Davert

Hello! It's good to see an article on the Commando at last! I pretty much wrote the current Dodge 50 article (didn't create it, but expanded it quite a bit) and felt guilty at the time for not doing anything about the 100. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:CHMBL.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The truth, is Ford isn't going to tell us whether they sold it, so "you never know". Dwilso (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

See Talk:Dodge Journey 842U (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, Davert. Please note the LA engine was indeed all-new when it was introduced in 273 CID configuration in 1964. The LA shares no significant commonality with any of the A-engines, though the mount points are similar and the bellhousing pattern is the same. I think you'd likely find this paper very interesting and enlightening.

We're working with somewhat nebulous terms here, but in a case like this, calling the engine "all new" is appropriate and warranted to distinguish from a new configuration of an existing engine family. So, for example, the LG 170 and RG 225 were all-new when they were introduced as the first slant-6 engines in 1960, while the RG 198 was new but not all-new when it was introduced as a new variant of the slant-6 in 1970. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you this is indeed something of a semantic grey area, because it's tough to pin down what exactly we mean by the LA being "based on" the A engine. Similar bore spacing, maybe the same valve lifters...it just doesn't go much beyond that, and that's scarcely beyond the degree to which the A, the LA, the Ford Windsor and Cleveland, the Chev small block, the International-Harvester V8, the Holden 308, the Oldsmobile Rocket, and a dozen others are all closely comparable to one another in overall concept and structure. Remember, the LA block wasn't just a lightened version of the A block. It was entirely new in shape, size, and form.

Having also spent much delightful time chatting with W. Weertman about the engines his staff engineered, I really am inclined to adhere to my position on this one, as I really think it matches his position: The LA engine, first embodied by the 273, really was all-new. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, as a previous contributor, pls check out my enquiry at Talk:Virgil Exner#Design work. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Davert, I see you have done some editing work on the Consumer Reports (magazine) page. I had an entry on there posted Nov. 2009 about Consumer Reports not soliciting nor using reader input on what products etc. to test. I see this entry has been removed. For verification one only needs to look at any Consumer Reports magazine -- nowhere will you find any encouragement to provide input as to what to test, nor any address to send this input to. Personally, I was once told directly by a Consumer Reports/Consumer Union PR person that they had no organizational structure in place, or no channel, to receive such input and tabulate it, to help decide what products to test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilbo2c (talk • contribs) 02:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles "Pete" Hagenbuch, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles "Pete" Hagenbuch, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your upload of File:CHMBL-valiant.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles "Pete" Hagenbuch, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles "Pete" Hagenbuch, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Davert. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Charles "Pete" Hagenbuch".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles "Pete" Hagenbuch}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:CHMBL-valiant.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Tangora.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 15:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply