Hullo. Please Click Here to leave me a new message. Please see my user page for more information about me.
To messages left on my talk page, i respond on my talk page. If you are responding to a conversation I started on your talkpage, please respond there - rest assured I have bookmarked your page and won't miss your responses.
You can write to me in any of the languages mentioned on my userpage. Usually I'll answer in English, unless you write in Swedish, then I'll use Swedish myself.
All messages on my talk page are archived once the page gets uncomfortably large.
Please do not remove/revert things here, as I like to archive everything.
I need help of how to add a template that you made, "User uploads by year".
I already created categories of cars that were registered by decade and then years. (Only for 1990s, 2000s and 2010s) but I don't know how to add the template and make it work properly. --Vauxford (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Vauxford: . It's pretty much the same thing you did, I am not sure what part of it is giving you problems. Mine are sorted with a sortkey at the end of the categorization, but it was all done manually. Very time consuming to do on one's existing uploads but now that I do it to all my uploads it's quite simple. Show me a link to your attempt and I'll help you out if I can. Best, mr.choppers (talk)-en-19:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vauxford: - figured out the problem, not sure how to solve it (elegantly, at least). I made it so that the subcats' name is the same as the main category, with just the year added. Your ndash makes it not work with the template as written. I changed your page so that now it lists all of the other pages, but now there is a redlink there instead. I hope you can see what I mean. mr.choppers (talk)-en-01:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:AirAsia interior.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).
Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.
Just an update to the comment section, for the picture of the RC Cola Porsche 962. 1 correction needed....it was raced by Dyson Racing, not Andial. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 108.36.104.207 (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm wondering where about do you put your AP (the little box thing on your camera screen). It just a shame seeing your photos all in the best situation to be ruined by the subject not being focused properly, e.g. the car is focused on one half but not the other. Are you using the tracking focus or the live 1-point AF? When I first got my DSLR I had this problem when one half of the car is focused not the other, turns out I was using the tracking focus which after covers one half of the screen. I solved this by switching to 1-point AF and moving the AP to the middle of the car, that way it will balance the focus overall. --Vauxford (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh man, just spent a half hour fiddling with my camera and realized that the diopter was on a crazy setting - meaning I was never really able to tell whether the focus was right. No wonder I never had any luck with the manual focus either - I thought I was just retarded, which I guess I was, but in another manner. mr.choppers (talk)-en-02:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
I see that you are not a gentleman and refuse to delete your pics of my car as I asked you to. I do remember you and can't wait to see you again.
120ZACK120 If you get this worked up over people photographing your car, which in the photos, appears to be at some meet up where possibly hundreds of people have their cameras and phones out taking pictures, why did you bring your car there in the first place? --Vauxford (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.
A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.
There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal!
With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
I'm not sure what you are referring to (the '68 LTD? The original receipt was on display), but the only Ford products I would consider owning are an RS200 or a Mark I Escort wagon. Best, mr.choppers (talk)-en-14:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nah, I was just sorting a bunch of photos of Fords from the period and realized that this one is a MY1969. The Custom 500 has an additional "500" script that is missing from the one you photographed. I would love to see this car lovingly restored (ie not too shiny). mr.choppers (talk)-en-15:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eddaido: Actually, it gets worse - non-supercharged Sharknoses were Model 96 (in 1938/39). I can find little to no information about Graham's 1940 lineup, everyone only wants to talk Hollywood. mr.choppers (talk)-en-04:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you making allowance for the manufacture of the next model year beginning the previous August? Have you considered when Graham ended manufacture? (I don't remember but its about then) My only concern is that they should have been taken from appearing individually in the model year system which I think's now fixed. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Moved from my talk page) Eddaido, an Oldsmobile F-36 is a 1936 Oldsmobile F-series. They are all model year 1936. For US cars, this is what matters, as that is when changes in design take place. Whether the car was built in December 1935 or January 1936 doesn't matter when it comes to model years. mr.choppers (talk)-en-18:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I know we are both aware of that. "My only" real "concern is that they should have been taken from appearing individually in the model year system which I think's now fixed" (see above). Cheers and regards, Eddaido (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.
Possible acceptable uses of this ability:
To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.
The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eddaido: Looks like a Chevrolet, I am at work so I can't really do too much research right now... I say upload them all, whether we can figure them out or not. Many are even labelled already. That two-nosed Tempo is really interesting, can't wait to find out more about it. mr.choppers (talk)-en-14:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't see why. What use would it be? Once we gather like with like (there weren't really myriads) we can see the likenesses — which is why I hate those burrows (solitary sub-categories) some are so fond of. I hate them because one cannot see them (without a lot of difficulty and a good visual memory) to identify the images by looking at what we have on file now. All the Rootes vehicles together by year? Why? Eddaido (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Mr.choppers, just wondering, is there any difference between the Volvo 21134 A-F, M-P model codes cosmically? I have this photo of one from the NEC Classic Car Show, the example is 1965 and was imported August this year. Usually if the DVLA didn't get given the exact date for when it was registration in it original country would simply put 31st December XXXX. This makes me unsure whether this car was either a Volvo 21134 E (August '64 to August '65) or a F (August '65 to August '66) (Date range information I got from the German Wikipedia article of the PV445).
In a nutshell I can't tell if this car was registered before or after August 1965 so I thought there must be some minor difference between them, thanks. --Vauxford (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vauxford: The Duett, being a workhorse, saw very few annual changes. The last six model years had the B18 engine and 12V electrics, although I think that 1966 Duetts have the B18 badge on the left hand of the grille and 1965s have it on the right side of the grille, with a Volvo logo on the left side. If I could see the picture it would help. Volvo kept track of the model years, but it didn't always signify any modifications. See page 9 here for the colors through the years - if it is dark blue then it's definitely an F. mr.choppers (talk)-en-01:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Vauxford: , that looks to be an F, which would make it a 1966 model year vehicle. Volvo have traditionally carried out their annual changes in August/September. Is it okay if I change the title accordingly? Best, mr.choppers (talk)-en-02:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Mr.choppers Thank you for your indication : "I think you should probably stop using cat-a-lot; a lot of miscategorizations and assumptions" (link) and your cancellations, some of which, as you say "doubtful" (link). It shows that I am a human and not a robot, if we consider that the error is human. But, you are right, I will raise my level of attention so that it is as fair as possible categorizations to reduce the threshold of uncertainty.
Regarding the use of cat-a-lot, I take care, beforehand, to open the corresponding page before putting it in the list of the gadget, in 80% of cases. But, I recognize that I can make mistakes.
Regarding the indication : "assumption". Without the presence of a label dedicated to the year of manufacture, if the vehicle is present in an international showroom for the current year, effectively, I consider that the model photographed in the same year corresponds to the year of manufacture, for example. More delicate with army vehicles, I focus on the years of photography so that the user has knowledge, in the ranking by years, the existence of military vehicles manufactured by the brand and so to continue our educational vocation and information sharing. For bicycles, mopeds and scooters, I take care to read the corresponding Wikipedia articles so that the dates correspond to the existence of the product.
Regarding the indication : "lot of miscategorizations". Thousand excuses, I can have moments of weakness. I will make sure that I am as accurate as possible. I seem to be quite attentive to the quality of the contributions in which I participate and to be thanked regularly, in addition to the courses that I teach daily to learn how to contribute on Wikipedia.
Regarding the classification by years and by brands that I have been carrying out for a few months, my motivation is driven by the desire to understand this industrial evolution over time and thus complement us in our tasks between the existence of models and their evolutions. Then, it will be possible for us with the creation of the corresponding pages to also complete the existing Wikipedia by indicating the distinctions that characterize each model with their particularities and put the story in its correct chronology. Having classified old books for twenty years, I moved stacks of books of uncertainty mentioned as "errors" to finally find a place that became "logical". It is also and "a little" what we do here, we have "uncertainties" and we try to make "logical".
Reflections of improvements. For lack of label mentioning the year of construction or that this is validated by a date, when importing new files for example. To improve categorization, it could be envisaged to create a categorization of the type : 2005 Peugeot automobiles photographed this year (for example) and thus to distinguish manufactured vehicles from photographed vehicles.
My wish, as much as my goal, is to be able to complement us in our contributions to provide users with knowledge of developments in the automotive industry with all the educational diversity understandable by a large audience. I again apologize to you, if sometimes I make mistakes in the quantity of contributions I make. I still consider myself in the learning phase where many subjects are to be discovered in the vast Wikimedia project. Cordially, —— DePlusJean (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you again for reporting my errors I started to fix them and I will check my contribution history to correct my youth error. The contributor Navigator84 also canceled some of my contributions to confirm my errors. I allow myself to use your page to thank him. The logic is well preserved, we all learn from our mistakes. Another sincere thank you for your indications and correcting me in my errors of contributions. Cordially, —— DePlusJean (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For cars registered in the UK it is usually possible to find out (1) the year of manufacture and (2) the year of first registration in the UKhere. Though GiGo applies: if the person registering the car gave the English bureaucrats wrong data, especially with older cars, that's the data that gets shared on the government website.
For Dutch license plates, look here - though other links are mentioned on Vehicle registration plates of the Netherlands. Mr C may be more up to date on the relevant links than I am. I think they may have changed recently.
For French cars, till about ten years ago the sequential numbers at the start of the license plate ran chronologically under most circumstances, but was administered on a departmental level. So if you are familiar with the department in question you can probably check approximately which number relates to which year of first registration simply by finding someone helpful to check records at the prefecture. Mais comme tu as l'air d'etre de la francophonie, j'estime que tu devriais beaucoup mieuz que moi maitriser telles choses. These days France and Italy simply use a national chronological sequence, though I'm not sure if they insist on changing the number if you move house. this table looks potentially useful for newer cars.
Changing plates when you change your residence used to be the problem with dating cars registered in Germany and Switzerland. Don't know if it still is. For Belgium there's a single national sequence, but as far as I remember it follows the owner rather than the car, which is less helpful than you might hope for in this context.
Sadly I've no idea how it works with cars registered in Sweden, but no doubt there's a wikipedia entry on Swedish license plates somewhere.
I appreciate you may both know all this stuff already. But if you didn't, and if it helps, then good. Wikipedia can never be perfect, but of course that is no reason why we should not try to make it better! Success Charles01 (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi all. I think it best not to assign a model year to a vehicle unless it can be stated with some certainty. Being in a show room is a pretty good indication (except that model years usually shift in August or September and often leftover cars are sold new long afterwards). Like Charles says, many jurisdictions allow you to look a vehicle up using the plate number. But definitely go slower, better to have no model year category than the wrong one. mr.choppers (talk)-en-01:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your information mr.choppers and Charles01 Completely agree with your statements mr.choppers. The presentation of vehicles in international fairs allows an indication of current models to the nearest year according to the manufacturer's instructions, except, obviously for the part of the presentations of vintage cars. My misunderstanding of association between the date of manufacture and the date of photography is specific to the Peugeot brand. Each brand with its particularities, I thought for a moment that the project was sufficiently successful for this brand and that the seriousness of the depositors led to believe that the date mentioned was the date of manufacture, which is a regrettable error on my part which I will correct. A big sincere thank you for your additional information Charles01. Your indications gave me ideas so that we centralize our resources in the Commons:WikiProject Automobiles to help other participating contributors and the community. I also searched and tested to recognize license plates in France (link) and Italy (link). Personally, I have a few hundred photographs of automobiles produced in France pending and these links will allow the description to be completed in order to provide complete information. Thanks again to both of you ! I correct my errors and I will ensure that my future assignments comply with the contents of the descriptions. —— DePlusJean (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Carrozzeria Abarth logo and badge.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.
While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.
Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!
I think the Mercedes logo is below the threshold of originality. The Abarth logo is a bit more complex which makes it above the threshold of originality. But I agree that there are a lot of photos of car logos that actually should be deleted from Commons.Jonteemil (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you please use my talk page and remove the deletion requests such as this one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marie-Claude_St-Laurent_au_Espace_Go.png while keeping the images instead of taking them down? Since last December, Myloufa began adding deletion requests to photos like crazy and most of them were retained (some were taken down). Just write "Kept per Deletion requests." THis also applies to the two-year-old Évelyne Gauthier pic from November 2017. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wyoming 88!: Do you speak English? If you write in your own language perhaps I could understand what you are trying to ask me. If this is about using a photo I uploaded, all Wikipedia images allow for commercial reuse, so go ahead. You just have to credit me (Mr.choppers at Wikimedia Commons). Best, mr.choppers (talk)-en-16:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Boivie: Coolt! Då korrigerar jag. Tack för att jag fick veta hur i h-e en Stellar kom till Sverige; det är ju typ en av de minst intressanta bilar som någonsin byggts. Jag älskar när folk gör sig trubbel för att ta in dylika alldagliga vagnar. Min konfirmationspräst hade varit stationerad i Yokohama och tog med sig en 1986 Mitsubishi Mirage 1.3 CG (en Colt, alltså). Han ville inte kosta på sig en kort skylt där bak, så han bara böjde en standardskylt. Inga bilder, tyvärr. Mvh mr.choppers (talk)-en-22:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tack för korrigeringen. Min Stellar ägdes först av ett svenskt par som jobbade i Kuwait. Efter ett par år tog de hem bilen till Sverige och förutom 1990, när de var gisslan hos Saddam, så använde de bilen varje sommar när de var hemma på semester. Själv var jag sjukligt intresserad av Hyundai, och gillar bakhjulsdrivna bilar, så jag letade reda på bilens ägare med hjälp av fordonsregistret och kontaktade ägarna samma sommar som de hade planerat att sälja bilen. Nu har bilen dock varit avställd i många år, och börjar bli mer och mer förfallen. Och på tal om böjda skyltar (och ganska alldagliga import-bilar), på den här bilen fick jag också böja den röda tillfälliga import-skylten. Den gula Luxemburg-skylten på bilden har för övrigt ingen koppling till den bilen; jag importerade den direkt från Japan till Sverige. boivie (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Boivie: Wow, cool samling! En Mark II Blit räknar iallafall inte jag som alldaglig! De enda bakhjulsdrivna jag ägt är en '93 240 Classic och en '87 Peugeot 505 Turbo S. Bor i NYC så det är lite struligt att ha bil övh här. mr.choppers (talk)-en-02:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you know who I'm? Do you remember me? Do you know? I'm that Zeroteam385 guy, that you banned so MANY times. Do you think I'm some kind of retarded freak huh? I have a girlfriend and 2 kids, so I'm not what you think! Also if you ban me one more time I will put a sockpuppet category at your account, also that Checkuser thing is illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A02:587:DC07:AC00:99E3:8A66:15F3:1CCE (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You would have to tell them yourself. For that to work you'd have to make it believable that you a) understand what you were doing wrong and b) that it won't keep happening. Yelling over here isn't gonna accomplish much. Best, mr.choppers (talk)-en-20:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BlueCrabRedCrab: Thanks! Tips? Don't be shy, don't be afraid of having to explain yourself to owners who cannot understand why you're photographing a nineties' Saturn. A polarizing filter has been very helpful to me. I am a bit of a lunatic and usually bring a tripod so that I can take several photos, which allows me to remove most of the glare and reflections. mr.choppers (talk)-en-18:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2019 BMW M5 Competition in Silver, front right (US).jpg[edit]
Rummaging around the automobile articles and I must say, I really like that M5 you took. Massive improvement from what I previously seen and it seem you cured the one half focused/one half blurred problem. I recommend trying to nominate that as QI if I was you. --Vauxford (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BlueCrabRedCrab: - I usually just carry a camera with me in my car. Sometimes I will go to a garage and see if there is anything of interest, then I will just stroll around there. Most interesting cars seem to hang out at the wrong side of the tracks or where the super rich congregate. Best, mr.choppers (talk)-en-13:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't do the vandalism in the GAZon and GAZelle pages. The IPs are different and I have mostly stopped being interested in Wikipedia, so please do not say the "usual IP vandal" since I didn't commit, I would like you to answer me if you can. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A02:587:DC79:2F00:5160:26FA:22F4:7C75 (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a family and two kids and I can send you pictures to prove that so I'm not a loser as you may think, I just edited Wikipedia, Okay I know that I did write fake things in some articles, but that doesn't mean that I'm a loser. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A02:587:DC79:2F00:558F:3E55:C9F:C60D (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vandalism is for losers, but I am not even sure I called you that. That came from inside yourself. Anyhow, go hug your kids! Or don't hug them if they'd rather not (mine is in a no-hug stage), but make them a sandwich or something. Take care, mr.choppers (talk)-en-17:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:NYS 141C, physician motorcycle.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise,everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
I am a Newsweek journalist preparing the article In Photos, Most Popular Cars of the Last 50 Years.
I am looking to use your picture of a:
1975 Cutlass 4-door sedan
Would this be possible? If so, could you email me at t.fish@newsweek.com
(By the way, I am also looking for the following models - between following age bracket. Can you help?
1978 - 1981: Oldsmobile Cutlass
1983: Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme
1984 - 1985: Chevrolet Cavalier
1986: Chevrolet Celebrity
1987 - 1988: Ford Escort
I use Sony A7M3 and photography is my hobby and way of surviving through this world :)
This particular photo was made with no commercial benefit for me thus I uploaded it here and granted unlimited rights for its use. BTW, there was no lighting used for this shot, only natural ambient light coming through the trees, that's why it's pretty dark. The real car colour appears to be brighter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SsrKelso (talk • contribs) 03:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the Nissan X-Trail photo that was deleted, you claimed that a Nissan publicity shot you uploaded was freely licensed. In general, when you upload photos it benefits you to retain the EXIF information, and with no other history aside from other deleted uploads I am going to go ahead and not believe you. mr.choppers (talk)-en-12:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, will do this in my further uploads. Didn't know that fact about EXIFs requirement in Wikipedia resources. As for X-Trail, that was not my photo, yet from open resource, that's why I mentioned about its copyrights.
Could you please follow me on what shoud I add to my currently uploaded Terrano shot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SsrKelso (talk • contribs) 09:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.
Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.
@Xunks: are you a bot? If not, please do us all a kindness and check the edit history before carelessly nominating things for deletion. Miurasvjotablanked the file about two weeks ago, you could have simply restored that content. What if I had stopped editing in the interim? Then this file would have simply been deleted in error and none would have been the wiser. Thanks. mr.choppers (talk)-en-03:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hi i saw you have pictures of my geo storm wagonback at radwood greenwich but the description has me confused and i was wondering if i could talk to you about it. also my phone number is blanked. 24.164.186.8301:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I am sorry, I described based on my memory of the conversation and (I think) the VIN. Feel free to message me here, this is public so I advise you not to post any of your personal information. mr.choppers (talk)-en-01:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Ah... I know what you mean. My wife feels even stronger about this; anything beyond adjusting levels is a form of lying in her eyes. I also photoshop out neighboring cars, litter on the ground, and remove rust spots or restore hubcaps - all in order to focus strictly on the car. To me, a blank or blurred license plate is more distracting than an altered one, but it takes too long so I only do it rarely. mr.choppers (talk)-en-11:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Nissan P40 engine in 160-series Safari, at Belmont 2019.jpg[edit]
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_front_right.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_IMG_3775.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=722783269&oldid=59309304){kind=link}
