User talk:IFCAR

Hello IFCAR, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! Alphachimp talk 19:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Getting started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikipedians Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

While we appreciate you making the effort of taking pictures, I would like to ask you not to change the pictures on the Explorer page, as the top picture should be a picture of the current 2006-2007 generation, and in regards to the 1998 picture you have on the generation 2 page, 1998 was a good model year, but it was not fully developed as the 1999-2001 series final design, kind of like a hybrid between the 1997 and 1999. The 99-01 design came to dominate the design for the 2.5 generation facelift. Those pictures are fine, please don't change them unless you have a better picture of a 2000 Explorer. Also, please give users the opportunity of posting their own work here on wikipedia instead of having you dominate most car articles with your pictures. Thank You! (vinycard 14:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Good to see you here! This was my hidden agenda - to get you to start editing Wikipedia! We surely need more editors knowledgeable in the automotive-related subjects, and I hope to see many valuable contributions from you, not only regarding photos! I cordially invite you to join the WikiProject!

Excuse me for being so slow with adding your photos to the articles, not only did I hope for you to get impatient and start adding them yourself, I am also trying to catch up with my backlog here and in so many other places, while at the same time developing new typing skills due to my temporary "finger malfunction" :D

Oh, btw - I have seen you label your images "Category:Ford vehicles" and similarly. There are often much more detailed categories, like "Category:Ford Windstar" etc. It is generally good practice to label the image with the most detailed category available, to help users that might be looking for an image. Thanks! Bravada, talk - 12:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Our chief uploader of poor quality photos is already upset with your much better pics! Great job!

Yeah, I'm very impressed with your pics! I suggest you upload your pics to the Commons, so that they can be used in other Wikis. --ApolloBoy 19:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might have not noticed, but IFCAR is one of the few people who do so. Bravada, talk - 20:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do what I've been taught. Bravada explained clearly how to upload a picture to the Commons, so that's where I put them. IFCAR 20:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree with Bavaria and Scheinwerfamann. Free images are usually of much poorer quality than fair use ones. They are usually fuzzy, blurry, and of cars that do not look clean. For Example: "Image:1st-gen Neon.jpg", "Image:Plymouth Acclaim.jpg", "Image:Mercury-Villager.jpg", and "Image:Chrysler-Town-and-Country.jpg", to name a few. Plus in your case(I read your bio) I don't think you should just be taking pictures of random cars on the street. WDWbuff 19:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally put any of the pics of especially ugly cars (like that Acclaim) in their Wikipedia articles. In cases like that, someone else retrieves them from the Commons and puts them in. The way I see it, a pic of a car in mediocre condition or a picture with a bad angle or lighting ought to coexist with a fair use image, but as it clearly says on the fair use tag, "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of promotional material...in the absence of free images that could serve such a purpose...qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." As long as the fair use image is of adequate quality and gives an adequate view of the car, it should be used instead. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking pictures of parked cars, legally or ethically. Why don't you bring this up in the WikiProject Automobiles talk page, see what others have to say. IFCAR 22:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed on the Hyundai Tiburon page that you've captioned your image as "2002-2006 Hyundai Tiburon". There's actually a Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles convention for this, but it's fairly hidden. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Minimum image standards, point 8 says "The model year and trim level should be added to the image caption if they are available. If not, leave blank; do not use something like '1997-2002' for the model year."

I've deleted the model years for this one and skimmed through your edit history as well, but I've only sorted 2-3 of your most recent additions. And cheers for replacing the promotional image. -- DeLarge 20:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never seen that, thanks. I'll leave that off in the future, but I have too many for me or anyone else to want to go through and fix that little quibble. IFCAR 20:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT update my Nissan Armada page. We need the badging variants (as shown on that page) of 2004 & the 2005-present bagding on the rear! -- Bull-Doser 19:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is not my talk page, but I hope you know that no article is yours nor anybody's for that matter. Everybody is free to make all changes they want to any articles - on the condition that they conform with general guidelines and standards for articles and other rules. BTW, adding random pictures of dirty cars shown from weird angles is not particularly according to the rules. Regards, Bravada, talk - 19:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the project page, the preferred images are front 3/4 view, not blurry, not dirty. If you think the comparison of the two back ends is especially important, by all means keep it on the page (in smaller size, maybe side-by-side 175-pxs) but don't demand that no one else put up images that better meet the set requirements. And if this comparison is so important, why not mention it in the article? IFCAR 19:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, no guideline says that all images should be self-taken. There are many enthusiast clubs or even individual enthusiastic members who spent a lot of time to make truly superb pics of their favorite cars. They are often very happy to share the photos of their beloved cars to have them featured on WP, where everybody can see them. Just browse the internet and you can probably find some good quality privately-made pics of these design features. All you need to do is contact the owners and ask for releasing them into public domain! Bravada, talk - 20:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on taking all those photos of automobiles! I'm trying to be a better automobile photographer; not having much success though. Check my upload log here and on commons (cchan199206 there) for examples of ym photos. I don't have a great camera; it that the problem? Thnaks, ~ c. tales ^*talk* 20:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliments. There's no real trick that I've found to taking quick pictures, just try to be as physically close as possible to the car, take pictures only in good lighting, and don't rush yourself in getting the best possible angle. I don't know what camera you have, but mine isn't anything special (it's an Olympus digital, a few years old and not especially expensive). IFCAR 21:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mine's a DXG DVC305. Minor brand, doesn't take great photos. I try to photograph cars from a front 3/4 view, sidewalk side because where I d most of my photography is of cars parked streetside. ~ c. tales \\tk// 18:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure to provide a helpful edit summary (per the instructions and big red box) when editing the nominations list in future. This will help us keep the Good Articles wikiproject running more efficiently. Thanks.  -- Run!  12:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I noticed right after I put it up, but it wouldn't let me put up an edit summary without actually changing something. IFCAR 12:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to reply to the latter part of your post here, as it was rather unrelated with the Vedette. Well, as the evidence of the Vedette itself shows, the criteria are applied quite liberally, though I still believe one should adhere with the ones listed at WP:WIAGA. As concerns the Aura, I did not want to review it formally, as I guess there might be a bit too much of a conflict of itnerest, but I can give you my informal review on its talk page (provided I want fall asleep on my keyboard in a moment), but in general the article has one major disqualifying flaw - a total lack of references. Do browse some Good and Featured articles for examples of good referencing (if anything seems off to you, or like an example of an easy way out, that means you have come accross an article that somehow got through and it's not a good example). Regards, Bravada, talk - 22:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. You know what should be in the article more than I do. I was just replacing the fair use image, thought that what was there seemed well-written, and figured it couldn't hurt to nominate it. IFCAR 22:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though the original author put some of his/her references in the "External Links" section. I added a couple more. I hope that works out. IFCAR 23:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - sorry :( See the article's talk page :D Bravada, talk - 00:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was also a little disappointed with how the pictures turned out. I grabbed them quickly while the salesman was getting the keys and Xeroxing my license, so I'm not crushed by the criticism of this fine art. They're definitely serviceable in my opinion though, even the on-stand Aura. IFCAR 00:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking forward to seeing more pics from you, but still do not be afraid to put other people to work :D Don't be so greedy, not every Amnerican car picture on WP has to come from you :D - there are many people @ GMI (and elsewhere) who take great pride in their cars and/or photos, and if they made some really good work, why not showcase it?

BTW, I would really try to check out the resolution thing about your camera. Somehow the pictures appear to be quite low-res, or grainy, at least when put throught the WP image display engine. I believe there is a way to make the camera fix it. I am saying that, because I am seeing people having gripes about this thing adversely affecting the quality of your, otherwise usually really good, photos. Bravada, talk - 00:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who actually owns the car in question should have no trouble getting something nicer than one of my walk-by shots, so that's not a problem. I can't say I know what you mean about the camera, I've never played with the settings but haven't noticed a graniness issue except sometimes in the full-size 1300px images, and something with red cars going discolored when transferred to thumbnails.

Back on topic, failing an article for not having inline citations is clearly against the Wikipedia guidelines. "The citation of [the article's] sources is essential, and the use of inline citations is desirable, although not mandatory." IFCAR 00:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning inline citations, discuss with people who do so. It is usually coupled with other reasons, and reasons for failing this article are present in abundance, so I don't believe it will be failed because of that. Still, some statements, such as the one about "the lacklustre sales of the L-Series", would be strongly recommended to carry an inline citation IMHO. As concerns the pics, perhaps it's not resolution, I can't put my finger on it... But there is something about your pics... Maybe it's the brightness thing... Or there is this "remove spots" or whatever you call it option in the photo processing software... Do compare the Aura pic with the ones in e.g. the Oldsmobile Intrigue article (which, qualitywise, are one of the better if you'd ask me, not to say yours aren't good either). Bravada, talk - 00:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Intrigue pic does have a much higher resolution than the Aura pic, maybe that's it. The Aura's black paint against a dark window probably wasn't all that helpful either. But I don't think it was that bad of an image, in appearance or in quality. Maybe I'm too biased. But if you can pinpoint a specific image quality problem, I'd obviously appreciate it. IFCAR 01:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I can't. And actually, the Aura here is quite good (save for the unfortunate lighting/reflection combination, but that has nothing to do with the camera), I meant your photos in general - e.g. the other Aura, or this Accord. Compare with Robert's Monte Carlo, it is much less "grainy" to my eyes, even if the resolution seems comparable (though it might not be and then there's the problem). Though now I have looked at a number of other pics and perhaps I'm just grumbling - this all becomes too blurred for me to draw a straight line (though higher resolution helps of course). Just forget it and aim at good shots with fair lighting :D Bravada, talk - 01:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I moved the portion of our discussion concerning the photos here, as it was pretty irrelevant to the article. I chose your talk page rather than mine, as it is about your photos - I apologize if you find this inappropriate.

That Accord picture might be from the harsh lighting. I know next to nothing about my camera besides how long to hold the button, how to change the batteries, and how the zoom works. I'm hesitant to play with any features as long as the quality remains usable, unless that's a problem. But you said other people are complaining?

And I have no problem with the discussion being here. I couldn't care less where it is as long as I can find it (and the little yellow notification box made that easy). IFCAR 01:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, seems like there are two of us here then, concerning the deep camera knowledge - I'd guess that is why my photos aren't so good either... Now, the problem is that your pictures are pretty prolific and you are inserting them in quite many articles. People who we are trying to fend off as they insert random/haphazard poor quality pics see that and go "why can't I", and then you get some "photo revert wars" you can probably recall. Now, if you insert a photo that has this "grainy" thing, is made in less-than-perfect lighting circumstances, in a parking lot with some distracting objects/other cars in the background etc. the difference in quality becomes less distinctive and the person who uploads crappy pics might not understand why his/her pics are considered worse (even if they actually are, but perception is entirely subjective). So, it is better, IMHO, to concentrate on quality over quantity, so that the resulting pics are the best possible and the difference is clear.

Which is why I mentioned contacting other people, as this might be a better way of procuring many good-quality pictures than trying to make all of them yourself. After all, that's your name which appears as the uploader :D E.g. concerning this hopeless Civic case, there might be some enthusiast who, by some slim chance, did not rice out his/her old Civic, but rather kept it clean and in good condition and made some really good pics of it. I believe finding such Civic in your area might be hard, but finding such person over the Internet might be easier. That said, it's 4 AM here and I am probably talking absolute rubbish, I don't even want to read that. Good boo! Bravada, talk - 02:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I only try to personally insert what I consider my better images, unless there's an article where anything is better than the status quo. Others (mostly the user you seem to be implying) put in the rest. In fact, I have the user you seem to be implying's "contribution" list bookmarked so I can revert the insertion of some of the images.

But the way I see it, there's no point in participating on Wikipedia if it's not enjoyable, and talking to Civic fans isn't really something I tend to enjoy. If parking-lot images aren't welcome, let me know and save me time and effort, but if I'm putting up images I'm putting up my own, and that's where cars tend to be concentrated. IFCAR 02:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just do as you please, I was tired and not really conscious when writing that. Perhaps the photos people have issues with were not inserted by you. Have a good day! Bravada, talk - 10:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there have been complaints, I'd like to know about it. No one has brought it up to me except a fair use uploader who didn't see the value in free photos. IFCAR 12:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last time you uploaded images to Wikipedia was last week. I continue to upload pictures of cars, BTW. -- Bull-Doser 00:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some bad weather in DC the last few times I've been in big parking lots. I have a few shots, waiting to be uploaded, but I'll be waiting for a large group this weekend. IFCAR 01:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willing to take car pictures overseas, just like me when I was in the Caribbean? -- Bull-Doser 02:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I travel to interesting places, I like to go without a camera. When I'm paying that much to be somewhere, I don't want taking pictures to get in the way of the experience. Pictures of traffic are the lowest priority. IFCAR 10:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you latest edit to Mercury Sable. Now, I hva enoticed this in many pages. Instead of taking pictures of cars that already have free images on their page, why don't you try focusing your efforts to taking images for car pages that need them, ok? Karrmann 10:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get what I can. If there were something better parked there, I would have taken it. But if I think I can, there's no reason I would want to try and improve over one of my previous pictures. And I'd say the new Sable photo is a better angle than what I had put up before. IFCAR 10:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. THe angle is better, and the image is clearer. Karrmann 11:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		I Brendel hereby give you IFCAR the photographers barnstar for your great work and effort to illustrate automobile article here on Wikipedia. Your edits and photographs have added to the quality and integrity of our articles. Such hard work needs to be recognized. So, keep up the good work and happy editing! Signaturebrendel 19:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! IFCAR 19:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Just read the talk page" is not a reason to make an edit against consensus. Please do not make such edits again before finding out what the consensus of the article is. Thank you. Rarelibra 19:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your image contributions to teh Ford Taurus article, that prefacelifted image was BADLY needed. Karrmann 23:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I use 1280 X 1024 resolution, so I may be seeing a problem that you don't have. I am trying to fix the arrangement of pics on the TC page, so that everything works with my resolution and all the pics are in their corresponding section. I like your new TC pic better and will included ASAP. Regards, Signature^brendel 20:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Just to let you know, I fixed the line wrap and created a little gallery which includes the second '90 - '94 Town Car pic you took. Regards, Signature^brendel 04:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, next time you are out takin pictures, please try to snap an image of a first and second generation Geo Metro. The images currently on the article are God-awful. Karrmann 23:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will look there. One with no hubcaps will be much better than the images we have so far. But if you can, see if you can find a one in pretty good whack to snap, teh article needs it. Karrmann 02:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded ~70 photos in a batch, placing them in commons:Category:AudeVivere-cars, which I made a subcategory of "Unidentified automobiles". Thusfar, these include Acura, Aston Martin, BMW, Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Infiniti, Jaguar, Land Rover, Lincoln, Mazda, Nissan, Volvo, and some others. Have many more yet to upload, including Volkswagon, Porsche, Audi, some classic cars, Bentley, Ferrari, Lexus, Toyota, and perhaps others. I haven't the chance to work on categorizing yet. Some are fairly straightforward, with model name visible somewhere in the photo, that I could work on some of them. Thanks for your willingness to help out. --Aude (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is only for images marked with "fair use replace" on their pages and not for all fair use images. Peter O. (Talk) 02:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, My dad drives a Dodge Caravan! Same gen too. Karrmann 02:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I`ve always been the IFCAR of Canada. How would you compare IFCAR`s Toyota Van with mine seen on the Toyota Van page? IFCAR`s image had worse quality. And what about the 1987-1993 Galant on the Mitsubishi Galant page? I took it when I was in Miami in August 2006. Mine had better quality, since I snapshotted it when I was in Vancouver Island in May 2006. Anyways, they`re both on the Commons. ----

Bull-Doser, quit being a petty whiner. Karrmann 22:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was somewhat confused by the fact that you replaced it with your own on the page. Aside from their being a person in yours, it showed the details of the car more clearly. I took it back off, not you. IFCAR 00:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of making changes to an article that I, obviously, would rather not see happen, why not take it to the discussion and see what image should go there instead? Actually, you don't even need to bother because I already have. Participate in it along with everyone else will ya. Roguegeek (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is your favourite radio station DC101? Were you a WHFS fan before? -- Bull-Doser 21:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IFCAR, 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|IFCAR]] 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, James086^{Talk | Contribs} 04:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I got his talk page on my watchlist also, as I keep an eye on teh guy, because before you came, (and he used teh account User:Take Me Higher), he was very arrogant, he took ALL his images of poorly exposed and beat up cars from the back with his finger in the shot, and he would never respond to our comments, we even created an RfC for him which he again ignored. It took us finally sticking our foot up his ass to get him to finally snap pctures of cars from the front, and those were even of bad quality. And most of the images he uploads today are of bad quality. And well, I guess he considers himself "the original" (Of snapping cars on the street and stuff for free pics) and we are just "COpycats". Though then aain, we take images that we can use, he is just a pain. It is still laughable how bad some of his pics were. There was one of a Chrysler Dynasty, where it was from the back, all four doors were open, it was snowing, and a lady was loading her kids in the back, and she was staring into the camera thinking that he was some kind of rapist. I can even show you some of his early work that survived teh deletion hammer (I even got some on my hard drive) that I can use as examples of how bad his images actually were. But, as for teh whole "F*** you" message he left you, I am gonna post that on the AN, as I want to nip this in the bud now, before it escalades to the point where we got another Wiarthurhu on out hands. Karrmann 00:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you look here or Here, you will be able to see that he was a real problem before you joined. It took us sticking our foot up his butt before he finally started taking pictures from the front. And when it comes to the dealers, I just simply ask them for permission to take the images of cars, and they are usually alright with it (THat's how I got the images of those cars in that showroom) Karrmann 01:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see. Well, with how Bull-Doser works, it gradually gets worse. So, he won't just stop with the f-bomb, it will just keep escalating, so that is why I brought it to the AN, so I can prevent this from becoming a real problem. Karrmann 01:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like using Firefox. Ever use Firefox? We want every car page to work thru Firefox & IE. -- Bull-Doser 18:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BD, after your "Holiday greeting", I don't think that you should touch his page ever again, especially with utterly stupid crap like this. Karrmann 01:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created the image. GT4 has a special feature called "photo mode", where you can take pictures of your cars. It also allows you to save them to a USB drive, adn upload them to your computer. Thus, the Image is mine. Karrmann 03:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you are referring to teh game, no, I didn't create it. But if you are talking about the image, then yes. Karrmann 03:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your enthusiasm for snapping car photos for the use on Wikipedia. I don't however, appreciate the latest edits to the G20 article. The fact is, the primary photo you posted was of very poor quality - plus, this "in the wild" parking-lot setting is not the ideal background. The red G20 you found had so much brake dust on the front wheels, they were nearly as black as the tires. As an encyclopedia article, ideally I would like to see very clean (and stock) representations of vehicles within their respective articles. As I mentioned in my edit's comments, I'm not obsessed with having my G20 as the 'representative' photograph, but you'd have to agree the shots are of much higher quality (eg. the car is clean and the primary focus - not in a crowded parking lot, and the picture quality is much more crisp & less grainy). Plus, I found a 'non-redundant' angle of my car as well. I don't see the need for any further edits. Thanks. --MackOSU 06:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my reverts to Ford Focus (North America)! I didn't see enough to realize that you were simply 'replacing' the infobox.

No hard feelings -- Tyson Moore 00:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! Ok - first I will apologize for the 'sergeant' in me coming out - sometimes I have to check myself. So I didn't notice that it was your image you were replacing after all - but I still think that the black FJ Cruiser is a much cleaner image (especially with regards to the vanity plate and angle). We do need a Black Cherry FJ photo to round out the color choices.

I guess I never thought of the Kaizen approach - but in this case, I think the photo in question is of such quality that it doesn't need improving. It makes the effort doubled in one case whereas there are many photos missing out there...

As for showing the DOD sticker in a photo - FORSCOM policy does not permit the display of many different items, including such stickers - to the point where you even have to turn them in to each installation as you leave or transfer. It is OPSEC not to display information that someone can use to distinguish (in this case) that particular vehicle and it's location, let alone the owner (who may be of importance to the 'enemy'). I say this in the best of interest. The military enforces many 'weird' things - such as prosecuting someone who kept posting videos of himself in his Navy uniform on YouTube without permission. Rarelibra 22:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

brougth this up with you before, like in teh case of Mercury Sable, and now Lincoln Zephyr. I am with Rarelibra, and instead of replacing images in articles that already have good ones, instead put images in articles of cars that are unillustrated. There hav ebeen a few times when I felt that the image you put in place of th existing one was of worse quality of teh other one. Like with Lincoln Zephyr, yes, I know the pig stink you have over indoor pics, but the image you put in the place makes the article look drab. Karrmann 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with IFCAR on this, in all three cases. I have not seen a single instance where IFCAR has replaced an image with an inferior one. We finally got the image issues on Mercury Sable worked out now (it seems like we have discussed every single one on the talk page), the only images that we still need are of an early and a late Gen I. Then Rarelibra removed the silver car from the top infobox and put back that image of the green car, which I cannot understand. I think a photographer knows when one of his images is better than another. And short of discussing every image on the article's talk page, can't we just assume good faith? I have taken more car pictures than I can count, and I know which of mine are the best. IFCAR, I assume you do as well. --Sable232 05:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relax man, what I am really focusing on is getting images of the newly released models and concept cars. I am not gonna push through the people to get a picture of a Civic. Karrmann 03:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When was the last time you took car pictures? Willya be taking car pictures during a snowfall? It is very cold and snowy up in Montreal. -- Bull-Doser 04:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only complete idiots take pictures during a snowfall. so NO. Karrmann 12:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a new batch today, adn just want to know how I did. (Since I am new to this, I just want soem feedback to make sure I am heading down teh right path) Karrmann 01:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I too, am impressed by how the Fusion image turned out, especially since It was not like a very careful shot, I just stopped adn snapped it on the way to the exit. I mostly treid to focus on the cars that were either concepts or were not yet on sale (Such as those three 2008 Fords), as they woul dbe more valuable to the project. Plus, thanks for sorting that Volvo image out. I never really knew which model it was, S40 was my best guess. I swear, those Volvos all look exactly the same. Karrmann 02:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. The colors may be a little bit flashy. I can either use more "toned-down" colors such as the one's on my user-page's banner or I could try White. This evening (Pacific Time) I'll do one using a white background w/ a simple shadow to be a bit more "classy" and also increase the background layer, so the image won't appear so closely cropped- I will start w/ the Lincoln Navigator article. Regards, Signature^brendel 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a simple White background version on Lincoln Navigator article. As I have also saved a copy in photoshop format, I can easily make changes to the image. If you have any further suggestions let me know. Regards, Signature^brendel 21:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That facelifted 5th Gen is very nice. Do you think it would be a lot better as the featured photo for that section? :) Rarelibra 03:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The grille-less front end was only used for 1992. That car in the pic has LX wheels, and I also recall that the base model had different side moldings, but I'm not ruse right now. FWIW, the LX is more abundant than the base model for that era. --Sable232 00:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You should be telling that to yourself, not IFCAR. Karrmann 23:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say, nice job on the "Dodge Ram Wagon" page -- I love how you put the first and second generation white extended vans together like that, to truely show the changes. Keep up the good work. Ahanix1989 16:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Is NOT possible to replace fair use images with freely licensed images

The Fair Use Image: Image:Tsuru ext 02.jpg Was replaced with: Image:3rd-Nissan-Sentra.jpg

The Freely-licensed Image will be deleted in 36 hours.

Understand IFCAR Please and Don't Replace Fair Use images with freely-licensed except when have the image page this tags:

This image was uploaded under a fair use rationale, but may fail Wikipedia's first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information. If you believe that a free replacement image can not be reasonably found or created please add one of the following: {{Replaceable fair use disputed | Your reason why a free replacement is not available}} or {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to this page and give the reasons for your dispute on the talk page. If this image is determined to be replaceable within one week from 11 July 2024 (18 July), the image may be deleted by any administrator. Do not remove this tag. After adding this tag, please notify the uploader with {{subst:replaceable|IFCAR}} ~~~~ Also consider adding: {{subst:refu-c}} to the caption in article(s) the image is used to give a little advance warning that a free licensed replacement should be sought after. Adding {{reqphoto}}, or one of the more specific image request templates (listed on the reqphoto template page), to the article's talk page may also be helpful if there are no other images in the article already.fails fair use criteria #1 (replaceable fair use image) as of 2024-07-11 Tagger: If this image has, at the time of tagging, a rationale explaining why it is irreplaceable, please do not forget to explain on the talk page why you think that rationale is not valid. Tags applied in contravention of this requirement may be removed; if a rationale is added after the tagging, the normal process for disputing a tag should be followed. Suggested deletion Summary:I7 Replaceable fair use image fails fair use criteria #1 (replaceable fair use image) as of 2024-07-11

It should be possible for someone to create or find a freely licensed replacement for this fair use work, and this should be done as soon as is practical. Please request a replacement by adding {{Replacethisimage}} in the image captions or on the talk page of the article(s) where this work is used. Because fair use claims should only be used in cases where adequate free replacements are not possible, this image may be deleted in the future if no effort has been made to replace it with a freely licensed one. Once you have replaced the image, please add {{subst:orfud}} to its description page.

--Alx 91 17:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For all your hard work illustrating and creating hundreds of images for the automotive articles. Karrmann 00:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why you reverted my changes to the article on Nissan Xterra? --Brownings 20:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was talking to BD. I have seen some pictures he uploaded with the cars covered in snow. Karrmann 02:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand most of your reversions, but I don't undsrstand your motives for reverting my images from:

Dodge Daytona Honda Civic Lincoln Navigator Chevrolet Impala (Only the head image) AMC Gremlin

BTW, check out the last infobox on BD's userpage. Karrmann 23:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the seventh gen, but the sixth gen i don't. It doesn't have aftermarket wheels, just those retailer hubcaps. The main reason why I changed the image was because the shadows compromise you being able to see the front details of teh car in the current one. If you want, I can photoshop stock wheels if you want. I a pretty good with photoshop. With the Impala, I think the new head image is less cluttered, but I do understand why you replaced the fifth generation image. I do think that the new image is clearer, adn there is no shadow. For the Gremlin, yes, it is sort of rusty, but it is of higher resolution and shows more details of the car, but the rust is a good argument. A rusty car is not the best model in the world, though then again, what are your chances of seeing a Gremiln just parked on teh street/ For the Daytona, I think my image is better because the headlamps are closed, adn there is less sunlight. In the current pic, the sunlight blanks out just about every detail of the front of the car, which are clearly visible in my image. Plus the only damage I see is a few scuffs on teh plasti cmoulding. Can you be more specific in which you cite as damage?

As for BD, he has a userbox that says "THis user is interested in IF CAR" I am going to remove it as it is violating WP policies, as it singles you out, which is in violation of WP's userpage regulations.

If it wasn't put on by the manufacturer, it's aftermarket. Don't bother with Photoshop, see if there's something else in the Commons (I'm sure there is) and/or I'll try to beat the current photo. With the Impala, the angle doesn't show the car as well, and neither has distracting shadows. With the Gremlin, I think the advantage yours has is the 3/4 front angle, but the condition of the other car makes it a better article illustration. For the Daytona, the blue image is fuzzier and the car is scuffed up. On the silver car, I don't see headlights being up as a downside, and the washed-out section doesn't actually have any detail that is obscured except for the hood's cut-line.

BD is one to be ignored when he isn't modifying the encyclopedia. IFCAR 23:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still got rid of it, because even if I didn't, somebody else was going to take it down eventually. it violates WP's standards for userpages.

That out of the way, I also want to ask why you reverted my images for Oldsmobile Alero and Chrysler 300. And while I understand why you reverted my image addition to Chevrolet Corsica, either one of us needs to get a new image with the wipers down. Karrmann 01:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The clare was not THAT bad, just a small, barely noticable spot by the Chrysler logo. It still was in great perspective. I know a few good-condition Corsicas in my area, but with the Michigan economy the way it is, there are many that are abused. Same goes for the Ford Festiva. The one I got a picture of was horribly beaten up, and most of them are no better. All of the really cheap cars are badly abused because they are mostly owned by very poor families. Karrmann 02:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense, I just want to say that a lot of my image insertion/placement was done by Bull-Doser, adn I only originally placed them where I see fit. Like with the Ecplorere Limited Head image, Pontiac Grand Am, Pontiac Grand Prix head image, Mercury villager head image, etc. YOu can even check who did what in teh edit histories. I inserted most as secondary images. Karrmann 03:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, you are treating me like I blatantly put my images in with no thought, adbn i was saying that lot of the bad image placement was done by Bull-Doser, who has repeatially proven that he doesn't know a good image if it bit him, and also that we seem to have contradicting views on what makes an image "better". Karrmann 03:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring clean cars? Could you point out which ones you think are too dirty to fit within the standards? Karrmann 04:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no. I don't want you to tell me that I need to stop taking pictures of salt covered cars, and SHOW me th eimages you think are of these flithy cars you claim I am photographing. Karrmann 13:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are just overexposed. Ever since last time, I make it a habit to stay from overly dirty cars. Karrmann 17:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me which ones you think were overexposed? The only way I can get better is to see what you think is where teh images are not good. Karrmann 17:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got two more images up, at Chevrolet Caprice and Geo Metro. There were more "lonely" cars around, but I accidently took a picture of a car with the owners sitting in it without realizing it (Has that ever happened to you?), adn I was kinda too embarassed to carry on for that session. I felt like a total ass. After A quick apoligizy and a brief explaniation of what I was doing, and the owner understood perfectly, but still, it was real embarassing. Well anyways, you can review them adn see if I was good in inserting them. I don't liek being a burdon. I perfer to work with everyone instead of working agaisnt them. Karrmann 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a new version of the Caprice photo. The first one was taken with the flash off, as I turned if off for taking a unrelated indoor photo, and forgot to put it back. I took the other with the flash on, and it is not as overexposed as the other. Karrmann 22:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some new images, and you can review, to see if I was right in changing them. Karrmann 00:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• deep breath in* The Camry is shinier, at a better angle, and it better shows the front details of the car. The Saturn SC looks like it was taken from an arial view, and I hate that Impala image. It is cluttered and it is so tightly packed. I just don't like having a tightly packed image as the head image, but that is just me. Karrmann 00:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got me there. How do you notice all this small stuff? Karrmann 00:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is your point by adding a picture that is from exactly the same angel as the main picture in this article? I removed it once but I see you've added it again without any explanation. This image addition is unnecessary unless you have a really good point? --Payam81 00:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some new images. You may review them if you want. But when ti comes to Acura RSX, don't revert it, as I am unsure if the previous image was safe to use. Karrmann 21:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's your old Olympus digital camera? When did you switch to a Canon PowerShot? -- Bull-Doser 15:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard that you have interest in the Saturn Aura article. Well, I just spent the whole afternoon giving the article a good rejuvination. I think it may now be ready to be renominated as a good article. Please tell me what you think/if there is anything I can improve. :) Karrmann 02:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I think the angle is a bit better, esspecially with the wheels turned, but that is just my POV. Anyways, I find that your image is a bit overexxposed, as well as that Pacifica has a lot of brake dust on its wheels. It also has the shadow of what looks to be a palm like tree glaring over the hood. Karrmann 23:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No brake dust at all? Look at all the grime around teh hweels. Plus, I can not find any way where your image is superior to mine. If you can, please point it out. Mine is clearer, adn teh car is cleaner. Karrmann 01:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the 3/4 pic is of very low quality, so I will use that image instead. I am on break, and my mom is going grocery shopping tomorrow, so I will be out taking pics, and I will try to take a better one of a Seville. Karrmann 23:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not photograph anymore G6 sedans until the facelifted '08 model year debuts. You can photograph Grand Ams (the G6's predecessor), but you have photographed 7 G6 sedan models. The only G6 models you can photograph are sedans with silver-coloured door handles, coupes (mainly with silver-coloured door handles), convertibles & hardtops, but not sedans with standard-coloured door handles. See, I photographed a hardtop G6 last week. -- Bull-Doser 00:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an amusing anicdote for you. Today I was taking pictures of cars at the mall, when a mall security Geo Tracker pulled up behind the space I was standing in, trapping me in. The guard came out of the Tracker, and asked me what I was doing. I told him that I was taking pictures for Wikipedia. He told me that what I was doing is illegal since the mall parking lot belongs to the owners of the mall, and that me taking pictures it its premesis is illegal. And if I continued to do so, he would arrest me citing invasion of privacy. he then later said something about teenagers being ghetto trash or something, I don't know as I was already on my way back into the mall.

So, thus brings my point of posting this: Are you 100% sure that what we are doing is legal? I don't want any of us getting thrown in jail over this. Karrmann 01:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the guard is just being a prick. I would love to see them try to call the cops on you. "OMGWTF this kid was taking pictures in our parking lot! Arrest him!" In fact, If I were in your place, I would have laughed my ass off. Mall rent-a-cops are way too bored.

(I'm sure there is some legal precedent about this one way or the other, but this is just laugable anyway.) Invasion of privacy? What an asshole. --Sable232 03:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that if they wanted to, they could make a trespassing charge stick, at least enough to scare you. I've been spoken to by one security guard who didn't have a problem once I explained, but if I meet someone, who does, security or other, I wait until they're gone or go somewhere else. IFCAR 11:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from a cop, you are fine, there is no expectation of privacy in a public place. I could see if it was posted with an actual sign stating "no photography" or something like that, but seriously what mall would even post that? I don't even think they would press a trespassing issue as they are only open by the grace of people coming to shop there, and there is no reason to alienate customers that are doing nothing more then taking a picture... With that said Mall Ninja's(no offense to legitimate, honest working security guards.) usually try to inflate themselves or find ways to get out there and give off the presence they have more power then they do. Dureo 09:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, that bull that you reverted is a first generation. What gives it away is that 92-95 bulls have solid bumpers. SOlid grey on the base models, or color keyed. Instead, the rear bumper on that bull is grey with the top part black. Of course, the bumpers on first generation bulls were black on top and grey on the bottom. It also has the solid, dish like "Taurus" hubcaps with the narrow sicle like slits, were only available on G1 bulls. So I think you may have made a mistake, as I am pretty sure that is a G1 bull. I am a Taurus expert, so you can trust me on this one ;).

BTW, teh reason I say "Bull" is not to insult you, but since I am a member of the Taurus Car Club of America, we call the Tauruses and Sables "Bulls" as an affectionate nickname, since they are named after the astrological sign of Taurus, the bull. Karrmann 00:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karrmann's right, it's a G1 (an '89-'91, to be precise). The G2 bumpers were a different shape and didn't have the chrome strip. --Sable232 00:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody with some kind of a grudge against you vandalized your page. Just wanted to let you know. I already reverted it. Karrmann 19:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to get fuel economy and annual emmissions on the infobox table? I would like to put info on there from: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm Angry Aspie 13:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I found some old classic car shows you might be interested in. Here's a website with one of the car shows from Maryland. http://www.sweetchariots.com/showsmd.php -- Bull-Doser 16:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, enjoying the weekend? Well, anyways, I have also taken concern about Spoolintsi and the other accounts, and I too think that they could all be the same guy. I have gotten evidence that links the MikeTSIawd and an IP to his account. I have filed a sockpuppetry case and a checkuse case, and compiled a list of evidence just in case that I need it. Anyways, I just wanted to let you know about this, an dI would like for you to be here to back me up as well as my claims, considering that you were also involved in this edit war. Also, I managed to get the page protected, so we won't have to revert them over and over again. But he and his socks have taken ot trolling the talk page, so we should still watch it. I just wanted to let you know. I also have an admin friend that may be able to help us with this ordeal once she comes back from a brief wikibreak. Karrmann 13:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alright, Checkuser confirmed that they are the same person. Karrmann 18:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to remove duplicate model pictures then fine, but they need to be in galleries so the generation template isn't separated from its text. Angry Aspie 15:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday became IFCAR's 1st anniversary on Wikipedia. -- Bull-Doser 01:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Tundra underwent a major upgrade in 2006, I think the heading picture should be of the newer model, even if not required, I think.

I you would like the current heading picture to be used elsewhere in the article, that would be fine. Angry Aspie 01:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there IFCAR! I have not, but now that you let me know, I have, and I too am now concerned. I didn't find a page like that when I checked for copyright information. The image seems to fit just about every criteria they have, except for the emailing part. I have not emailed permission for the image, and that has me really concerned. I think the image should be taken down, I email them to get permission, then we put it back up. Does that sound good, because that is the best thing to do that i can think of. Karrmann 23:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. My mistake. Qwazywabbit^{Msg me} 03:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start by saying I really appriciate your effort to add photos to Wikipedia. I just wanted to add some constructive criticism. I've noticed that many of your shots have a skewed horizon line, I'm not sure if it is intentional, but IMHO it looks bad, and creates a strange disconcerting optical effect with all the horizontal text, it also creates a sort of discord with all the images with level horizon lines. In anycase keep up the good work and try to keep the camera level. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the car is always going to be angled unless it is a straight profile or head on shot, the brain corrects this by using the horizon line and seeing depth. When the horizon line is skewed it looks odd and disconcerting. I know appeals to personal authority are lame, but I used to work in the photo lab at my school and my dad is professional photographer so I do have a pretty good idea not only of what I like, but of what is accepted as good aesthetics in taking pictures. Just as an example you will never see a skewed horizon line in a car magazine unless they are going for some kind of "artistic" impact which I don't think we should be trying to do here. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IFCAR. I'm going to agree with Daniel here. While going through your gallery, I was noticing a large number of images you've contributed had very misaligned horizon lines. Examples include the following:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

While I can appreciate the number of images you contribute to Commons, I think they could be a whole lot more valuable if they were just composed correctly. An image I really like was a Legacy SpecB (as shown to the right), but it was shot misaligned with the horizon. I took the liberty of uploading an improved image that was straightened, recreated, white balanced, and tonal ranges corrected. Just a little constructive criticism I guess.

I remember in the past you talking about composure and angle being more important than image quality and am taking those concept into consideration any time I'm replacing images of yours with properly composed images. Please don't take those edits as personal attacks because they are not meant to be that. Also, if there are a number of editors who are agreeing with the replacement of certain images, please try and respect the consensus by not simply reverting edits. I'm hoping I haven't misspoken. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 07:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real quick, I wanted to provide a proper reference. Check out how samples of how vehicle images are properly framed here. FYI, they are the largest automotive photography company in the world, so I would call that a definitive resource, but you could basically pull up any company who specializes in automotive photography to see the same kinds of samples. Roguegeek (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've photographed over 10 2000-01 Maximas, and that's enough. You should at least photograph older Maximas as a result. -- Bull-Doser 15:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why are you ordering him to stop taking pictures of 01 Maximas? Since you take images yourself, I am sure that you know that you take what you can get, and can not choose what cars are going to be there at that certain day. Karrmann 18:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine browsing the Wiki article for your car, trying to learn something about it, when you see a picture of a car that looks a lot like your own. You look closer, and it turns out it *is* your car, parked in front of your own home! What a bizarre occurance. I just wanted to add... at least one car owner has spotted his own vehicle on the pages you've editted. Very cool. (I'm glad I had mowed the lawn!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.165.234 (talk) 12:30, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, IFCAR, I'd like to take you up on your offer to upload uncropped, full-resolution versions of some of your photos to ImageShack, so that I can rotate them, etc. Specifically, it would be great if you would upload:

Image:2007 Lexus ES350.jpg
Image:01-03 Lexus LS430.jpg
Image:2006 Lexus GS300.jpg

URLs: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:2007_Lexus_ES350.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:01-03_Lexus_LS430.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:2006_Lexus_GS300.jpg

I would really appreciate it; I can then adjust them towards horizontal, etc. Thanks for your assistance and for taking the photos! Enigma3542002 23:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my list:

Image:DodgeSRT4.jpg
Audi-90-sedan.jpg
2006-BMW-325Xi wagon.jpg
05-Chrysler-PT-Cruiser-convertible.jpg
97-05 Buick Century.jpg
2nd-Oldsmobile-Custom-Cruiser.jpg
2007 Ford Edge.jpg
Buick-LaCrosse-CX.jpg
2nd-Infiniti-I30.jpg
4th-Toyota-Cressida.jpg
99-04 Ford F-350.jpg
2007 Honda CR-V LX.JPG
1st-Chrysler-Sebring-Coupe.jpg
3rd-Nissan-Sentra-sedan.jpg

Let me know how you want to get me the originals. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I like the idea of everyone collaborating to fix the images. Let's start with the Blazers.

• Image:1st-Chevrolet-S10-Blazer-2door.jpg
• Image:1998-2005 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer.jpg

I can see this working best if you simply upload the uncropped version directly over the cropped version you uploaded. At that point, I'll download, readjust, and reupload over the previous version (much in the same way I did the Legacy. We can test with this small amount of vehicles and I'll come back with a much bigger list. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 03:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've reverted my edit. I'm questioning that the image is of a stock car due to the tinted glass and tinted headlamps - this is certainly not stock on a UK version, and the article should reflect a world-view. Please can you absolutely confirm that these items are standard items in other major markets - I have not seen any other photo with these. Halsteadk 18:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second generation Buick GL8 Firstland (The new Buick GL8)

Yo man! I am a HUGE fan of you! Please, can you add a picture of the previous genaration Buick GL8! Thanks!

For example something like this:

http://wikicars.org/images/en/thumb/7/7d/GL8.jpg/250px-GL8.jpg

Or this:

http://home.wangjianshuo.com/archives/2003/06/19/screen-buick.gl8.jpg

Thanks a million! The article needs it!

Thank you very much for junking most of Jacopobenz's stuff. I wasn't sure whether I had the right to do so, so I am very pleased at your assertiveness. Oh, is he considered for a vandalism/banning warning? Because, what...50 of his edits were just RV'ed? Luigi6138 22:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know why you felt the need to revert the Infiniti G20 page back to an earlier version, after I spent a couple hours researching and making constructive edits to the page. Please respond on my talk page if there was actually a reason beyond mistake or vandalism. Thefultonhow 01:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IFCAR. I've been reverting vandalism by 96.232.101.21, and I noticed that one of the fake cars he keeps adding to pages is the Toyota Lattice, which, as I said, is not a real car. When I clicked on the history tab for this "Toyota Lattice," I saw that the page was, interestingly enough, created by Bull-Doser. I know he's a regular contributing member of the Wikiproject, which is why this concerned me. I don't want to point fingers, but do you think he could be involved with this ongoing vandalism? Jagvar 22:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to jump in on this conversation, but I've also noticed parallels between the IP and the user in question. Might be a good time to do a request for checkuser and see if there's any sock puppetry involved here. Roguegeek (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an IP and account that keeps adding false info to the Pontiac Montana talk page, which I would was Canadian. I wonder if this is connected? Just thought I would bring this into the open. Karrmann 00:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I don't know where I fit into this. Why not bring it up to the user in question, or, because my talk page seems to be a public activity center anyway, the WPA discussion page? IFCAR 01:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a little confused about your reason for not putting the latest Accord picture on the start of the article, can you elaborate? Thanks.--Will74205 07:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this image which someone - I think you - put up the Mitsubishi Lancer page would fit better on the Mitsubishi Colt page. However, these cars have different names (and different indroduction/termination years, bleep it) on different continents. So maybe you have reasons that make sense - if only in North America - for putting (what I know as) a Colt picture on a page concerning (what I know as) a Lancer. What do you think? Charles01 19:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of trailer that 2008 Ford F-350 is hauling? --  Boogster  Go!  16:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]