User talk:RivGuySC

Hello RivGuySC, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
 * You can introduce yourself on the new user log.
 * You can find lots more information, including open tasks and daily tips, at the community portal.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: . If you use four, you can add a datestamp as well.
 * Before saving a page, it's a good idea to use the Show preview button to review your edits. Also, consider writing a summary for each edit.

Again, welcome! Chris Roy 03:49, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good work on the car articles! I've been looking at what you've done; good stuff.

A minor point of Wikipedia style and convention: we tend to avoid links to external sites in the body of the article text, reserving them for an 'External Links' section at the end. Not a hard-and-fast rule, of course, because there are times one needs to. I removed a couple of links you added to Ford Thunderbird - the pointer to a page on the modern Thunderbird was a page in German, and if we need to refer to an external page about it, we can easily find a page in English. I also removed the link to speedycars because (for me, at least) it seemed to be all ads (including popups) and no content.

Thanks, &mdash;Morven 17:25, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Glad you liked the car stuff! Thanks for the advice. I just stumbled on Wickipedia recently and I'm still learning the rules.

RivGuySC

Yes, I love my Thunderbird. It's in the body shop right now; some idiot in a Tacoma backed into it in a parking lot, smashed the taillight area up annd stuff. Itching to get it back; there's nothing more fun to drive on the freeway at high speed. &mdash;Morven 07:42, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Was the Torino chassis also on the 77-79 Continental Mark V? Given that from '72 onwards, the T-bird and Mark were pretty much the same car but for trim and badging. &mdash;Morven 00:57, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that the T-bird and Mark diverged again in '77. To my eyes the later-70s Mark looked smaller than the previous, but maybe that was just styling. My favorite Lincoln Mark is the III, though (of course, the Continental Mark II is excellent, but not a Lincoln). Built on the suicide-door T-Bird chassis, too. I saw one for sale about 6 months ago at the Garden Grove, CA Friday night cruise -- quiet and smooth as a Rolls-Royce despite the 460 under the hood.

I've had the bodywork fixed on my T-Bird but the body shop wasn't able to find the taillight assembly. Fortunately, I have contacts they don't -- the GlamorBirds (67-71) mailing list is very helpful. Everything is the same between the 67 and 68 tail assemblies but for the center chromed casting incorporating the lock cylinder and door -- on the 67, it has small winged birds at either end and THUNDERBIRD across the middle, while in 68 it had just a wide winged bird across the middle. The 68 T-Bird is one of the most incognito cars in existence; it does not have its manufacturer's name anywhere on the outside and has its model name only on tiny script on the rear quarter reflectors, where in most cases it wore off inside five years.

This may also kick my butt to get the sequentials working. They have a tendency not to on 67s and 68s; the sequencer is electro-mechanical, consisting of a motor turning cams that push spring-loaded arms down onto contacts (!). Over 30 years of wear later, of course, it doesn't work. There's someone selling redesigned electronic replacements for about $200, though. And then there are all the vacuum accessories to get working ... great fun! Vacuum power door locks -- what were they thinking ... &mdash;Morven 07:19, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You might be interested to know the Ford Thunderbird had optional high-level brake lights from 1968 on! See http://automotivemileposts.com/tbird1968optionalequipment.html for a picture. These definitely were available at least through '69 and maybe longer, but weren't popular. This would make the Toronado's use of them in '71 the second usage at least, unless you're talking about them being standard fitment (not sure of their status on the Toronado). &mdash;Morven 06:46, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I got your email successfully -- just getting unexpectedly busy at work. At least two of the guys on the GlamorBirds list (67-71 T-Birds) have the high level brake light option fitted to their cars. They are used as supplemental turn signals too -- coming on with the center of the three sequential lights. Quoting one owner:


 * The supplemental stop lamps did indeed make it to production. They were offered beginning in 1968, on all models. In 1969, only the Fordors offered them, then in 1970 they were offered on all models again. I'm not sure if they were installed on the 1971's, I've never seen one with them.


 * I have a '69 Fordor with them. To be honest, they're ugly. There is a relay in the luggage compartment that controls them. I usually leave it unplugged. They come on with the brake lights, and they flash in sequence with the center turn signal bulbs.


 * The only good thing I can say about them is they are very prominent. Since many of these Birds suffer from "dim taillight syndrome" they are good to have in that respect. At night, they are VERY blinding from behind. They are part of the interior molding and make the rear window narrower than it already is (especially on a Fordor!)

Sounds more of a good idea than execution, and they're one of the rarest options in the years they were offered. Another curious one was the rear light monitor on '68s, which used fiber-optics to embed a miniature version of the tail-lights into the rear package tray where it could be seen in the rear-view mirror. Thus, the driver could tell if his taillights and turnsignals were working correctly. &mdash;Morven 20:09, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

RivGuySC- I see you changed back the dates I edited in the "Lincoln Town Car" page. I am not old enough to have lived through most of the dates I changed, but my source was a book called "100 Years of Ford". Perhaps it has some errors, perhaps not. Do you have a source for the dates that you changed back? I was editing without a username, and represent all 3 I.P. address edits to the page in question.

Wrt Sedans; are the 'window frames' you refer to meaning non-moving part-of-the-door frames? Because my T-Bird windows have thin aluminum frames that roll down with the windows themselves; I have a suspicion that you are meaning the permanently-part-of-the-door variety? &mdash;Morven 01:03, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * You're right, I think; having searched the web and found quite a few 'pillared hardtops'. Just the pillarless variety was much more common, I think.  The T-Bird never gets called a pillared hardtop because, I think, Ford had their own terminology; 'fordor landau' was Ford's official designation.  I have to do landau and landau bar/landau iron/s-bar articles one of these days, about these 'fake convertibles' that one only sees these days as hearses and occasionally stretch limousines. &mdash;Morven 11:11, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction at Ford Torino. I was going by a book photo caption which it turns out is also wrong. &mdash;Morven 02:14, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, RivGuySC, for your kind comments about my Plymouth Valiant additions. The first Valiant site linked from the page has some interesting images of the car. It was a very nice evolution of the American design, though on a unique-for-Australia platform (not sure why they needed it with hindsight) and had all the swoopiness and coke-bottle lines of cars like the '71 Dodge Charger and Plymouth Sebring. (Basically: think Valiant and Dart with the Sebring curves.) I think the locals called it the coke bottle the 'hippie line'—not used generally, but only for the Valiant. I enjoyed the earlier contributions of yours that I've found and will be checking out your other pages (and helping where possible). Stombs 10:12, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

RivGuySC: I thought I'd mention a little bit of trivia that might be good for the Riviera page—let me know what you think. In 1999, with the Riv nearing the end of its run, GM bosses travelled to Australia to view the Holden Commodore Coupé prototype, which had been worked on by Holden guys in their spare time (and hid from the bosses). Earlier in the decade, the plan for the Australian Holden Commodore sedan (Cadillac Catera on steroids) to become the new Buick LeSabre (or a similarly sized model) had been scuttled by the unions, but one of these GM bigwigs floated the idea of taking the Coupé prototype—which was pretty near production, anyway, being on the existing sedan platform—and taking it to the US as a 2002 or 2003 Riviera. Nothing much came of that plan till Bob Lutz arrived. He saw the car, which had by then become the Holden Monaro, and felt it might be better as a Pontiac. That's how you guys got the new Goat, but it could have been the new Riv. IMO, the styling of the Monaro is closer to the '99 Riviera, but the idea of the Monaro is close to that of the '64 Goat: a six-cylinder sedan with the division's biggest V8 in it. (I don't care if it doesn't look like the '69 Judge!) Stombs 10:21, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, RivGuySC—I'm glad the above info was of interest and is useful. Stombs 04:27, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Would you happen to know ...
... what year this Pontiac Catalina convertible is? Image:Pontiac Catalina convertible.jpg. Can't find one like it anywhere, and the owner was nowhere to be found when I took the picture. &mdash;Morven 08:00, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Put it up on the Pontiac Catalina page, now I can say what year it was.  I certainly like that year's styling; very exaggerated 'beak', and those almost blade-like light surrounds/fender tips ... lethal to pedestrians, no doubt, but certainly interesting-looking.  &mdash;Morven 06:56, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Image:Merkur.jpg
--Diberri | Talk 18:03, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Lipscomb
No, I don't know if it was different in summer school, i went to summer school closer to home. It seems like it might have been though to make it cheaper, but we had to be enrolled in 2 bible classes per semester so that there would be one every day. I guess it's possible also that there has been a change since you were there, I went from 96-98, but them changing that seems unlikely. My guess is that there were different rules for part time summer school. (seems like I remember it having to do with how many hours you were enrolled even in the main semesters, like maybe part-time students didn't have to do as much.) rhyax 05:06, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

GM 3800 engine
Thanks for the awesome edits on this page! I'm really pleased to have started a page on something I didn't know much about and then having it grow so nicely into something that's teaching me! --SFoskett 13:36, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

AMC Gremlin
Thanks for the complement. It's a 25-year-old picture of my first car.

Power
Hi RivGuySC,

Regarding your comment about power vs. horsepower, it is simply a case of the unit versus the abstract term. If I want to say something weighs more than something else, I say that it "is heavier", or it "has more weight", I don't say that it "has more kilograms" or "has more pounds". Likewise, to talk about power in the abstract, just "power" is correct. So if I am talking about a specific measurement, I might say that "such and such a car has 123 horsepower", but if I am comparing two cars, I would say that "this car has more power than that car."

Because the words "horsepower" and "power" are similar, some people will incorrectly use the unit "horsepower" to describe the abstract concept of power. Try using metric units and see how silly that is, e.g. "this car has more watts than that car."

Icd

G'day RivGuySC,

Not trying to be a smartass but I think your thinking is a little fuzzy. You wrote:


 * For one thing, engine power is commonly measured in both horsepower and torque, so just saying more power is not precise.

That is not actually correct, and you should visit the Wikipedia pages for power and torque to find out why. Power and torque are separate but related concepts. You are correct in saying that both of these are characteristics of engines, but the concepts of power and torque are different from the units we use to measure them, namely horsepower/watts and foot-pounds/newton-metres respectively. Even when talking about torque, you wouldn't say "this car has a lot of foot-pounds" so neither should you say "this car has a lot of horsepower".

Anyway, check the dictionary definitions of horsepower vs. power if you like. Horsepower is defined either as a unit, or a literal horse's power, that is it. Although many cases are one of convention, I don't think this is one of those cases. Horsepower has a definition, and to use is to describe the abstract concept of power is simply wrong.

Icd 05:50, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have to say it, Riv, but I gotta agree with Icd on this one. It's like the liter->L discussions I've been having elsewhere - if you're talking about the concept of power, you say power, but if you're talking about a specific metric, you use horsepower (or kW if you're Bobblewick!)  So as to the article in question, I'd say it "has more power", not "has more horsepower" - even though the latter is technically correct, the former is preferable since it's more general. --SFoskett 15:35, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Image:LaSalle1.jpg etc
Hi! Thanks for uploading Image:LaSalle1.jpg through Image:LaSalle7.jpg. I notice they currently don't have any image copyright tags. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much,   – Quadell (talk) (help)   16:39, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting permission. Normally, people put copyright info in the image description page, not the talk page, so I didn't think to look there. Anyway, it's all good.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   18:27, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Ford Thunderbird
Hi from Adrian. Thanks for your Ford Thunderbird query. Because I'm in England and have no knowledge of USA cars whatsoever I can't comment on what the yellow car was. So, to be safe, and because the article does have other pics, I've removed the pic. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 16:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
My thoughts exactly... the more pictures, the better, especially since most common cars have no visual support. I'm all for text as well, but I'll get to that after updating pictures.

My keyboard has no tilde, so I keep forgetting. Diego440 15:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tilde
Well, in Spanish only one letter has the tilde, and the keyboard does have that letter: Ñ and ñ

Nevertheless, the tilde by itself isn't used. In the button where your tilde is, we have the degree symbol: º, as in 15º; the numbered symbol: ª, as in 15ª (fifteenth, in Spanish): and the backwards slash "\". I'm sure I could find the tilde in the keyboard map, or through the alt menu, but I'd much rather click on the images at the end. We do have the other type of tildes, which are like the apostrophe (sp?): á é í ó ú, and capitalized, etc. Either way, a really long explanation for just a simple fact, eh?

Diego440 23:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Biscúter
I'm Ecelan from the Spanish Wikipedia. Thanks for apreciating the translation of the article Biscúter, it is a very good article that must be present in the Spanish Wikipedia. After all, it's a Spanish car. Btw, we have a couple of images you could use in your article too.

I see you are interested in cars. I'm completing the information about Spanish microcars. Most of the information comes from a website that allows us to use their texts. You'll find the link at the end of the page. The only problem is that we can't use the images because they don't know the license for most of them. If you happen to have some (with free license), please let me know. Cheers --84.161.57.198 08:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Coupe de Ville
Not sure about whether it's a de Ville or Fleetwood or even a Sixty Special coupe. I knew it was a rare car, but didn't get a look at the rear badge. I'll go back Monday and see what it is - it's for sale! --SFoskett 21:22, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Image:76Century.jpg
Burgundavia (&#9992; take a flight?) 16:49, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tagging this image. Another key thing to remember is that you need to mention your source, in this case you. So I added "Created by User:RivGuySC" to the image page. If you have any further images that need to be tagged, I would love it if you could do so now. Burgundavia (&#9992; take a flight?) 02:57, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed project
Do you think that there would be merit in a "neighborhoods of Nashville" project? There are already articles on the major suburbs like Antioch, Bellevue, Donelson, Hermitage, and the like. This would be smaller but still significant ones like Inglewood, Joelton, Whites Creek, Belleshire, The Nations, and the like. I don't want to do it all myself, nor do I have interest in it languishing for months on end like Memphis's has (after several months, all but three or so in the main Memphis article are still red links. I'm running this past the most Nashville-knowledgable people, and your input would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks!  Rlquall 03:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nashville sit-ins nominated
I've nominated Nashville sit-ins for the U.S. Southern Collaboration of the Week. If you think it's a worthy topic, stop by and vote for it. Thanks. Kaldari 02:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln/Vote
Please look at the restructured choices on Talk:Lincoln/Vote and clarify your vote. Thanks! &mdash;Lowellian (talk) 08:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Grand Ville stub
Just made the Pontiac Grand Ville a and it needs help. Can you recommend anyone to look at it? Stude62 01:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing it. One more favor? Could you take a look at the Buick Century article.  I tried my best to work through the 1936-1958 text and would appreciate your input.  Thanks so much for helping me along.  Cars are my passion, but grammar my week spot. Stude62 04:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Important WikiProject Automobiles Discussion
Hello! As a WikiProject Automobiles member, I just thought you might want to input your opinions on an important discussion we're currently having about whether articles regarding similar vehicles should be merged into one or split by brand. If you would like to comment or read further, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Thank you in advance for your thoughts and feedback. Airline 23:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:LaSalle1.jpg
Source information sufficient for someone else to verify an image's copyright status should be placed on the image description page, not the talk page. Dragons flight 05:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:LaSalle2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:LaSalle2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 10:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi, Thank you for your positive feedback. I really appreciate it. Thank you.  Signature brendel  04:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC) I just discovered there is a barnstar for kind users, so this one's for you:

Station wagon article, overhauled again
Could you take a look at the station wagon article. I've overhauled it again to bring some sense to it. I also shifted images around and added new ones as well. Stude62 15:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:1973 dodge charger se press photo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:1973 dodge charger se press photo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  howch e  ng   {chat} 20:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Marathon Motor Works Logo: Source?
That's a great graphic of the Marathon Motor Works logo. Is there a higher-resolution version anywhere? Where did it come from? I was about to settle down in Photoshop and extract out the bricks from my photo, but if this has already been done, or the logo was scanned from a better source, I'd love to just use that.

Wikiproject Automobiles Notification
Hi RivGuySC, 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 04:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:LaSalle1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:LaSalle1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  howcheng  {chat} 16:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is also applicable for the rest of the LaSalle images: Image:LaSalle2.jpg, Image:LaSalle3.jpg, Image:LaSalle4.jpg, Image:LaSalle5.jpg, Image:LaSalle6.jpg, Image:LaSalle7.jpg. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Howcheng (talk • contribs) 16:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Non-free use disputed for Image:ChryslerImperialCrystalOrnament.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ChryslerImperialCrystalOrnament.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 06:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Merkur.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Merkur.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania in Atlanta!
Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 07:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Chryslerimperialeaglecirca60s.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Chryslerimperialeaglecirca60s.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Scott Klein (bodybuilder)
I have nominated Scott Klein (bodybuilder), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Scott Klein (bodybuilder). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Ecoleetage (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

COUPE DE VILLE SONG LIST
HELLO I DONT SUPPOSE YOU STILL HAVE THE LIST OF COUPE DE VILLE REFERENCES IN SONGS, I FOUND IT ON WILKIPEDIA AND WAS GOING TO WRITE THEM ALL DOWN WHEN I CAME BACK IT HAD BEEN DELETED, I TRIED LOOKING ON SONG LYRIC SITES AND THE ONLY ONE I CAN FIND IS THE NEIL DIAMOND SONG AND A BEASTIE BOYS SONG. ANY HELP WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. I DONT HAVE AN ACCOUNT ON HERE BUT MY EMAIL IS. COUPEDEVILLEUK@HOTMAIL.COM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.23.21.100 (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

File:AuthorsCar.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AuthorsCar.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.

Nashville area?
There is some talk of a Nashville area meetup. Would love to have your participation! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Sunsphere.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Sunsphere.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:78CdeV.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:78CdeV.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:76Century.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:76Century.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Marathonlogo.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Marathonlogo.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chryslerimperialeaglecirca60s.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Chryslerimperialeaglecirca60s.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Vandy invite
Cake (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Mercury Cougar pic 1109.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mercury Cougar pic 1109.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 07:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)