User talk:Sable232

Archives

Archive 1, 3-18-06 thru 3-18-07 Archive 2, 3-18-07 thru 4-13-08 Archive 3, 5-8-08 thru 12-31-10 Archive 4, 1-1-11 through 12-31-18 Archive 5, 1-1-19 through 12-31-23

I would like to re add the image you removed from the Mercury Cougar discussion as it is prudent the Cougars advanced for the time restraint system and is a publicly available government image, What can I do to correctly cite this image as it is in the public domain, Thank you. ~~~~ Luftwaffespectre (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, you will need to confirm what governmental organization actually created it, confirm that organization's work is in the public domain, and then use the correct copyright tag (it will almost certainly not be Creative Commons). Someone at Wikimedia Commons may be of more help in determining this.

However, the crash test image is not a suitable image for the article. It is low-resolution, grainy, and does not provide any useful information to the reader. It is impossible for someone who isn't familiar with crash testing vehicles to interpret anything about the image, and it isn't even readily apparent that the depicted car is a Cougar. --Sable232 (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was my assumption that because it was a report commissioned by a government agency for the benefit of the public and was distributed/made available on a government website, that it was in the public domain and free for use.

As far as the image is concerned the source was correctly linked as an NHSTA report that confirms the vehicle was a Cougar.

The reason I wanted to add the image is because it demonstrated a well maintained safety space for the drive in a full frontal impact, my goal was to provide real evidence that the Cougar was in fact a safe car for the time and its high accident/death rate was due to the audience (teenagers and young adults) it was driven by at the time. Luftwaffespectre (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, the image on Commons was credited to Transport Canada yet sourced to a NHTSA document. Being an agency of the U.S. Federal government, NHTSA works are public domain, but I don't know if the same applies to Canada.

The rest of this would be a better discussion at either the article talk page or at the WikiProject Automobiles project talk page. Crash test images are almost never included in articles here. --Sable232 (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWk5pu_whw0 0:31 he says in Talbotville ontario,how can I use this as my citation? I have only found one vehicle that was built in STAP that had the correct name of Talbotville for location Crownvicsaregood (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A YouTube video is not a reliable source.

Nevertheless, the correct location is Southwold. Southwold, Ontario is the legal township the factory was located within. Talbotville is an unincorporated community about two miles south of the former factory site, so to give that as the location would not be as accurate. --Sable232 (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This LTA started editing again. Could you please add it to your LTA list? I'll delete my page. 212.154.66.111 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what LTA you're referring to. Do you have any further details? How long has the LTA been editing? What other IP ranges have there been? I do recall someone making somewhat similar edits in the past, but it's been a while since I've seen them. --Sable232 (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

may i ask why did u revert my edits to Chevrolet Tahoe, [1] and [2]? 83.168.137.1 (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because you introduced an error to an image caption, stating that the truck is a GMT400 when it is clearly a later GMT800 model, and you added a mention of a "GMC Yukon XL" in a paragraph about changes for 1995, when no such vehicle existed at the time. --Sable232 (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i understand, may i do the changes again, fixing these mistakes? 83.168.137.1 (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like your other changes were good, so yes. --Sable232 (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

gotcha, thanks, feel free to check out if anything is wrong [3] 83.168.137.1 (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir, may I ask why did u revert my edit to Ford F-Series (fourteenth generation) - [4]? per the usage on Template:Main it ''should also not be used in lead sections. A lead section is always a summary of its own article, not any other; as such, the only appropriate target for a {{Main}} link in the lead section would be the article itself, which is not useful. {{Broader}} may be appropriate in this case.'' the other changes i made are surely not controversial 83.168.137.1 (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{Broader}} states that it is for use in sections, with the implication that it is not meant for the lead. It also states that is is to be used for an article discusses a subject more broadly, but is not a main article (which should use {{Main}} (emphasis added). For any instance where a generation has been split off to its own page, the original article is the main article.

Furthermore, {{Main}} is what's used in every other instance of this, and consistency should be maintained.

I mistakenly thought that the F-150 Lightning EV had a disambiguated title and wasn't at the main title like it is. I should've checked before reverting the entire edit. --Sable232 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can i revert my changes, changing the hatnote to main? 83.168.137.1 (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of it for you. I was in the middle of doing that yesterday when I got called away and didn't save the edit. --Sable232 (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

appreciate it 83.168.137.1 (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why you reverted my edits on area and population density? The Milwaukee Metropolitan Area is only 1,460 sq mi (https://www.mmac.org/uploads/3/7/9/6/37962993/metro_facts_14.pdf pg. 3). Furthermore, the population density you reverted to includes water, of which the metropolitan area is more than 50%. Population density is always calculated using population over square miles of land (https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-crowded-city-in-the-united-states.html ). You also reverted my edits on the Twin Cities, which uses urban instead of metropolitan population and area for its density. Unless otherwise noted, density should be for the metropolitan area only. Both of your reversions contradict Census data and are misleading. 2601:249:8680:4260:604A:1AEC:F9A7:EA76 (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits because you changed sourced information with no explanation and provided no other source. The information in both articles is sourced to the Census Bureau. Whether or not the existing information was correct is irrelevant - unexplained and unsourced tampering with such figures is one of the most common forms of disruption on Wikipedia and is generally reverted on sight.

The density listed on Minneapolis-St. Paul accurately reflects what's in the source, however, the infobox parameter was incorrectly entered, causing it to not appear as "urban" density, which is now fixed. --Sable232 (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Red links are not a problem and do not need to be removed as a matter of course". So what function do they serve? Apart from the ones that are linked to Wiki.de, why can they stay? Does this mean I can make as many red links as possible, just like all the ones I have removed? Exactly what is the rules regarding creating red links? How many may I create? Troy von Tempest (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read the guideline I linked, you would know that.

For example, there may be an article on the Dodge Model 30 someday, so there is nothing wrong with that red link.

If you make good on your threat above to disruptively create scores of unsuitable red links, you will likely be blocked. --Sable232 (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chevrolet AK Series, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New York and Georgia. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a rule against lists? Even if prose is preferred by Wikipedia, lists and tables are often better for technical info like this, providing more conciseness, clarity, and easier reference. In what way did I duplicate the TOC? AFAIK, I did not remove any conversion templates, they were just moved from prose to tables. Your one legitimate change was restoring any broken links to section headings....so, how to I track links to ensure edits don't break any? Gtofever (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)gtofever[reply]

Yes, prose is preferred, and it's the format that the vast majority of articles use. Making a bulleted list in the article lead that lists out the same things that the table of contents does is unhelpful.

In general, section headings shouldn't be changed without good reason, because they are frequently linked to in other articles. Pay attention to how other similar articles are formatted. Headings should be simple and concise whenever possible - on engine articles, numerical displacement alone is preferred and is overwhelmingly the most common format, so it shouldn't be deviated from without good reason. --Sable232 (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]