User talk:Tomcha

Fiesta
I am NOT vandalising the topic - the marks of Fiesta are not as shown when you keep reverting my changes. please see the uk fiesta network for confirmation. I will now re-edit the page as my edits do NOT constitute vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.173.44 (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not, you are wrong, in site www.ford.co.uk isn't it what you say. Last Fiesta isn't Mark 7. --Tomcha (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ford internal and the website do not use the mark system. For proof, please see the following links I have compiled for you and take a close look at the Mark 5 fiesta (1999 - 2002): http://www.channel4.com/4car/ft/feature/retrospective/1689/7 http://www.madabout-kitcars.com/kitcar/kb.php?aid=85 http://motors.shop.ebay.co.uk/items/Cars__fiesta-mk5_W0QQ_catrefZ1QQ_dmptZUKQ5fCarsPartsQ5fVehiclesQ5fCarPartsQ5fSMQQ_flnZ1QQ_sacatZ9801QQ_trksidZp3286Q2ec0Q2em282 http://www.carbodydesign.com/archive/2006/02/10-ford-fiesta-history/ford-fiesta-history.php http://www.ukfiestanetwork.com/index.php?showforum=88 With the addition of those links to this talk page, I am going now to re-edit the wikipedia entry to the correct markings. I apologise if you think I am incorrect but in this case I am not - the majority of UK business use the mark system (mk1,2,3,4,5,6,7 being the latest) and having the Wikipedia entry incorrect shows a major incompetance on behalf of the editing team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.173.44 (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not, here it is truth of what! GENEVA GLOBAL DEBUT FOR NEW FIESTA, BRENTWOOD, Essex, 15 February, 2008 Cite media.ford.com "Thoroughly modern and designed to meet every need and desire of today’s supermini buyers, the sixth generation of the Fiesta family will be offered in both three and five-door bodystyles. The prominent coupé-like profile of both versions indicates how deeply the spirit of the Verve Concept has been carried into production. Make no mistake about it – this is a small car with a big presence." Sabe 86.7.173.44/Dontpannic? Heavy work try to set the wiki world to rights. --Tomcha (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: This is me, I've now logged in using my registered account. Please explain to me why I am being threatened with being banned due to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontpannic (talk • contribs) 17:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ka
Yes I changed it to 2008 --Typ932 T&middot;C 20:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ford Escort (Europe)
I removed the section regarding a 2011 Escort as the section was added by an un-registered user in february of this year. The user has no other edits to wikipedia. There is no mention of this vehicle, proposed or otherwise anywhere online. It therefore comes as an unreliable source of information. If a citation can be found for the proposed vehicle then the section should be re-instated. A citation is required for the inclusion of a paragraph, not the removal. scancoaches (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use images on templates
We do not permit the use of fair use images such as File:Ford Motor Company Logo.svg to be displayed on anything other than actual mainspace articles. We do not permit them to be used on templates, such as you have done twice now. Please do not reinstate this or any other fair use image onto any template on Wikipedia. The policy forbidding this is located at WP:NFCC #9. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Can I use other file with Copyright tags, perhaps trademarked for logos? --Tomcha (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Anything not used under terms of fair use, which is prohibited by WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Trademarked is too prohibited by WP:NFCC? --Tomcha (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No. An image with a trademark does not automatically mean it is copyrighted. It may be copyrighted, or it might not be. Trademark is irrelevant to where it is copyrighted or not. If it's copyrighted, then it's fair use here which means it can't be used on templates. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I see, thank you. --Tomcha (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ford template
Hi, you keep reverting my changes to Template:Ford.

1. "worldwide global" is redundant; they mean the same thing.

2. "globally corporate" is poor English (it's not *wrong*, but, it's bad technique to put adverbs in titles). Plus "global" is unnecessary as it has already been established that the template is worldwide.

3. The "Corporate/Subsidiaries/joint ventures" box is unnecessary because there are no other sub-sections in that section, so only the first section title is needed. Also "corporate" is unnecessary because all entries can be considered subsidiaries or joint ventures, both of which are already assumed to be corporate related.

4. Finally, why do you have an above line and a below line, both with lists? There is no justification given for what goes on the top list vs. the bottom list; it will only confuse people.

I appreciate the work you've done on this template, but please read the above tips and suggestions and understand that a simplified template will be easier to follow and integrate into more articles. --Vossanova o&lt; 17:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Vossanova. 1. How global? Because I like to follow the rules Ford Motor Company ]], worldwide is subsidiaries, ″Global″ is like the global portfolio of products. 2. Globally... all engines, all platforms and so on. It's my point of view, "Global Ford Template". 3. Yes, perhaps make sub-sections "Joint ventures". 4. Top list there is it basic, significant (engines). Bottom list less commonly, less use.

This template isn't final. I will work on. I appreciate you work too, do we really need cooperate. What you opinion about idea of me, point 1. and 2.? Your idea? Thank you. --Tomcha (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Focus RS
Hi,

You reverted a change from my IP (actually someone on my LAN) who corrected an inaccurate term ("large venturi tunnel") to "diffuser". You noted in my IP talk page that such a change required a citation of a reliable source. Well, if that's the case, why doesn't the original paragraph in the article (with the inaccurate term) have any citations to begin with? 71.241.148.116 (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi 71.241.148.116, yes, that's right. Also large venturi tunnel required perhaps a citation. Thank you. --Tomcha (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

V8 Supercar
Holden is no more Australian than Ford, change both, or neither. --Falcadore (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "GM Holden Ltd is an Australian automaker based in Port Melbourne, Victoria." (parent General Motors) --Tomcha (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And Ford Australia is parented by Ford in the US. Your point? What is the difference between the two? Nissan is owned by Renault, you going to change the Japanese flag to French? --Falcadore (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between the two? Founded: James Alexander Holden (Holden Motor Body Builders-Australia) vs. Henry Ford (Ford Motor Company-America), some would say that there is really a very big difference between the two companies. --Tomcha (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ford Racing
Do not add masses of redlinks. How can someone look up a main article that does not exist. If you want the links, then write the articles. --Falcadore (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Please do create red links to articles you intend to create, technical terms that deserve more treatment than just a dictionary definition, or topics which should obviously have articles." Look at:WP:RED, thanks. --Tomcha (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Redlinks are absolutely fine - but not for the useage of Main Article template linking purposes. Then it merely becomes a purposeless list. For your information: Motor racing teams are not technical terms. It is also some nine months since you added many of those links and you've made little progress in starting any of the race team articles. Wishlists of articles shouldn't be added. You should start some work on those article if you believe so firmly they should exist.
 * Also do not link to years like 1906. Refer WP:OVERLINKING. --Falcadore (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What generally should be linked: "Do not be afraid to create links to potential articles that do not yet exist (see Red links below)." WP:UNDERLINK --Tomcha (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree redlinks should be used. They should NOT be used for Main article linking. Do you understand that? By all means have them in as redlinks, but NOT for Main Article linking. --Falcadore (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not write those sections which list those teams as a paragraph. That would be infinately better, partcularly the redlink teams, because if you click of a redlink, no further information can be acquired.
 * For example:
 * ===Tin Top Racing==
 * Redlink Racing is the Ford supported race team in the Littlebigistan Tin Top Racing Championship series in Littlebigistan. The team has been racing since 1968 and has accumulated more race wins and titles than any other since LittleBigistand gained independence from Quitebigistan in 1963.
 * or
 * Which of those two is more informative? Both has redlinks, but only one is actually useful. --Falcadore (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see but this is only your opinion. "They should NOT be used for Main article linking." No. It isn't true. "Why not write those sections which list those teams as a paragraph." Maybe in the future. I have too much work about the history, now. --Tomcha (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When you write Main Article:Redlink Racing the implication is that there is a main article. It says clearly Main Article. But when there is a redlink, no Main Article exists. It is a false statement. Redlinks just in a sentence is absolutely fine, even recommended. Used in Main Article template link, is falsehood. --Falcadore (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When you write Main Article:Redlink Racing the implication is that there is a main article. It says clearly Main Article. But when there is a redlink, no Main Article exists. It is a false statement. Redlinks just in a sentence is absolutely fine, even recommended. Used in Main Article template link, is falsehood. --Falcadore (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ford Racing logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Ford Racing logo.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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)