HAPPY NEW YEAR (refresh)

...

Archives

• 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 - Jan-Aug - Aug-Dec • 2014 - Jan-Aug - Aug-Dec • 2015 - Jan-Jun - Jul-Dec • 2016 - Jan-Jul - Aug-Dec • 2017 - Jan-Aug - Aug-Dec • 2018 - Jan-Jul - Jul-Dec • 2019 - Jan-Aug - Aug-Dec • 2020 - Jan-Jun - Jul-Dec • 2021 - Jan-Dec • 2022 - Jan-Dec • 2023 - Jan-Dec • 2024 - Jan-Dec Signpost Archive Tech News Archive Notes Recent Changes

May 23, 2024 Current UTC time and date (refresh)

This user has opted out of talkbacks

	Hello, Davey2010. You are invited to join WikiProject Brands, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of brands and brand-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. North America1000 18:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting removal of the episode list. This information is not appropriate for Wikipedia based upon the guidelines and discussions linked on the talk page of the article. You personally have participated in four of those discussions arguing the same—1, 2, 3, 4—that this content is not appropriate for Wikipedia. AldezD (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AldezD .... I'm a little confused .... I reverted my revert over 4 hours ..... –Davey2010^Talk 20:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He's done the same on two others by the way - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GiantSnowman/Will Jaaskelainen and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GiantSnowman/Jayden Reid. GiantSnowman 15:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GiantSnowman, The mind truly boggles!, Sorry I would've closed those 2 had I known, AH well, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for closing the first as well Hhkohh (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That's great, thanks! GiantSnowman 15:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Not that I'm crazy about white space-only edits either, but they're usually only a minor misdemeanor. In this case they (along with the fake edit summary) were an intentional smokescreen by DolphinCat (talk · contribs) to cover his tracks for the more serious violation he was trying to get away with. (And did get away with, for half a day; should've nabbed that earlier.) So not surprised you didn't see the gender thing at first glance; that was the whole purpose behind his numerous white space changes. By the way, when you want to "reply" or leave a note in the history via edit summary, you can use a dummy edit without having to change the article or resort to a modified Undo; here's some examples.) Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mathglot, I'm usually good at spotting stuff like that but somehow it just completely escaped me today so sorry about that,

He's certainly very sneaky that's for sure!,

Anyway inregards to the dummy edit I objected to the whitespace removal which is why I (partially) reverted - Had it been the infobox addition only then sure I would've done a dummy edit but I felt it was pointless to do a dummy edit and then change the infobox spacing again so I figured I'd kill 2 birds with one stone :),

Many thanks for your message, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Metro2Radio logo.png. 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 not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davey, I reverted your edit, because noting that you made a mistake. Vauxford's image shows an MK3 cabriolet image rather than an MK4 cabriolet. OSX's shows the MK4 cabriolet. I know this because one of my ex-teachers at school used to own one of these, and saw this at school. I hope you understand. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nim, I'll take another look, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:EurovisionNim, Many thanks for spotting that, Bizarrely I thought something was wrong when I added it .... that was it! , Anyway many thanks for reverting, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 11:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also another revert you made, of a perfectly fine Ford Kuga image that has been in the article without any problem, additionally Vauxford did some edits, which I approved of. How was Matthias image better than mine? Its completely squashed in and also its not showing the side view properly. I wasn't going to revert the edit, but you should understand that sometimes the best quality images do not have to be from the different authors. The previous photo was fine, and also it has been used without issue since August. It actually looks a lot nicer compared to the image. Why do you always believe that every article should have different authors? I am not being personal about my reverts, however I am slightly concerned about your editing behaviour, as it used to be how I made it. Also remember how you told me to follow WP:BRD? Well based on this edit, you reverted me back, thus not following WP:BRD. Also I am NOT mentioning CARPIX guidelines, this edit was based upon my years of experience in the car photography field. I've been mentored by a lot of people in relation to your images. Also note if I revert you, please discuss instead of reverting me. You are more than welcome to revert me IF I make the edit before you, and its not an improvement, otherwise I'll have to do BRD for you :) You are a caring friend and I don't want you to stress out. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider those images fine and so they should remain, Please don't use BRD as a way to secure your images on the article - It won't work. –Davey2010^Talk 11:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having compared both revisions I would say the front replacement image is much better however I agree the rear is not (because it doesn't show the whole car like the previous one did) so I've partially reverted, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've set a compromise as per [1]. Lets use M 93's image for the rear and then use mine for the front. That means that we get equal share and everyone is happy :-) --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 11:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, lets leave as is now :) --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 11:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also noted on this discussion you want me to have a topic ban for a year. Out of curiosity, isn't that a little bit harsh. Besides I've never had an ANI report before, this is my first time. I do indeed apologise, but I have indeed mellowed down lately. I've now stopped doing constant image replacements, rather I'm going to try and improve my shots. I guess that year I went too far, and I do indeed apologise for my behaviour that year. I guess now, its time for me to work on new sections. My latest edits, [2] [3] i've been working on adding citations to the articles. So I've suggested this compromise. Instead of implementing a topic ban from automobiles firmly, why don't you implement a topic ban for me for the year you propose from replacing images. This means that I can work on expanding the article with Australian market, as a lot of people haven't been willing to type some facts, so I can step away from the picture segment, for a while and work on typing and making Wikipedia better. This means reduced image wars, therefore I can ensure we have a very comprehensive encylopedia. I thought you would like to consider this suggestion :-). Again, I'm terribly sorry about my behaviour and cause. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 11:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nim, No worries, Happy editing, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please reconsider changing the topic ban to maybe 5-6 months please. I will definitely change my behaviour then :). Also my images would have been massively improved. Could you tell me what you expect of a high quality image to your standards please, I really want you to mentor me :) --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 13:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sorry but I still feel a year is better but ofcourse others may disagree with me, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just curiously why do you think? --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 13:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I explained on the ANI thread, Happy editing!. Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 13:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EurovisionNim Just because you stopped doing it now doesn't mean the topic ban should be stop, personally I'm siding with Davey for a year, seeing the reactions of other users and proven that I'm not the only one who find you difficult to work with as well as your attempt of vote stacking it and asking people like 1292simon and indirectly to Oshwah. These "compromises" that you been making is basically sweeping the problems you caused under the rug. Davey be careful when discussing with Nim, don't let your talkpage become like mine that is flooded with this sort of discussion on a daily basis. --Vauxford (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Vauxford, Many thanks for your comments, Glad to see I'm not the only one who's noticed the subtle canvassing going on,

Anyway hopefully the topicban will be enacted and hopefully it will resolve a lot of the issues here, If problems continue after that then we can always revisit ANI but that's a long way off yet!,

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Believe in second chances. I wasn’t aware that vote stacking was a blocKable policy. I never actually intended for the voting system to go to bias, I only sent him the message as I wanted him to see what his opinion of working with me was. It seems a little big undignified that I should be banned despite making constant apologies. Besides there are larger issues admins should be handling such as Sockpuppets, vandals etc.

The thing I was talking to Oshwah about was a quick question, it had nothing to do with the ANI discussion as he knows about it already. All I asked him to help me with is an issue about accessing the #Wikipedia-en. Another thing I was also confuse about was how if by enacting a topic ban I wanted someone to fully clarify what articles I cannot edit and what others I can. I feel like my time is to drive away other editors and not contribute well. But now looking back , I took the time to read your complaints and then I’ve suddenly felt you and me have been arguing too much about these silly little issues that was caused by me. Besides WP:VOTESTACK I was not even made aware of the issue but you lot need to jam it in my face so now I know. Which indeed I did. Some of these policies don’t really make any sense. Okay —EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 16:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - The image issue has been resolved, I would rather we didn't discuss ANI and all that, Thanks all. –Davey2010^Talk 16:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davey, this is a friendly reminder for you to stop replacing lower quality examples that do not comply to image standards (I.e. 3/4 angle and nice background) - theres no justification to replacing all the images back to their own versions. Remember quality is not all about pixels or background, if an image is representable then it should be used. I don’t intend for my reverts to stay but I’m only happy with replacements if they are higher quality and meet a certain requirement 😃—EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 17:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nim, Like I said I have an issue with the articles consisting ALL of Australian pictures, My replacements were all from different countries and as such should remain, I have no problem with Aussie pictures I just want articles to have a mixture ... not ALL from one country and ALL from one photographer (OSX) .... Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not being rude mate, but this is a really lame excuse. Do you intend on just shoving EU images. On the VW Golf MK7 article ONLY ONE image belonged to OSX and you think that all Australian images belong to him? Vauxford accused me of edit warring. Look I’m getting to the end of my ropes. I’m trying my best to illustrate with high quality shots but you and Vauxford gang up on me and accuse me of edit warring which I absolutely did not do. You were the one who started it and I reverted you and then you reverted back not following BRD. For one thing, I’m fed up of you swearing and just being a pain. You just try to annoy me for long time. I think Wikipedia is being riddled with mediocre images, yet you guys insist on replacing them for no reason. Look, Vauxford is being a pain by pushing his Golf image to the article when the white car was perfectly fine. How come you two just believe that UK cars should exist only, why? Is Australia not on the map? I don’t know, but it’s getrign me tired —EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 17:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]