User talk:Senators/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Yes - certainly you may.

Notice that the way the cars portal works is that all of the Featured and Good articles run for two or three specific dates out of each month - spread out so they change every day. Find two articles that each have three dates and steal one date from each to give your article two dates too.

Are you going to shoot for 'Featured Article' status?

SteveBaker 13:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a couple of tips for you which will hopefully make things a bit easier for you. First, remember you have a 'Show Preview' button, which can avoid filling the history page of an article with multiple edits over a short time, when many of the edits are fairly trivial. Also, in Wikipedia:Guide to layout, they recommend "Between paragraphs and between sections, there should be only a single blank line. Multiple blank lines unnecessarily lengthen the article and can make it more difficult to read."

Hope this helps, regards --DeLarge 23:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look at your article and it looks good! I suggest that you nominate the article for a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer_review. That way you'll get more people to look at your article and help with improvements. Aggelophoros 08:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind I just noticed that you (or someone else) has already done that! Aggelophoros 08:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Congratulations for getting your article up to standard to the state that it has been selected as a Good Article. Although the article is very good, it is lacking in some areas.

• references format ignored
• featured articles require free images - you need to go out with your camera and do so
• article is too short - move the info on the E Series to it's own section and expand on all subjects
• create infoboxes for each model (i.e. VP, VR, VS, etc)
• not enough information cited
• not easily interpreted by a person with little or no automotive knowledge - keep it simple - focus on the car more rather than how many kilowatts the engine is, etc. This information should be merged into the infoboxes

Regards OSX 07:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on most of OSX's points (I don't approve of removing detailed 'gear-head' information - but you need to organise it such that someone who is reading the "story" of the car doesn't get too distracted by it). I would like to emphasise the point about photos: You simply cannot use photos taken from copyright sources such as the manufacturer's website or scans of their brochures - we can't justify them under fair use - and sooner or later someone is going to delete all of your copyrighted photos...with some justification. The 'fair use' provisions don't cover you if there is a reasonable possibility of getting non-Copyright photos...and since the cars are not rare or anything, there is no reason that you could not (theoretically) obtain them. You need photos that either you took yourself (and released under one of WP's acceptable licenses) - or photos that someone is prepared to release to us under one of those licenses. The gallery at the bottom of the article is kinda useless - what we really need is a photo of each of the varients of the car - neatly lined up to the right of the section on that car so that people can visually compare them. I'd have liked to hear more about the history of the car: Who designed it? What market sector did it address? How did it fare in the market place? How many did they make? You indicate which year each varient was introduced - but not when it stopped being made. Go read my Mini article (which made featured article) for some ideas about the kinds of information that people like to see. SteveBaker 14:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You have recently opened a featured article review for HSV Senator Signature. I have closed the review since the featured article review process has the objective of reviewing articles that are already featured articles. If you are interested in reviewing HSV Senator Signature then I suggest Wikipedia:Peer Review. Take care. Joelito (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 00:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the Holden VE Commodore article to the Cars portal. Regards OSX 01:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Did you remember to nominate HSV Senator Signature on WP:GAN too? Just putting the GA nominee template on an article's talk page does not really nominate the article for WP:GA. It's actually the listing on WP:GAN that constitutes the official nomination.

Good luck --Ling.Nut 22:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the message you left on my talk page. I personally don't like what you've done to the introduction. You focus too much on the new E Series. That information needs to be transfered to the appropriate sub-heading. You need to specify more information about the car in general in the opening paragraph - rather than just talk about one model. As I said before can you please update the article to the new references section:

<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.example.com | title = Example: HSV introduces E Series | work = Example.com | accessdate = January 1 | accessyear = 2000}}</ref>

• Images. Sooner or later someone will delete ALL of the images on your page. Even if you just get an image of one of the cars that will be okay.
• Infoboxes for each model - transfer the fair-use images that you are going to replace into the box and remove them from the gallery once done so.
• More history on the car - design, development, recalls etc. See the VE Commodore article for some insight.
• Try uniform the notes section - some part are in CAPITALISED whilst other parts are not.
• The article is about an Australian car - not an American one. So try to keep all the specifications etc in metric from - and remove the imperial system units.
• The article goes into great detail stating what the capacity of the engine is, and the information is usually in the infobox. There is no need to have it in both. Most readers are not interested in how many kilowatts the engine is. Many will have no idea what it means. Save that information for the infobox.

Thanks for uploading Image:8rtsenfd.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a simmilar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. --Sherool (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for Image:Senator300 45px.jpg, Image:Z-Series Senator.jpg, Image:Lg 31928 1.jpg, Image:Sen99 wet lg.jpg, Image:20hsvM m.jpg, Image:VS Senator.jpg and Image:VR Senator.jpg from the HSV Senator Signature article. Also DO NOT simply change the tagging from "fair use" to GFDL or simmilar for no aparent reason like you had done for some of these. It's a rater serious breach of our rules, not to mention copyright law to try to pass off other people's work as free licensed without theyr express permission to do so (if you do have permission please follow the steps outlined at WP:COPYREQ so it's properly recorded so we can avoid any problems in the future). Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for any confution. I'm not asking you spesificaly to find free alternatives for all these. I just believe it should be reasonably possible to asume that someone out of the large number of of Wikipedia contributors (over 2 million registered acounts, sure the number of active contributors is significantly lower, but still) will be eable to. It may also be possible to ask for permission to release some of the existing images out there under a free license. As long as it's reasonably possible that such images can be created or found we should not be using "fair use images" in theyr place, since this tends to discourage the creation of free content replacements. The 7 day period is just to give you a little time to respond in case there are good reasons why it would be unreasonably hard for someone to obtain free licensed photos for some of these cars. --Sherool (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your request for review on my talk page: User talk:SteveBaker. SteveBaker 03:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request for a review of the article, I have looked over it and unfortunately I do not believe it is up to Good Article standard as yet. Firstly, a fair amount of work needs to be done to clarify the wording and language. SteveBaker has already mentioned many issues. Colloquialisms should be avoided since they don't fit the expected style of a wikipedia article and may confuse non-native English speakers. Additionally, I believe Australian English should be used for the article rather than American English (e.g: litre rather than liter), as the article is talking about an Australian car.

Spelling mistakes can be reduced if you make more use of the show preview/show changes feature when editing. This reduces the need to go back and make many minor corrections.

For the content of the article, there are quite a few glaring inaccuracies and inconsistencies which need to be addressed. For example, the Barra 190, 245T and 230 were featured on the BF Falcon, not the BA as listed in the infobox. A 6-speed automatic was also never available on the BA. The Barra six-cylinder engine is not a V6 but an inline six-cylinder. Correct information is available in the main Ford Falcon article. It seems you have copied the infobox directly from the main article.

Also for the infobox, dimensions and weight should probably be provided as a range since different variants have different mass/length/wheelbase etc. Info about the previous six-cylinder engine reaching only 5000 rpm is incorrect, as is the reference to a 5.6 litre engine.

I am not quite sure where you plan to go with the table under the engines section. Some of the engines listed were used in the AU Falcon and not in the BA. I'm not sure whether this is intended as a comparison between the two or mistakes. The alternating metric and imperial unit columns is also a bit confusing. Perhaps you could put the imperial units in brackets together with the metric units.

The development section is a good start in terms of what was done, and could be expanded on in terms of what Ford Australia's aims were and the reasons for implementing various changes. A history of development is also needed.

There is a lot of information on what convenience features such as power windows etc. are available (especially in the interior design section). This has a tendency to make the article sound like a brochure. Some features are repeated twice, such as the mention of "auto headlights." More care should be taken to make sure any added information fits the article. You should probably put less emphasis on listing unless it is a unique feature that no other car has. More emphasis should be placed on the qualities that define the model in question.

Overall, the article is a foundation that needs to be built on and possibly overhauled. Particularly, the development and safety sections are good starting points which can be expanded on to bring greater depth to the article. VectorD 12:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have a {{GAnominee|7 December 2006}} tag on Ford BA Falcon's talk page - but I can find no reference to that article on the WP:GA list?!? Are you sure you followed the nomination procedures correctly? You also asked me to nominate the article (I refused) on Dec 12th - five days AFTER you added that tag?!?

You have also added the article to the Portal:Cars/Selected article page - which is reserved for articles that have PASSED the WP:GA or WP:FA review phases - which this article has not.

This article needs a LOT more work before it's even ready for nomination to GA. Please remove all of these tags, get it out of Portal:Cars/Selected article and related places until such time as the article has reached the required standard.

I see you also added Holden VE Commodore to the Portal:Cars/Selected article - which is only a CANDIDATE for GA status - but has not yet been accepted.

Back in November, I removed HSV Senator Signature from the Portal:Cars/Selected article list too.

Let me make the process of article progression crystal clear for you:

1. Spell check and grammar check the article...you won't pass any of the review stages if you have even one spelling or grammatical mistake. All three of your articles are full of silly mistakes that a good word processor would have found for you.
2. Make sure you have copious references to back up all of the statements you make in your article. The reviewers will tear you to shreds is the article isn't carefully referenced with books and (to a lesser extent) authoritative web site references.
3. Nominate the article for Peer Review.
4. If you get responses, act on them. If there are lots recommendations, consider another Peer Review when you have finished fixing them.
5. Once Peer Review comes up 'clean', do a proper WP:GA nomination. Follow all of the instructions - it's not enough to put the template on the article's talk page.
6. If you pass WP:GA (which can take quite some time because there is a backlog) - then you can put the article up on Portal:Cars/Selected article.
7. If you don't pass WP:GA then you must not put your article onto Portal:Cars/Selected article because it's just not good enough yet. Instead you should read carefully what the reviewers say - fix up the article and go back to step (1) with another Peer Review.
8. If you pass WP:GA then carefully read the WP:FA nomination procedures - and check out all of their guidelines. There are all sorts of interesting suggestions there - things like the number of links you should typically expect to have, the average paragraph length...lots of good stuff like that.
9. In the unlikely event you pass WP:FA you can shoot for getting your article onto the Wikipedia front page - that entails yet another review process which is even tougher than WP:FA.

This is an intentionally tough set of hurdles to pass - but it is essential you follow the rules.

So - please start off by removing the incorrect tags from Talk: pages and removing your articles from the Portal:Cars/Selected article list - putting them up there is just unfair to those of us who have sweated blood to get their articles up to the required standards - and it's unfair to our readership who go to that portal page expecting to see really good articles listed there - only to arrive at Ford BA Falcon with it's many, many faults.

This has to stop - OK.

SteveBaker 13:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Senators, 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 {{Wiki Auto Project}} where you want the userbox. Alternatively if you don't like the userbox you can add [[Category:WikiProject Automobiles members|Senators]] 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, James086^{Talk | Contribs} 04:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the heck you are doing! You added a template to the BA Falcom page saying it's being peer reviewed - when it wasn't. Then you created the peer-review sub-page for it - and then added it into the peer review list - then deleted it again?!? Are you confused about the procedures? It certainly looks like it. SteveBaker 02:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

22:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

To make a signature (other than the default) you just make it out of wikicode (so I reccomend using a sandbox first and meddling til you have one that you like). Then once you have one that you like, copy the code into the "Signature" box in preferences, and tick the "raw signature" box. The code for my signature is

• [[User:James086|James086]]^{[[User talk:James086|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/James086|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]]}

and when looking in the box when you edit pages, it takes up just under 2 lines. Generally 3 lines is the maximium before people get irritated (see WP:SIG for more guidelines). The font for "talk" and "contribs" is in superscript (using  tags) and I changed the colour using <font color="green"></font> although you can also use the web colours in hex using the code <font color="#FF5500"></font>. I hope I helped, if you have any more questions feel free to ask. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 10:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I couldn't do more - holidays are such a busy time. At the end of the page WP:WIAFA is a list from other editors of how to improve your article - all worth reading. Good luck ! Sandy (Talk) 03:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the numerous messages you have left on page over the past few hours it seems quite clear that you are wanting to make the article Ford BA Falcon to make GA status. Let me just tell you that the article itself is very good, but I personally believe it needs just a little bit more attention. The information that I fell that the article is lacking is background information on the car, e.g. more development history and the order that the subheadings are arranged should be arranged into a hierarchy. i.e. the development should go first then the design, the performance and handling etc. Also more information needs to be cited.

Secondly, no I do not plan on expanding the article on the Ford BF Falcon any time soon. Then you may ask why I created it. The simple reason was because it was mentioned in the article Holden VE Commodore, and there was no link. If someone wanted to know what a Ford BF Falcon was they would not know. Regards OSX 06:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed your message on another page noting your willingness to help with reviewing articles. Could you take a look and if you have the time, edit, the Ohio Wesleyan University article. I am among the editors trying to get it to FA status. Thank you so much for your assistance! WikiprojectOWU 20:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the article and rewritten a few parts of it. Mostly it is a good article, but you need to keep in mind not to tail off your sentences (e.g. one part was discussing the engines; the sentence didn't seem to end). That'll be half the battle won for GA if the spelling/grammar and general "feel" of the article is a-okay. Anyway, it's good to see your enthusiasm for this article to hit GA. Best of luck! SMC 02:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your request, I have already written about numerous factual inaccuracies on the article's talk page. These issues need to be addressed immediately. Overall, the article is progressing, but it is still lacking in some info (such as MkII info) as you yourself admit and I believe it wouldn't be right to submit it for GA when it is incomplete. It would also be great if a few more photos could be included in the article, but I understand the difficulty in finding free use images for the car. VectorD 01:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added further issues on the article's talk page. I'm actually quite surprised that the article was nominated 3 days after VectorD had left a list of issues that had not apparently been addressed when it was nominated. --Athol Mullen 02:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be more specific when asking someone what they think could be done to improve an article. This is exactly what you wrote on my talk page just minutes ago: What can I add to the Ford BA Falcon article to make it look better. What do you mean by looking better? Having more pictures? Bright colours? More information? I am unable to know what you mean when you are not being specific. Also as someone mentioned on your talk page once before there is a show preview button situated right next to the save page button. There really is no need to save an article ten times in one session. All this does is floods watchlists, and takes up unnecessary disk space on Wikipedia's servers. I understand that at times you may forget to make one or more changes to an article after saving, if you could make use of the show preview button in future it would be much appreciated. OSX 09:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a large list of things to do on the article's talk page that needs to be addressed before this article can be granted GA Status. Although it would probably be in your best interest to read through the article several times and check it for mistakes and any conflicting wording. I found the printing off the article on the VE Commodore was beneficial, as I found several errors that I failed to pick up on screen.

I also ran a semi-automatic JavaScript program on the article which gave the following suggestions:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 100 kilograms, use 100 kilograms, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 100&nbsp;kilograms.
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia: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.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
• 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.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, OSX 06:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once all of the above issues have been addressed, then I think the article can be nominated for GA Status. Regards OSX 06:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly new to this whole thing so, If a similar picture was uploaded as fair use would it be acceptable?

If an official picture of the car can not be used, then I would suggest that an image of a BFII is found to replace the BA now used, as it would be best to feature the current model and since this picture is also being used as the feature on the BA Falcon page.

Please look at the contributions made by 61.68.33.253.

They seem to be rather biased, and contains incorrect information (as per the figures I found), Falcon outsold Commodore from 1982 until the VT was launched. Falcon engines at many times have either matched or surpassed the output of Commodore engines (Mainly the I6, but sometimes the V8 as well). And I am not sure if Commodore is Australia's best seller of 'all time'. Falcon had been selling for almost 20 years before Commodore was first released.

I look forward to your input in this matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bigal 250 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi! Saw your offer to help my friend User:Chris the speller. Maybe I can ask you for help with Eskaya. --Pinay (talk•email) 07:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks...peer review of Eskaya. You might like to do it. --Pinay (talk•email) 11:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment - "Good amount of general information is visible but, it lacks valuable “hidden” information, this means start focusing on the little information instead of all the outlined info." - May I ask for specifics. I don't know what this means. Is this about hypertext links? Please respond in my talk page. Thank you for the nice review. --Pinay (talk•email) 02:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. Kmzundel 18:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you ran the PR script on several articles at WP:PR, and would like to thank you for your enthusiasm.

However, do you think it would be possible if instead of putting the results on WP:PR, but instead to move them onto the current WP:PR/A page (Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/July 2024)? This is for 2 main purposes: (a) prevents size of WP:PR from becoming too large (normally, WP:PR is about 300kb, w/ the script suggestions it reaches ~700kb), (b) the script doesn't have full concensus. If you scroll down WP:PR, you should notice that some PRs have a one line link to WP:PRA/J07 (from APR), which helps to keep organization while not overwhelming the nominators.

If you would like to continue helping maintain WP:PR/A, just drop a note on my talk page and I can show you a couple of quick ways to speed up the process. Thanks again, AZ _t 22:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On your User:Senators/monobook.js, add the line maintain2_PR = true;. This will automatically generate the link to WP:PR/A when editing any subpage of WP:PR. Ex, if you open up Wikipedia:Peer review/Execution of Saddam Hussein/archive1, it will automatically create the 1-line msg, fill in the edit summary, and saves it for you.

It does some other more minor things (adds the headings, selects it for easy copy+pasting, etc). From there, I usually copy all of the output onto someplace (note/wordpad, MS word), and then move it onto the top of the list of Requests at Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/July 2024

It is possible to further automate it, but that would pretty much kill any other activity you could do on the WP (that's why I use a second account). Thanks again, AZ _t 22:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you did post that the article recieved an automated peer review, I found nothing on the automated peer review page...---- (十八) 03:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I thought the list of equipment was spam. It read like a buyers guide, which is why I decided to remove it. The fewer lists in articles, the better. You could bring this up on the project talk page and see what everyone else thinks about having those.

As for FA status, it's going to be rough. As the objections say, it reads like a list. I have the impression that most car articles as a rule defy FA criteria anyway. That aside, good luck on it. --Sable232 03:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One question. Why replace <br> with <br/>? The result (in infoboxes at least) is the same. Also, I noticed on some of your cleanups paragraphs that showed up as changed in the diff, but nothing in the paragraph was actually changed. I'm not familiar with the automatic editing stuff, so I'm just curious as to what it does. --Sable232 05:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot can only be operated by me, sorry. However, if you describe what you want to do, I may be able to do it for you, or advise you on how to create a bot of your own. fetofs ^Hello! 23:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For now, you should take a look at the AutoWikiBrowser (unless you don't use Windows, in which case you would have to learn how to program a bot yourself), it is very simple to use. I hope it accomplishes what you want to do. fetofs ^Hello! 12:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Holden ss.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:55142 3mg.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:VY-Commodore.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the States.

Came across your Volvo S80 post. Given that Wikipedia is about the facts, I have several hundred folks from around the world who want to warn others about this car. Safe (my 3rd Volvo), but tragically unreliable.

I didn't want to post without running it by someone independent first. Let me know if you want to discuss.

Best regards,

Rick Janezic volvo.s80.owners@gmail.com rjanezic@gmail.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.111.94.91 (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I will answer any questions as soon as possibleSenators^{Talk | Contribs} 05:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello. i have only posted messages on talk pages who had indicated that they wished to be adopted, so i do not see how that could be vandalism. secondly this occurred about a week ago and much progress has been made since then. Messages were left to 1) find the active adoptees and pair them with adopters and 2) find the inactive adoptees and remove their tags. we have (so far) found 18+ adoptees spread over 6+ adopters. If you wish to become an adopter, please let me know how many you can handle and i'd be happy to help you out. Matthew Yeager 23:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have adoptees for you ! i have already spoken with these adoptees and have most of the voncersation on their page. User:Tyler Gothier just has random questions, nothing big. User:Polishname is the one who really wants to learn. i gave him some info on tables and whatnot that he asked about, but i'm sure he'll have more quesitons. just got User:Duality344 recently, dont know much about him. let me know if you need any help or have questions buddy. Matthew Yeager 01:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Senators, I would love to be adopted by you, I need a good mentor. So, when possible, please message me back, and if you have and instant messenger (I have YIM, MSN, and AIM), so, if you would like to talk, just message me back. User:JpGrB