-car. Scheinwerfermann 01:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The spirit replaced the Dodge Lancer and 600 as it's mid priced sedan, slotted between the Dynasty and the Shadow. The Shadow replaced the Aries as Dodge's compact. Karrmann 16:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Guys, what are your original sources, or did you simply make this up? There are 3 different internet sources that contradict you, and none that support your position. Who first thought up this theory, who is not embarrased to admit that they constructed this non-fact almost out of thin air. Interesting theory, but it's original research unless you can cite someone outside of WP who came up with the same idea. WP is the only source on the internet or in print that makes this claim. --matador300 19:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nissan Maxima

STOP changing the Nissan Maxima page in regards to the official competition for the Maxima. According to Consumer Reports, the Maxima competes with the HONDA ACCORD and TOYOTA CAMRY, NOT the Hyundai Azera and Toyota Avalon, as you keep attempting to edit.

Rarelibra 19:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, please stop the random edits on the Nissan Maxima page without doing proper research. Further attempts will be reported. Rarelibra 21:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki links

Hi, Bull-Doser. I noticed that you still wiki link [[dates]]- this pratice has however been discontinued, It is now considered somwhat inappropriate to wiki link dates as they are irrelevant to the article's subject matter. I though you might want ot know. Regards, Signaturebrendel 22:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

While I'm on this page, you're STILL doing this. If you have the exact date, e.g. September 22, 2006, wikilink the whole lot; the point of that is to allow people's personal date preferences to display. If all you have is the year (2006), or the month and year (September 2006), leave it alone. --DeLarge 08:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop with the North American bias

Any time you replace European and Japanese market cars or international car names with North America-specific names from the list of competitors, or replace international line-up information with specific North American market information, I'll revert you without discussion. --Pc13 12:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edge vs. Freestar

There are two rather obvious reasons that the Edge is not the successor to the Freestar. 1: The Edge is a midsize 5-passenger crossover, while the Freestar is a 7-passenger ful size minivan. 2: The Freestar is still being sold, so it has not been replaced. It is slated to be replaced (when it actually is) by a production version of the Fairlane concept. (I'm putting this here instead of creating a discussion page on either the Edge or Freestar articles, it's more likely to be noticed here.) IFCAR 11:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Volvo S80 picture

Why did you replace the nice picture of a Volvo S80 with one of more poor quality? --Dahlis 14:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

he does it a lot. Once, on the Toyota Camry article, he replaced the (very good) head image with one of his pics, which was of the back of a banged up 89 Camry done in direct shade. Karrmann 19:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Datsun_510_Pre-1982.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Datsun_510_Pre-1982.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Automotive Blog Board

http://s3.invisionfree.com/Autos_Edge

I debuted this! -- Bull-Doser 22:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] S80 picture once again!

Stop replacing high quality images with poor quality once like you did for the second time on the Volvo S80 page! --Dahlis 15:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decision to abstain from sockpuppetry

Thanks! :D Bravada, talk - 00:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

HONEST! - Bull-Doser 01:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Similar" List

Glad to see you help bring some of the lists down to the requisite three. Remember, "similar" doesn't necessarily mean "competitor", so in most cases the drive setup (FWD vs. RWD, or FWD vs. RWD based) will be a determining factor, as will exterior size, and sometimes whether a car has sport or luxury intentions (if you still have too many that meet the qualification). IFCAR

To add to that, I would like to clarify that the "concept" is the most important. I guess it's best to explain using an example - while there were many contemporary executive cars that competed with the NSU Ro80, and many of them might have had similar drive setup etc., the Ro80 was unique in that it was powered by a Wankel engine. Thus, a Mazda Luce, that was sold in a different market in a different period is much more similar, as it share the uniqeu concept of a large passenger sedan powered by a Wankel engine. Cheers, Bravada, talk - 13:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
PS. An important "mental scheme" to be avoided is thinking of vehicles that are similar "at the moment". For example, the American Ford Fusion is quite similar to the American Honda Accord at the moment, but given the long history and evolution of the Accord and the limited existence of the Fusion, the Fusion is not really all that similar to the Accord.
Thank God this is being dealt with. I came over here to leave a message about that bloody "similar" field, but it looks like we're finally getting somewhere. No more populating it with a massive list of vaguely similar cars based on wheelbase, hopefully.
More things to consider ~ dates of production should greatly overlap, country of origin (lots of people won't buy "domestics", or "imports", or whatever), mechanical similarity, etc etc. I had to delete Pontiac Firebird, Chevrolet Camaro and Ford Mustang from the list of cars allegedly "similar" to a Mitsubishi Starion recently. Big V8 != small turbo I4, even if they're both RWD coupes.
Personally I think the whole field reeks of WP:OR and encourages region-centric editing, e.g. putting America-only vehicles as being similar to cars sold worldwide, which happens a lot with Japanese vehicles. The day we get rid of that field the infobox will improve. --DeLarge 08:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Might actually be a good idea, as I keep reverting Bull-Doser's alterations to that field. He seems insistent that the Nissan Versa (a C-segment hatchback with FWD) is similar to the Suzuki SX4 (an urban SUV with 4WD). --Pc13 18:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Similar" list in userpage infobox

Sorry, but I had to remove it. It violates that Iwkipedia policy where "You can't make it seem that you are better than other editors" Karrmann 12:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Not my talk page, but I happened to be reading. How does mentioning other users who make similar edits seem better than others? I thought the infobox was quite clever, myself. IFCAR 21:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I find it clever too, but, he was comparing himself to other editors, which again is against the rules. Karrmann 16:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about, Karrmann? "Comparing yourself to other editors" is against what rule, exactly? And putting three editors in a "similar" field is not an attempt to make him seem "better", not by any stretch of the imagination. --DeLarge 08:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oldsmobile Aurora

I reverted your edit to the Oldsmobile Aurora article. Please stop replacing high quality images with low quality images. Karrmann 16:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I hate to talk over Bull-Doser's head here, but your revert is quite questionable. While the photo you reverted to is in the Commons, it is clearly a GM promo photo (not only do I recognize that, but also there is a watermark in the photo and the description says so), and even though somebody tagged it with GFDL, it is clear that it is a copyrighted photo and can perhaps be used as fair use. So, a free photo would be better here, and I believe the one that Bull-Doser put there was of quite good quality (it could be a bolt better, but it is not bad). Regards, Bravada, talk - 17:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Still, you never know. The man who uploaded it could work for GM's marketing department, or may own the rights to the photo, you never know for sure. All I know is that I don't like how BD (and IFCAR) run around sticking images of cars in articles where they already have free images, sometimes where their images are of worse quality than that of the other image (look in the history of Ford Taurus and Volvo S80 for examples)Karrmann 20:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a fair amount of certainty in saying that GM didn't suddenly license its photo bearing a copyright tag under GFDL, especially this very photo while not others. I believe it would take a rather high-profile decision to make that happen. Bravada, talk - 21:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
This isn't my talk page either, but seeing as I'm mentioned I'll chime in, too: I never replace free images unless there is a clear, inarguable quality improvement. IFCAR 23:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Again Images

Please stop replacing high quality free use images with poor quality images. Karrmann 20:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ford Taurus

I saw how you inserted those Chevrolet Impala images to the Ford Taurus article. Stop it, those edits are considered vandalism. Keeping it up could result in a block. Karrmann 11:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mercury Sable

You know, if you'd take a look at the talk pages once in a while, you'd see that the Gen II Sable's fair use image was agreed to be left up until next weekend, when a good quality, well-posed image of a stock Sable sedan would be posted. But, in the interest of averting an edit war, I left the one you like up there. Happy? --Sable232 04:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I reverted it anyways. Karrmann 11:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image:1988 Firefly.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:1988 Firefly.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Also Image:1998 Acura SLX Sport.jpg and any other non-free images of cars you may have uploaded.

[edit] Manufacturers

Okay. I was hoping you'd figure it out, but apparently it is too advanced for you. A particular marque of vehicle is NOT the manufacturer. A Mercury is not built by Mercury, it is built by Ford Motor Company. No current Jeep is built by Jeep, it is built by DaimlerChrysler alongside other DaimlerChrysler models. Now, this may not be the case with GM's divisions several decades ago, when each division built its own engines, trasmissions, axles, body parts, etc. But this determination should be left to those who know what they're doing, which you clearly do not. --Sable232 02:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mid size --> Mid size car

There is no need to make the change from [[Mid-size]] to [[Mid-size car|mid size]], as you have with numerous articles. See:

  1. Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken
  2. Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Query: "Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken"
  3. Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Section "Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken" suggested change: "There should never be a need to replace [[redirect]] with [[direct|redirect]]".


For the second time, DO NOT EDIT [[Mid-size]] --> [[Mid-size car|Mid-size]]. REDIRECTS ARE A FEATURE, NOT A BUG. Please READ references given above.--DeLarge 20:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
If this continues, this may call for an RfC. Karrmann 21:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ranger Measurements

About the dimensions that you found for the Ford Ranger: I may have overreacted about your insertion of those into the article. I've thought of a better way to format these, so if you could show me the source of these measurements I'd be glad to set them up in the article. --Sable232 03:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And another thing about your measurements, please type them like this (120.0 in) instead of this (120.00 in.). The extra zero and period aren't needed. --ApolloBoy 04:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, "120.00" implies a level of precision that is probably not in the original measurement. IFCAR 21:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Apparently it didn't sink in. ONE decimal point is as close as it gets is car measurements. STOP using two. --Sable232 03:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I will reiterate: ONE DECIMAL POINT. That's it. I don't know what the problem is, but I'm sure an RfC would just be a hassle for all parties, so please just stop. --Sable232 22:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see your issue here. STOP IT. Are you copying and pasting these measurements from someplace? If that's the case then we'll just start reverting your edits with extreme prejudice until you figure it out. Messages for you are continually posted, and you do not even acknowledge them. What's the deal? --Sable232 22:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I say we hold an RfC for this. Karrmann 21:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, he may not be noticing something from the middle of the page. IFCAR 01:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
No, he has a history of constantly ignoring our warnings for many things. Karrmann 02:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mercury Sable

Please stop adding IFCAR's image to the Mercury Sable article. The fair use image will stay until Sable232 gets up an image of his Sable. Continusally adding IFCAR's image may end up violating 3RR and getting you blocked. Karrmann 02:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:2008 Ford Escape.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:2008 Ford Escape.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 16:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radio station???

Where did that question come from? IFCAR 22:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

DC101 is the station in your area, and DC101 plays alt-rock. -- Bull-Doser 23:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question. IFCAR 23:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I made up that question, and where did I get my radio station info? @ RadioStationWorld.com! - Bull-Doser 23:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
My question is why you asked me? Is this something that you just go up to anyone and ask? IFCAR 00:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting pages

STOp splitting pages up for no reason. I have merged two articles into other articles because they were useless, and unessicary. If they are different bodystyles, they will stay on teh same page, unless they are mechanically unrealted, like the Chrysler Sebring. I want you to stop. If you continue, and keep ignoring my comments, I will create another RfC to stop all this page splitting nonsense. Karrmann 02:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sentra SE-R Spec V 2007.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sentra SE-R Spec V 2007.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. ccwaters 20:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on images

I don't get it. You've gone and uploaded a bunch of fair use images (some of which are understandable, some are not). Then you proceed to remove a fair image (not exactly replaceable) of a rare car with one of your crappy ass end pics. That fair image, by the way, was put there in place of an image where the lighting was so bad you could barely see the car.

Allow me to point out some guidelines for car images:

  • Must have good lighting
  • Car must be in decent shape and original condition
  • Must not be a cluttered picture
  • Must be of the front 3/4

I don't understand what is so hard about taking good photographs. --Sable232 16:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This has been a problem with him for the longest time. He must think that if he takes an image we can actually use, he might spur the apolocipse. I am close to starrting another RfC for him, since he is also causing another problem with splitting pages up just for different bodystyles. Karrmann 18:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Bull-Doser, what I think what do you good is a new digital camera. Seriously, almost all of your images are grainy and blurry, even after they've been enhanced by whatever image editing program you use. And of course, it helps to abide by our image standards as Sable232 stated above. --ApolloBoy 23:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
NO, the reason for his images being so grainy is that he brightens them too much. I think what ne needs to do is not be an itiot and look at the climate before he deciedes to take a pic. Like, he should not take pics when it is dark out, and not take pictures when it is raining. (LIke the Marauder pic, it was rainy and foggy when he took it). And, nothing was blocking the frotn of the car, so I don't know why he had to take it from the back, either. I think that BD just needs to use his brain. Karrmann 11:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Rainy days can generate the best pictures if it's not too dark. You don't get glare, and the cars are all clean-looking and shiny. IFCAR 11:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
True, but when it is foggy, and the rain crosses all over the camera, almost blurring out the car, then it is not a good pic. just look at Image:2003-04 Mercury Marauder.JPG and you be teh judge. Karrmann 12:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This criticism is rude and unwarranted. It is much better to have a poor image than none at all. Since we can't use promophotos of existing cars, homemade photos are our only option. Please stop insulting a user for doing a service for Wikipedia. If you think his photos are of poor quality, take some better-quality photos yourself and upload them. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No, we have a rigth to tell him to stop, because hazy images of teh back of cars are of no use to us. And its not like he is the only maker of free images, we have IFCAR who makes good quality free images, so we have a rigth to tell him to make images that we can use. Karrmann 22:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Bull-Doser, all you have to do is take more photos like this or even this and don't bother with pictures like this, this, this, and this. I'd say it's better to have no image at all than a dark, hazy image of the back bumper. --Sable232 22:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
A bad image displays a car better than no image. I take what I can, but if BD comes across a car that I don't and gets an image, his contribution is better than mine. I'd say a good fair use image is better than a hazy rear-end image, but if that's no longer an option, anything is superior to nothing. IFCAR 22:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
But, some of BD's pics are only a notch above having nothing. I am gonna take free use car images, so I will be in trying to illustrate teh car articles. Karrmann
But none are a notch below having nothing. Good to hear you'll be out to get some images, too. IFCAR 23:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Kia_Rondo_2008.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kia_Rondo_2008.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use disputed

Greetings. I notice you disputed the {{Replaceable fair use}} tags on several car images, presumably because they have not yet been released. I agree with you on this. However, it's important to leave a note on the talk page to say why you dispute the tag. I went ahead and did so on the images, and I don't think they will get deleted, but in the future remember to give your reasoning on the talk page.

Thanks for all you do here. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrighted images

To clarify: an image that is not by the manufacturer of a car is not fair use. Any image of car that has not been shown to the public (like the Escape spy shot and XC60 rendering you uploaded) is not fair use. Stop uploading copyrighted images. IFCAR 21:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

But it's a company image! There is no copyright. I got it from Car & Driver. -- Bull-Doser 21:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It is not a company image. It's a rendering by Brenda Priddy and Company based on test vehicles that C/D bought the rights to. On the page it's from, it says clearly "PHOTOGRAPHY BY BRENDA PRIDDY & CO." IFCAR 23:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:GMC Yukon Hybrid.JPG

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 09:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Automobiles Notification

Hi Bull-Doser, you were on the list of members at WikiProject Automobiles and we are introducing a new way of listing members, as the old list was becoming too long. Our new method involves having all of our members in a category.

To add yourself to the category just add the userbox to your user page by putting {{Wiki Auto Project}} where you want the userbox. Alternatively if you don't like the userbox you can add [[Category:WikiProject Automobiles members|Bull-Doser]] to your userpage.

If you no longer wish to be a member of the project, simply don't add the userbox or category, there's no pressure. Thanks for your time, James086Talk | Contribs 04:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Holiday Greeting"?

What's your problem? IFCAR 00:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You have offically hit the low point Bull-Doser. Congratualtions, you are probably getting blocked for this. YOu deserve it too, after all that griping you have been giving IFCAR, as well as how you will never listen to us about your images, or how you never respond to our comments, and well, just sit tight wo we can get you blocked. Karrmann 00:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I haven't heard griping, and the quality of the images he's been uploading has improved of late, possibly thanks to a new camera. I don't think he needs to be blocked, I'm just a bit curious as to where the little outburst came from. IFCAR 00:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's because on the Subaru XT page, you did put your image on the table before it switched to the infobox. We will put a comment on the WikiProject Autombiles talk page, and check about the pages with still the table. We've got to upgrade EVERY table to an Infobox! -- Bull-Doser 00:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Baby need a bottle? Karrmann 00:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm so sorry for you, IFCAR! -- Bull-Doser 01:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
So...you're angry at me...over something that I didn't change? I'm not exactly following your thought proccess here. IFCAR 01:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure, as I promise! -- Bull-Doser 01:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Still, that little STUPID this doesn't justify you dropping an f-bomb on his talk page.; And well, I got you on the WP:AN, so, I'd watch it if I were you. Karrmann 01:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If this is about what I think it's about, I have lost whatever sliver of respect I had for you, BD.
And am I the only one who can't understand his statements here? --Sable232 05:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Diamante 2003.JPG

The above image has been tagged as a replaceable fair use image. --DeLarge 12:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1995 Contour.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:1995 Contour.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — MECU≈talk 01:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Sephia 1997.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sephia 1997.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MECU≈talk 01:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have pictures of the 2008 Caravan, and Town & Country if you want them. johntaurus@hotmail.com I dont know yet how to successfully upload them myself.

[edit] WikiProject France

Hello! We are a group of editors working to improve the quality of France related articles. You look like someone who might be interested in joining us in the France WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you in our project :-) STTW (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alright

Sure thing. I live about half an hour away anyways. Hell, I planned to go there this weekend, so I will be able to get pics. And alright, you can do Montreal. Try getting the Pontiac G5, It could use some good pics. I'll try replacing teh Ford Edge one. Karrmann 19:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I just wanted to drop a quick reminder that auto-show images are rarely pretty (tons of glare and background people), and are best used only when there is no free alternative. Focus your energy on new designs. IFCAR 22:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It is better than cars in crowded parking lots with brake dust covering the wheels. *Cough*Infiniti G20*cough* If you know how to take good pics of Auto show cars, then they can come out looking twice as good as our normal pics, esipcally because the cars are all nice and shiny ;). Karrmann 22:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop calling page cleanups "fixing my edits"

The last user to touch an article is not responsible for its entire content. IFCAR 23:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Yesterday, and don't be ridiculous. IFCAR 13:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ok, stop

BD, it looks like you are going back to your old havit of taking pictures of cars from the rear. May I reiderate that ony pictures from the front will be allowed, and rear end shots will not be allowed under an circumstances. If you continue to do this we may bar you from the project. Karrmann 14:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

See the Daewoo Lacetti page. Remember the Suzuki Forenza sedan I took last week when I was in Kentucky?

PS: Please take both the all of the Suzuki Forenzas & Renos at the NAIAS. -- Bull-Doser 14:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm, ok. But still, no rear end shots. NO REAR END SHOTS. Ok? Karrmann 14:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
What the hell? There's nothing wrong with rear-end shots, and I find your harrassment of someone for posting rear-end shots to be incredibly abusive. jgpTC 18:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Trust me, you don't know him like I do. Karrmann 19:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You!

I just want to thank you for fixing the Ford Focus page. :) The other one was far too European. Just thought I'd let you know. The Kids Aren't Alright 17:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Divisions & subsidaries

Hi Bull-Doser, I recently noticed that you added the "parent company" field to the Lexus LS article. We don't do that, however, becuase Lexus is a division and not a subsidary. We only add the parent company field if it is a subsidary. For divisions such as Cadillac, Lincoln, or Lexus (even if they make expensive luxury cars) we add the parent company directly as the manufacturer. Thanks, Signaturebrendel 19:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop

Bull-Doser, you have a history of causing trouble with pages. Please stop replacing the image on the Nissan Maxima page without properly discussing it first. Also, please stop changing the features as well and replacing them with your own versions - unless you have a valid source with which to quote for the changes. Continuing such actions will only get you reported to an admin and quite possibly banned. Judging by your past actions, I would say to please heed this advice. Thank you. Rarelibra 04:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skewed Angle Images

Like skewed angle images like those taken from the Montreal Auto Show, are they worse for infoboxes? Here's a gallery.

Mitsubishi Outlander

Mazda CX-9

Suzuki SX4 WRC

Kia Optima/Magentis

So it's not okay to use skewed-angle images on infoboxes. -- Bull-Doser 16:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:2008 Ford Escape.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:2008 Ford Escape.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 03:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:2008 Mariner.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:2008 Mariner.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 03:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:2008 Saturn Vue.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:2008 Saturn Vue.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 03:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Sentra SE-R Spec V 2007.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sentra SE-R Spec V 2007.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 03:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:VW Tiguan.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 03:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Galant 1991.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Galant 1991.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Sebring Convertible 2008.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sebring Convertible 2008.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Lincoln MKR.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Nissan Rogue.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:2008 Chevy Malibu.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:2008 Chevy Malibu.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:'08 Mazda Tribute.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:'08 Mazda Tribute.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:2008 Cadillac CTS.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:2008 Cadillac CTS.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Focus Coupe 2008.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Focus Coupe 2008.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:2008 Honda Accord Coupe.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:2008 Honda Accord Coupe.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:CBC Newsworld Logo 2.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:CBC Newsworld Logo 2.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 11:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 2007 Volvo V70

Please show me the source that says the new V70 will be built in Ghent. --Dahlis 12:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mitsu 380.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mitsu 380.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obscured angle images

Please stop taking images of obscured angles. They don't look artistic, and they just look bad and take away from the informal value of the image. Please stop. Karrmann 17:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Car Images From Yahoo! Groups

Hi, I've been uploading a few car pictures from Yahoo! Groups to the Wikimedia Commons. The Yahoo! Groups images mainly came from the Yahoo! user who took the car picture, however. Look at the Pontiac Sunbird page. -- Bull-Doser 05:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if this isn't a copyvio (and I suspect might be unless you can demonstrate that the author specifically released his rights under the GFDL), you can't tag the image as {{PD-self}} unless you took the original photo yourself. --DeLarge 05:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:2008 Mitsu Lancer.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:2008 Mitsu Lancer.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ford Taurus X.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 17:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[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)

[edit] You might want to archive this

BD, your talk page is getting a little long. You could probably remove all those orphaned fair use notifications, and you really should archive the rest. --Sable232 16:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)