User talk:Sadowski

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Automobile

Nice work on the Imperial page. You have really improved it, I was waiting forever for some 1960 model photos and you found some. The part about the dash lighting was a significant addition as well.Rockford1963 (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added plenty of good, quality info to many car pages( even created some), animals, photography and other pages. For example, I greatly improved the page about the Chrysler Imperial. So there!--Rockclaw1030 (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continental reply

You are asking the the Lincoln Continental be different from every other automobile for reasons you aren't clearly articulating. The convention we adopted is to use the best quality photo available, based on a series of specific photography standards. The decision was very clear that it would not be based on which version of the car appealed most to a particular user, as that obviously varies by individual. IFCAR (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia standards -- not just for auto articles, but throughout -- are very clear that "pushing" a particular position is frowned upon. Picking which Lincoln Continental to display a photo of based on which Lincoln Continental was photographed better does not meet that standard; picking based on which Lincoln Continental you like more as an automobile does.

And just in case it's not clear, I am also a very vigorous opponent of some users' idea that the top infobox must be illustrated by the newest version. But it's as part of a broader objection -- spelled out in writing in the auto project's image standards -- that no generation, oldest or newest, automatically needs to be in an infobox that cover the entire history of a marque. IFCAR (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continental

Did you really think you were going to get away with deleting two entire sections of that article, just so you can make it cater to "big money?" And then replacing those years of the car with "Taurus" in the Lincoln template?

Consider this your only warning. It's patently obvious that you're only here to push your POV and if you keep that up you'll be blocked in short order. --Sable232 (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you prick. So far you've done a very good job of making yourself look like nothing more than an uptight asshole taking out his personal issues on the internet. I never said anything about what photo is in the lead and you're already calling me a "fake" and accusing me of advertising?

Well, nice going. You may have been able to persuade me to agree with whatever it is you're pushing, had you been reasonable about it. However, at this point I'd say that your pissy attitude and boundless arrogance has reduced your chances of getting anyone to agree with you to nearly nil.

And with regards to your second message, I don't know who the hell the LCOC is nor do I care. They don't dictate what happens on this website. If you/they have such a big problem with the quality of the article here, they can write their own and put it on their own website.--Sable232 (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt you have a lot to contribute. But when you deliberately disrupt an article just to prove a point and then make baseless and irrelevant accusations towards the person who fixed the damage you did, we might just be better off without you and your arrogance. --Sable232 (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He may indeed have, he may not have. Your reason for changing it went against the consensus for choosing the lead image and he reverted it for that reason. But either way, I haven't looked at your dispute with IFCAR and this discussion isn't about that (on my part, you seem to insist upon making it so).

We don't "always have to have" an image of an '02. However, "some of us are sick of it" is not a reason to change it. The image is whichever is the best quality. When that's disputed (reasonably), then it's discussed.

If I haven't made it clear enough, I haven't looked at the dispute over the images and my first post here had nothing to do with it. My reversion of your edits didn't take the image into account. It was because you saw fit to eliminate a huge amount of information simply because you didn't feel the FWD Continentals were worthy of the name.

And again, I see you're still being disruptive just to prove a point. You just don't get it, do you? --Sable232 (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL Sadowski and Sable232

I am posting this same message on both of your talk pages. Both of your behaviors are completely unacceptable. Sadowski, this diff is where the incivility started (as far as I can tell) [1]. Calling other editors "fake" and trying to pull rank based on outside experience are both not going to work. Neither is pointy editing, like your removal of several generations from the Continental article. Your efforts to push a point of view about older vehicles is also not acceptable, see WP:NPOV. Sable's response is really beyond the pale thou, I can understand how Sadowski's message may have upset you, but he is a new editor who is likely unaware of our community's standards regarding civility and interaction. To respond by calling him a prick (as you did in this edit [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sadowski&diff=prev&oldid=408310019]) is not the way to explain our standards and is pretty shocking coming from a long time editor such as yourself. You both need to either apologize to each other and work together or you both need to stop editing articles where you might come into contact. I would be happy to help mediate your conflict, but an apology would be needed from both of you. --Leivick (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadowski you continue to be uncivil. If you don't stop immediately you will be blocked. If you have questions about editing Wikipedia please ask myself our another experienced editor. I realize that you have extensive knowledge in this area, but you do not have experience editing here and that is leading to problems. --Leivick (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can respond here I can see when you edit your page, let's try and keep the conversation in one place. You are being uncivil, I am not commenting on the actual content dispute. Please engage in a civil discussion rather than accusing other editors of being ignorant. --Leivick (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hello Sadowski, you did a lot of good work on Cadillac Sixty Special, but there are some problems. The biggest issue with the article as it were before your edits was that it only had one single reference. You added 9K bytes of info, but didn't quote a single source. For help on this, see WP:CITE. Thanks,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Large scale deletions

Please discuss your large scale deletion of well-sourced content on the relevant article's talk page. --Biker Biker (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Also Cadillac Fleetwood. -- DQ (t) (e) 06:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. -- DQ (t) (e) 06:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Cadillac V-12

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Cadillac V-12 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Logan _Talk ^Contributions 04:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag, checking to see if further excision is needed. For the future, please read Wikipedia:Copy-paste, which provides some useful advice. In particular, this.--SPhilbrickT 15:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Cadillac Sedan de Ville, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bose and Dwight (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Pontiac Streamliner, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

• The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
• You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the reviewer's talk page
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Buick Roadmaster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to De Ville

GM A platform (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Limited

GM B platform (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Limited

Pontiac Streamliner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Transmission

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Mercury Monterey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ford LTD (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Lincoln EL-series, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

• The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
• You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the reviewer's talk page
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They might be actors

You might look here, & follow the links. I recognize Patton, naturally, & I've seen the guy in the glasses a few times, but can't name him. IMDB identifies him as Jack Gilford. (Easy in 5 minutes.) TREKphiler ^any time you're ready, Uhura 04:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Brett is IMO the definitive Holmes, tho arguably Moriarty & Freud make a better team. ;p (Do me a favor? Sign your posts. Otherwise answering is a headache.) TREKphiler ^any time you're ready, Uhura 06:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop ribbing me?

Not sure why you felt the need to write directly on my user page and not my talk page, and I'm not at all sure why you think I'm "ribbing you"? You are the one leaving fairly unfriendly messages at Talk:Chevrolet Fleetline. Warren (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting apexes at La Source?

Do yourself a favor. If you don't want to get rv'd for being unsourced, don't add without the source... It appears you've got them, so that shouldn't be a problem. Should it? TREKphiler ^any time you're ready, Uhura 09:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because you haven't grasped the princple: source it. If you can, why bother adding without the source? Believe it: I'm much more lenient about it than some. TREKphiler ^any time you're ready, Uhura 09:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Lincoln Capri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to George Walker

Lincoln Premiere (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to George Walker

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Edsel Bermuda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ford Fairlane

Edsel Corsair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ford Fairlane

Edsel Pacer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ford Fairlane

Edsel Ranger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ford Fairlane

Edsel Roundup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ford Fairlane

Edsel Villager (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ford Fairlane

Mercury Colony Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ford Fairlane

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capri comments

I've got news for you, funny boy. I've not only read Flory, I've got the copy I took that from when I put it in, & he dates the introduction of radio & AC as standard. Look it up before you go making stupid remarks. TREKphiler ^any time you're ready, Uhura 07:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who was demanding I read Flory a second ago? You'be being an asshole about it. TREKphiler ^any time you're ready, Uhura 07:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can leave my talk page alone, too. If I've heard enough of your insults, I'm free to delete if I feel like it. And I have. TREKphiler ^any time you're ready, Uhura 07:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tell it to Flory, asshole, not to me. If the source makes a mistake, that makes me a moron? No, it makes the source wrong. Cite a better source & shut up about it. Insulting me for relying on a source that's wrong is stupid & inappropriate. And I'm done listening to you being an asshole about this. TREKphiler ^any time you're ready, Uhura 07:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got a copies of Flory today (all volumes). Not surprisingly he totally contradicts everything you say.Sadowski (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WQA thread

You are the subject of a thread at WP:WQA. I imagine this does not come as a surprise, following your abusive interaction style.

You can add your thoughts to that thread. Binksternet (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage people to go there and read it. It is quite illuminating.Sadowski (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Trekphiler. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Using uncivil language on Trekphiler's talk page and in edit comments on Lincoln Zephyr is unacceptable in the Wikipedia community; you have been warned about casting aspersions on other editor's capabilities before - take a hint. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 09:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Capri, then, and you do know exactly what comments you made there in the editorial comments about Trekphiler; eg: (What kind of an idiot would undo something so obviously true.)(get a copy of Flory and actually read it before you make such mindless undos.) and on his talk page: You are clearly an automotive idiot. You clearly don't have any business editing this section. etc, etc. Clearly both of you are as bad as one another and both of you should take a holiday from the article, and from one another. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 10:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is an admin will look at WP:WQA and bang some heads. Good luck. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk

Bang heads? Aargh! What about some truth? There's so much disinformation in Wikipedia so far. Why perpetuate it? All I see is an enourmous effort to protect highly ignorant bruised (and gnourmous) egos.Sadowski (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need to welcome positive contributions. Encouraging editors who routinely erase such contributions is not helpful. Trekphiler was clearly abusing citations and erasing additions that were correctly cited. In my opinion we need to do more to stop such malevolent individuals.Sadowski (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hispano-Suiza J12 wheelbase

Thank you for your contribution to the Hispano-Suiza J12 article. Could you please cite the source of the information you added? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the citation. In The Worlds Most Powerful Cars, Robson mentions that the V-12 Hispano Suiza had "a choice of four different wheelbase lengths" but does not say what they were. Rogliatti also mentioned that there were four available wheelbase lengths, and that they ranged from 11 feet 3 inches to 13 feet 2 inches. The magazine article by Scott gave three lengths: 135 inches (= 11 feet 3 inches), 146 inches, and 158 inches (= 13 feet 2 inches). Until now, I did not know the fourth possible wheelbase. In any case, the Bugatti Royale had a longer wheelbase, at 14 feet 1 inch. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of automotive superlatives - model years

Thanks for the large scale clean-up of List of automotive superlatives. However, you left the comment "It is implicit that these are model years." For people in the US and countries under its direct influence (eg Canada), model years are the normal way to label cars. However, many (most) other countries label cars either as the calendar year they were made in or the calendar year they were introduced in. To support an international audience (as opposed to an American audience), unqualified years are taken as calendar years and model years need to be qualified with "model year" (in most prose) or "MY" (in captions or tables). See Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Calendar_and_model_years. Most American editors naturally assume model years and most non-American editors assume calendar years, so most articles are mixed but we are slowly trying to clean-up the mess by making it explicit. The preferred format is "In 2009 (for the 2010 model year) ..." so that both audience have a clear understanding - even better if a month can be given. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  23:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of automotive superlatives, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lincoln (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

As your edit summaries make it perfectly clear that you're aware, our guidelines are to use the highest-quality photo in the lead infobox. Not which car in the photo you personally find interesting. Image standards are not complicated: we aim for non-cluttered background (not a crowd of people or a lot full of other cars), clear lighting where you can actually see the subject vehicle (that is to say, not this, and any number of additional quality points that your edits disregard.

In addition to the quality metrics we follow at the auto project, choosing the photo based on what you find "boring" violates the broader Wikipedia WP:NPOV guidelines for objectivity.

You've clearly made many valuable contributions to Wikipedia's auto articles. This round of photo changes was not one of them. IFCAR (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of automotive superlatives (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Pickup and Desoto

Air suspension (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Firestone

Stout Scarab (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Firestone

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Truck class

Ford F-250 & F-350 Superduty trucks are Light Duty trucks. SRW or DRW. The Super Duty trucks that are not Light Duty are Medium Duty. F-550 trucks are always M.D. and most F-450 trucks are Medium Duty. The Light Duty sub-classes 2a & 2b are normally very different. 2a trucks normally have semi floating axles and 2b trucks have full floating axles. The most common 2a trucks are F-150s; normally these also get called "Heavy Half-tons" even though you hear people mistakenly call some class 1 trucks the same. The Saginaw 9.5-inch axle in the rear of GM trucks and the Sterling 10.5 axle in the rear of F-150 trucks are dead give aways the truck is a 2a. 2b trucks is about any "3/4 ton" truck. "1 ton" trucks F-350 or 3500 with SRW are normally 2b, however class 3 SRW are becoming more common everyday as all the big 3 truck companies now offer it. Did that answer your question? --Dana60Cummins (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I got that page on my watchlist and added some info. But other than that I don't know what all input I got on that page. Nevertheless I'm watching it.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Trayvon Martin

I'm not sure why you left me that message - surely you aren't affected by the page protection? Deryck C. 06:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

XTS

I believe that XTS should be placed below DTS/Deville as it lacks their status, it's not only about dimensions. SHAMAN 17:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Sadowski. You have new messages at Jojhutton's talk page.
Message added 01:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

JOJ ^Hutton 01:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.0.48 (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buick identification

I see that an image I uploaded of a Buick Special has been identified by you as a Buick Super.

Thank you. I was never sure about my identification of this one (which I inferred from wikipedia and / or googling: I'm not much of an expert on North American cars from the 1940s.)

But in order to attempt to further my knowledge, would you mind taking a moment to spell out for me the most obvious difference(s) between a 1940 Buick Super and a 1940 Buick Special? Normally I would go for the name written on the car, which usually works with GM, but (1) that's a bit of a girly solution and anyway (2) I don't know if even GM plastered the model names all over cars this far back. If they did, the airmen took it off this one. I did look, but there was no name badge and no one around to ask.

Thanks. Also for your informative contributions. Charles01 (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ID help

Found this intriguing photo on Flickr, but can't quite figure out what it is. I am sure I could do it on my own, but it would save considerable amounts of time just to ask you. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lincoln Y-block V8 engine may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• engine with a big-block<ref name="masterenginedatatable"/> despite relatively small displacements (its greatest displacement was {{convert|374|cuin|L|1|abbr=on}},<ref name="Sessler 1999"/><ref name="

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Tallest car" in Automotive Superlatives article

Hi Sadowski. I just noticed that on 18th of January you undid my revision from November 2013 on the List of automotive superlatives article. I had placed the Toyota Alphard as tallest car and moved the Fiat 60 HP to the "Pre-War" section, replacing it with the Nissan Elgrand. You reverted my changes to the way it had been before, citing the following:

"Corrected tallest car. Minivans are not cars. Also restored prewar Fiat to keep consistent with current list."

I would like to bring to your attention the guidelines given at the start of the article, which state the following:

"In order to keep the entries relevant, the list (except for the firsts section) is limited to automobiles built after World War II, and lists superlatives for earlier vehicles separately. The list is also limited to production road cars that:

1. are constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, and to transport people on public roads (no commercial or industrial vehicles are eligible);
2. have had 20 or more instances made by the original vehicle manufacturer, and offered for commercial sale to the public in new condition (cars modified by either professional tuners or individuals are not eligible);
3. are street-legal in their intended markets, and capable of passing any official tests or inspections required to be granted this status."

Regarding the Fiat 60 HP. Would you agree that according to this intro, cars built before 1945 should be listed separately? And that if the list currently contains pre-war examples mixed with post-war, then it is a matter of either correcting all those other examples as well, or modifying the intro?

Regarding the Toyota Alphard. It is exclusively sold as a passenger vehicle. There is no commercial (cargo) version. Therefore, it complies with the three rules of this intro. You say that "Minivans are not cars", but I would contend that this is just a personal opinion which is not supported by the rules of the article, or even industry standards. If minivans (or MPVs) are not cars, then that would mean that vehicles such as the Renault Espace, Honda Odyssey, Volkswagen Sharan or Ford S-Max, to name a few examples, are not cars; I'm pretty sure that's not how the industry sees it; they are just considered cars with a different body shape. Some cars even straddle the line between an MPV and a "regular" hatchback, such as the Mercedes B-Class. The Toyota Alphard and Nissan Elgrand just happen to be the largest available MPVs, and look similar to a commercial van, but are still passenger cars. Would you agree with this reasoning?

I want to know if I can have your agreement on these points in order to avoid an edit war. Regards. El monty (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a couple of issues so let's deal with them one at a time.

"Regarding the Fiat 60 HP. Would you agree that according to this intro, cars built before 1945 should be listed separately? And that if the list currently contains pre-war examples mixed with post-war, then it is a matter of either correcting all those other examples as well, or modifying the intro?"

The intro states the purpose of the article, so there is a question of whether it would be legitimate to modify the intro. On the other hand, the list currently contains pre-war examples. Rather than moving these examples one at a time, I think the appropriate thing would be to move all such examples in one mass edit.

"You say that "Minivans are not cars", but I would contend that this is just a personal opinion which is not supported by the rules of the article, or even industry standards. If minivans (or MPVs) are not cars, then that would mean that vehicles such as the Renault Espace, Honda Odyssey, Volkswagen Sharan or Ford S-Max, to name a few examples, are not cars; I'm pretty sure that's not how the industry sees it; they are just considered cars with a different body shape. Some cars even straddle the line between an MPV and a "regular" hatchback, such as the Mercedes B-Class. The Toyota Alphard and Nissan Elgrand just happen to be the largest available MPVs, and look similar to a commercial van, but are still passenger cars. Would you agree with this reasoning?"

The industry clearly considers the Renault Espace, the Honda Odyssey, the Volkswagen Sharan, the Ford S-Max, the Mercedes B-Class, the Toyota Alphard and the Nissan Elgrand to be minivans. There is already a non-commercial van category where minivans may be listed. The principal characteristic of vans that distinguishes them from cars is in fact their height. Were minivans to be listed under the car category rather than the non-commercial van category, then it's very likely that no cars would be listed there at all. Minivans belong in the non-commercial van category.

Sadowski (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J12 wheelbases again

Could you please take a look at Talk:Hispano-Suiza J12#Wheelbases? I'm trying to figure out what should be done with that. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sadowski. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]