User talk:Roguegeek/Archive20090721

370Z
Why do you hate the Z? The car's been announced and yet you keep deleting articles about it. Is someone a little frustrated GM sales and decided to take it out on the imports?24.114.252.238 (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You should actually check out the Nissan 370Z talk page for a discussion we've been having. We are creating the article, but we're doing it off the main space here. roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How come you decided to put up your own article instead when you decide. Also, what's with Porsche Panamera? "Selective" applying of the unannounced rule is what you seem to do.24.114.252.238 (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You did not follow the discussion apparently. A lot of people were working on that article in another section. Again, please see WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. Also please see WP:GOODFAITH. I didn't do anything "selective" because I don't know about all articles out there that might be breaking the policy. roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * After looking over the Porsche Panamera article and its sources, I don't see why this article couldn't exist. Your rationale, therefore, doesn't make sense to me. roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ford photos
Greetings, Roguegeek. I agree with you regarding Ford's promo images. Barring any new information, I intend to support your nominations for their deletion, but I can't seem to figure out how to find all of them on the commons. Any advice? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm having the same problem. I can tell you with 100% certainty if an images is a copyrighted press image or not, but I'm having problem finding all of them on Commons. Usually, it's just a select few uploaders who do this kind of thing, so once I find one, I start looking at all of their contributions. Honestly, I'm just not sure how to be comprehensive in this case.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 16:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * this doesn't bode well... —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Check out this discussion as well.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 17:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugh, politics. I can't tell who's winning. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bull-Doser
Do you think we should start an RFC? He just went and violated naming convention with a page move, and is still changing proper redirects to piped links like I specifically asked him not to do. This is becoming tiring and I'd rather not sit by and let this disruptive behavior continue. What do you think? --Sable232 (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I'm kind of at a loss with him. Almost every single one of his edits now could be completely reverted. I've tried to point him in the right direction on several occasions. He doesn't respond to any feedback or criticism. I'm not quite sure what an RFC would do at this point, but I'm not against trying to remedy this issue.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 05:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Something needs to be done. I really don't think we can allow his behavior to continue any longer. His continued insistence on ignoring almost anything left on his talk page is quite frustrating, maybe an RFC will accomplish something at least on that end. --Sable232 (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would definitely support and contribute to an RFC. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I really wish I didn't come off as frustrated as I do in my edits with this users, but I am at my end with it. I'm going with a last ditch effort and will notify him of this conversation we are having. Hopefully, he will response with something that may sway us from feeling like an RFC is in order. If I get no response, I'll contribute to any pending RFC, but anyone is more than welcomed to start one before then. roguegeek (talk·cont) 23:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I know I have not been very active on Wikipedia as of late, but I must point out that this is pointless. Bull-Doser will continue to make disruptive edits no matter if you create this RfC or not. It is really pointless. We made a RfC for him before when he was using his old account "Take Me Higher", when he would fill articles up with poor quality images of the back ends of cars. Needless to say, he didn't respond or change his behavior. I have no reason to believe that it will be different this time. I hate to sound rude, but all of you are just wasting your time by doing this. Karrmann (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I know I still like to do car pictures and other articles. I promise I won't link dates anymore!  Also, other than car picture article editing, I like to do music, radio, TV (including anime shows) & restaurant (or other business) articles!  I also like to revert other people's vandalism! -- Bull-Doser (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(<-- indent) I'm just about to try and fix a redirect problem caused by BD's improper page creation and moving (Valentine (restaurant)). If you do instigate an RFC, you're unlikely to get a ban or block imposed. Obversely however, given his lack of communication in general, you're unlikely to see a change in his behaviour after this long (three years without improvement or appreciation of basic WP guidelines) simply by having someone leave a stern message on his talk page. As a demonstration that you're actually trying to improve his contributions, I'd suggest putting forward a proposal for mentorship or supervision. That way the onus is on him to improve, and it doesn't look like everyone's just ganging up to drive him off WP. --DeLarge (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, would we like to pursue one or not? --Sable232 (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * From the response on his talk page about the subject, I would let it go for now to see if the conduct changes. roguegeek (talk·cont) 09:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

 * Hey, check it out! My first barnstar! Thanks very much. I think everyone involved in the last round of consensus building discussion definitely deserves one. I'll be hanging mine on the user page soon. Thanks again! roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. :) --Flash176 (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

370Z sources
User talk:Vossanova roguegeek (talk·cont) 16:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Open Directory Project (DMOZ) Links
The DMOZ search template (Dmoz2) is being considered for deletion because it violates WP:ELNO #9. I'm sending you this notice because of your previous participation in the TfD discussion for the DMOZ category template. Anyone interested in discussing the fate of Open Directory Project (DMOZ) search links is invited to join the discussion at Templates for deletion. Thank you. Qazin (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tricitymap.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tricitymap.jpg. 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) 05:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

2010 Mustang Redesign
Hi Roguegeek, regarding the 2010 redesign/refresh for the fifth-gen Mustang, I think there should be a mention in the section about forthcoming powertrains. There doesn't need to be any mention of specific powertrains, since no one outside of Ford knows for sure what will appear, but it does seem to be widely agreed upon that there will be something new by the 2011 model year (or possibly even mid-year for the 2010 model). As far as truth versus verifiability, I understand the importance of verifiability which is why I referred to the article at AutoBlog (the paragraph after where the upgrades to the 4.6 L V8 are mentioned). The point the author mentioned about the Escape is significant too because the Mustang will be in the same boat; redesigned first with new powertrains a year later (just compare a 2008 Escape to a 2009 one). I could have put additional references but I didn't want to belabor the point. However, for the sake of argument, there's also this article from Motor Trend suggesting Ford's EcoBoost V6 and a new 5.0 L V8, this article from Car and Driver briefly mentioning new engines for 2011 (toward the bottom of the article), and this article from LeftLaneNews from earlier this year featuring spy shots of a Mustang testing a new 5.0 L V8. All of this is also similar to what the insider types say on the automotive forums that I frequent. Now none of these sources may be in agreement as to what exactly Ford will put under the hood of the Mustang after the 2010 model debuts, but they are all in agreement that there will be something new in its near future. As such, I recommend a mention of this situation in the fifth-gen Mustang's article. Also, on a separate note, nice picture additions to the fifth-gen Mustang's article. Do you have a picture of the 2010 Mustang on the way? If not, I'll probably be able to get one because I'll be going to the LAIAS this Sunday. Thanks for your time.--MN12Fan (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello MN12Fan. I can see why everyone thinks new engines would be on their way. I'm of the opinion that it's probably true. The problem here is that it can not be verified at all. C&D says, "more powerful engines are supposedly on their way for 2011." Motor Trend says, "We hear there is a faction at Ford seriously contemplating fitting the new EcoBoost." Autoblog says, "2011 or soon after will probably see the Mustang follow the Escape's path with more significant powertrain upgrades." All of the publications you are listing are very clearly speculating there might be new engines for 2011. Speculation, by it's own definition, is not verifiable and verifiability is very much a core idea on Wikipedia. If the info can not be verified, then it can not listed on here and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This being the case, no info about new engines should be listed in the article. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right. Until it's a fact rather than a speculative guess or rumour, it doesn't belong and ought to be excluded — no matter how many sources can be fingered for the guess or rumour, and no matter how believable it may be. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 19:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So basically what you guys want to wait for at the minimum is an official press release from Ford confirming the "speculation." Anything short of this, even talking to people who work for Ford but aren't in a position to make an official statement, can be too easily dismissed as conjecture. Very well. The article remains how it is until harder evidence comes out. Thanks for clearing things up guys. Oh, and how about those pictures? If no one has anything in the pipeline I'll add a picture of the '10 Mustang after I get back from the LAIAS tomorrow (assuming I can get a good one).--MN12Fan (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't go as far as saying a press release is needed. What we need is a couple of reliable secondary sources reporting that the primary source (Ford) has told them either through an an interview, official press release, or some other form of communication that the engines will change. As for the pics, I was at the press days for the Los Angeles Auto Show this past week and have some pics I'll throw up until better ones come along. roguegeek (talk·cont) 05:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked?

 * Something is screwed up here. Is there any information other than that? J.delanoy gabs adds  03:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not exactly sure what else is needed. I'm seeing the following info when trying to edit:
 * Editing from 24.205.66.0/24 (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by Raul654 for the following reason(s):
 * Range used by Scibaby
 * This block has been set to expire: 16:28, December 1, 2013.
 * What else do you need from me to get this lifted? roguegeek (talk·cont) 03:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There, is that better? roguegeek (talk·cont) 03:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. I gave you IPBE, so you should be able to edit now. Sorry about the delay, Firefox went bonkers on me. J.delanoy gabs adds  04:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response! roguegeek (talk·cont) 04:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token 065f8781ae147d7f1dc316735d979b07
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Sasha Grey
I reverted your changes to her infobox since myspace and imdb are not acceptable sources for contentious issues, especially for information that she has intentionally kept private. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Now Commons
File:Picture 221.jpg, an image uploaded to Wikipedia from this account in March 2008, is now File:Andysamberg.jpg (Commons:File:Andysamberg.jpg). — Athaenara ✉  21:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:WikiProject Motorcycle Racing
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:WikiProject Motorcycle Racing, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:WikiProject Motorcycle Racing has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:WikiProject Motorcycle Racing, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Art
First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia Loves Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there!  howcheng  {chat} 00:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Audi Sportback concept
I beg to differ: see here or here, where "concept" is written with a small "c" consistently in official Audi content. Letdorf (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC).


 * Right. I'm seeing it at this primary source and these secondary sources. Looks like everyone, including Audi, isn't being consistent with it. roguegeek (talk·cont) 01:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't trust secondary sources to get a subtlety like that right. As for the Audi USA page, I can see two instances of "Concept" on that particular page only ... I guess the Audi USA website folks haven't quite "got with the program" :-). Letdorf (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC).


 * No worries here. It's not a life threatening problem and should be fine for now. Thanks! roguegeek (talk·cont) 23:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:HondaMotorcycles.png)
Thanks for uploading File:HondaMotorcycles.png. 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) 05:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)