User talk:Vauxford/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Incorrect file name

You might want to check the file name of the following image:

The car is NOT a F355 Berlinetta but a F355 GTS. Suggest you correct it. U1Quattro (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro Done. Sports cars and super cars aren't my strongest fields. --Vauxford (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

You should know about your subject of photography in order to avoid any inconvenience in the future.U1Quattro (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro I apologise for making occasional errors, I don't think making these mistakes on the model doesn't mean you have a lack of understandings and can be easily corrected. --Vauxford (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

For starters, you called a Lamborghini Espada a Lamborghini Urraco which shows your lack of understanding. I don't mean to offend or discourage you. I'm just trying to help you to correct major errors so you don't come to be known as erroneous in terms of cars by other users.U1Quattro (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro When it come to regular cars I have little to no problem identifying them. It only sports cars I have to evaluate a bit longer. --Vauxford (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I totally understand your issue. You can take my assistance in identifying a sports car you have photographed. I'd be happy to help.U1Quattro (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I will in the future. --Vauxford (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry, I would rather have a mislabeled photo than no photo. Sadly, there are 6,627 pictures in Category:Unidentified_automobiles, rendering it mostly useless.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Countries

I just want to make clear that Nim (and apparently some other editors) has misunderstood why one would write a country next to a photo of a car - it should describe the original market for the car, and only when relevant in some way. That is, probably not necessary for an Armstrong Siddeley Star or a Holden Commodore or an Isuzu Aska, but definitely useful for a Mazda 1300 or a Honda Fit. Sadly, many editors apply guidelines as if they were automatons, incapable of independent thought. What matters is not so much the policy itself but the aims thereof. I, too, find it unnecessary and absurd to riddle Daihatsu Sonica with "(Japan)", but it is often a very useful tool for the reader. Also, it makes it apparent just what a bizarre proportion of photos are of Australian-market cars, hopefully helping to minimize this skew. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Mr.choppers Which I knew from the start, there are some models which provide useful to have captions to which countries they exlcusively marketed in but even then people can find that info on the Infobox so kind of a grey area and depends of the reader's preference. The problem I encounter is these weird IPs that just mass reverted everything I done and using a quote you said as their edit summary so I'm kind of put off by doing it anyway but on the ones that are taken by OSX or EurovisonNim, it completely unnecessary and I compare it as dogs marking their territory rather then improvement for the article. I briefly done it myself when I was under Nim's tuition before finding out his true intention. --Vauxford (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Good, I think we all agree to include the countries when it may be useful. I don't think being more mature than Nim will prove very hard; and remember - even if a page is not perfectly to your liking today, time moves on and who knows what it will look like in 2020. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Mr.choppers I'm not frustrated in the slightest. It just what I see when with the countries in the caption during the time OSX was active. I didn't really catch what you mean with "I don't think being more then Nim will prove very hard". --Vauxford (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

More mature - as in not getting bogged down in arguments, not see-sawing wildly, not marking your territory (no one has a territory in Wikipedia!), not retiring left and right, etc etc.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect file name

I would like to point out to these two photos:

• 

• 

These photos are of a Chevrolet Corvette Z06, not the ZR-1. Suggest that you put them into the correct category. U1Quattro (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro There aren't even my own photos, I just categorised in a rough category since I uploaded them in bulks. Even then I wasn't the one who put it in the ZR-1 category. If your that concerned, you are free to do it yourself. --Vauxford (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to community restrictions

Per this community discussion, you are banned from interacting with EurovisionNim for six months, subject to the usual exceptions. GoldenRing (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

'Show'-Cars

Hi, I have seen your edit of the Renault Kadjar. What is your problem with cars on motor shows? I think the images from Paris have a better angle than yours.--Alexander-93 (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy happy

Happy Birthday!  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Mr.choppers Thank you very much. --Vauxford (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hammer car draft

Sorry, I've deleted your draft. If you find sourcing, let me know and I'll help you get it through DRV. Otherwise, we lose attribution of editors who developed the article to the point it was at, which is a breach of our terms. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

A belated Happy Birthday

Hi Vauxford, A belated Happy Birthday :),
I saw your edit the moment you made it but thought it was too early ... and then ofcourse I go and forget when I wake up!,
Anyway Happy Birthday!, Hope you had a great day! :),
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Davey2010 Thank you very much. --Vauxford (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome :), Happy editing :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Abarth 124 Spider picture

We have over a dozen photos of the Abarth 124 Spider on Commons. What is wrong with using a different picture to represent it on the Fiat 124 Spider (2016) article? And why do you insist on using just one picture? - Areaseven (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Areaseven I'm being a bit bias seeing as it my own photo but why change a perfectly fine image. A image used more then once in other articles has been done many times and doesn't seem to be problem to most people. If your that concern about the image being used, create a RfC on it talk page with the proposed photos. --Vauxford (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Where does it say in Wikipedia that only your photos should be used in the car articles? - Areaseven (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Areaseven I never said that only my photos should be used in car articles, I'm saying the image is perfectly fine but it better to ask others because if I'm the only saying the photo was fine (doesnt help the fact I took it) then I'm being bias. --Vauxford (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

No, you didn't say that, but you're just implying that you're a better car photographer than everyone else. But whatever. If you insist that you are the ultimate car photographer, then so be it. I won't stop you, then. - Areaseven (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Areaseven How is that implying? I'm definitely not the best out there especially after what happened a while back, the last thing I want to be know as is "that person". Rather then acting callous and jumping to conclusions, take it to the article talk page! --Vauxford (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Kia Picanto pics

I don't know how you see things in your UK weather, but you fail to admit that your photos are washed out while insisting that the cars should be dirty. Please stop this edit-warring, or we'll have to settle this on ANI. - Areaseven (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Areaseven Or, to be more civil, discuss on the talkpage. I'm writing a discussion right now. --Vauxford (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Why do you insist that other users need a committee approval to change images when you don't? - Areaseven (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Areaseven It a lot more better then head straight to a ANI. Don't want to dig in the rule book that much but people seem to mention WP:BRD alot which I can see why so I'm attempting that before this goes formal. --Vauxford (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm doing right now. - Areaseven (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Your question

Hello Vauxford,

you're asking what you're doing wrong (de:Special:Diff/185512242). I think the main problem is the language barrier. You just cannot expect the German editors to know English. German is, like English, a Germanic language, which makes learning English for a German or learning German for an Englishman relatively easy, yet, there are many editors who don't know English at all, and, therefore, have significant difficulties understanding it. The way consensus works on DE is a bit different; in general, the rules are different. If you plan on replacing a decent existing image with your own image, you have to keep in mind two "golden, unwritten rules": Your image needs to be an obvious improvement, and you have to explain why your imagine is an improvement. A detailled explanation is often required. I have serious doubts that you can provide such an explanation in German, which will be a significant problem.

What you are doing wrong is replacing images for no good, but obvious reason: You want your images to be in all articles. This is what German Wikipedia editors think of you. You even replace QIs. I think you know that anyways, but keep in mind that the English conventions are invalid in the German language Wikipedia. In general, the lads over there try to present the subject in a way that they think fits the subject. This means that a RHD model of a German car is considered awful. Therefore, replacing an existing QI with an image showing a RHD model, breaking the image description, and then posting non-German text on the talk page which doesn't explain why you did this... aua. This is most likely considered disruptive editing. I am exeggerating on purpose to make it easy to understand for you, because this is how you appear to German editors. It's good that you don't mean any harm to Wikipedia, but I presume that there are only very few editors who can actually understand you, especially given the fact that you are using slang (might of) that makes translating using Google Translate impossible. (And I am not judging you, I have problems with spelling words correctly and putting commas in the right places.)

On "German AN/I" (WP:VM) only useful comments are permitted and only Adminstrator posts "count". JD (admin) told you that he would ban you if you don't cease your behaviour; what he actually means is that he will block you. Itti (another admin) told you that you are supposed to speak German and that speaking English is impolite.

About the Volkwagen discussion: This is not going anywhere. Instead of discusing which image is the best, one editor has said that all images are garbage because of the manipulated numberplates. They are all just talking about numberplates now. Having a numberplate that looks "proper" won't help you there and it is not about you or your pics. I can see that you try, but I think that some editors don't want to talk to you, because you don't speak German. And I cannot blame them, it's German language Wikipedia, after all. There are even editors who are trolling you on purpose. If you continue that way, you will end up getting blocked from editing. My advice is that you don't try to replace any images anymore, unless there is a very good reason. Take a look at this edit for instace: de:Special:Diff/184671205 – the previous image did not show a Mercedes 124, there was just the Mercedes-star. My imagine is not particularly good, the image is relatively noisy and there are some reflections. But the perspective is good and it is a 1984 model. If you happen to find articles that really need an update, like the mercedes 124 article did, go ahead. But please don't fix "minor" issues. And try to use a German edit summary. I can help you with some basic phrases, this will definitely make other editors dislike you less. If you still happen to struggle, leave it so you don't get blocked. Best regards, and I hope this helps you, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Johannes Maximilian Very well, if that really the case of how they do it, even though regardless of what language, you shouldn't make disrespectful comments or mock them for not speaking English. I admit I have done cross-wiki edits to insert pictures that are either highly neglected or really need a improved version, I do it because I generally think I'm doing it in good faith. Ironically a user from your Wiki called Alexander-93 does the same thing and insert all his pictures into every Wikipedia article he could find, (a lot of them in my opinion aren't actually good) I am assumed he doing it for publicity then actually improving which are not my motives. this is however a grey area whether you should be really doing that or not.

To my logic if nobody has a problem with the edit I done on that Wikipedia then I presumed they don't have a problem with it but if they do, I either let it be and move on or for this case, try and reason with them why I done that edit. There are Wikipedia where I don't go and edit such as the Italian or Ukrainian Wikipedia because there are dedicated users which I let them take matters into their own hands of what image to use or not. Also where about in particularity they were trolling me, was it when I said we should do it with simple democracy and one of made a UK parliament joke? --Vauxford (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not mocking them for not speaking English, no worries. I am blaming the WP:ABF. The problem with the German Wikipedia is that many images you have replaced were neither neglected nor needed an improved version. At least in the opinion of many German Wiki editors. You were rather gilding the lily on DE. I have already noticed Alexander-93's behaviour – however, just because another editor does something wrong, it doesn't mean that you are also allowed to do the same wrong thing. Reasoning in general is a good idea and I am getting your point there, but editors who don't speak English cannot be reasoned with in English. It sounds trivial, but that is an actual problem, even in Wikipedias where the chances of meeting an English speaking editor are much higher. You were trolled by a sockpuppetting, indefinitely blocked editor (see here). Best, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Johannes Maximilian For the sake of everyone on there, I won't get involved in that Wikipedia. Tell the users which I troubled that I'm very sorry for the disurption and edit war I might of caused and that I have no intention to cause trouble in the community. Vauxford (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Good morning Vauxford, I think everything is going to be fine if you shift down a bit. As the result of the latest "VM", you were neither banned nor blocked, which is a good thing. I still believe that you can contribute to the German language Wikipedia if you're being careful. There may be photos that really need an update. Just don't rush it. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

E36 infobox accusation

^deep breath^ Hello Vauxford. Your accusation on my Talk Page is quite hurtful and completely incorrect. I have nothing at all to do with the image being reverted. Could you please show the evidence behind the accusation or withdraw it by removing the section from my Talk Page? PS WP:FAITH. 1292simon (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Much easier to sling mud than clean it up, it seems. Sigh. Could you please withdraw this baseless accusation? 1292simon (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

1292simon If your that concern, do it yourself, it your userpage after all. --Vauxford (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

AN3 report

Hi, For future reference, when you make a report at WP:AN3, please fill in all the fields in the standard report template. Admins need to know what the stable version is, where the editor has been warned, where an attempt at dispute resolution has been made, etc. Not filling in the fields makes it harder for admins to investigate and respond to matters, and can give the impression that the report is unjustified. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Removing talkpage comments

Hi Vauxford, Please don't remove other peoples comments, As per WP:REFACTOR this is frowned upon here and it could see you blocked, Ofcourse there are exceptions but his comment isn't one, Thanks & Happy editing :), –Davey2010^Talk 21:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Not needed?

Well my images have better angles, better quality and doesn’t have a background? What a waste. I’ll being it up on the talk page the older rear photo you cannot see properly. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

OrbitalEnd48401 We already have a rear shot in the article, photos of a vehicle at 3/4 angle show significantly more of the details. 90 degrees shot of front and rear just going to show the grille and the taillights. --Vauxford (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Well I disagree, like I safd before I’ll bring it up on the talk page. The other images have their uses, my interior shots are good. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

OrbitalEnd48401 One interior shot is more then enough, we don't need any more images on the section. --Vauxford (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

No further comment, please bring discussion to talk page. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Mainly due to your previous problems with images. I’d rather talk with others as I am a little warey of you, not to be rude of course. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

OrbitalEnd48401 Excuse me? Just because I speak out more often then others, doesn't mean I'm a person that you should avoid. People are going to say the same thing. We don't need to add anymore images on the article. --Vauxford (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Sir as I’ve noted before, talk page, this is my final message on here. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

OrbitalEnd48401 Seriously, why recently people seem to be feared of me and find not trustworthy just because I been in some heated discussion!? --Vauxford (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

E31

Would you like to discuss the photo on the talkpage? Toasted Meter (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I already have done by creating the discussion. --Vauxford (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and I responded to that on the talk page. Did you not put the talk page on your watchlist? Toasted Meter (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Toasted Meter I have, but I'm waiting for other users to see what they think. --Vauxford (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

AN3 dispute

• WP:AN3#User:U1Quattro reported by User:Vauxford (Result: )
• Toyota Hilux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Are you planning to make a proposal at Talk:Toyota Hilux for how to resolve the disagreement? For example, give the names of photos A and B and ask people to post their opinions on Talk as to which one they prefer in the article? The next person who reverts the article (without a prior talk page consensus) will probably get blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

EdJohnston Firstly. I apologise for the hefty edit war between me and U1Quattro. Right now I'm adding what you suggested right now. We done this before it just I was just making sure I was solving this dispute correctly. Thank you though. --Vauxford (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford Thanks for your reply. I am glad to see a discussion at Talk:Toyota Hilux#Photos but I'm afraid that outsiders will have no idea of what you're talking about. Can you be more specific as to how the article should be changed? Is somebody wanting to replace the main infobox image? EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

EdJohnston Correct, pretty much is deciding whether if the pictures U1Quattro proposed should replace the existing ones on the article or decide that the ones on there should be kept. I think most people will understand what we are coming from. --Vauxford (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

If you continue to write cryptically, only you and U1Quattro will participate in that thread. In the revert war, you were arguing about some picture that was in a gallery way down in the article, maybe down in the 5th generation section? EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

EdJohnston We aren't trying to be cryptic and I'm sorry if we sounded like that. There isn't really any other way to describe it. I tried to detail it as simple as I can. Vauxford (talk)

Block

You've been blocked for 24 hours due to edit warring. When the block expires, please make use of article talk page/s. El_C 21:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Vauxford (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Unfairly blocked. Why block so rapidly? I tried to state why, I'm lost for words right now. Did you review the edit warring report and all the diffs towards it? At least evaluate it with EdJohnston who was the last person who assisted me and U1Quattro in the edit warring incident. This time I didn't violate the 3RR, I actually took to talk page discussion. From the looks of it, El C simply saw the word "block" by EdJohnston and done it straight away without considering talking about it with the other admins. We could've continue discussing it on the talk page if you didn't straight away block us. Vauxford (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were discussing it (yay) and also edit warring (boo). Ed's advice below is quite on. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Vauxford, you changed the image at Audi R8 (Type 4S) once on 4 April, and after that you reverted twice to keep it in. This is a continuation of the pattern of edit warring you displayed at Toyota Hilux a few days ago. Nobody is forcing you to revert; you chose to do that. You don't get credit just for starting a discussion; you get credit for being patient and not reverting again until consensus is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

But I did created the talk page and discuss it with U1Quattro. U1Quattro didn't want to corporate and continue reverting, I was trying to do the right thing. Please and I understand where I'm getting from. That edit I made was 24 hours after the dispute happened. --Vauxford (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Jpgordon I was trying to maintain the page last version and then discuss about the change the other user was trying to make. I guess that where I went wrong, but do you understand where I was coming from? --Vauxford (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

That is not a thing you necessarily have to do, you can make the discussion and notify the other editor on their talk page without reverting, if they do not participate in the discussion you may want to revert and tell them to discuss their objections on the talk page. Having a photo you don't like is not an emergency, you do not need to rush to revert. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Toasted Meter Well, I guess this block makes me reflect of how to deal with dispute. i.e Creating the talk page discussion before reverting any edits. My only concern is because I got this block, users might apporach me differently. Another thing is I don't want to constantly make talk page discussion over a dispute to the point I ended up getting a TBAN like EurovisionNim did even though I know I'm nothing like him. --Vauxford (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)