User talk:Vossanova/Archive 2

KFMF
Hi Phoenix, is there is a certain reason (concerning this edit) why it is mentioned for two artists, that they were ANSI artists, while there is no further information about the other artists? Or could you add some more details to the other artists too? Thanks! -- Scooty (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They were listed in the Kosmic/KLF info files (which came with every music release) as being ANSI artists, while the others were just listed as "art" or "graphics". --Vossanova o&lt; 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

color uses zeroes
Thanks, was difficult to tell what they were. Lesson learned. Thanks (Regushee (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC))

Ad-Libs Improvisational Comedy Theater
I've proposed Ad-Libs Improvisational Comedy Theater, an article you edited but didn't create, for deletion via WP:PROD. --I dream of horses (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

55-57 Beauville option
I could create a 1955-1957 Chevrolet article covering all models from that generation which could include the Beauville article as that proposal would cover only three model years and there would be space for the Beauville merge. I contributed much to the Bel Air article revising its eight generations and including all the images, and its not finished as more text needs to be added on Bel Air models. I was thinking of doing a 55-57 Chevy article anyway..(there is a '57 Chevy article) So I'll start on that after Bel Air and Impala are finished and merge the Beauville to the new 55-57 generation article. I listed this first on the list on future projects on my user page.(also see my user page-current projects for the work I've done to the Bel Air article) Let's remove the tag to merge the Beauville into Bel Air though as Beauville can only be mentioned breifly within the Bel Air article, as article must touch on eight Bel Air generations and many models over a 35 year period none of which are, or could be covered as the Beaville is covered on its own current page. I will start on the 55-57 article right away, then I can merge Beauville article into a proper home. Regards I Vegavairbob (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm not sure why you wrote first on the Bel Air talk page then moved it here - it would be better to discuss it there to get more people into the merge/split discussion. --Vossanova o&lt; 19:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved it here for your OK on a new 55-57 Chevy article. As mentioned there is no room on an 8 generation Bel Air article covering 35 years of Bel air models to merge this wagon article. It has to go to a one generation article I will create by the weekend with photos included.Vegavairbob (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Bond movie appearances for cars
I understand that trivia sections could spark people trying to find as many television and film appearances as possible for a specific type of car, but the cars and films I selected were notable cars from notable films. For example, a car driven by a key character in a memorable moment from a Bond film is far more significant than, say, a car that was driven by an unimportant character in EastEnders. Sir Stanley (Sir Stanley) 18:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Chevrolet Caprice EPA figures
They are from the 1977 Gas mileage guide, on the US dept of energy website. I believe these are EPA figures, maybe I am mistaken on that point. I can properly source the chart, if you like though. Here is a link to the source:

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/1977_feg.pdf

Did you think I just pulled this figures out of the air? Have you actually seen what I have done to improve this article compared to the poor information that was on here before?

The point of the chart was to show that Chevrolet had smaller car in 1977 which resulted in imporved mileage over its main competitors. It is entirely relveant to explaining why Chevrolet made the changes to its car, why its "smaller" fullsize was more successful than the competition since fuel economy was so imporatnt at the time. Your article on systhesis states not to have multiple sources to draw one conclusion. These figures for all vehicles are from the same source.

I still see no valid reason not to include the chart, and I don't see why it was removed. I will wait for your reply, but my intention is to add the chart again, and source it.

Caprice 96 (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

So as it stands, other than your suggestion that the chart shouldn't be included, is there any other reason it shoudln't be there? That chart was added quite sometime ago, and has never caused any issue until lately. I resent the implication that my information is impartial; my hobby is the car - everything from history, to maintenance, to restoration and everthing in between.

The intent of the chart was not to act as a "consumer guide" or to show that the Chevrolet Caprice was superior to its competition. The chart is there to simply show that how revolutionary (for the time) this car was compared to the older competition. Obviously Ford and Chrysler caught up, GM just happend to be the first to downsize the fullsize car - AND this was HUGE for the time. I understand your point that it could be summerized in a sentence, but the chart offers a lot more information to someone who is learning for the first time about vehicles from this era. Personally, to someone like me who studys facts and figures, and others car guys I know, the more information the better.

Caprice 96 (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Exclusionism
To quote from your philosophy: "Exclusionism is philosophy held by some Wikipedians that seeks to maximize the usefulness of an article by removing irrelevant or superfluous information."

On this reasoning, you deleted from the Honda Insight page information posted by me that was both relevant and useful. In the immediately preceding paragraph, various extremes are quoted in respect of fuel economy (or lack of it) in non-real life situations. For anyone wanting to use this Wiki to actually find out about this kind of vehicle in real-life usage, actual verified data is much more useful than manufacturer's claims or the results of "record breaking" trials.

I am not an unknown URL, or a "fanboy" (surprised that you would use such an ugly term in view of your desire for good English) but a prolific contributor to Wikispecies. If your intention is to delete relevant, useful, verified information, then you are not an Exclusionist but a Deletionist. I have no intention of starting a war by reinserting my information immediately. Instead I will give you a few days grace to consider what you have done and to justify to me why the information I posted is either irrelevant or superfluous. ACCassidy (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * For reference to "fanboy" look at the last paragraph on your own User Page, just above your Barnstar Award!! If you did not write this self-portrait, then you may be have an identity-theft situation. You can call it "exclusionism" or whatever, but the fact remains that you are depriving the reader of factual, relevant, useful information. You should reflect further on your motivation for this. It is pointless for you to trot out the any party line about references having to be in books. The whole purpose of this website is to provide useful, factual information. ACCassidy (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Dodge Ram
Someone asked columnist Rich Heldenfels of the Akron Beacon Journal who the voice was in the ads. He found out. No, it wasn't a known celebrity. Why not have the information available on Wikipedia? If you don't like trivia, there are any number of articles you can go after.

As for me, I like trivia and frequently look for it on Wikipedia. If I'm at home, I certainly don't want to go to unfamiliar sites. Or even most familiar ones. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can concede that it wasn't a notable ad. The question was about whether it was a celebrity. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I got someone to fix your barnstar problem. The next person who posted here likely would have had to deal with it. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. --Vossanova o&lt; 20:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of SoundTracker


The article SoundTracker has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Still does not satisfy our verifiability policy or notability guidelines (WP:V, WP:N). A few hits on a web search, but all appear to be self-published sources, and no significant coverage.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Marasmusine (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

G8 predecessor
Hola. I'll give you the Grand Prix and Bonneville, but the GTO? What is the rationale for this? roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Cadillac Series 355
I personally feel that an article that is only an infobox, especially one that has sat for 10 months in that state, does in fact qualify for speedy deletion as lacking meaningful content. However, it was made clear to me at my second RFA that a mere infobox is enough to avoid speedy deletion. I don't like it, I think it's silly, but apparently you and I are in the minority. I have re-nominated it via WP:PROD, which you can endorse using if you wish. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, will endorse prod, thanks. --Vossanova o&lt; 18:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of audio trackers
I have nominated List of audio trackers, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/List of audio trackers. 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.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Pcap ping  22:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of SoundTracker
I have nominated SoundTracker, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/SoundTracker. 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.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Psychonaut (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Chrysler Crossfire Top Speed Edits Verification
Regarding Chrysler Crossfire top speed edits. See the Mercedes-Benz R-170 platform page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_R170 Both the Mercedes SLK and Chrysler Crossfire are built on that platform, they have same performance stats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcticPhantom (talk • contribs) 02:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What reliable source is there for the Mercedes-Benz R170's top speed with limiter removed? Otherwise, those numbers could be made up for all I know.  And because it shares the same platform by no means gives the Chrysler Crossfire the same performance statistics. --Vossanova o&lt; 15:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Miesianiacal
Hello Vossanova, I see you are having troubles on the General Motors page with User:Miesianiacal. I would just like to inform you that myself, as well as countless other editors have have issues with this problem editor. His sole purpose on wikipedia is to link the queen and monarchy to anything and everything, most of which are false or questionable. I have reverted his edits again today, which you had already reverted yesterday. I will try and keep an eye on it. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.8.70 (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This anonymous editor is most likely the sock puppeteer User:Po' buster; he's certainly been a disruptive individual and, if you haven't noticed, has evidently decided to hold a grudge against me. Believe you me, there are many eyes on him. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, and any IP user that defies his distorted views he considers "Po Buster" to discredit them. I think his edit warring, nonconstructive edits, and personal attacks speak for themselves. A quick glimpse at his user page history backs up the kind of character he is. But my intentions here weren't to criticizes him but to warm you to about his aggressive edit warring on numerous articles including the General Motors page I warned you about. 74.198.8.70 (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's any IP user who has both a very similar edit history and attitude to Po' buster that is likely Po' buster. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Mercury articles
I'd say that an official announcement on the Mercury website stating that the brand is closing down in 2010 would be about as good a source as you can get and as opposite to crystal balling as you can get. 2010 *is* the present - the dates in these car articles don't go by months. Do you really think Ford is going to reverse it's decision and resurrect the Mercury brand at the last minute?? Davez621 (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

EREV Redirect
Hi, I noticed you reverted a change by a user saying erev/Erev do not redirect to Chevrolet Volt. If you put either in the search it will go directly to the Volt's article. As for his Disamg edit I was pondering on what to do with that myself, it's an odd link, and not sure it's needed. Mcmatter (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Honda Accord brake issues
Hi Vossanova, today you removed a large section I had added on the Honda Accord brakes issue. The reason you gave was that HondaProblems.com & CarComplaints.com are not allowable sources; I noticed that issue is already being discussed on the Accord Talk page so I'll continue that discussion there.

However in your edit you also removed a section I had written on the brakes class action for which I had provided three sources that were not CarComplaints.com or HondaProblems.com: the official circuit court settlement website, the website of the class action plaintiff's law firm, & a New York Times article. However for that particular paragraph's removal, you provided no explanation. I believe the paragraph you deleted & the sources I provided are acceptable. Let me know why apparently they are not, so I can try to work around your concerns. If it was a mistake, please restore the content you inadvertently deleted. Thanks! Jmathis555 (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just FYI I've reposted my comments above to the Accord article talk page, since you replied there but not here. If you reply, please continue the discussion on the Accord talk page. Thanks! Jmathis555 (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Lexus template
As a recently involved editor on the Template:Lexus if you'd like please add your opinion about the recent edits. See discussion Template_talk:Lexus. Thanks Afghanihomi (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

parent company Q
beside parent company should we list all parents during production or just the current parent. because then it gets more complicated as there were the pre-ford days when it was produced by AB Volvo. what is the norm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.22.28 (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.22.28 (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice template
Just wanted to say thanks for making this lovely template, I've been doing similar things for Mitsubishi and Suzuki lately. I did some very minor edits, making the overlap of different generation Colts clearer. Cheers,  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃   (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It looks like 50s/postwar-70s and 80s-present works best for timelines.  It's by no means flawless, as I went mainly by Wikipedia articles, so changes are welcome.  I might add early trucks to the same timeline; I'm not sure there are enough for their own. --Vossanova o&lt; 16:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd say yes to the trucks, go for it. As for periods, I agree in general, but there are definitely times when a particular car company's lineup forces one to make different decisions. For instance, if someone executed a wholesale revision of their lineup in 1979, then I would end the first timeline at 1975. In ten years time, I'd say the time is ripe for having three Dodge timelines - assuming they're still around, that is.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃   (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Buick Century Edits
I appreciate your edits - reads better w/o the laundry list options. I'm new to this & welcome constructive criticism. Thanks for leaving the pic's - I wanted to show that Century went out with a bang, not just rental car versions! Mopar89 (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)