User talk:OSX/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Fair use rationale for Image:Holdenlogo.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Holdenlogo.png. 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. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 04:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Petronas logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Petronas logo.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. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 06:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ford Falcon

Hi OSX, sorry I can't help as much this week until Friday (school commitments). Looking quite good, hopefully we will be able to get all of the sub-articles done and make it a featured article. Thanks Harrison-HB4026 09:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Statesmans and Caprices

I believe that there is a strong case for the removal of HQ to WB Statemans and HJ to WB Caprices from the “List of Holden Vehicles” as these models were Statesmans, not Holdens. I offer the following in support:

  • The July 1971 brochure for the HQ Statesman Custom & Statesman de Ville does not use the terms Holden or Holden Statesman at all. In fact it even refers to General Motors rather than General Motors Holden’s.
  • The article on Page 62 of the September 1971 issue of Modern Motor magazine begins with the words, “The first thing to get straight about the new Statesman is that it is not a Holden”
  • The article on Page 44 of the October 1971 issue of Modern Motor includes the following:
Road Test Data – Specifications
Manufacturer ... General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd
Make/Model ..... Statesman Custom
  • The July 1971 SA car registrations table on Page 30 of the November 1971 issue of South Australian Motor magazine, shows the following: .......

…..Chevrolet - 1, ......Holden - 1327, ......Statesman - 25….. No separate figures are given for Torana, Kingswood, Monaro etc

  • The November 1974 brochure for the HJ Statesman de Ville & Statesman Caprice does not use the terms Holden or Holden Statesman at all.
  • The October 1977 brochure for the HX Statesman de Ville & Statesman Caprice does not use the terms Holden or Holden Statesman at all.
  • The same brochure refers to “500 GMH dealers throughout the country” whereas the HX Kingswood brochure refers to “500 Holden dealers.....”
  • The August 1980 brochure for the WB Statesman de Ville & Statesman Caprice does not use the terms Holden or Holden Statesman at all.
  • The Green Book Price Guide for Sep-Oct 1984 lists Torana, Kingswood, Monaro etc under HOLDEN but lists Custom, de Ville, Caprice and SL/E under STATESMAN.
  • No “Holden” nameplates or badges are apparent on any of the vehicles shown in any of the above-mentioned Statesman sales brochures.

If "General Motors" didn’t promote these Statesmans as Holdens and they didn’t badge them as Holdens and they were not registered as Holdens, what makes them Holdens? Cheers, GTHO 11:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it, and you've definitely proved your point. I have since reverted my edits, and will merge the purged contents to List of Holden Statesman/Caprice vehicles. However, before I do so, I feel that the title of the list is inaccurate. Would List of Statesman vehicles be more appropriate, since the Statesman was marketed as the Statesman de Ville, and the Caprice as the Statesman Caprice? OSX (talk • contributions) 06:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think the purged info should be reconstructed under a List of Statesman vehicles title. To be consistent with the List of Holden Vehicles I think it's format should be
  • Statesman Caprice (HJ,HX,HZ,WB)
  • Statesman Custom (HQ)
  • Statesman de Ville (HQ,HJ,HX,HZ,WB)
  • Statesman SL/E (HZ,WB)
I think it will need to include a cross reference to the Holden Statesman and Holden Caprice entries in the List of Holden Vehicles article and that those entries will need to be cross referenced back to the new List of Statesman vehicles, otherwise I'm sure both lists will grow to include everything Statesman and everything Holden Statesman.
If I can help out at all with any of this please let me know. Cheers GTHO 23:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The changes have now been implemented, but I am not quite sure about the production years of these models. I have instead left the years as question marks, so if you could fill in what you know that would be great. Also, if I have made any mistakes in the opening prose, feel free to fix those up too. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I will have a look at it. Cheers, GTHO 05:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I have had a go at the tables and the text. See what you think. Regards, GTHO 08:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that, my original edit was obviously full of inaccuracies, since I based it off the information you had previously provided me. Everything else looks good, but I really do think we need to reference the introductory paragraph. Do you own any published material that would provide such information? OSX (talk • contributions) 08:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I have access to the September & October 1971 Modern Motor magazines which make the point about a Statesman (at that time) not being a Holden. I have the HQ & HJ Statesman brochures and soft copies of the HX and WB Statesman brochures. I have the book "Aussie Cars" (© 1987 Marque Publishing Company) which has articles on the "1971 GM-H Statesman" and the "1980 GM-H Statesman WB". I also have the 1990 HOLDEN VQ Statesman & 1990 VQ HOLDEN Caprice brochure. Between these publications I think we would have it covered. GTHO 09:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Land-rover-range-rover.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Land-rover-range-rover.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Land-rover-range-rover.jpg fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Google is not an acceptable source


To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Land-rover-range-rover.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Land-rover-range-rover.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 10:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

WTF

Hey, Do you have some sort of problem?

It seems you keep undoing my good work, which I put a fair bit of time into. I don't see the problem in specifying trim level in the main article as most of the models don't have separate pages.

Additional, your timeline is only featuring two cars, maybe you should complete it before posting it. Where mine were complete ready to be put up.

I am starting to get a little annoyed at you from these actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigal 250 (talk • contribs)

It is besides the point how much time you spent working on the templates, as the fact is they don't belong there. "Most of the models don't have separate pages" just does not cut it as an excuse, since there is nothing stopping you from creating these articles. Just look at Volkswagen Golf, a prime example of an article that includes all sorts of unnecessary data. The bloated infoboxes, redundant timelines and image galleries do not equate to a high quality article, nor does this information make sense to those with little or no knowledge about the subject in question. If you continue editing like this, the Falcon article will be just like it.
Also, let me clarify this: an encyclopaedia is a summary - as it need not go into high detail, and should be in prose where possible. If you want to improve the article, consider sourcing and rewriting sections like those that I have been doing, it is only this that will get the article to featured article status. If writing is not your thing, you may want to consider improving the project by photographing cars. The possibilities are endless.
With the timeline, I do see your point, however Ford vehicles are not where I specialise in greatly, and I have limited knowledge about the marque on vehicles besides the two mentioned. Secondly, why should it have to be complete? Find me a policy on Wikipedia that states that you must complete an article or template before saving, as I can assure you that you will never find one. If you are unhappy with it, then expand it. I would be more than happy to help you there. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 11:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, it was my understanding that more information would only be good for the article, like a quick reference guide, all the stuff you want to know with out sifting through pages of text. All I am trying to do is add content in a way that is easily accessible. I just see features on other pages that could be used on this one, I don't sit at a desk all day checking articles, so I'm not very versed on what makes a good article. My original plan was to make a timeline featuring all cars Ford sold in Oz, but I noticed you only then had come up with the same idea. So I switched to what I ended up doing. So if you're not going to add more content to that timeline, I may just do some work on that. Thankyou for the advice, my apologies for that response, it was a little late at night. Bigal 250
No worries, I never said that I would not expand the timeline, but just I need a reference to go to the exact model year introductions. The only reason that I started the timeline was because I noticed that you had started one on your personal sandbox. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Example.png

I understand you uploaded this image, OSX. A Wikipedia bot (BetacommandBot) has left a tag on this page, saying that the image will be removed in 7 days unless an explanation as to why the image is free is provided. Could you please take a look at it?--Just James 01:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your edits towards the List of Statesman vehicles article. I am currently doing school exams which means my edits will be down, but in a few days I will be back editing like crazy.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 01:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ford BA Falcon picture

I have a question for you about the picture in the infobox on the Ford BA Falcon article. I took this picture and edited it on my photoshop program so the only thing you would see would be the car. The two picutres down below are the two that I want you to decide on which one is better to put on the BA Falcon article.

Image:Ford BA Falcon XT 02.jpg
Edited
Image:Ford BA Falcon XT 01.jpg
Non-edited

Please chose which one is better than tell me on my talk page.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 23:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the original version, as the manipulated image has only been roughly edited. I would not matter how well you edited the background, I just think that images of cars with completely white backgrounds look fake. Since the background of the original is relatively subtle anyway, there is really no need to make the change. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 23:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ford BA Falcon XT 03.jpg

I have edited it a bit for you on Photoshop. Harrison-HB4026 09:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ford Falcon

Hi, the article is going good but I think that we should make a checklist of what needs to be done. Harrison-HB4026 09:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Assessment

Copied from Talk: Ford Falcon

This article is being assessed but before that happens we need to make a checklist of what needs to be done.

  1. N Not done All of the sections of the article need to have several references from credible websites.
  2. N Not done All or most of the sections (earlier models if possible) need to have pictures.
  3. N Not done Every model needs to have a main article.
  4. N Not done All of the article needs to be thouroughly checked for spelling and grammar.
  5. N Not done A section or template needs be made for all of the Ford Falcon models.
  6. N Not done More links need to be created in the "See Also" section (e.g. Ford Australia).
  7. N Not done The ED Falcon section needs to be expanded.
  8. N Not done All of the main model articles need to be over Start quality.

Please add more if needed. Harrison-HB4026 09:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have modified your original checklist, and added and removed some things to do. With the ED section, there is not really that much more information to be added, as I struggled to find the information I did. With references you cant say provide several references for each sections. Instead you cite what needs to, not just for the sake of it. Also images are not needed for each and every model, only major ones.
  1. N Not done The entire article needs to reference each and every fact from credible sources.
  2. N Not done An image is needed for each significant model (not just minor cosmetic updates).
  3. N Not done If a section becomes to long, it should probably be split into a separate article (e.g. EA Falcon).
  4. N Not done The entire article needs to be copyedited for instances of bad prose, poor spelling and grammar, wikilinks, etc.
  5. N Not done The lead must more adequately summarise the article body.
  6. N Not done More links need to be created in the "See also" section (e.g. Ford Australia).
  7. N Not done The article should be revamped enough so it can receive a B-class or GA-class rating.
  8. N Not done The exports section needs to be slimmed down in some areas, and expanded in others. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Great work. I think it eventually become FA status. Also, so we don't have to do all of the work, what happened to our recruits? Harrison-HB4026 00:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ford Falcon

How do you upload pics from Flickr? (e.g lisensing how to do it etc.)

Harrison-HB4026 06:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not a complicated process once you know what to do. Firstly the image must have an applicable license (CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA only), and you must fill out the upload form correctly. I use http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/flinfo.php and just enter the image ID and copy paste the output code directly. To upload the actual image, you must download the highest resolution version available and rename it to something like 1997-2000_Holden_VT_Commodore_Acclaim. That is pretty much it. You cannot however upload copyrighted images, and not all Creative Commons images are acceptable on Wikipedia. If an image is copyrighted and you want to use it consider emailing the user and asking them to license their work as Attribution Creative Commons, as I find this method relatively successful. Also, if you do upload anything please upload it to the Wikimedia Commons and not Wikipedia. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

VE Commodore front page?

When does the Holden VE Commodre article get's it's place on the front page? Please answer this question on my talk page.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 23:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

help

Thank you for you input with the Ford BA Falcon article and what needs to be fixed. Some of the problems you listed can be easily fixed with time but, you mentioned that there were some grammar problems. I am in grade 11 therefore my grammar and spelling skills may not be up to a professional wikipedia standard. This means that I need some outside help not only from you but other people as well. Can you please work more on this article and gather more people to work on it. I have been working on the Ford BA Falcon article since December 2006 last year, I will be so glad if it could be listed as a good article.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 22:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for agreeing to help me with the Ford BA Falcon article, I will be very happy once it reaches Good Article status. Your generosity and kindness will not be overlooked maybe an award would be necessary.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 22:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

template messages Ba Falcon

Because you are performing a major overhaul with the Ford BA Falcon article, can I put this template on the Ford BA Falcon article at the top.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 04:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC) {{Underconstruction}} N.B - when it is on the articles page it will not say "this user talk page" it will say "project page".

  • CAN I PUT THE TEMPLATE ON THE FORD BA FALCON ARTICLE PLEASE ANSWER.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 01:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see the need to, since I doubt anyone is going to make any substantial changes to the article in the next week besides me. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Banners

Hello, OSX, I was wondering if you might be so kind as to create a banner for my WikiProject. Using the image, located at, [[Image:Fowl name.png]]. I would love if you could do this for me. Please reply, via my talk page. Dreamy 01:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Need Help

Do you need any help with any article at the current time? I am able to work on anything related to Wikipedia.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 23:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would appreciate it if you could expand the lead and Exterior design section of the BA Falcon article, as I feel that these are too short. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Commodore

Well I like Holden but I am more of a Ford man:), but I will support it being Featured article of the Day. I am not sure where I am to vote, could you enlighten me? Thanks Harrison-HB4026 09:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Here, under the section "July 16 - Holden VE Commodore..." OSX (talk • contributions) 09:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There we are, hopefully that sounds appropriate. Harrison-HB4026 10:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

New Falcon 'Orion'

Hi, I was looking at drive.com.au and it was showing new pics of the Orion. They say how it is not entirely new, and that it is basically a facelift of the AU-BF platform. Also, when you look at the XR6/8 picture on the homepage it just looks like a BA gone Star Wars. Does this mean that it should not be considered as a new generation rather than another facelift of the EA169 platform of September 1998 and that we should merge the Orion section into the current generation?

Thanks Harrison-HB4026 08:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Its more than a facelift, but a thorough redesign. Although the car is only new from the sills up, the front and rear (I think, so don't quote me on this one) are all-new. The spy shots I have seen are only of mules/disguised production bodies. And from those pictures, I think it is a fair bet to say that the two models are significantly different enough to say that they are different generations. In the end the best thing to do is to leave it as is, and get the facts, rather than relying on pure speculation and educated guesses. So by early next year, the answer should be more than clear. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 08:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with you, but I have one question for you outside of wikipedia. With the Holden VE Commodore Ute, and the new Falcon, why does Ford not make the car indistinguishable and you can see everything on the Holden? Thanks Harrison-HB4026 08:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Harrison, I cannot quite see what your on about, could you please rephrase that? OSX (talk • contributions) 08:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, I just realised the answer:) Harrison-HB4026 01:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Templates

Why is there two GA templates on the BA Falcon talk page? Please explain.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 04:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There’s not, its just that one of them is a part of the article history template. When the article passes/fails GAC the result will be merged in with the history template. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Senators talk page

Hi. Go to my page and click on the link under the menu. I have started to rewrite this, so could you help my fix it and fill in the details?

Harrison-HB4026 11:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

An extra message

Hi OSX, I just saw the BA Falcon article go to GA status. Now lets get it to Featured article status, and the AU to GA or FA status. Thanks

Ford BA Falcon thanks

Yes, finally the Ford BA Falcon article is officially recognized as a Good Article. Thank you very much for your tremendous contributions to the article, it has been a long time coming but finally it has happened. I myself have no plans to get it to featured article status, but if you want it to get to featured article status please feel free to. I have given you a special award for your great efforts, put it on you front page if you want to.

The Special Barnstar
Thank you for the wonderful work you have done to the Ford BA Falcon article, it has been a long time but finally it is a Good Article, Thank you very much to get it there. SenatorsTalk | Contribs 01:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. – On a completely different topic I have left you a funny song that featured on The Simpsons television show. I am going back to school after my three week break so my Wikipedia edits will go down.

  • I believe in the holy sprit,
  • No needs to fear it just reveal it,
  • He lives in heaven,
  • That‘s a 24 seven,
  • Check the bible,
  • John 2:11.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 01:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Why thank you Senators, I truly appreciate your words of praise. Might I add, that it is more important to get other articles to a decent standard, rather than getting an already great article to an even better standard. So for now, I think I will give FA status a miss, since it takes a lot of patience and persistence getting quality near perfect. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar
This is for all of the work that you have do (and have already done) for the Ford Falcon article. Thankyou. Harrison-HB4026 02:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S Senators has one too.

Wow, two barnstars in one day, now that is a rare event. Cheers Harrison. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Username Change

I have now changed my username to HarrisonB. Thanks User: HarrisonB 01:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(HB4026)

Five pillars

Salam, Thanks a lot.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Holden GA on hold

On Hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 06:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

holden ve commodore front page

When your article (Holden VE Commodore) goes on to the front page it will get a lot more visitors and more edits, please be ready.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 21:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll do my best Senators, but I am pretty sure that others will get there before me most of the time. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 07:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your highly extensive efforts with Holden VE Commodore, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this barnstar. With you, that article would not have made it to FA status. Good job! --Sharkface217 01:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the Barnstar Sharkface217, I really do appreciate it. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 07:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Watch your visitors

The fact that your article has now been featured on the front page, you have obviously got more visitors. But this can seriously change the whole article. Please be careful of this and make sure the article stays the same as it is now.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 04:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have carefully analysed the changes made to the article, and I think it is suffice to say that the article is in better shape than it previously was. From tomorrow (20 July 2007), the mainpage link will disappear and much of the attention will settle down. Since I am slightly fussy when it comes to edits to articles that I have significantly contributed to, I am likely to undo edits that don't meet certain standards. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 07:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review holden Commodore

I have nominated the Holden Commodore article for a peer review to find out what is wrong with the article, so it can be classed as a Good Article.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 07:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Senators, I really do appreciate it. Is this article going to be your next little fix-up project, like HSV Senator and Ford BA Falcon? If so I would be more than happy to help you out where I can, but remember quality of edits is more important than quantity. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes OSX, this going to be my next little article to fix and get to good article status.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 21:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

AU Falcon Non encyclopaedic language

OSX, I will mercilessly edit all non encyclopaedic language and editorialising out of the Falcon articles. You and your ungrammatical buddy Senators have made those articles a joke. I agree, that I probably cut too much out, but that is collateral damage. Greglocock 12:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Including the facts is not a joke, especially when they are backed up by sources. Although I do agree with you that poor grammar does not look good, and Senators really does need to improve in this area. Looking at your user page, and some of your recent edits, I have come to a vague conclusion that you are affiliated with Ford Australia, although please point out to me if I am wrong. I understand that you probably hold a bias towards Ford, but that does not give you the right to remove factually verifiable material just because it is in the best interest of your company.
On a second note, the Ford BA Falcon article is a good article, and it would not have passed if it were not up to an encyclopaedic standard. The same goes for the Holden VE Commodore article which is a featured article. Including the facts does not necessarily damage the article, and I think a compromise can be made. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
And I will continue to mercilessly remove all editorialising, non NPOV language, weasel words, speculation and the like from articles you have edited. These are wiki policies, not debating points. Why are you bringing up the BA article ? The AU article is the particular case in point. Your language in your edit comments indicates that you cannot maintain NPOV on this subject, therefore you should be very cautious when expressing anything other than facts. Bear in mind that a journalist's opinion or speculation is NOT a fact. An encyclopaediac article is not a ragbag of sourced opinions, it is supposed to be a collection of verifiable facts describing the subject. Greglocock 01:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The edits towards the article were verifiable facts. You say "a journalist's opinion or speculation is NOT a fact", well the claims are supported by numerous journalists, which I can provide by request. Secondly, sales were down significantly from the previous model, yet sales of the rival Commodore rose. That either means the VT/VX Commodore was some masterpiece of engineering and design, or the AU Falcon was a disaster. There is no point "hiding" the facts, just to suit Ford, since Wikipedia is not censored. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Stop whining. I don't have to request cites, either something is a verifiable fact or it isn't. If you put somethng into an article it has to be verifiable. Provide the sales figures, and the profitability, and a knowledgeable third party reliable source that says it it was a 'disaster', or shut up. It is /not/ your job to decide to decide whether a given model is a disaster. Stop whining. Greglocock 10:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What else?

What do you think needs to be fixed in the Holden Commodore article? I am ready to fix it.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 23:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations, and desperately. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
10-4 I will get on to it.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 01:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

Why the hell has Gregoclock got rid of my feature table on the AU Falcon article? Both me and another user worked on that. Also, why is it that Greg has just rocked up onto the scene and started bagging our work? HarrisonB Speak! 08:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is something that you should direct to Gregoclock, since I cannot answer questions regarding his actions for you. As for the feature table, it served no place in the article, and the key points should be converted into prose, see: [[1]]. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
HarrisonB, it stopped displaying properly and it was boring cruft that needs to be in a separate article, or eliminated. So I killed it. Personally I don't think it needed to exist. Sorry OSX, this shouldn't be here. Greglocock 10:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Images

Thanks for your work moving images to commons (with upload histories, no less!!)! One thing though: If you would tag them with {{subst:ncd}} per WP:CSD#I8, which is required for other people's images, we would be everso greatful. Thanks again!!! -- But|seriously|folks  09:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, that's {{subst:ncd}} when it has a different name at commons. -- But|seriously|folks  09:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

HB4026

I take that you have noticed my username change? HarrisonB Speak! 07:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, since you've already told me once before, but I do appreciate that you went to the trouble to remind me just in case. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

ArticleHistory

Just wanted to make you aware: [2] Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it ready yet?

What other things need fixing on the Holden Commodore article before I nominate it for Good Article status?SenatorsTalk | Contribs 01:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Are all the facts backed-up? Come back to me when they are, and properly! OSX (talk • contributions) 06:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WTF ?

Bull crap, 10-50 OSX, 10-50 OSX, 10-51 needed for you OSX. NO reason to delete them all. You are a 10-96 for deleting all those references. GOSH!SenatorsTalk | Contribs 06:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The references that were already there more than adequate. There was no reason to replace them with lower quality examples. So I stand by my actions. "Bull crap", I think not and I would like you to tell me where this article: http://www.fastlane.com.au/holden-history/vb-commodore-78-80.htm states "Holden looked towards Opel for providing the foundations of the VB; basing it loosely on the Rekord E bodyshell but with the front grafted on from the Opel Senator to accommodate the larger Holden six-cylinder and V8 engines". Nowhere exactly! Where in this article: http://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/car_info_holden_commodore_vb.htm does it state "The "downsizing" was first seen as a major disadvantage for Holden, as they had effectively relinquished the potential of selling Commodores to the fleet and taxi industries. These sales losses were thought to be unrecoverable; however the 1979 energy crisis saw Australian oil prices rise by 140%, putting substantial strain on the automotive industry to downsize. To Holden the situation could not have come at a better time, and sales gained substantially."? These are just the first two examples, and I would hate to think what other nasties have crept into the article. I hope I am not offending you Senators, but you cannot keep this up. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 10-4 I understand I have been having a bad week, High school is hard.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 22:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Can't you see that for yourself. The parts that need references are the parts that currently contain no citations next to them. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: AIL Storm

Hi OSX,

I've replied to your comments on Talk:AIL Storm. TewfikTalk 03:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mitsutech banner.jpg

Cheers for fixing this for me.

I hadn't originally listed a source is because the original version of the file (here) was made from five different images, scattered over en-WP and the Commons. I updated the image because it didn't look good onscreen as a navigation template banner, but didn't update the source data info with it. After spending the morning reverting damage from last night, it was good to have one less housekeeping edit to do. --DeLarge 16:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Commodore

I have checked the Holden Commodore article and I think we have got enough references, is it only you that disagree with me?SenatorsTalk | Contribs 03:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I would not be the only one, but it is not about how many references there are, but whether all the information is sourced. You could have an article with 300 references, but if there was unsourced information, it would still not be adequate. Also there is no need to include every fact about each model in the overview article. There are sub-articles and I would suggest that you add any more information to these pages. In short no. I'll get there ... eventually. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ford

Hi OSX, sorry I have been a bit quiet lately. Whats happening with the Falcon article? Thanks ((Unsigned|HarrisonB|06:52, 1 August 2007}}

For now I've had enough, since I had a lot of trouble finding references from outside the Falcon Facts website. Instead I have devoted my time on improving other articles. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

big news VE Commodore , wagon and ute has been revealed

I have seen the new stationwagon and ute versions of the new VE Commodore. I saw these pictures in The Courier Mail (Brisbane) located in the Cars Guide section. The ute looks very good and the rear is totaly redesigned, the station wagon is magnificent. The SS versions of the stationwagon look great, and really brings out the sports-wagon ideology. Most of the desing for the wagon looks like it has been taken of the current Saab performance station wagons, which is no suprise. The Ute and Station wagon variants where worth the wait, when you see them you will no what I mean.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 23:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

On the CARSguide.com.au website, I found the following article, and the station wagon and utility body styles do look very nice. However I do hope you realise that these are not the official pictures, but rather computer generated "hype". Anyway thanks for pointing that out, but I will not be making any changes to the Holden VE Commodore article until the official press release is issued by Holden. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)