Bookster451

Hello Bookster, and welcome. This is not a bot message, I actually mean that you are welcome here. If you have any concerns or questions on best practices for editing, please feel free to visit me at at my talkpage - I see that you already know how to do so. For layout of references and overall formatting question, and editing in general, my best advice is to find an existing article which you like, and then copy the methods used on that page. There are various cryptical codes like <br> and nsbp; which are very helpful, most appear in the "wiki markup" box on the bottom of your editing page. Oh, and "preview" is an awesome method for avoiding mistakes - I try to use it every time before I save a page.

Welcome, hope to see you around.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! Bookster451 (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ford Contour successor

The Ford Contour has NO successor in the United States. Neither the Focus nor the Fusion were designed to replace the Contour. The Focus was designed to replace the Escort and ONLY the Escort. Any claims that the Focus replaced the Contour is considered original research, since Ford NEVER stated that the Focus replaced the Contour. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 16:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

re photos

The rule Wikipedia uses -- the entire site, not just the autos section -- is that a photo needs to be "free" in most cases. That is to say, you took it yourself, you can demonstrate that the photographer has given permission to use it, it was taken by the U.S. government, and other various conditions.

A photo taken by an automaker, as I believe this case is, would fall under "fair use" guidelines, which Wikipedia accepts only when there is no free alternative and there's a great need for the photo. So this particular photo wouldn't meet those requirements. IFCAR (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

So how do I determine if a photo is fair use or if it's free? Bookster451 (talk)

I recommend looking here for licensing questions, or just getting a camera and then begin uploading. As for "fair use", it is rather tricky and an area I prefer avoiding entirely. Especially for a car of which there are already lots of pictures available; the image will probably be quickly deleted unless you can get FoMoCo to send you an official e-mail relinquishing the license to the photo. You could also choose among the existing (currently seven) pictures of the SHO already available in the Commons. I notice there is no rear view available, so get snapping.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! When I uploaded the picture, there were only 2 others. I didn't realize how quickly pictures get uploaded here. Bookster451 (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, IFCAR hisself can usually be depended on to get a few shots up nearly immediately upon release. He just doesn't like taking photos from the rear.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

But I do offer rear views upon request. IFCAR (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That you do - but I am glad you prefer the front views, as it leaves some opportunities for those of us who live in cities with less cars (NYC, in my case) to still provide a useful shot every so often.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Subaru Outback with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Calabe1992 00:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ignore above, hit the wrong button. Calabe1992 00:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Subaru Outback and friends

I just wanted to invite you to a second discussion regarding whether the Subaru Outback deserves a standalone article or if it ought to be merged into the relevant generational articles of Subaru Legacy (and Impreza). Thank you,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Bookster451 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

75.68.64.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Wikimann1234". The reason given for Wikimann1234's block is: "Vandalism-only account".

• Blocking administrator: Guerillero (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: Closing request, per below. Autoblock is expired at any rate. Will set an actual block. Kuru (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain your relationship with Wikimann1234? That appears to be your account, looking at the edits. Kuru (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I edit on Wikipedia at school a lot. I've noticed a lot of vandalism while not logged in at school, via the blocked IP edit when I've forgotten to log in. I really don;t know how to track IP addresses so I wouldn't be able to say. Bookster451 (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is asking you about IP addresses - you are being asked if Wikimann1234 is or is not your account! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I havent ever heard of Wikimann1234 until I received the autoblock. Bookster451 (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That seems unlikely. This account was created 1 day after you left a "goodbye" message with your other account, and four days after it was indefinitely blocked. You've continued editing the same automotive articles, and, of course, still have the same IP address. The question above was an invitation to be honest and see if we can work out some understanding, but since you've declined it, I'll go ahead and close out this account as block evasion. You know the procedure for unblock requests. Kuru (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2012 (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).

Bookster451 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was recently blocked for multiple account abuse. Yes, Wikimann1234 was my old account. I had engaged in an edit war with an editor whose name will remain silent, and when I was blocked I tried several times to be unblocked. A few days later I created a new account trying to evade the block. I left the message because I was steamed at the user mentioned, who was also an admin. He/she was correcting ym mistakes, but said they were in "bad faith", which none of them actually were. Although, after reading a bit about how wikipedia works, I realized he/she wasn't a model administrator. I realized what I had done to Wikipedia was wrong, but still wanted to be a part of it. The other day I logged back in because I wanted to delete my old account, but found out I couldn't. In hindsight, it would've been a better idea to try another unblock request on my old account. If the block is lifted, I promise to leave the old account alone, and continue the style of editing I've used under bookster451. Thank you for your time.Bookster451 (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were blatantly lying just a few hours ago, which does not convince me of your honesty in general - not to mention your using your unblock request to criticize another editor -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2012 (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.

I'm taking a break for a while. Last time I rushed into this it got me into where I am now. Bookster451 (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

6/2/12 11:41

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Bookster451 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have learned that sock puppetry is wrong, and my last account was a mistake. However, since I have created my new account, I've made many edits in good faith, and completely changed my style of editing. If I've noticed someone disagrees with my edits, I get to the bottom of it on their talk page. My main reason for coming back to Wikipedia was to make up for my previous account. I strive to make Wikipedia better, and while I was a bit destructive in the past, I am sorry for what I have done. I'll state on my talk page that my last account was wikimann1234, and that I've been destructive in the past. I still want to take an active roll in Wikipedia, and I'd be very happy if given that opportunity.

Accept reason:

You have technically met the requirements of WP:OFFER even though you have been editing while your other account was blocked. Your edits from this account are an improvement, however. Don't disappoint us; this is the only chance you'll get. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I beleive Bookster451 has shown he can be a good editor (he has only made good faith edits under this account) and should be unblocked. I am not familar with his old account Wikimann1234, but I think everyone deserves a second chance (and Bookster451 has not abused this second chance so far).

Also, I think the reason why Bookster451 denied the old account was because he knew he would get into trouble for it—stuck between two rocks I think. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Albeit after the fact, I agree with OSX. Welcome back Bookster.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bookster451 (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. When you recently edited Ford Fairmont, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ford Fairlane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

In a recent edit to the page Rolls-Royce Ghost, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Biker Biker (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)