User talk:ApolloBoy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Headline text

Welcome to Wikipedia! It's nice to have another contributor to the automobile articles! Just a few comments - are the dates you're putting in model years or calendar years? We've normally listed the former. Also, your images need a copyright tag - I suggest {{Fairuse}} for the corporate images. --SFoskett 20:40, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] And the WikiMedal goes to...

I award this WikiMedal for Janitorial Service to ApolloBoy for his tireless work enhancing leftover automobile articles with infoboxes and doing all the seemingly small things by the way, including correcting more carefree Wikipedians like myself.

Feel free to move it to your user page, I didn't want to place it there to interfere with your desired layout. You surely do deserve it, and I hope you will continue with your precious work even after receiving this :D Bravada Talk to me! 00:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

PS. BTW, is there any way we can have better control over templates and images floating in articles? I see that you are probably using a lower screen resolution than I do (1024x768 fullscreen), and I gather that what looks good on my screen looks terrible on your, and vice versa.

[edit] GM Engine Controversy of 1977+

A.B., may I direct your attention to Talk:Chevrolet Caprice, where I've just added a note that we need some discussion of GM's decision in 1977 to equip various-brand cars with various-brand engines. This was in contrast to the previous practise of Chevrolets using only Chevrolet engines, Oldsmobiles using only Oldsmobile engines, etc. It caused a big furore amongst owners who felt cheated they'd received an "off-brand" engine in their new car. There were class-action lawsuits, front-page stories, the whole shemozzle. I find myself without the time or (to be honest) the interest to do the research needed to present the story accurately. Do you? (BTW, take a look at the picture I found in my stash and posted in the 1977-1990 section of Chevrolet Caprice. That's a BUX (export) model...spot the detail differences?) Scheinwerfermann 01:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds interesting. Give me some time to do some research and I'll see what I can do. --ApolloBoy 02:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You may want to see if you can find a copy of "On a Clear Day, You Can See General Motors", John DeLorean's scathing critique of what he (correctly) perceived as GM's gross management failures. The issue is discussed at some length therein. Scheinwerfermann 03:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for reverting the recent vandalism to my userpage and talk page :). Fabricationary 19:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rfc: wiarthurhu

I'm sorry to say your endorsement of Mmx1 is consistent with your behavior on WP, and scarcely better, you were my first bad experience with WP editors, and I can't say your research, knowledge or credentials are any better than Mmx1. You do a web search on F-14 and air superiority fighter and you tell me if Mmx1 has the right to remove any statement that the F-14 was an air superiority fighter. We're talking rules and regulations, and he's posting outright incorrect information.--matador300 17:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"and I can't say your research, knowledge or credentials"

Why do you care so much about credentials? You don't need credentials to be a car enthusiast! And I am well aware of your dispute with Mmx1, but I don't see him posting incorrect information. If you want my opinion on the F-14 matter (even though aircraft aren't my expertise at all), I'd say the F-14 was a multi-role fighter, because I think it looks too big and heavy to be just an air superiority fighter. --ApolloBoy 01:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

He changed the F-14 article from "one of the most maneuverable" to "though it was not designed to be maneuverable" on the basis of "facts" he constructed from two open source articles that don't even support that assertion, one of them simply didn't mention maneuverability, the other one said the swing wings helped make it maneuverable. His logic is just abysmal, his research ability only slight better when I can come up to a half to a dozen citations, which he refutes every one, and he can't come up with a single source besides the two original ones and ones I give him that he turns around. There are many people on the net who believe the F-14 wasn't designed to be maneuverable, and I believe Mmx is one of the major reasons for this misunderstanding. I'd be wary of supporting, or editing in the same style as him, and you share the same trait of reverting just about anything I put it, verifiable or otherwise, withing hours if not minutes of entry.

Anyways, don't screw up the LTD, it looks like there are some valid info in there, but it's just bloody awful prose. I would actually like to merge all the full-size ford pages together, but then we might clash again. I used to go to the Ford dealer and collect all the literature from 1968 to 1973, so I _do_ have some credentials that somebody who wasn't alive back them might have. Remember, you thought there wasn't a two door hardtop Matador when we had that pinewood derby picture that you removed that proved there was one. Can I put that picture back as an example of NASCAR and 2-door rather than a toy? --matador300 17:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"Can I put that picture back as an example of NASCAR and 2-door rather than a toy?"

No, but if you can find an actual picture of the hardtop in NASCAR instead, I'd allow it. --ApolloBoy 17:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And who says you get to decide??--matador300 21:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just saying it would be better if you put in an *actual* picture, not some misproportioned Pinewood Derby car. --ApolloBoy 22:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chevette

My young padewan, please fact check. I'll add it back, but several articles state that the Cavalier replaced not only the Monza coupe, but the Chevette for 2 and 4 door sedans. Check it out, you have much to learn --matador300 21:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What articles? I don't see any other articles that state so, and there's no way the Cavalier replaced the Chevette because the two overlapped for 5 years and were positioned at different spots in Chevy's lineup (the Chevette was a subcompact, the Cavalier was a compact). Even the Edmunds article you listed says that the Cavalier was a step up from the Chevette, not a replacement. Read your sources carefully. --ApolloBoy 22:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dodge Vans

Wow, that was a fair amount of work undoing the damage done by the improper consolidation. I get the sense that the perpetrator of the improper consolidation enjoys making work for others to prove he exists. It's very tiresome. And then along came a third party, admittedly ignorant of the subject matter, and "helpfully" "fixed" things that caused even more work still. Some days, ya just can't win! Now, what do we do when the inevitable happens and W. goes and reverts his messy consolidation? Scheinwerfermann 04:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't even understand why he even did the consolidation. Everything was perfectly fine before he came and consolidated everything having to do with Dodge and GM vans. --ApolloBoy 04:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You could have checked with me. Rules say be bold, and everything can be fixed. the Ford E-series are all very nicely in one place and series, and all of the other van pages were all over the place, and very short. This put all the vans into a nice sequence, since they all covered the same slot. If the article got too long, that would give a reason to break them up. If you ask me, the same should be done for Chevy pickups as it is impossible to see where the whole series goes. Somebody removed a good quality picture of a drag-modified A100 while they were at it, in no way improving the article. The A100 photo was also taken by me, in its natural habitat, and is used by the article for the neighborhood it lives in. --matador300 22:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, but putting together models that don't share the same name and are pretty much unrelated isn't really considered a good thing. If the vans used the same name that would be alright, but the A100 and the B-series vans don't go together as one article. Would you put the Ford Fairmont, Ford Tempo and Ford Contour articles as one? Of course not. --ApolloBoy 22:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Dodge Spirit

User:Bull-Doser is making trouble again with the predecessors issue. I've reverted his change (again) and responded to him in talk; you may want to join in the discussion. Scheinwerfermann 16:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

And more hallucinatory lineage edits from User:Bull-Doser, as it seems, this time in Dart and Valiant. Thanks for reverting them in a hurry. I'm anticipating debate from him. Yeesh... Scheinwerfermann 02:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Premier

I must ask you again to refrain from deleting verifiable and correct information without any sort of rational justification --matador300 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC).

Do I really need to answer this? --ApolloBoy 00:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit wars

Will you please knock it off, I'm getting very annoyed. Please look again at the new citations, I've about had it with your removing cited correct information. Every editor in the world knows about corvair -> Vega -> Chevette -> Cavalier but what in the heck is up with you guys?? Can you at least come up with one directly supporting citation before you remove my direct citations?? Why do you have to do this?? AA is on the WP, I just had the words spelled reversed. Or do you think christian music is unnotable, which I would find highly offensive. Go ruin someone else's edits. --matador300 21:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have looked through your citations, and it seems that you're not reading through them enough. The new citations you brought up don't say anything about the Cavy replacing the Chevette (they just talk about Chevrolet small cars in general), and as I've said before, even the Edmunds thing doesn't say anything about this. In fact, the Edmunds article states the Cavalier was a step up from the Chevette, and furthermore, the Edmunds article lists the lineage as Vega->Monza->Cavalier->Cobalt. Please read your sources carefully and quit taking things out of context. The song isn't notable because making up a section about some namecheck in a song isn't considered notable. I DO NOT base my removals on my POV, I base them on official WIKIPEDIA POLICIES.--ApolloBoy 21:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If so then....

Happy Birthday ApolloBoy :D

Thanks! =) --ApolloBoy 19:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Successful automobiiles

It does have sources and it is verifiable. Now what do YOU think of karmann's postings? It appears that you also regard them as NPA??? --matador300 23:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't impressed with Karrmann's behavior either, but I still regard him as a great editor. He's done a lot for the project, including his efforts to get the Ford Taurus page become a featured article. As for your article, if it's verifiable, why did you insert so much POV into it? --ApolloBoy 23:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't take sides, one or the other, Karmanns pretty clearly hysterically hypes the Taurus.

--matador300 23:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wairthu

Look at what Wairthu left on my talk page, Pure 100% age discrimination baby! Karrmann 03:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just the facts kid. --matador300 23:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] response

Thank you for saying that. I know that what I was doing was wrong and I regret it. I figured out that by being civil and not yelling or swearing, I will come out as a better person. When I behave myself, and Wairthu starts acting uncivil, who will look bad? I figured it out, so until then, I won't yell or scream at him, and I will be super nice (Not to him, but to everyone) because the way he's acting, he will be indef blocked, it is all a matter of time. So, I'm gonna behave. Karrmann 01:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aries pictures

What's up with the pictures? I believe they added a lot to it, and that you have decreased the information content and quality by deleting them? What's youre reasoning here? If you believe in a "cease fire" the ad was mine, though I will stand up for the gallery as well as you can clearly see the differences in generations with those pictures, including the cheap Audi 5000 styling theme on the 2nd generation. No sense in an edit war, but I request you put them back.--matador300 22:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You've also removed all pictures of first generation cars. Please put them back.--matador300 22:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I reinserted one pic of the 1981 Aries, put I removed the ad because it was poorly scanned to begin with and wasn't really informative. The other pics were of low quality, so I removed those as well. --ApolloBoy 22:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll put it back on the talk page and see if anybody else likes it

The ad pretty clearly establishes that the car is being marketed against larger RWD cars like malibu and Fairmont, even though it isn't much larger than compact 5 passenger cars. That emphasizes the material I added to make this point explicit. The article previously just called the car a compact, but that's clearly not why the cars sold so well. I have ads elsewhere, packed, that directly compare Fairmont to the K cars. Is there a downsize to the ad picture? If there's no downside, any upside at all weighs on keeping it. --01:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wairthu

Check the history of the WP Automobiles talk page. Wairthu tried again to evoke a flam war and is trying to make you look like Satan and he a saint. Something needs to be done about him. Karrmann 00:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you set up for an email address? There's something I need to tell you... --ApolloBoy 01:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my Email is set up. is it serious? Karrmann 01:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I enabled my email from other users. What do you need to tell me? Karrmann 01:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

He got blocked for a week, and if this continues for any longer, it may end up being indefanate. But thankfully, we can finally have a week in peace. Karrmann 00:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Honda Accord article

I'm on a wikibreak for a week, so won't be around for WP Automobiles. Anyhow, can you bring the Honda Accord article up on the project talk page??

I've done my research, and can confirm that versions made for Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Republic of Ireland are different to North American and Japanese versions. --TheM62Manchester 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid your research—or at least your statement of its results—is flawed. Canada got the same Accord as the US, year by year and model by model. Also, there is no difference between Canada and North America; Canada is in North America. --Scheinwerfermann 02:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IP blocks

Hey there, I wanna say thanks for blocking those IPs that were giving me trouble. Could you also look into the user Randazzo56? I've had trouble with him before and I think he used those IPs to attack me and generally cause trouble. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ApolloBoy (talk • contribs) .

Hello! No problem with the blocks. AOL blocks are only fifteen minutes at-most as the ISP randomly reassigns IP addresses for each page visited, so we don't want to penalise innocent users. I will take a look at Randazzo56's contributions. Make a point of bringing attacks to WP:AIV for other admins to see. Regards,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  22:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, ApolloBoy! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 23:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toy Car images

I am getting sick of those images of toy cars taken by Wiarthurhu popping up all over Wikipedia. I say we just delete them. What do you say? Karrmann 01:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I got a couple of nice things for you

		The Original Barnstar
		I hereby award ApolloBoy the original barnstar for all of his awesome edits to Wikipedia, and for his ability to get through the whole Wiarthurhu fiasco with a grin. Karrmann 19:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		I hereby award ApolloBoy the minor barnstar for being there to clean up my spelling and grammer mistakes when I type too fast ;). Karrmann 19:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I think I'm loved... LOL --ApolloBoy 19:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

No, it is still me. Somebody has been trying to hack my account, as I got two forgotten password emails I didn't request. But I reviewed my contributions, I didn't see any I didn't reconigize, and as of lately, I only vandalized one page, the Atlantic Records page, and that was only because I am a diehard "Weird Al" Yankovic fan, so I was tempted to give the page the "YOu Suck!" treatment. Can you tell me some pages you saw me valdailze? An impersonator of me may be running around. Karrmann 11:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because Weird Al did it in the "White And Nerdy" video shouldn't mean you should do it too. If you really wanted to it, you should've used the sandbox; that's exactly why it's there. --ApolloBoy 00:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Just one edit ain't hurting. But I ain't just gonna become some vandal, I won't do that. I am just concerned, have there been other pages that you have seen me vandalize, I am afraid that there may be an impersonator of me around. Karrmann 11:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User Acclaim

This userbox has been moved to userspace (including it's history). The remaining template will probably be deleted. If that happens you might want to link to the new location on your userpage instead of having a redlinked template. Code: {{[[User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User Acclaim]]}} --Bisco 16:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1986CustomCruiser.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1986CustomCruiser.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. 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}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

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. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. This also applies to any other non-free images of cars you have uploaded.