User talk:IFCAR

To IFCAR
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))

Hello again!
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)

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)


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


 * 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)

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

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


 * 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)
 * 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)

Image captions
I just noticed on the Hyundai Tiburon page that you've captioned your image as "2002-2006 Hyundai Tiburon". There's actually a WikiProject Automobiles convention for this, but it's fairly hidden. At WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions, 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)


 * 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)

Nissan Armada Page Update
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Great pics!
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Your GA nomination
-- Run! 12:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

Saturn Aura
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Not really - sorry :( See the article's talk page :D Bravada, talk - 00:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Saturn Aura photo discussion

 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

How come you haven't been uploading images lately?
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)
 * 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)

Planning Any Overseas Trips?
Willing to take car pictures overseas, just like me when I was in the Caribbean? -- Bull-Doser 02:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

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

A Barnstar for you

 * Thanks! IFCAR 19:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Nissan Maxima
"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)

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

Resolution
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)


 * 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)

Geo Metro
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)


 * 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)

Some photos uploaded
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)

Replacement tags
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)

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

Your Images Vs. My Images


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)


 * 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)

Fit image
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)

Your Favourite Radio Station
Is your favourite radio station DC101? Were you a WHFS fan before? -- Bull-Doser 21:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Automobiles Notification
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   where you want the userbox. Alternatively if you don't like the userbox you can add   to your userpage.

If you no longer wish to be a member of the project, simply don't add the userbox or category, there's no pressure. Thanks for your time, James086Talk 04:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

BD's Kind Words
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

What Browser Do You Use?
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)


 * 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)

Eagle Talon
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)


 * 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)

Infiniti G20 pics
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)

Reverts
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 --  T  yson Moore   00:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

FJ Cruiser
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Image
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)

The Last Snowfall
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)


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

Hey
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)


 * 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)

Images
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)


 * 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)

Maxima
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)

Re: Crown Victoria
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)

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

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


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

Ram Van
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)

Replacement not planned for Nissan Sentra Car
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:

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

Nissan Xterra revert
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)

Images
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

New images
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)


 * 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)

New images
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)


 * 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)


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

Infiniti FX
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)

new Images
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)

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

Saturn Aura
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)

Pacifica
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)


 * 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)

Seville
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)

Enough G6s
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)

Legal Status
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Bull
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)


 * 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)

Vandal
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)

Fuel economy
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)

Classic Car Shows
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)

Spoolintsi
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)


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

Stop Vandalizing the Camry page
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)

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

Toyota Tundra
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)

Astro image
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)

BMW info box
Yep. My mistake. Qwazy wabbit Msg me 03:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Photos
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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

No More 2000-01 Maximas
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)


 * 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)

Finding your own car on Wiki - Toyota Celica
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)

Photo edits
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)


 * 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)

Cool. I like the idea of everyone collaborating to fix the images. Let's start with the Blazers. 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)
 * Image:1st-Chevrolet-S10-Blazer-2door.jpg
 * Image:1998-2005 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer.jpg


 * - I respectfully request to remove the photo GMC Suburban -- 12-14-2011.jpg (file) from the pages and archives. IFCAR does not have permission to use this photo by the owner

Hyundai Tiburon stock or not
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)

WORD UP!
(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!

Mercedes-Benz C-Class
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)

Infiniti G20 page
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)

Any thoughts about this vandal?
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

About Honda Accord article
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)

Confusing Mitsubishis
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)

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

Subaru Legacy
just so you know, the 3rd generation of the legacy was first produced in Japan, in 1998, it might have only been available in US in 2000, but 1998 was the correct date. thanks Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Montreal Auto Show
Bull-Doser here. I photographed every single debut there, with the exception of the '08 Dodge Viper, '09 Toyota Matrix and '08 Toyota Sequoia, as well as the '08 Dodge Caliber SRT-4. I also forgot to photograph the '08 City Jetta & City Golf, but I expect to take them in April, since they're not sold in the United States. And yeah, I used flash for taking those pics. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I hear I went for the second time last night to the Montreal Auto Show. Plus, the Washington Auto Show starts tomorrow and runs until Sunday. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

5 Series Talk Page
I'd like to suggest that you check out the talk page regarding the issue of E39/E60 image use in the header of the 5 Series article. Nicholas SL Smith chatter 16:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Bull-Doser
Sockpuppet? Just curious. ;-) -72.93.80.5 (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

1973 Pontiac
Hello, IFCAR.

Sorry to break this to you, but the 1973 Pontiac you photographed is NOT a Grand Ville, it's a Catalina. Notice the all-horizontal grille; the Grand Ville (also the Bonneville and Grand Safari) had a more elaborate eggcrate and mesh grille. Also, the Grand Ville 2-door had a formal roofline and rear side window.

This is an online encyclopedia, so I just thought I'd do my part for the sake of encyclopedic accuracy. Hope this helps!

Thanks, Josephew (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have photos, but I can point you to the October 2006 issue of Collectible Automobile magazine, which has an article on the 1971-1976 full-size Pontiacs.

On page 17 of this issue, the text describing the 1973 models reads: "As before, the Catalina received a horizontal grille-bar pattern, while the other series used an 'eggcrate' design." There are two photos of a 1973 Grand Ville convertible on page 19, with the front quarter view at the top of the page showing the eggcrate grille, which is shared by the Grand Safari wagon shown on page 18. On page 11, there is an photo of a gold 1971 Catalina hardtop coupe with the rear roof and window treatment like the '73 you photographed. Then for comparison, you can turn to page 13 to see the formal roof and window shape on the red 1972 Grand Ville hardtop coupe shown at the bottom of the page. The taillights on Grand Villes also differed from those on Catalinas and Bonnevilles.

I don't know if you are familiar with Collectible Automobile, or if you can find this particular issue, but if not, you can find it at some bookstores. If you buy the current issue, you should find an order form inside to request back issues. Then indicate the October 2006 issue and mail it in with payment, and when you receive it you can check out all these details for yourself.

Good luck! Josephew (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
Hey, I have come to seek a reason why my edits were reverted, the land cruiser picture is really ugly and hideous and needs to be replaced immediately. thanks Dwilso  12:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

SERIOUSLY THOUGH. THIS GUY THINKS THAT CARS 10+ YEARS OLD NEED TO BE THE MAIN PICTURE. No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.166.65.247 (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Photo Nazi Reference
The term is used in reference to the Soup Nazi, whose will concerning who could buy soup was strictly enforced. Your religious affiliation is irrevellant to me. (Dddike (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC))


 * No. This explanation/excuse doesn't fly. Calling someone a Nazi is not appropriate, no matter how much you like "Seinfeld" The word itself is problematic. But even if you'd used "poopoohead" instead, it still wouldn't have been appropriate. Namecalling accomplishes absolutely nothing and is considered a personal attack. Stop doing it.—Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Auto image policy discussion
Hi, IFCAR. I'm trying to move the ball forward on this topic and hold namecalling and invective to a minimum here on WPA. Since you're a prolific contributor of images and the lack of an explicit policy has created disputes centred in part on the manner in which you assert image placement and preference, if you have a moment and can add your thoughts, the odds of a productive outcome would likely improve. Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that a significant part of the perception of your behaviour is down to nothing more than the large number of images you contribute, but even though that's not entirely fair (compare the general perception of Microsoft), it is a reality and you will likely experience a good deal less friction and resistance if you will thoughtfully recognise this perception, acknowledge it, and work to ease it. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to apologize for the discussion getting to the point where "Nazi" was used. I didn't invoke the term Photo Nazi, but repeated it from the Dddike post. I actually responded next, after Dddike, and then pointed out the two correlaries: Godwin's law and Reductio ad Hitlerum &mdash; which I think are helpful in understanding something about why this happens. Dddike then went and edited my comments to link the words Photo Nazi over to Soup Nazi.

Either way, this lowering of the conversation isn't helpful and it's destruction. We'll get to some understanding on this -- I'd just like to apologize for being too harsh in the matter. I am perturbed with what I perceive as your unilateral domination of the issue about the photos. Clearly we disagree about some things, which is ok. Lowering the conversation isn't ok. 842U (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I read the discussion about photos in the head boxes and am trying to get a question answered. Do the new guidelines allow a picture of any generation at the head box? Or not? It looks like they do. I stumbled into the Forester article and the guidelines say any generation is acceptable so I don't understand undoing a photo accepted by the guidelines. I'm looking at the guidelines but don't see what guideline you are "enforcing." Thanks.BMWR1200C (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

IFCAR, Please go take a photo of a 2009 Subaru Forester, they are currently being sold and since Subaru is popular back east, I'm sure you've probably seen at least 5 examples by now. And please make sure it is a quality photo according to your definitions.(Dddike (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-15 WikiProject Automobiles open
Informal mediation has been opened at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-15 WikiProject Automobiles at the request of Dddike, with you being named as a party to the dispute. The dispute is over the adoption of this process page without adequate consensus and other tangential issues. Named parties to the dispute are: Dddike, user:IFCAR, user:Scheinwerfermann, User:Daniel J. Leivick, user:PrinceGloria, User:842U. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation - are we done?
You have been involved in mediation at: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-15 WikiProject Automobiles. Discussion has subsided, and I think that the issues have been resolved if not specifically, more by identifying the reality of an apparent consensus. Is there any need to continue or should we close this process? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Mercury_Capri.jpg
I apologize for my remarks... the duplicate image was listed under the name IFCAR, but if it wasn't you, I apologize, and it was listed as "Own Work"... it was an image of my old 1983 light blue Mercury Capri that someone else reuploaded, causing my original image to be tagged as a duplicate, for some unknown reason.

Reverted Edit of Image of Chrysler LeBaron convertible
Hi, I noticed that you reverted my new upload of an image @ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Chrysler_Le_Baron_2.2_GTC_Cabrio_1990.jpg

Apart from my wondering why you disagree on the improvement of quality in the image (the picture of the black LeBaron is definitely a crappy, low-res, low-quality image), why would it not be allowed to overwrite it with a better high quality image picturing the same subject? As long as this improves the quality of the Wikipedia for readers, I can't think of a reason.

Furthermore, with your reversion, a text part on the Convertible page describing a type of convertible top construction doesn't match with the picture anymore. You should have looked at the uses of the image before doing a cool bossy revert edit. To prevent a edit-war or eventually breaking some rule of Wiki Commons of which I am not aware, I will upload the image of the beige convertible under a different file name and edit two pages that have the image embedded (actually there are three, but one is a user talk page so that's irrelevant) so that the new image on which texts are based is shown again.

--Rderijcke (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Photos
The Peugeot rally photo isnt so exiciting anymore as it has been here so many years, I dont see also Buick Roadmaster wagon picture is intresting, beatiful or hight quality or anything.... --&mdash; Typ932 T  18:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ford Focus Image
WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions. Please read upon it before making any edits. Also, I am invoking Conflict of interest because you are obviously trying to "protect" your image and keep it on Wikipedia thru possible repeated edits. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Are You In Paris?
Hi, IFCAR? Are you in Paris? You haven't been uploading this weekend! You last uploaded on Wednesday! -- Bull-Doser (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:email
Try to edit now. If you are still unable, let me know. - auburn pilot   talk  20:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Your Photos of Cars
Hay IFCAR, I'm everyday looking at your Galerie on the Commons and I'm anxious to new pics. A lot of your pictures are good, but why you don't take a picture of a car of the front AND the rear? Then your pictures will be more attractive also for the German Wikipedia! But in the whole your pictures are good.

Best wishes --Matthias93 (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Error of picture
Your picture (Image:06-07 Subaru Outback Sport.jpg) is not a Subaru Outback Sport but a Subaru Impreza. Please correct your error. Thank you.-- A2    supersonique  16:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I verify and as well you have reason.-- A2    supersonique  18:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Dodge Caravan Gen 4
It seems odd to have a photo of a white SWB minivan with the text just below it referring to the LWB &mdash; hence my switching of the photos. Thoughts? 842U (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ifcar, the infobox underneath the photo of the white Caravan had an "also known as" line at the top: with a reference to the LWB. I took that out, as it's covered extensively in the article. You can see the point I had been trying to make better in some of the older versions -- it's a non-issue now. 842U (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Plymouth Voyager
Your recent addition to the Voyager discussion is incorrect:
 * "The Chrysler Voyager was sold in the US from the 2000 to 2003 model years, then sold as the short-wheelbase Town & Country in the 2004 model year, and then dropped from the US market altogether. 2004 was the last year of a short-wheelbase Chrysler-brand minivan in the US. IFCAR (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)"

In fact, the short wheelbase Dodge Caravan and Town and Country minivans were both available through 2007. The Chrysler Voyager was discontinued earlier. 842U (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Image of Chrysler LeBaron (again)
Hi IFCAR,

Why do you keep insisting on changing the image at the Chrysler LeBaron article from the picture I uploaded? I think the current image fits less well in the page for the following reasons:
 * The car in your picture is not in its original shape. The hood emblem if a later add-on, the wheels have been changed aftermarket. I think the topic should be illustrated with a car in its original state. This of course to prevent the misleading of readers who might think that for example the hood emblem was an original attribute on the LeBaron cars.
 * The photo you placed in the article is of a lower resolution. This seems a clear argument to me, more detail makes a better image. I don't see much quality difference on both pictures when viewed at a 1:1 scale.
 * The car on the image you placed in the topic is not in a particularly good shape. The roof is torn, the front bumper is scratched, etc.

My biggest question is though, why did you replace a perfectly clear, high resolution image? I really can't think of any reason. Rderijcke (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the only visual differences between the European version and the US version of LeBaron cars are the mirrors, the tail lights, the side marker lights missing on the European version (being replaced by the small side flash lights in the front side panel) and the digital dash option being not available. As for the background clutter: I understand your motivation for that, but then why not take a good picture of a US version LeBaron in good shape? I've got a picture with less clutter as well but its focus is vague so I don't consider that to be a better illustration on the LeBaron topic. Rderijcke (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will crop the image and put it as the new topping image then. Rderijcke (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No Suzuki Pictures??
So Suzuki didn't attend the Washington Auto Show at all this year, huh? -- Bull-Doser (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

St. Mark's Capitol Hill
Thanks for re-adding your image which I inadvertently deleted. Sorry. clariosophic (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Pontiac Sunbird
Hello- I lined up text to the generation boxes and left large spaces in text on an article as you did here. It was reverted by an administator. Do you know the policy on this? (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

Magentis
Hi. This model is old model of Magentis picture. it is not a optima. i changed newer model of optima picture. and magentis is no longer produce.Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ford pictures
Why do you insist on using shitty outdated pictures of Ford products ? Stop undoing update edits.


 * I love the old-school Ford Escort you photographed! Thanks for the photo, I want to get one with recessed headlights just like it.  Reminds me of the decent working-class Americans who go to do hard work every day and make me love this country!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.119.236 (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for 87-90 Chevrolet Caprice wagon.jpg!
Thanks a lot for this picture! I had a 1986 Caprice wagon (same color, even) years ago, and took a few pictures of it (scanned and posted here), but stupidly, I never took a 3/4 shot of it, so it was hard to imagine just how massive it was. Now I can point to this while explaining how it could seat 12 comfortably. God I miss that car. --Fo0bar (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Toyoat Paseo
"It wasn't in the vote. There was no discussion after its nomination. Your photo is cluttered and the angle is poor. It is not a lead-quality image. This isn't perfect either, but it's far better."

IFCAR, it was in the vote, you nominated it, and it sat there for almost a week with no votes or replies. I think you need to assess image quality beyond a 250px thumb size. I often click on the thumbnails for a full-size image and the pink Paseo looks rubbish at this level (no high resolution detail). Going by WP:CARPIX let's see which image best passes it's guidelines.


 * Angle: you say the angle is poor on the blue Paseo, but it is only 10 or so degrees different to the pink version. Both are the ¾ view, although the pink car is a slightly better angle.
 * Use images of cars in good, complete, clean, and original condition whenever possible: both pass here.
 * Do not take photos through window glass, fog, or with poor focus: the pink Paseo fails here, it is not a sharp image and is extremely grainy.
 * Front wheel alignment: the front wheels of the Paseo are turned to the left, and are therefore obscured.
 * "Your photo is cluttered": background should be of the least concern. The depiction of the car is number one priority. If there are two images of similar quality, the image with the best background would obviously take precedence. I do not find the mostly neutral-coloured background particularly distracting. The only aspect that at least somewhat stands out is the bronze Odyssey in the background. If it is really an issue, I can desaturate the background using Photoshop.

IFCAR, I have looked at all the images of the Paseo on the Commons, and if feel the blue one best meets WP:CARPIX guidelines. Obviously, we disagree here on which criteria are most important, but as I said before, please look beyond a thumbnail sizing. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 04:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Typ932 added this image, which I think looks the best from a thumbnail perspective, and "alright" (not great) at full resolution. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

95-97 Toyota Tacoma picture


This is a picture of a 89 - 95 Toyota Hilux, not a 95.5 - 04 Tacoma. Please update, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raydouble (talk • contribs) 21:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Recent Post on My Talk Page
It has been asked before, Buick does not mind either way Audi152 (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I will try to find it again Audi152 (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was unable to find it. It was ran-off the page. I found one on Photobucket. I replaced it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audi152 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Speaking that almost all the auto news companies have posted the pictures on their articles and GM has not said anything, I'm sure it was release to the public domainAudi152 (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention
Please see discussions at User talk:PrinceGloria. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Subaru Impreza
Let me be quite frank with you on your picture of the third-generation Subaru Impreza: it is a poor representation of the vehicle, as the car is filthy and the foggy quality makes the overall picture lifeless. It fails on rules 6 and 7 of WikiProject Automobiles' minimum image standards. If you can take a better picture, by all means, do so. - Areaseven (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Chevrolet Cruze
Hi IFCAR, I have a question about your recent edit to the Chevrolet Cruze article. In spite of our policy stating that images do not have to be any particular version of a car (i.e. a Holden or a Chevrolet), do you think that the Chevrolet version might be better suited to the main infobox image? I only say this as the Holden version (like the Daewoo) looks quite different due the absence of the two-bar Chevrolet grille. Also, I believe the Chevrolet version would be more useful to readers as it is the most common variant. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My feeling in any case like this is that anything covered in an infobox generally belongs that infobox, and that if one of those cars is so  different that it doesn't represent the line well that it should be in a  different article. I'm particularly disinclined to favor Chevrolets in  this case because there aren't any decent photos of them yet. (The fact  that multiple versions without the Chevrolet grille are covered in the  article means that one of them isn't especially obscure.)


 * Obviously this is just my interpretation of image guidelines, but quality is  typically going to come first for me. (And I'm also typically happy to  see vehicles with different names, styling, countries of sale, and  marketing appear in their own articles -- solving this in another way -- but that's  another question.) IFCAR (talk)


 * Thanks for your reply. I understand what your saying, so I am happy to leave the images in place for now. Hopefully you will be able to get some decent images of the Chevrolet version later on in the year when the Cruze begins production in the United States.


 * With regards to a second article, the Holden version will probably get split away from the main Chevrolet article once production in Australia begins in 12 months time. Holden are designing the Cruze hatchback and our version is likely to be restyled as well, making it unique enough to separate. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Latest pictures
Hey IFCAR! I'm from the German-Wikipedia and in my opinion you're the best car photographer participating in the English-Wiki. So far, so good. Your latest Hyundai-pictures are great. Very good job. But my question now – asking you a second time :) –, why aren't you taking also rear-pictures?! Thanks and best regards... -- S 400 HYBRID (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've answered here. -- S 400 HYBRID (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I've weaved all the new pictures into the articles. -- S 400 HYBRID (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All right, it's late now - here in Germany. Thanks again. I let you know, if I have any other wishes. Good night ;) -- S 400 HYBRID (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've new rear-end view wishes: 2009 Lincoln MKZ, 2010 Kia Rio Sedan, 2009+ Lincoln MKS, 2009+ Pontiac Vibe, 2009+ Volkswagen Routan, 2009+ Hyundai Genesis, Honda Odyssey RL3 facelift and pre-facelift, 2009+ Toyota Venza and the 2010 Kia Forte Koup. Furthermore 2009+ Ford Flex. So far, so good. Thanks. -- S 400 HYBRID (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please upload only the pictures you've at the moment. Thanks -- S 400 HYBRID (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * One more question: Do you have a rear-end view of this XC60? If you have, please upload it. Thank you. --S 400 HYBRID (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding pics from Langley Park ... much appreciated!--Pubdog (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, upload the XC60 rear-end v. you've shown. Thanks -- S 400 HYBRID (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hay. I need a rear-end view of that car: click. Thanks -- S 400 HYBRID (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. IFCAR (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot -- S 400 HYBRID (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

IFCAR, I visit the VW Eurovan T4 page on occasion and I noticed that the picture of the silver T4 had been swapped out for a white T4. I think both images are yours; but the change seemed to be made by Bull Doser on August 26, 2009. I was wondering if the image of the silver Tr could be put back or added to the white one (maybe that's redundant, however). The image of the silver T4 is not in the Wikicommons section, either. I'm very new to modifying/communicating on Wikipedia, so I apologize in advance if this is not the proper way of going about this. Thanks. PVarjak (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

IFCAR, you asked about why I liked the silver T4 photo over the white one. I don't have a professional eye, I just preferred that picture. I'll look again; but I thought I'd checked the Wikicommons as I mentioned above; but I may have missed it. If it's there, then there's no real reason to put the silver one back. Thanks for the response and keep up the car photos!PVarjak (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Your Images Are On AutoWeek!!!
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20100602/CARNEWS/100609963 One of them is a Mercury Grand Marquis, the other a Mercury Marauder. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Images angles/crop reply
OSX (talk • contributions) 00:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Honda Insight
Hi, Regarding this edit to the Honda Insight article, I was wondering why you don't think the most recent model should be at the top? I have to admit, I'm not a frequent editor on car articles so do not know the policy and therefore cannot say for sure, but I'm pretty sure all of the articles I've come across, the most recent model is at the top. It makes sense in my opinion anyway, as that is the model currently on sale, and hence illustrates the truest representation of that model. However let me know if I've got it wrong; as I say, I'm not an authority on these things. By the way, I've replaced the image and hence reverted your edit, somewhat mistakenly, before remembering I had already done the same thing a few weeks ago and saw your revert. Just wanted your reasoning before reverting back. (As an aside, the new model also looks far better, and so the article is more aesthetic now, although I understand this is all subjective. I wouldn't mind hearing your opinion on this nevertheless). Thanks. Feudonym (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Lexus ES
Hi, sorry about my seemingly vandalistic revision to Lexus ES. I had made some changes, hit save, and then clicked back to make another change, resulting in an edit conflict. As I was editing a single section as opposed to the entire article, I only copy-and-pasted that section's contents. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Infiniti M Y51
Hey, it's me. I need a rear-end view of and/or of  Infiniti M. Thanks. Best wishes -- S 400 HYBRID (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you.... Sure :D -- S 400 HYBRID (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Outlander
Seriously? You can't see a problem with the page looking like this? That's precisely why the guideline "avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other" exists. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should set your thumbnail size smaller if you can't read a single page that includes both a photo and an infobox. You have that capability for a reason.
 * I appreciate the courtesy of not reverting pre-discussion, by the way. This may be something we need to bring up on the main discussion page, as it would affect nearly every auto article if it needed to be changed. IFCAR (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD.
 * My thumbnail size is set to the same default that unregistered users have. That way, I see what they see, so as not to colour my judgement when making layout-related edits. Neither they nor I should have to configure or customize Wikipedia to get the best out of it. --DeLarge (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are concerned, this would need to be addressed on a larger level than article-by-article, as a great many auto pages in Wikipedia have photos illustrating specific text even while there is an infobox there. IFCAR (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not quite sure what discussion is needed, given the existence of a well-established overarching Wikipedia style guideline already (as an example, go to WP:FA and see how many images you can see opposite an infobox in any of the articles). We don't "discuss" car articles which are unreferenced, or contain vandalism, or anything else; we just apply the existing WP-wide recommendations in order to improve the pages. --DeLarge (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, considering that it's done throughout this project and that you consider it a problem, I suggest you bring up your concern where more users will notice it. Unless it only matters to you on this particular page for whatever reason. IFCAR (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "WP:OTHERSTUFF"? Geez...
 * As I've pointed out in the past, poor standards are the norm throughout our corner of Wikipedia. I've no particular interest in fixing the whole WP:AUTO project. However, I do make an effort to look after the Mitsubishi-related pages; especially when I know guidelines exist telling people "don't do X", I try to avoid X happening. Maybe now that you know such guidelines exist, it won't be "done throughout this project" so much in future? -- DeLarge (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think piecemeal approach is very helpful and I simply do not share your concern. IFCAR (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Increasing the automobile infobox to 300 pixels wide
Hey, there is discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles about increasing the thumbnail size of the lead infobox image to 300 from the current 250 pixel size. Since you are heavily involved with images here, I though you might be interested in this discussion. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (moved from User talk:OSX) I can't figure out what's going on where in that discussion, which is why I haven't really been following it. FWLIW, I think 300px is unnecessary from a photo perspective and that left-aligned thumbs are valuable, but it doesn't seem that the larger size has come up in the interest of illustrating the car as much as tidying the infoboxes. IFCAR (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right. The main reason for the change is to limit line overflow which is fairly common. The added benefit is obviously the larger image thumbnail. De Large has opened up a complaint about left-aligned images next to the infobox at WP:CARS already, but at the end of the day, if people are having major issues because they are running at the 800×600 screen resolution, I think the onus is on them to upgrade their displays. Screen resolution states that only 1 percent of Internet users are using 800×600 resolutions. Even in the late 1990s, my then computer was running at 1024×768 and that was about almost 12 years ago. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't feel qualified to involve myself in a debate on the merits of screen resolutions or Wikipedia's various policies, so I may have to leave that part to you. And again, I don't feel like a thumb needs to be 300px to be easily visible, but I don't feel strongly on the issue as long as it's not at the expense of a left-aligned thumb. IFCAR (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Great pictures
Hello IFCAR! I admire your style; many of your pictures look like they were taken by a professional. About a year ago, I started photographing cars in my local area that I found rare and interesting. Just one question: if you find an exceptionally rare vehicle and want to take a picture, do you ask the owner of the car to let you take a picture, or do you just wait until you see the car without the driver inside? Thanks!Reelcheeper (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC-5)

Infiniti M
Hi, I just wanted to say I love your pictures. :)

I have a quick question about. Do you have any more shots of it? Basically, I'm trying to figure out what color it is and the lighting is making it a little difficult.

Thanks. :) LG Laptop (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! :) LG Laptop (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Honda Insight
If you don't like the lead image that has been selected, may I suggest that we collaborate to find one to your liking? Ng.j (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think a lot of the anger directed towards you can be mitigated if you stated why something is lower quality, rather than just reverting without explanation. I agree with some of the changes in your history, but I would probably agree with many more of them if you made a better case for it. Otherwise, people will just see you as a bully, even though you do a lot of good work around here. Ng.j (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * ″The guideline I follow for edit summaries on a photo change is that I'm not going to explain a revert if there was no explanation for the change in the first place″


 * Hey, I am just making a suggestion. You don't have to listen to me. However, I would like to point out the following from WP:CIVIL:


 * Be careful with edit summaries. Edit summaries are relatively short comments (so potentially subject to misinterpretation, or to oversimplification), cannot be changed after pressing Save, and often written in haste, particularly if there is an edit war brewing or in progress. Especially when things are getting heated, remember to explain your edit, avoid personal comments about any editors you have disputes with, and consider using the talk page to further explain your view of the situation.
 * Explain yourself. Not sufficiently explaining edits can be perceived as uncivil, whether that's the editor's intention or not. Use good edit summaries, and use the talk page if the edit summary doesn't provide enough space or if a more substantive debate is likely to be needed.


 * Cheers! Ng.j (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please let Lincoln Continental be Lincoln Continental
As Lincoln Continental has been defunct for nearly a decade now the only reason for maintaining this entry is from a collector car standpoint. We no longer need images of old 1987-2002 luxury versions of Ford Taurus' gumming up the lead entry.

Please give it a break for us collector's and auto historian's sake.

Sadowski (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

An Improvement?
Do you think you're really doing Lincoln Continental a favor by promoting the 1988-2002s?

Sadowski (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverting non-worse pictures for your own
Hey IFCAR,

Can I ask you politely why do you keep reverting my pictures of new vehicles (such as the 2011 Dodge Caravan, Jeep Compass, Chrysler 200 and 300, to name a few), that I have taken at the Montreal Auto Show, with a good-resolution camera, with your own pictures of same vehicles, with practically same (or ever worse) resolution? Is there a reason, really, other than you somewhat wanting "the glory of the moment" for having taken and posted them? I'm sorry, but that's the only way how I see your behavior subj-wise.

To be more specific, I don't mind the 200 picture. Mine was too bright, plus the light reflected. So that's okay. The 300, however, mine was not worse than yours, other than maybe a little dark. The 2011 Compass - I simply don't the see point, as I made a clear picture of the renewed fascia, very detailed. You just took the whole car and put there. And as per DCG, honestly, you picture is really worse. It reflects all the possible spotlights from the black surface, and it's hard to discern. My point was to illustrate the new fascia, once again, not the whole car.

Unless you can prove to me that you have a patent from a Wiki administrator to take those pictures, specifically because you are THE guy, I find that what you did with half my pictures is unjustified. Therefore I demand that we discuss it politely, before I pitch myself and revert it back, possibly starting an edit war, as you will not submit lightly, would you? Please, let's regulate this.

Thanks, Kodenamezeus (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Oldsmobile Silhouette image
I noticed you changed the that I uploaded back to the one that was previously in the article, saying that there was no change to the rear. Here's an excerpt from the year to year changes section of the article:

"Tail lights' design is changed from a grid to a solid red color with black "dissolves" around the edges, a style that had been used exclusively on the Pontiac Trans Sport previously."

Also, in my image you can see the orange turn signal lights in the front and the wheels that were changed after 1992. I know you want to show the pre-facelift front end, but my image is much clearer and brighter. Do you still think your image should be the one shown in the article? —Reelcheeper (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do think that two photos of showing the front end of the car (pre- and post-facelift) are the best way to illustrate a change in design. Perhaps there is a way to incorporate both, but the front view is critical. IFCAR (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If I might interject, the taillight change is hardly noticeable and at thumbnail size is barely visible in the picture. It also does little good when there's no image of the facelifted version to compare it to. (That... and a car caked in snow and salt really isn't the best image to be using anywhere.)


 * All in all the car's "face" is far, far more noticeable and notable than its taillights. --Sable232 (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Volvo 240 Turbofan
The guy who keeps on introducing copyvio photos into the Volvo 200 article is at it again, creating a completely unnecessary new article titled Volvo 200 Series - Turbo Intercooler so that he can have his own little private pond to splash around in. Please join in the merger discussion here: Talk:Volvo 200 Series Best,  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Chrysler pics
It seems that you have a monopoly on posting photos on car articles. As the self-appointed Wikipedia automotive photographer in chief, what do you have against Chrysler ? For the Chrysler Town and Country, Chrysler 300, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Jeep Compass, Jeep Wrangler (THE Jeep), Dodge Charger, Dodge Caravan, and Dodge Durango (which is a completely new car)you are placing out of date photos at the top portraying these vehicles as dated. There are many of us who drive and enjoy Chrysler products and are quite happy that the company has come out the other side of bankrupcy with vehicles that make these older models look like the %$#%$# that they are. I have seen you say that the top photo should be the "best photo". Well some of yours, such as the EV minivan and the charger are BETTER photos where the current models are concerned.

You are introducing a bias to this encyclopedia by portraying this manufacturer in an unfair negative light (as out of date or defunct). I don't think that it's right - especially given that you have imposed your sole judgement where the visual portrayal of automotive products is concerned (which seems anti-wiki in principle). An encyclopedia should contain neutral, objective, relevant and complete information. Hiding the survival of this automaker, by showing viewers an old car (as if they went under) as the first thing they see, is not in keeping with that purpose.

Will you consider updating these pages with current model photos on top? (use your own, most look fine, the monopoly issue is for your competition as photographers to object to)--Rwberndt (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Per your suggestion, I have started by detailing the rationale for changes to the top infobox photo on Chrysler Town & Country, Chrysler 300, and Jeep Wrangler discussion pages. The argument is based upon WP:CARPIX exclusively. While I wait to see what if any action results, why don't you apply your skill and talent to obtain more pics of the restyled charger - in a few months, when we get into summer and hopefully this gas crisis passes, you will see why they are needed, especially in the top infobox. (suggestion : get a good pic of the 2012 SRT proto at a car show)--Rwberndt (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

NHTSA images
Great images from the NHTSA, just a couple of questions though:


 * The source for all the NHTSA images is listed as safercar.gov. You should probably link to the exact location for each image, because otherwise one of the more power-hungry editors will come along and and say something along the lines of, "No evidence of these images being taken by the NHTSA, possible copyright violation."


 * Did you upload all of the images available, or are some still not stored on the Commons?

Regards. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There are still more that I've downloaded to my computer but not yet uploaded. (Most of my uploading has been in chronological order, and I'm just partway through 2008. There are hundreds more, too -- nearly every car they've crash-tested in the last decade -- on the site that are too low-resolution or otherwise low-quality.
 * I can put on the more exact links; I just have to find them again. They're buried deep in the site with a collection of technical reports. IFCAR (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the links. I noticed many have rear three-quarter views as well, do you plan on uploading those? OSX (talk • contributions) 11:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't, no -- I'm spending too much time with this as it is. And there are others where the rear view is usable when I didn't upload the front because of where the sun is. Nearly every car tested since about 2001 has a 3/4 front and 3/4 rear view photo, in some form. (And again, I've got a bunch more ready that I haven't uploaded yet; just too much going on in the Real World.)
 * But if you're interested in getting a few, search for a car at safercar.gov, then on an individual car's page click on the "test#" link, then "photos," to get to the download page. (For 2010 and older cars, click "side crash" on the main page for the link to the second batch of photos; for 2011s, there are two sets of side-crash photos.)
 * I must warn you though, that site is a real mess. Sometimes the pre-crash photos are buried in the back of a listing, or in the middle; sometimes the thumbnails showing which photos are which are broken; very often the photo is at 640x480 size or smaller; and very often the car is at a poor angle or has terrible lighting. IFCAR (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just finished uploading a bunch by brand. BMW, Chrysler (Dodge/Jeep) and Daimler (Mercedes-Benz/Smart) are now complete, as noted on the table to the right. I would be more than happy to continue the uploads by brand over several months, starting with the useable 1990–2010 images and then moving onto the decent 2011 images. I am going to continue uploading the images unedited, allowing those who want to use a particular image to do the editing themselves. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I'll upload the ones of those I've already cropped and color balanced as new versions. IFCAR (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Honda Odyssey (North America)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Honda Odyssey (North America), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.xin100.com/detail.php?id=70785.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Honda Odyssey
Hi, I've been trying to disambiguate links to Honda Odyssey, but I can't work out many of them. Could you help clear some of them out? Here's a link to the current list of articles still needing work. Thanks, -- Ja Ga  talk 06:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Meeting
Hi, this is Bull-Doser here. It was your 5th anniversary on July 15th. I've had my 5th anniversary in February. Can we meet 8am-10am @ DoubleTree Hotel on 1515 Rhode Island Ave., NW in Washington D.C. on August 1st?? Currently I am in Virginia Beach and I am coming to D.C. on that date. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'll be at work. IFCAR (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Where can I meet you tomorrow even though I'm headed to D.C.??? -- Bull-Doser (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry to encroach into this conversation, but this page is still on my watchlist from an earlier discussion. Bull-Doser, I would of thought you would have taken the hint the first time—IFCAR probably doesn't want to meet up with you. I'm sorry to sound so blunt but it needs to be said—and I'm sure you've put IFCAR in an awkward position by asking. I don't believe IFCAR has anything against you, but most users prefer to keep their private lives separate from this project. So as a matter from courtesy, please accept IFCAR's original response and leave him be. Thank you, OSX (talk • contributions) 23:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Something to do
Hi dude. I really like cars too, even though I can't drive. But when you upload car images, could you please take ones that don't have front plates at all? Thank you. Also, could you try editing other mainspace articles besides automobile? Thanks. Dawn is my duck. And she will PWN you until you run away and jump in a hole! (Casey should have been said as guilty) (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

VW Transport T4
IFCAR, I don't know if you still have those photos; but the silver T4 is not in Wikicommons. I think it would be a good addition to the white example, even if it's not on the Wikipedia page itself. Thanks.PVarjak (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I go to the Transport T4 site and then the Wikicommons link. It's not there. It was at one time, I thought. Frankly, I liked the old layout, with the Caravelle, etc. too.PVarjak (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. It's odd. Searching 'Volkswagen Eurovan' redirects to 'Volkswagen Transporter T4,' which is pretty accurate. However, most of the photos in that Wikicommons category you linked are not there in the Transporter Wikicommons and I even checked the more generic VW Transporter category, which covers all the series. Some photos of the Rialta camper ARE in that category though. I'm not technically savvy enough to do it; but could those photos be consolidated in the 'Volkswagen Transporter T4' category?PVarjak (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeatedly reverting Silverado images
Hey IFCAR,

Can I ask you politely why do you keep reverting my pictures of the Chevy Silverado (2005 LS and 2010 LT), that I have taken, with a good-resolution camera, with your own pictures of same vehicles, with practically same (or ever worse) resolution? Is there a reason, really, other than you somewhat wanting "the glory of the moment" for having taken and posted them? I'm sorry, but that's the only way how I see your behavior subject-wise. I'm okay with the 2005 LS pic (it was underexposed afterall), but seriously, the image of the 2007 Chevy Silverado LT Z71 reg-cab on the main Infobox of the Chevy Silverado article is at an absolute shitty angle. The pic is not even focused on the car and focuses it in the sky.

Unless you can prove to me that you have a patent from a Wiki administrator to take those pictures, specifically because you are THE guy, I find that what you did with half my pictures is unjustified. Therefore I demand that we discuss it politely, before I pitch myself and revert it back, possibly starting an edit war, as you will not submit lightly, would you? Please, let's regulate this. Thanks, King Of Aviators (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Might I suggest you actually look at the pictures that IFCAR is placing on the article? The image in the main infobox is not his. The problem with your 2005 image is that the front of the truck is in shadows and is difficult to see. The 2010 image has a that problem as well (to a lesser degree) compounded by not being fully visible at that angle, but the truck also has the face of the front wheel turned away from the camera, which is generally considered to be undesirable from an aesthetic standpoint. Yes, the one that's in the lead now needs to be cropped. So does the one in the second-gen infobox, and in fact that one should be put in the lead instead, in my opinion. --Sable232 (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In addition to the poor angle and poor visibility of the white truck's front end details, the colors are washed out, looking unnatural and obscuring the shape of the vehicle. The black truck the desired angle but the details are obscured, the truck is covered in reflections, and the cropping is uneven.


 * Please read up on WP:CARPIX image standards and why the photos you've been uploading don't tend to meet them instead of insulting other users' photographs (they weren't mine) or accusing them of any motive but wanting to put in a better photo.


 * You've never once explained why you think your photos should be in the article. And by WP:CARPIX standards, they should not. IFCAR (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

RoyPack
You wouldn't happen to have any thoughts as to who RoyPack/Roypack is a sockpuppet of? He openly admits on the first account that he's a sock of a user blocked for uploading copyright violations, and I seem to recall there was a prolific copyright violator on automotive images not too long ago but I haven't the faintest clue where to start looking. --Sable232 (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * None, sorry. The behavior of trying to re-add deleted photos is a new one. Don't know if you've seen this Commons exchange, by the way, or this one. Does that remind you of anyone? IFCAR (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

WP Automobiles in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Automobiles for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

F100 picture
I have been tracking down information on my truck, and i came across this photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:73-75_Ford_F-100_XLT.jpg It is the only truck i have ever found with the same color as mine, the color code is W, which i show no record or Ford ever making. Is this your vehicle, and if not, could you give me your source? my truck is a '76 150, 4x4 XLT Ranger, and has (from ford) brush guard and roll bar. Like i said, records have been hard to come by, so i think the truck in your picture may help me out. Glonthedark6 (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

First U.S. Nissan Leaf
IFCAR, considering your ample experience with auto images, I would like to hear your opinion on this ongoing discussion. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Bull-Doser
Hi IFCAR,

Did you want to reiterate what I have posted on Bull-Doser's talk page here? I am tired of reverting his changes constantly, and can see you are as well. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
I take this edit of yours as a validation for the choice of another picture, rather than your own - for most editors (myself not excluded) this is not always easy. I also cannot count the number of times I have refrained from uploading a picture of a car which has already been provided by you (always at a higher quality), which makes me truly appreciate your ability to extend the same courtesy to me in this very very rare case of my being able to supply the better shot. Best regards,  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I try to go out of my way to make changes based only on the quality of the photograph regardless of the photographer, though as you note it's sometimes easy to see one's own through rose-colored glasses. And I too take many more than I upload, and upload more than I put into an article.


 * Keep up the good work toward improving the articles' photos, as I try to as well. IFCAR (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Washington Auto Show
Hi IFCAR, I wonder if you could upload the car pictures from January 16-23 today? You haven't uplaoded last week. But for tomorrow, you won't upload because you'll attend the Washington Auto Show on that date. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, sorry, incorrect. The Washington Auto Show is January 27. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Nissan Quest and others
Can you please explain to me why did you revert the current-gen pic of Nissan Quest to the previous one? Both are yours, both are good quality. To my understanding the infobox should feature current gen pic, unless unavailable. Please reply, thanks.96.23.238.219 (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead image for electric car
Hi IFCAR. Considering your experience with automobile photographs and the quality of your pictures, I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion that is taking place here to change the lead image in the electric car article, and please feel free to propose your own alternative. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead Image Standards
Thanks for listing the standards applied to lead images. I have one question however. How come they aren't applied evenly? For example take a look at this:. Sadowski (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Very simply, because not all editors follow them. I would agree that the link you shared is an example of the guideline not being followed, and I'm sure others exist. Feel free to help correct them. IFCAR (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

FJ Cruiser Image
Hey I was wondering if you could take a picture of a voodoo blue FJ Cruiser sometime. I'm going to replace your lead image on the FJ article for now with a the Voodoo Blue image as that is the official color of the FJ. Like selecting a red dodge viper or a silver mercedes. Garrett TALK 16:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The FJ Cruiser concept quietly debuted on the final day of the 2003 Chicago Auto Show in Voodoo Blue, a color that would become the Signature color for the production FJ Cruiser.[13]

It is specifically mentioned in the Edsall FJ Cruiser book and the article please revert your last edit. Garrett TALK 16:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * All that reference says is it's someone else's opinion that blue is the "signature color." That's not justification for a poor-quality photo in the lead infobox. I can understand an argument against something obscure, but this isn't the case. IFCAR (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Mazda Familia
Hello IFCAR - saw your changes to Mazda Familia, and just wanted you to know that my edits were nothing more than an effort to find a middle-road acceptable to ChaCha15, who insists on giant galleries and other various sillinesses. I am very happy to have another set of eyes on this article, as ChaCha15 has not been exactly reasonable this far.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃  (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this acceptable for WP?
Hello! I've noticed that you are very big on taking pictures for WP. I am new here, and I'm wondering if this picture can be fairly used on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2013_Ford_Taurus_Sho.jpg thanks! Bookster451 (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Now why did you revert the edits I made to the ford taurus? Was there something wrong with the photo?  Bookster451 (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The standard we use for infobox photos (see WP:CARPIX) is that we use the highest-quality photo. The photos you picked were very far from that by the quality standards laid out on that page. There is no reason for a particular version -- newest or any other -- to be in the infobox. IFCAR (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ok then.... Bookster451 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC).

Jaguar XJ6 in 2012 Iran !
Hi. I am so happy that I found a Jaguar XJ6 in Shiraz, Iran last winter and I was able to take a picture of it. Interestingly your photo in the lead of Series 3 is somewhat identical with mine and I had never seen yours before. I am Iranian and I want to tell you that these cars are mostly from pre-revolutionary era (Pahlavi period I mean). It is very interesting that from Fairfax in VA, US to Shiraz, Iran there are old-fashioned Jaguars to shine. I used my photo beside yours in the Jaguar XJ article. Thank You. -- GOODMANJOON  Discussion  ‏ 12:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodmanjoon (talk • contribs)

Hiya IFCAR!
Hi. I appreciate your contributions, but here are a couple things.


 * Why do you blur out license plates, as at times, the blurring looks kind of sloppy.
 * Would you be okay if I decided to use car photos I found off of, let's say, Carmax.com and gave a source location? Thanks.

Oh, and I like the Buddhist culture. I learned about it this past week in Social Studies. Be peaceful. Be a Dalai Lama. (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CARPIX standards, we remove the license plates to protect owners' privacy. And no, you cannot use someone else's photo without their express written permission. IFCAR (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand the plates. However, where I live, the only front plates are UGA plates and stuff. But if I'm at cars.com and click on an image, how can I know if it's released in the public domain? This is because they have a Kia K9 photo there and I was wondering if I could use it, as well as other images, like concept cars and stuff from the current Auto Show, and then just say the source linking to the post. Be peaceful. Be a Dalai Lama. (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If you don't know if a photo is in the public domain, assume that it is not and that you do not have permission to use it on Wikipedia. IFCAR (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Help with this photo?
Hey, I uploaded this file: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:This_is_a_2005_Toyota_Corolla_LE_with_a_4-speed_automatic_transmission,_with_a_black_exterior..png, except I messed up. I wanted the title to be: 2005_Toyota_Corolla_LE and I don't see the option to move the page, and don't know how to rename the file. I was wondering if you'd be willing to help me with this? Bookster451 (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It used to be that you would upload the photo again with the name you wanted, and then put a tag called "badname" on the original. I think there's now a way to do a straight rename, but I don't know how to do it. Sorry I can't be of more help. IFCAR (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That's cool. I guess it really doesn't hurt to leave the title as is.  Thanks.  Bookster451 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC).

Date within image syntax
Thanks. I responded on my page. Tony  (talk)  01:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ford F-Series
Ford F-Series page is getting attacked? by 2 IP Users. The edit was originally sourced from an internet forum.

'''This new line of truck features an innovative rack & pinion (EPAS) system which is showing signs of problems with customers. This Electronic Power Assisted Steering is an advanced system which increases efficiency and driver control; however, these benefits are outweighed by the fact that this system provides a ride that "pops and clunks" over small imperfections on driving surfaces.'''

The best/most I can do is edit war. Any suggestions? The page history is littered with our edit war. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Warn the user on his/her talk page and consider requesting page protection. IFCAR (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Should this photo be deleted?
I found this photo while reading the Altima article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:93_94_HUD_Windshield.JPG and can clearly make out the VIN. Isn't this violation of personal rights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookster451 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It couldn't hurt to digitally blur out the VIN, but you have no right to privacy of something that someone can see while your car is parked in a public place. Just like a license plate -- Wikipedia has a convention of removing the tag number but there's no legal issue about it. IFCAR (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. Thanks.  Bookster451 (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"This one is taken"
I think you have a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of photos in Wikipedia articles, which is to say that they exist for the editor's benefit instead of for the articles. Your comment "calm down you're not the only one taking pics of cars out there. this one's taken" on the Ford Escape page reflects a sense of ownership that is completely uncalled for on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, if you were to look at the page's edit history, you'd see that I hadn't changed the photo. Both meet the quality standards, though yours is taken from higher up than ideal.

Between an unfounded accusation that I was involved in a change you didn't like and your sense that the purpose of an article is to showcase your work as a photographer, you need to calm yourself down and think about why Wikipedia exists. IFCAR (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but don't you find it weird that every time someone takes a picture of a vehicle, yours always ends up being there? Sure, you take a lot of pictures, sure they're not terrible, but Jesus, changing it because of some "angle"? You know how much time it took me to get that fucking Escape? I was practically chased after. Well, then Mr. IFCAR comes in and saves the fucking day. You may not even know it, but you're the reason I suddenly don't want to add anything to Wikipedia, modify anything, and don't even care to bother because I know at the end my stuff will be gone. It's a pathetic waste of time. By the way, if you're pictureman, why don't you take a good one of the new Dodge Dart? I don't see them anywhere in Canada right now, maybe you pindos have some good examples, hm? Explorationofspace (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Since this page is still on my watchlist from an older discussion, I just wanted to apologise to IFCAR for having to take the insults from Explorationofspace for a change of image that I initiated at Ford Escape. Explorationofspace, please don't attack other users like that again—it was disrespectful and uncalled for. As per WP:CARS/Conventions, "infobox pictures shall depict the front ¾ view from the height of an ordinary person". The white Ford Escape is taken from up high, not from an ordinary angle. Plus, IFCAR's image shows the front a little better and it has a less cluttered and more attractive background. These are my reasons for the change.


 * We select images based on their compliance with the image quality guidelines at WP:CARS/Conventions. You being chased by an angry mob of overzealous salespeople assuming photographer = terrorist is not one of the criterion that needs a big green tick.


 * As for the prominence of IFCAR's photos, to be honest, he is the primary photographer of modern cars for Wikipedia in North America. Therefore, it is inevitable that his pictures end up in so many articles. Mr.choppers tends to take more photos of older cars, and Bull-Doser from Canada seems incapable to taking a decent photograph under any condition. Hence, for American car articles you have 90 percent of images provided by one photographer. For models sold in other markets as well, IFCAR's images are still common but so are those of many other editors as well. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's nice to know that when I am out with my camera, I don't even have to peek at modern (=yeccch!) cars. Thanks IFCAR (and all others, of course). Bull-doser is a case of his own.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  18:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Honda Pilot main picture dispute.
I don't understand why you're so reluctant to keep this picture of the Honda Pilot out of date. The picture was not low quality, but was in fact 2,388 × 1,522 pixels. Your special interest are getting in the way of keeping Wikipedia up-to-date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.166.65.247 (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please review the WP:CARPIX standards, which state quite clearly makes one photo better than another, and it's not a matter of photo dimensions. There is no legitimate reason for your personal preference for a photo of a newer model, as CARPIX explicitly states. Either way, it is never useful to have the same photo multiple times rather than a variety. This is not my personal decision or special interest -- it's yours. IFCAR (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

THERE. I personally went to my local Honda dealer to take an acceptable picture. :) Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanGauger (talk • contribs) 06:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ford Focus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Corolla (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) 09:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Electric car picture
Hi IFCAR. In the past you participated in the discussion to select the picture that is used in the lead of theelectric car article. This is to let you know that I opened a new discussion with more options here, just in case you want to participate. Since you are one of the editors specializing in auto photos, I will pretty much appreciate your comments. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

lol :)

 * Makes me happy to know you're alive. I have found myself uploading more pictures of modern cars than before, attempting to fill the gap you have left. I just don't find them interesting, so I often miss cars I probably ought to have snapped. Cheers,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  12:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Photo deletion request
I respectfully request to remove the photo GMC Suburban -- 12-14-2011.jpg (file) from the pages and archives. IFCAR does not have permission to use this photo by the owner 71.178.173.106 (talk) 03:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As per freedom of panorama, IFCAR does not need your permission to take a picture from a public road that happens to include your car (despite him even blurring out the license plate). If you do not wish to have your vehicle photographed, you shouldn't be parking it within sight from public land. To my knowledge, IFCAR has not broken any US laws. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

IFCAR
Hey mate,

With the pictures that you have been taking pics of, how do you usually manage to always get your car pictures on the sites, should I take pictures of the cars in the carparks or should I take it when I am on the street. Please can you reply as soon as you can You don't have to but it would be appreciated if you can

Good work, buddy Nim

Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called IFCAR. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name IFCAR~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Iffy
I hope to see you again soon, whether as a photographer or just as an editor. Also, as per the above message, get cracking and protect your good name! Cheers,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The name seems to be taken care of indeed. Sadly, I've got so much going on, and I don't really have the time or energy to fight with people who insist on lousy images of the newest car anymore, or whatever other edit they're protective of. You're a better man than me -- keep the wiki strong! IFCAR (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome back on board. Yeah Mr.choppers can take photos. I would normally handle the WA region of cars, I use a Canon 700D while Choppers uses a 6D. Mine is newer but an entry level model while his is a better model than mine. Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

IFCAR are you not going to edit anymore. Do you not have any time in lockdown? 2007DodgeRam (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

:(
I really miss you Iffy. Can u plz come back to Wikipedia? 😔 2007DodgeRam (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)