User talk:Typ932/Archive 1

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Fiat Group.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Fiat Group.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 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 09:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

De Tomaso Longchamp
Hi Typ932. You are off to such a great start on the article De Tomaso Longchamp that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page would help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. Again, great job on the article. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 20:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fiat 131
I see that you have made several edits to Fiat 131. I had a 1978 model of this car, and I think that it went by the name Super Brava. I don't see any mention of that name. Do you have any more info on that? &#9679;DanMS • Talk 02:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I dont have so deep knowledge of this car, maybe some other will expand the article, I think the car deserves a bit more larger article...--&mdash; Typ932T 08:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo 177
Hi Typ932,

I uploaded 2 pictures of the Alfa Romeo 177 (www.traumautoarchiv.de), as you requested ;-)

Regards, Lennart —Preceding unsigned comment added by LPJ (talk • contribs) 09:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Saab 9000/Fiat Croma/Lancia Thema/Alfa 164
You made an addition to the part on the Saab/FIAT project with the A112. Do you know anything more of this project? I'm trying to find a link between the Type Four Chassis project and the Saab B 3LA and AMX aircraft projects since they were initiated roughly at the same time in the spring of 1978. T96 grh 21:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fiat Ritmo
Dear Typ932 You removed without comment or explanation, from the Ritmo article, an image of a Fiat Ritmo I was uploading before I even finished uploading it. (There was a delay because the local telephone line here in England cut out the first time I tried uploading it.) I assumed that your objection was only to the fact that the picture was not yet there: so I put it back. But if you have a more fundamental objection to the image I linked into the article, please let me know it. (Otherwise, the article still does need an image of the first generation Ritmo, which was a much more unconventional looker at the time than it's toned down successor.  I do not pretend to be able to read the name on the car currently heading the info box, but the Spanish licence plate is a bit of a give away, as is the fact that the image has been uplaided with the title 'Seat Ritmo'.) Regards Charles01 12:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply noted. Double quick reply.   Thanks.  No problem.   Best  Charles01 12:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You are doing great work.
You are doing great work. Thanks. If you have any more feedback about the script relating to the addition of metric units to articles, let me know. Lightmouse 09:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I made some modifications (with my limited regex knowledge) to suit it automobile articles, it helps lot when converting, it still needs some manual checking and adjusting before/after running it, but it helps LOT.--&mdash; Typ932T 09:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. I see that you have some tweaks. Conversions into non-metric are of no particular interest to me, and some of the auto specific stuff might not work well when applied in other domains. However, I do hope that I might be able to get some ideas from you and I hope that other editors might see the great things being done. Like you, I always have to do some manual checking and adjusting. Lightmouse 19:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

External links added by 116.71.186.1
Just a FYI: I see you have undone a lot of external links to carwallpaper.pk on mostly Alfa Romeo articles. The linkers IP address 116.71.186.1 is in Pakistan (.pk) and the external links are likely to the user's own website. TorW 18:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

HP vs hp
Thanks. I did notice a few and didn't change them but I suppose I missed some. I'm going to go through my contributions and weed out any instances where I incorrectly put a  before an "HP". Thanks for pointing this out, I'll get right to it. James086 Talk &#124; Email 02:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

MOSNUM format edits
HI T,

Just a "heads up", convertVolume and convertWeight have been deprecated and I will probably delete them in the future. I seen that you had used them in the past to do your auto related edits. convert can now handle many auto related conversions that I know of.

For example: 21 USgal = 21 USgal 426 cuin = 426 cuin 505 hp = 505 hp

There are many other combinations also. Regards from the Motor City. &mdash;MJCdetroit (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Infobox Automobile
I edited the template and changed only the syntax that it uses. Personally, I find HTML syntax to be difficult to read and confusing inside #if conditionals, so I updated the code to use wiki syntax, similar to Template:Infobox Officeholder. If you strongly object to the new code, you're free to revert me, however, just know that nothing more than methodology was changed. I didn't change (or at least didn't mean to change) any functionality or appearance of the template. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies. Seems I switched from &lt;th>'s to &lt;tr>'s without realizing it. Fixed. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Megagamma1 big.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Megagamma1 big.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Audi F103
Hi Typ932, on the Audi F103 page, you added detail to the infobox which refers to just one car, the Audi 60. However, the F103 refers to a series of cars, all with differences in specs, and so your data could be misleading. I've therefore reverted the edit. Kind regards - -- Teutonic Tamer 10:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:AlfaRomeo2600_1962WP.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AlfaRomeo2600_1962WP.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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nilfanion (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Vincenzo_lancia.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Vincenzo_lancia.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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nilfanion (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Lancia_Theta_Coloniale.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lancia_Theta_Coloniale.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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nilfanion (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing
None of those images indicate their source. The it.wikipedia image is not a valid source. Who created the images?--Nilfanion (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If the author is unknown then the source is unknown. Images on other Wikimedia projects can only be a valid source if the actual creator of the image is the Wikimedian who uploaded to the other project. As these images are all old and have an "unknown" author, they are all unsourced.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you know they are public domain if you don't have the source? Image:AlfaRomeo2600 1962WP.jpg could have been taken in the south of France. If so it would be copyrighted. Any image on Wikipedia should have a source even if it is 500 years old.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The details of the author would be nice, but where is the source? The source is required and has not been provided for these images.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"From Wikipedia" is not a source Wikipedia can use (unless the subject is Wikipedia). It doesn't matter that that is the it.wiki and this is the en.wiki, you need to provide a source external to Wiki. Where did the Italian editor get their image?--Nilfanion (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Al-Araba and DC Design
Hi, I've come across your fingerprints on many car-related Wikipedia articles and you always seem to be thorough and knowledgeable. Your continued assistance is requested at Al Araba 1. I know it's a largely insignificant article but there seems to be a small tug-of-war going on between Al-Araba and DC as each tries to claim responsibility for the design. The truth is a bit hard to establish as most sources appear to have a bit of nationalistic bias with a tendency to claim the car as either Saudi or Indian. Your help (and European neutrality..) would be much appreciated. Dino246 (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. I also got more confused the more I checked up about this car. I am satisfied now though that it is originally a Dilip Chhabria design. I was dubious at first because the guy seems to be a PR master, managing to convince the Indian press at least that he has designed Astons and stuff despite the evidence suggesting that DC Design mostly builds prototypes to order on the basis of outsourcing rather than commissioned design. I knew I could rely on a fellow Alfisti to unravel the mess. ;) Dino246 (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Historic race tracks
Hello Typ932 Thank you for your assistance and tweaking ! Maseracing (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

DAF 33 Estate / Station wagon
Dear Typ 932

When you (I think it was you) set up the info box on the Daf 33, you included among the body types available an estate version (station wagon if you prefer US English, Break if you like French etc).

I remember a DAF 44 estate. But I cannot remember ever having seen a Daf 33 estate. (Nor a DAF Dafodil estate as the earlier ones would, I think, have been branded in some markets)   And I did live in Nederland for several years. Are you sure there was an estate version of this thing?

I suppose the wiki way of asking this question would be to ask you for your source...

Regards Charles01 (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Motorsports
I noticed that you joined WikiProject Motorsport. You might be most interested in joining the History of Motorsport taskforce. Royal broil 01:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Project Automobiles template
Thanks for the reminder, but do I have to rate the articles myself, considering I'm not good at rating articles. Willirennen (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Euro NCAP
I see that someone has apparently included NCAP ratings in the info box for automobiles on Italian wiki. (See it-wiki Ford Escort article a long way down)   I think that there may be discussion current about the info box on anglophone wiki. I wonder if you think including Euro NCAP ratings in anglophone wiki - at least for European cars where, increasingly these days, there is one - a good idea. (I'm not sure what I think about this.)  Regards Charles01 (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "...One current info which could be also good nowadays is C02 ratings, these enviroment and safety things are getting more and more major role in cars sale."
 * Agreed.  Even the Brits now tax your car more if it officially produces more CO2:  so of course we know, now, that it's important.   Regards.   Charles01 (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ford Meteor
I see you have a history of working on the article Ford Meteor. I am looking at it from the project Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest unreferenced tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. Jeepday (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Perfect, thank you! Jeepday (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Volkswagen Karmann Ghia
So all of the sudden nothing about this article is true? Is this the reason for tagging the whole thing as unverifiable? DanTD (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That seems to make sense, but it doesn't exactly reassure me that the article will stay. A lot of people have habitually tagged articles as unverifiable as a means of removing them, or threatening to do so, rather than improving them. Then there's also the question of who decides what sources are reliable and what aren't(unless it's glaringly obvious that a source is unreliable). DanTD (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)