User talk:VectorD

 VectorD  talk main  •   talk    •   contribs

HSV Senator Signature
I need some tips or help from you an expert for my article HSV Senator Signature. Senators 10:28, 04 November 2006 (UTC) (australia)

I am adding notes. Senators 3:49pm, 06 November 2006 (UTC) (Australia)

Template:Holden
sorry about adding "holden senator" to the holden template please review my article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Voritecorp (talk • contribs) 07:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. As for the HSV Senator Signature article, I'm probably not in the best position to review it as I've been contributing to it. It's a good start but I think more needs to be added to model history as currently most of the info relates to the E series. VectorD 03:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Holden VE Commodore
Hi, I hope that my request is not too much of an ask, but could you please review the article on the Holden VE Commodore. I understand that you have personally contributed to the article, but considering though the article has had a recent overhaul, it has changed substantially, and I think it needs to be properly proof read. Regards OSX 07:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have nominated this article as a good article and to be a featured article in Portal:Cars. I was wondering whether you could quickly go over the article and make sure that it is of the highest standard. Regards OSX 00:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Getting better
My article is getting better HSV Senator Signature please help me by telling me if there is any things i need to fix. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Senators (talk • contribs) 16:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ford BA Falcon
Hi again VectorD I have created a new article Ford BA Falcon can you please check the article and if it is good enough can you please nominate it for Good Article it would be greatly appreciated by my behalf. Senators 02:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the review I will get straight on to the mistakes and try to fix them many thanks again from senators.Senators 22:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Automobiles Notification
Hi VectorD, 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 04:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!!!
I would like to thank you for helping me get the article on the Holden VE Commodore up to good article status. This would not have been possible with out you. My next task is the Holden VZ Commodore. Regards OSX 07:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you need help?
If you need me (Senators) to help you with anything I am glad to, such as reviews, article checks and general assistance. Contact me on my talk page for help. SenatorsTalk 23:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For the moment, I am fine. Although, thank you for your offers of assistance. VectorD 07:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hello OSX, I need your assistance on an article Ford BA Falcon please of you can could you complete one of the following points:
 * Copy/edit
 * Add information
 * Review article
 * Nominate article for Good Article status

If you have any questions just go to my talk page. SenatorsTalk 23:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Specification levels of the Holden VE Commodore‎
I have created a new article Specification levels of the Holden VE Commodore‎ merging the information about the specification levels of the VE Commodore, as the main article was becoming to long. I thought that we could incorporate some of the bullet points from the new article into sentences stating what each variant came standard with, similar to what Senators has done with the specification levels for the BA Falcon, just included the most important features.

Could you also please elaborate upon the opening paragraph of the new article on the specification levels? If you have any issues or concerns with the new way please do not feel hesitated to ask. OSX 01:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I will try to do my best in converting the bullet points into sentences, but I feel that doing so may result in a lot of info being lost. I also have concerns that rebuilding into sentences may read like a itinerary of features rather than flowing prose. Perhaps some sort of table would be a better fit?

Anyway, I'll see how it works out. VectorD 09:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally I wouldn't worry about information being lost, as it has just been merged into a separate article. All that is really needed is a brief summary, about one or two paragraphs, no more than three outlining the main features given on each variant. On the other hand I have started a table that is situated in the specification level section. So maybe the information about each variant could focus more on the market it is aimed at, etc rather than what features it came with. The exact features could be outlined in the table below. OSX 00:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have tried to keep the features listing brief (and maybe I could make it briefer still), leaving the rest to the table or separate article. But info about what market each variant is aimed at, is already pretty well summarised in the first sentence of each section. I'm not sure I can improve on that much. On the other hand, I could include info about what variants of competitors it matches up against (a bit like what was in the "Market" section) – might get a bit murky as some models don't line up exactly. Or, I could add a bit of history to it and compare VZ and VE specs for each variant. In any case, I think I'd better play around with it a bit and see what works. VectorD 03:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

JavaScript peer review
Since extensive editing and formating has been done to the VE Commodore since last time this message was generated, I decided to re-run the script. Some of the suggestions do not really apply to the article but others do. I will try to fix up as many as I can, but I would appreciate it if you would fix any that you see that I don't pick up. OSX 07:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
 * Consider adding more links to the article; per Manual of Style (links) and Build the web, create links to relevant articles.
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 22 additive terms, a bit too much.
 * Avoid using contractions like: couldn't, wouldn't.
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.


 * I've managed to implement many of the changes mentioned above, but much more needs to be done. What struck me the most was the removal of the the redundancy words. I don't really know whether I should do so or not, because often at times it can ruin the structure and flow of a sentence. The dates and numbers section probably can be ignored so I crossed it out. If you disagree feel free to revert my move. The words: couldn't and wouldn't, were only used twice and were easily changed. The programme also suggested the implementation of more links. I've managed to incorporate several more links into the article, but I feel that linking obvious terms that may be unknown to a small percentage of the population is probably unnecessary. OSX 08:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good work on the changes. As for the additive words, they're basically being used in place of the word "and" which would have made the article even more repetitive. Considering the article is pretty long, 22 instances is probably borderline acceptable. However, as you say, removing them would mean a major rewrite of the article, so I think this issue could possibly be put on hold for a while.
 * All the other changes appear to be taken care of. Although a word of warning for the 90% font in the infobox, I'm not sure how article reviewers will like it or not. I've seen one article fail GA status because the Table of Contents was non-standard size. I don't know whether the same rules apply to infoboxes.
 * Overall, I think the article is at a pretty good level. I'll fiddle with the specifications section a little more and a few more photos are needed. VectorD 02:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What else
Is the article Ford BA Falcon close to be nominated for good article status? also if you want me to edit or fixSenatorsTalk 05:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC) any car articles please tell me.


 * There are still some concerns raised on the article talk page which have not yet been addressed. These need to be completed before the article can be nominated. The article is much better than it was in terms of grammar and spelling mistakes, but there are still some areas which need work. I suggest a proof-read of the whole article to see if it flows properly. Chopping and changing the article in a piecemeal fashion as has occurred to Ford BA Falcon can cause repetitions and relevant info scattered around. The engine table needs some more work; at least listing what configuration it is (I6, V6, V8 etc) rather than just the capacity. It's also a good idea to go through the GA criteria as SteveBaker has suggested on the talk page, seeing if any issues need to be addressed. VectorD 08:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

FA-Status
Just to let you know I have nominated the article on the VE Commodore for FA-Status. So you may want to add Featured article candidates/Holden VE Commodore to your watchlist. If you feel that any editing could be done to improve the article now is the time to do so. Regards OSX 00:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. The article is pretty good now, but I feel it could do with a picture of a SV6 or SS V and maybe a few shots of the different interior styles or engines. The current fair-use image/free image ratio is a little high for my liking. VectorD 02:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ford BA Falcon
Some improvements are now featured in the Ford BA Falcon article, you can check it.SenatorsTalk 07:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see the article talk page for comments. VectorD 09:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Great
It is great that in some time the Holden VE Commodore article may be a featured article, finally everyone will be able to see what Australian cars are made of!!!!SenatorsTalk 22:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Gone
Those issues that you have left on my page have been fixed the solution was to delete the information about the rear suspension in the "Issues" section due to no references. More references have also been added to the article in general.SenatorsTalk 06:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Following up
Are you planning to pursue any other car articles, if you are I can help you with it. Please leave your comment on my talk page.SenatorsTalk 02:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have a fixed plan at the moment. I will contribute to any article that catches my interest, but thanks for your offer. VectorD 01:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up review
I have revamped parts of the article on the VE significantly over the past few weeks, but I need a second opinion as too what needs further improvement. Do you feel that any improvements need to be made to the article on the VE that are not yet present? Do certain parts of the article require clarifying, to be understood by someone unfamiliar with the topic? I have started to spend the time to re-write entire sections of the article, but this process takes time. OSX 03:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi OSX. There's nothing really specific that needs to be added. However, aiming for FA status probably means providing a little more background info on the Holden Commodore (and its situation in Australia) for the benefit of people outside of Australia.
 * Additionally, some sales info would be good, as well as some info on the public reaction to the VE (i.e: whether the model is a success and meets the hopes of Holden). However, since it's a new model, sales info may be a bit hard to find.
 * Also, the article probably could do with closer ties to the previous generation Commodores, particularly pointing out its deficiencies and how the Holden designers tried to address these with the VE. I will try to help in this regard. VectorD 11:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Good work
Good work on the VE Commodore article it's good to see what Australia offers in the Automobile industry. Lately I have started working on 2 separate articles, (Holden WM Caprice and List of Holden Statesman/Caprice vehicles I want to get them to good article status eventually. If you want to, just take a look and improve them. Best wishes SenatorsTalk 00:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The Holden WM Caprice article does need some expansion to reach GA status, which I think is achievable. However, the List of Holden Statesman/Caprice vehicles article is very similar to Holden Statesman in creating a summary of all the models. It also doesn't seem to fit the format guidelines of WP:LIST. I think any additional information could be included in the original Statesman or Caprice articles. Regards. VectorD 08:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

VE Commodore front page?
When does the Holden VE Commodre article get's it's place on the front page? Please answer this question on my talk page.SenatorsTalk 23:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks 10-4
Thanks for answering my question.SenatorsTalk 03:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ford BA Falcon
The Ford BA Falcon article is progressing great but there is still some issues one issue is the reference lay out. There is 29 references in the BA Falcon article OSX has shown me how to fix them he fixed one reference so that I can use it as a template for the other references. But there is a lot of references to fix 24 in fact, can you please when you get some time fix some of them it is a big task for one person to fix them all, so I asked you for some help. Any questions please ask me on my talk page. SenatorsTalk 02:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Need Help
Do you need any help with any article at the current time? I am able to work on anything related to Wikipedia.SenatorsTalk 23:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mainpage request
Hi VectorD, I was wondering if you would be able to express your support of the Holden VE Commodore article appearing on the mainpage by voting here:. Normally voting is unnecessary, but their is another article competing with that date (July 16). Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 08:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange? isn’t it
You added a citation to a sentence in the Ford BA Falcon article claiming that information about this sentence was strange “Conversely, real-world testing proved this was only true under heavy acceleration, exceeding 3500 revolutions per minute.” There is nothing strange about that bloody sentence. Every car uses more fuel when it is pushed hard it is normal. Therefore I have taken that citation off the BA Falcon article until further notice.SenatorsTalk 06:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to have repeated the sentence, touched on exactly what's wrong with it and yet you still don't find anything strange about it? You say every car uses more fuel when pushed. I agree, to even the most mindless person it is blindingly obvious, so why is that sentence even mentioned under the 'Issues and Criticism' section of the article? You seem to be implying other cars don't have this particular "criticism." Also, what is so special about 3500 rpm? If the car was only pushed to 3499 rpm, will it be significantly more fuel efficient than if it was running at 3501 rpm? I have no idea what your point is with that claim. That is why the claim is strange. If you can provide some citation that claims 3500 rpm is some sort of magical tipping point, I would be very surprised but would be happy to remove the cite tag. Until then the tag stays. VectorD 06:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 10-4

Where is the Sales figures?
I have been looking around every where but I can not find any sales figures for the Ford BA Falcon, I need some help finding these. Please tell me on my talk page to come here when you have got a answer to this question, I do not known if the question is answered if you post it on your talk page.

P.S. - Do we really need sales figures for the BA Falcon?SenatorsTalk 22:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Total vehicle brand sales data is available on the FCAI website (www.fcai.com.au). Detailed reports are available in the VFACTS publication. However, if you can't obtain that, Ford Falcon sales figures can be found using a Google search or some articles may mention the figures when reporting on the Australian vehicle market (e.g: here it mentions the figures in the last paragraph). If you look at the Holden VE Commodore article, you'll see sales data is gathered from a range of sources.
 * Since the BA Falcon model was awhile ago, it may be more difficult to find complete sales data for the months, but you should give it a try or else look for yearly sales or total model sales figures. As for whether the sales figures are really needed in an article, it's best to include it if the data is available. It adds to the completeness.
 * I generally prefer discussions stick to the one talk page &mdash; having the conversation split into two makes it really confusing. If you're not sure if the question is answered or not on a particular talk page, you can always place it on your watchlist for a few days. VectorD 07:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * May I add that Wheels magazine has complete sales figures of the Falcon for every month it was sold. However, including sales data using Wheels as a source would result in a bloated references section. As an alternative, we could site just one reference stating "Wheels magazine, November 2002-December 2005". Since I have copies of these magazines dating back from late 2002, I would be more than happy to provide the data. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks Sharkface217, I much appreciate it. VectorD 03:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

GA – Holden Commodore
I have nominated the Holden Commodore article for a peer review; I need to find out what is wrong with the article so I can fix it. Then in time, I will nominate it for good article status. If you can, please help me with the “fixing up” process.SenatorsTalk 21:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I will help where I can. I was actually thinking about cleaning up the Holden Commodore article myself. VectorD 04:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Great. Hi, Im HarrisonB, one of the guys who works with Senators and OSX. Pleased to meet you. Ha r ri s o n B  Speak! 07:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice to meet you too, HarrisonB. VectorD 09:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thankyou. I was wondering, wether to start up an Australian Cars portal. Do you think that it is a good idea? Ha r ri s o n B  Speak! 07:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting idea. There is already a Portal:Cars but an Australian cars portal could work if there are a lot of Australian car articles on Wikipedia. Currently, everything's a bit hodge-podge and I'm not sure there's enough depth of material to make a portal worthwhile (I could be wrong though). Properly setting up a portal takes a fair bit of work but it's possible if you have the time. VectorD 05:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, after some thought I think it would be feasible to start one up, but we will need more people than just us. Maybe Senators, OSX and others could help us and lighten up the load, but before we release it to the public, I suggest that we build it in a workshop. Ha r ri s o n B  Speak! 01:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Long time, no hear
What have you been doing lately?SenatorsTalk 01:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been pretty busy lately but working on the Holden Commodore article when I can. VectorD 06:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Adminship for Senators
Do you think that I should become an administrator in the near future, or do you think I should become one right now? Please can you answer these questions on my talk page so I can get a collaboration of other opinions on my talk page.SenatorsTalk 01:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your answer. At the current time I am in no rush to become an administrator. My main focus at the current time is copy/editng articles, so if you want me to check over any articles please tell me.

P.S. - I am advancing through the Wikipedia tree. It still maybe a while until I am administrator.SenatorsTalk 06:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Portal: Australian Motor vehicles
HarrisonB has told me and other people to start a discussion on this page, about the newly proposed Australian Motor vehicles portal. I have only added a small amount of info on my opinion towards the idea due to the fact that it may not be the correct place to discuss matters like this.


 * I think it would be a great idea to do so, but it has one main limitation. It may take a long time and a lot of people to get the portal up to acceptable standards. I may help towards the portal.SenatorsTalk 06:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see this as slightly redundant considering we only have four halfway decent articles (Ford BA Falcon, Holden, Holden Commodore, and Holden VE Commodore) to showcase, three of which are already featured on the current Portal:Cars page. If for example, the articles Mitsubishi Magna and Toyota Aurion were of a higher standard, you may have my support. So instead, lets get a few more articles to a good standard first, then bring this back up. Also, I would be interested to see how the guys down at WikiProject Automobiles have to say. If in the end a consensus is reached, a more suitable name would probably be Portal:Australian cars. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 06:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with OSX, there should be more good articles (good as in high quality, not WP:GA) before a portal is established, a minimum of 10 so that it's not too repetitive. It should definitely not be ruled out for a future project though. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 09:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, good idea. Lets work together on lets say, Mitsubishi Magna, and then we can think about this again. Ha r ri s o n B  Speak! 09:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

task collaboration
Hi OSX, eventually I want the Toyota Aurion article to be classed as a Good article so on the way there I have started this thing that list the tasks that need to be completed on a article it will look like this. So I need your help to list just below here, to list tasks that you think need to be done on the Toyota Aurion article. I will then add the to do template to the Aurion discussion page and your comments to it. SenatorsTalk 00:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not OSX, but I'll offer some small pointers. Overall, the Aurion article isn't too bad. Occasionally, some of the wording is a bit clunky and could use a thorough copyedit. The section on 'vibrant clarity' design, in particular, could probably be reworded better. The engines and mechanicals section needs work. It currently seems to list a whole bunch of specifications for rival cars and leaves the reader to sort everything out. Instead of saying the Commodore has x amount of torque at y rpm and the Falcon has blah blah blah, you could say that the Aurion torque peaks at higher rpm than rivals etc etc... The actual rpm at which the power/torque peaks can then be added to the table.
 * More information on market reception and/or sales would be nice. The specification levels section borders dangerously on reading like a list of equipment: it really needs less info on what features it has (unless it's something truly special&mdash;stuff like leather seats and air conditioning is yawnworthy I'm afraid) and more on how each variant fits into the market plus the differences between each. Comments such as "power everything" isn't quite encyclopaedic language. VectorD 08:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that VectorD, in a couple of days I will add what you said to the TO DO list.SenatorsTalk 22:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Nm
I've just noticed that you have changed all the Nm to N m in the HSV page !?, I think it should restored to Nm -- 12:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually didn't change the Nm conventions specifically but was just reverting vandalism. If you check the article history, you can see that Thunderbird2 changed it here, here and here. VectorD 07:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Holden VE Clay Model.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Holden VE Clay Model.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. east. 718 at 05:56, 11/14/2007 05:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Holden FAC
HI, VectorD, you may or may not be already aware that I have nominated the Holden article for featured article status. If you don't not mind, would you be able to give a review (oppose or support) here? OSX (talk • contributions) 09:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have done my best to respond to your issues on the FAC, so if you could strike out your comments and support, that would be appreciated. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I still have a few concerns with the article. I like the earlier history sections and there are other brilliant bits. But there seems to be a heavy emphasis on the technical details of each car model and less comprehensiveness on the company itself. I expected a bit more on market acceptance/rivalry, company strategy and structure. For instance, the 48-215 was a huge success that created a very long waiting list. The Holden V8 was introduced in the Hurricane concept car. I think the racing program deserves more than a one line mention as it's been an integral part of Holden's marketing strategy. The EH Holden S4 and later efforts carefully skirted around the 1963 GM edict of no factory-sponsored racing. No mention is made of the Holden Dealer Team. The construction of the Lang Lang Proving Grounds was the first such facility in Australia. Also, it could be made a little clearer that the Gemini was Holden's small car and the Statesman succeeded the unsuccessful Brougham (as a hurried response to the Fairlane). VectorD (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Holden peacock
Not that I'm expecting an apology but superior is EXPLICITLY mentioned as a peacock term in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peacock and it is NOT mentioned in the article that supposedly provides a reference. My summary of the meaning in that ref was entirely fair and still positive. Greg Locock (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * VectorD, I think this user can be safely ignored. I'm sure you don't want to get into an argument with him. It's not worth it. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a suggestion OSX, why don't you let VectorD sort himself out? Greg Locock (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I've said before, you have to consider the context in which the word is used in. The wikilink you provided says to avoid the use of peacock words which promote the subject matter of the article without substantiation. In this case, the article states an even 50:50 weight distribution would lead to superior handling. This means superior to grossly uneven weight distribution. The article did not say 50:50 weight distribution makes car x arbitrarily superior to all other cars. Do you see the difference?
 * I think it's blatantly obvious 50:50 weight balance would be superior to, say, 80:20. I don't think an additional reference for this is called for. By deleting the whole phrase altogether from the article, you degraded its quality. A non-car enthusiast reading that the car has 50:50 weight distribution would most likely ask what the benefit of this is. And the explanation was deleted by you.
 * If I said "receiving an ice cream cone is superior to being shot," would you disagree, claim it's a peacock word and require a reference?
 * In any case, I am ok with the compromise you have introduced. VectorD (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool, at least we agree on the outcome.. So, would you like to re-make the edit, I doubt that our petulant friend will let me do it. Greg Locock (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am ok with either of the 2 options. I'm not sure what sort of spat you are having with OSX but you two need to work out your differences. The goal of wikipedia is to improve the quality of articles, not to engage in fights. I'm sure if you have a reasoned discussion with OSX, you two can make whatever changes are needed to move the article in the best direction. VectorD (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:HoldenVE03Sketch.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:HoldenVE03Sketch.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) 05:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Back on
Hello you may not remember me but I am back on wikipediaSenatorsTalk 04:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No I remember, Senators. Welcome back. --VectorD (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion
As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery