This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I think the TUSC account will help, but my best suggestion is to find a wikipedean who speaks the lingo. You can find them by their user boxes. Hope this helps Victuallers (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Your Flickr uploads
Hello Mr.choppers/Archive 1!
Thanks a lot for your contributions! Thank you for transferring images from Flickr to Commons! One hint ahead: You can use this tool for your flickr uploads. It makes the hole procedure much easier and faster for you!
Thank you for your support! Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 22:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 15:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yue Loong Feeling photos
Dear Mr.choppers,
I found a blog (http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/sunlight-huang/) about some photos of Yulon Feeling. That blog is not mine. Why not contact its owner to get licensed to use his/her photos of Yulon Feeling?
Would you communicate in Chinese? I think that we can communicate smoothly in Chinese.
File:Wuhan_WH213.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Oh and BTW how do you know that this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this are examples of Škoda 105 when they can clearly be examples of Škoda 120?
And another thing: Why did you remove the Škoda 125 category when you kept the Škoda 120 and Škoda 105 categories? All I am asking here is for a little consistency.
BTW how do you know that this is a Škoda 120? What I mean is I am fascinated of your ability to pull out these facts out of nowhere. Oh and this is clearly Škoda 105 S, just so you know ;).
No, we did not agree only to remove production years. The overall consensus is clearly not to have categories by equipment level, since there is rarely any visual difference, since the categories multiply uncontrollably and confusingly, and since so many photos are not identifiable according to equipment level. Very specific information such as equipment level and model year both belong in the information section and file name, but shouldn't affect how things are grouped.
Secondly, all the examples you have listed are of images I have no contribution history with. My issues are all with your categorization, individual images can be discussed one by one somewhere else. Mr.choppers (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Polski Fiat 126p category tree
Hello.
I would like to propose a little change to the Polski Fiat 126p category tree. I suggest removing the Fiat 126 Maluch category and instead creating a Fiat 126 elx Maluch Town category since Fiat 126 elx Maluch was pretty much a new name for Fiat 126 elx while Fiat 126 elx Maluch Town can actually be visually recognized without looking at the back of the vehicle.
I tell you this as a person who has researched the subject.
Nonetheless, if someone is looking for a picture of a 126 Cabrio these would logically be located in that category. As for the Maluch, I think that they should all be 126 elx, since they are just barely different equipment levels. In any case, creating an umbrella "Maluch" category (as it stands) makes more sense from an organizational standpoint. Mr.choppers (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
If you really think that it is that important to have a category dedicated to Polski Fait 126p-based convertibles than I will make such a category and make the Fiat 126 Cabrio its subcategory.
About the Fiat 126 Maluch: As I said the Fiat 126 elx Maluch is the same as Fiat 126 elx with the exception of the "Maluch" name on the back of the vehicle. Meanwhile Fiat 126 elx Maluch Town is externally recognizable by the headrests on the rear seats as well as the "Town" writing on the back of the vehicle. Also Fiat 126 elx is externally identical to the Fiat 126 el with exception of the 126 elx badge on the back of the vehicle.
Which is why they should all be in one category - they are the same car. But since there are so many photos of the Maluchs, they get their own page. And no, the 126 Cabrio and cabrio conversions do not need separate categories (since the text refers to them as conversions). By the way, didn't you promise just two days ago that you would leave the categorizing alone for a while? Mr.choppers (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I did say that but I did not say that I would allow you to lie and cause misinformation. All I ask of you that you is to not twist the facts around. Either there will be separate category for custom convertibles or they will be in the normal Polski Fiat 126p category. There is no other options that will not result in misinformation.
No, you are incorrect. These categories are here so that we can group photos together so that they can be found. No one has ever stated that the green and the Hungarian ones are factory efforts. Both photos make it clear that these are conversions. Until there are so many pictures of drop-top 126s that things get confusing, it is completely unnecessary to provide separate categories for BOSMAL and aftermarket cabrios. Mr.choppers (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Since you want them all in a single category lets put all three pictures in Category:Polski Fiat 126p-based convertibles. That way they will all be in one category while at the sametime it will not cause any misinformation.
Oh BTW I am now 100% sure that both of these two vehicles are custom conversions because Polski Fiat 126p Cabrio was based on Polski Fiat 126p FL 650 while this is based on Fiat 126 el or a later version while this is based on a Polski Fiat 126p 650 produced between 1978 and 1984.
What's wrong is that it is a very convoluted name for what is a very simple concept. Cabriolet (Cabrio) for short means convertible. We could always call it Category:Polski Fiat 126p Convertibles if you prefer. But why can't you finish the conversation before you run off and edit-war and create a whole bunch of unnecessary new categories? Mr.choppers (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
You do not understand the issue Polski Fiat 126p Cabrio is a given name of a specific version of a vehicle. You should not use the same name for similar yet different vehicles. Also do not try to make yourself seem morarily superior in this matter. You can not play that card after you decided to impose your changes to Skoda 742 category tree by force.
The category was originally titled "Fiat 126 Cabrio", which is not the name of a specific car. You are the one who changed the names of the categories, not I. The whole point of such a category is to make it possible for people to find pictures of open-top Fiat 126s. Mr.choppers (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
What you don't understand is that Fiat 126 Cabrio is one of the names used for Polski Fiat 126p Cabrio. Polski Fiats are often shortened to just Fiats even in professional works and in Poland people usually just say Mały Fiat or Fiat 126 when they are talking about the 126p.
At least know you do not cause misinformation. However I brought back the Polski Fiat 126p Cabrio category because it is an OFFICIAL GIVEN NAME OF A SPECIFIC VEHICLE, built in small quantities yes but still. And if you wonder why I am writing using CAPITAL LETTERS, I do it so you will notice what I am trying to convey to you.
Also I am not sure exactly what model this is based on. At first I thought it was based on a post-el version because of the characteristic air intakes but seeing how the rear view mirror is clearly where the side indicator used to be (and the el moved its indicators below the hood) so its probably based on the PF 126p FL. Oh and if you are wondering I know that trying to categorize Polski Fiat 126p pictures is a truly Sisyphean task but I do not see it getting easier any time soon or maybe even ever.
Every version of a car, official or not, does not need its own category. I thought this had been made abundantly clear by now? Separate categories only become an issue once there are so many photos in a category that things become hard to find. I don't think that three images are a problem. Mr.choppers (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
You know what if you are so determined to categorize pictures in such a way than so be it. All I ask of you is to not create misinformation.
is untypical for a 120. There must be four lights. The 105 has got only two lights. At the back of the car is a label with 120 on it. I think it's a mixture of two cars. A restauration maybe. ;) alofok*19:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, then I apologize - I really don't claim to know any better, I just assumed that the original uploader knew what it was. Although I have to point out the possibility of there being single headlight 120s marketed in Finland. Best, Mr.choppers (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I found some photos of a Swedish market 120L, where they had single headlights. The 105 was never marketed in Sweden (my home country); therefore the lowest spec (L) 120s came with single headlights. I don't know about the situation in Finland, but there is at least the possibility of this being the case there as well. Here are the photos (from 1992, but this is definitely not restored or altered bodily: front, rear). Geekily yours, I am Mr.choppers (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I would also like to ask if it would be possible to get rid of the Category:Fiat 126 "Maluch"? All it does is create confusion because it currently houses pictures of both Fiat 126 elx Maluch and Fiat 126 elx Maluch Town which are different externally, not to mention that the Fiat 126 elx Maluch is simply a renamed Fiat 126 elx. IMHO it would make more sense and make the category more noob firendly if we moved the Fiat 126 elx Maluch pictures to Category:Fiat 126 el/elx and created a separate category for Fiat 126 elx Maluch Town since it is externally recognizable. I bring this up because the current category system makes it difficult to categorize pictures like these: File:Fiat 126 el, elx or elx Maluch during Brooklands Auto Italia car day in may 2010 .jpg and File:Fiat 126 during Brooklands Auto Italia car day May 2010.jpg. As you can see this can be either a Fiat 126 el, elx or elx Maluch.
If these should be joined, I say move them all into the EL/ELX since the differences are extremely slight. Having separate categories for separate equipment levels only make for confusion IMHO. Mr.choppers (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for a late response. I stand by my opinion, it makes logical sense and allows for easier categorization. It is certainly better than what we have now which creates problems with vehicles like this one: File:Fiat 126 during Brooklands Auto Italia car day May 2010.jpg.
I agree wholeheartedly that Maluch needs to be in the same category as the el/elx. What I (and many others) don't agree on is the need for a separate Maluch Town category - especially since a Maluch Town won't be recognizable if someone gets rid of the stickers and changes the seats. Best, Mr.choppers (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Nissan-Datsun-180B-SSS.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise,everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
[1], [2], [3], [4], [5] ???
Qual'è il termine usato nell'ambiente Wikimedia Commons per definire le automobili costruite, assemblate o modificate su licenza concessa da altro marchio ? What is the term used in the Wikimedia Commons to define the cars built, assembled or modified under license from another brand?
--Ligabo (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I would think it should be called "licence built". "Custom" is when someone modifies an existing car and makes it unique, like this Nissan pickup. Nonetheless, I don't see why these categories shouldn't just be available on the Category:Fiat Topolino main page - it saves people having to click through so many pages to find a photo. Mr.choppers (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
It might be conceivable to divide between categories "Custom-built"and "Licence-built. " The division, however, poses problems in intermediate situations. In the case of SIMCA 5 and 6, for example, cars are built under license from FIAT, but are not identical to the "Topolino". In this case [6], however, is clearly a car "Custom-built". The best thing would be to maintain the category "Custom-built" and start a discussion to define a line shared by all.
Potrebbe essere pensabile di dividere tra categorie "Custom-built" e "Licence-built". La suddivisione, però, pone problemi nelle situazioni intermedie. Nel caso delle SIMCA 5 e 6, ad esempio, le automobili sono costruite su licenza FIAT, ma non sono identiche alla "Topolino". In questo caso [7], invece, si tratta chiaramente di una automobile "Custom-built". La cosa migliore sarebbe mantenere la categoria "Custom-built" e avviare una discussione allo scopo di definire una linea condivisa da tutti. --Ligabo (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Custom Fiat
I don't know that I would classify the Weinsberg Roadster as a custom - Weinsberg was used by both Fiat and NSU as an official supplier of bodywork, analogous to the role of ASC or Karmann. But as we don't consider the VW Karmann Ghia nor the ASC built Toyota Celica Cabrio a custom, I also wouldn't here. In any case, anything that is series built is not a custom, no matter that it looks different from the original 500. This Nuova 500 is a custom, I guess you could say custom means special artigianale. Mr.choppers (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Even this "500" was built in small series (a few tens of units). However, there must be a specific category for cars derived from standard models, manufactured and/or marketed by different brand. The category is important because it can report its derivatives to the original model. In Italian they are called "Fuoriserie" or "Speciali". I put "Custom-built " thinking it was the equivalent term. If this is not the appropriate term, what is?
Anche questa "500" è stata costruita in piccola serie (alcune decine di esemplari). Comunque sia, occorre stabilire una categoria precisa per le automobili derivate da modelli di serie, prodotte e/o commercializzate da altro marchio. La categoria è fondamentale perché si possa riferire i modelli derivati al modello originale. In italiano si chiamano "Fuoriserie" o "Speciali". Io ho messo "Custom-built" pensando che fosse il termine equivalente. Se questo non è il termine adatto, qual'è? --Ligabo (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know that there is a good term for what you are trying to say. I would recommend checking out other cars and see how similar situations may have been resolved by others. But, in honesty, I don't think it a good idea to hide these categories within subcategories - it is good to have them on the main category page so that people can find them easier. Notice for instance that the VW Karmann Ghia is listed directly under Category:Volkswagen vehicles. Also, see the contents of Category:Volkswagen Type 1 custom-built for what really belongs in such a category. Mr.choppers (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Insert a specific link between a model modified or built under license by a car with the original model is basic information. That the word chosen is "Custom-built" or "Licence-built" or otherwise, does not matter, but the connection is necessary.
Inserire un collegamento specifico tra un modello modificato o costruito su licenza da una casa automobilistica con il modello originale è un'informazione fondamentale. Che il termine scelto sia "Custom-built" o "Licence-built" o altro, poco importa, ma il collegamento è necessario.--Ligabo (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. The information that the Simca 5 is license-built is currently mentioned in the hatnote (on top of the page). Other such information (if kept short) could be presented at the top of their various categories, but in truth it correctly belongs in the Wikipedia mainspace articles. The Commons is a media archive meant to facilitate the finding of pictures. If you insert intermediate categories (especially if they are not very carefully named) then pictures become harder to find, simple as that. Again, I invite you to see how this has been resolved in other areas. Mr.choppers (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I do not know if it depends on the automatic translator or other reasons, but from reading the discussion above I conclude that you are not able to understand what I say. Since I'm not going to repeat endlessly the ideas already expressed, I think it is useless to continue to discuss. Hello.
Non so se dipenda dal traduttore automatico o da altri motivi, ma dalla rilettura della discussione soprastante desumo che non sei in grado di capire ciò che dico. Dato che non ho intenzione di ripetere all'infinito i concetti già espressi, credo che continuare a discutere sia inutile. Ciao.--Ligabo (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I understand what you're saying, I just don't understand why you think there needs to be a separate category, which hides rather than makes available all of these cars. See Category:Isuzu_Trooper for a more useful solution - lots of license built and rebadged cars. Mr.choppers (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The word "See also" is generic, does not specify the type of correlation does not indicate the original model. I've started a discussion here [8] in order to find a common solution.
La dizione "See also" è generica, non specifica il tipo di correlazione e non indica il modello originale. Ho avviato una discussione qui [9] allo scopo di trovare una soluzione condivisa. --Ligabo (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
If you created this file talk, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
The blog tw.myblog.yahoo.com/ytseng3ford owner said in Chinese on the top of it, "If you indicate the source and link, welcome reprint all of pictures and articles normally."(只要註明出處及聯結，所有圖文歡迎正常轉載。) The permission is obvious. So I have indicate the source and link in Chinese near by all of photos from that blog. There are not copyright violations.--Solomon203 (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I responded on his talk page regarding this problem. Could you point to me which images were related? Thank you very much --Ben.MQ (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
As regarding filemove rights, I have granted it. Please bear in mind that the file naming policy is different from article naming policy on wikipedias - we are trying to maintain static file name and unless the error is serious or the file name is completely meaningless, we do not move them. Regards--Ben.MQ (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
There are lots of related photos, all are listed as coming from ytseng3ford and all have watermarks. It would be great if the license was good, for these are photos of rare cars in a small and unique market. I'd recommend just going to Solomon203's gallery, he only started uploading these on June 20th, with the most recent one a week or so ago. Best regards (and thanks for filemoving rights, I promise I won't overdo things). Mr.choppers (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I have left a message at the blog. Unfortunately he/she does not allow commercial use of the photos. All photos will be deleted as copyright violation - he/she only allow paid usage. --Ben.MQ (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Hi, this is in response to your re-categorisation of many Volvo 240 images today. If the cars are badged "240" what's the reason behind moving the sedan images to the 244 category and wagons to the 245 category? Is this the Swedish naming convention? OSX (talk • contributions) 11:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
It's Volvo's internal naming convention, and was used until June 1982. Even afterwards, Volvo used these codes internally to separate the cars. Many outsiders also use these to make it clear which model is being referred to, see here tworandom google results. Some even use it for later cars (744, 965, 363) but as Volvo's naming gradually became less and less consistent I think it would be too much of a liberty to do so. Anyhow, I figure this grouping would help organize the way more than hundred pictures of the 240 that there are. If you think we should do it otherwise I am, as always, open to discussion. Mr.choppers (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Great uploads by the way. Your enthusiasm for crappy, old, obscure and unloved cars will ensure we get many photos of rare vehicles uploaded! OSX (talk • contributions) 06:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot - and same to you (minus the enthusiasm for shite cars). I am obviously chuffed myself, and have made a gallery of the pictures I took myself: Here they all are, and in chronological order to boot. It is amazing what one can find on flickr, too. Mr.choppers (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, that guy was supposed to remain entirely invisible - good eyes. As for the organizing, I just added a pipelinked section like this: [[Category:Own work - files by User:Mr.choppers|201108.14]]. The bit after the pipe indicates year, month, and sequence within the month. While this part is invisible, the images will be arranged alphabetically accordingly. I wasted a good three hours on that... Mr.choppers (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I see, that would be too hard for me I think—I have uploaded thousands of images. I just rely on Special:ListFiles/OSX, upload any images that aren't mine with my other account, and misguidedly hope no one else makes any edits to my photos (which would shift the photograph from my "ListFiles" to their's). We need a better approach—i.e. the original uploader should get priority with "ListFiles" not the guy who increases the brightness by three notches in as many seconds. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I only had fifty or so original contributions when I made that page. Some kind of "original uploads gallery" without all of the effort would be nice. I love that 4-door Datsun 720, added it to the relevant article. Mr.choppers (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Mitsubishi Colt
Not urgent, but...
I wonder if you could find a moment to check whether I correctly categorized this as a Mitsubishi Colt Type CAO. I am still easily confused, especially by Mitsubishis. It's not the best picture I ever made, but the category (if it's the right category) doesn't contain the perfect picture from anyone else (yet) either, in my humble (?well, maybe not) opinion.
(Also, as you spotted a couple of weeks back, I'm quite easily bemused by Porsches. Thank you for that one too.)
The category is absolutely correct. I was eleven years old when the Porsche 964 (Carrera 2/4) was presented, so it probably had a bigger impact on me than it did on you! Cheers and see you around. Mr.choppers (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
How do you upload the images from picasaweb to commons? Does exist some robot, which can help me? Thank you very much, --Svajcr (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Choppers,
I will categorize the photo's a little later.
I first wanted to upload as much of my photo's as quickly as possible under the main category's with the upload bot "Commonist" and than later categorize them as much as possible.
I have another +5000 to upload.
Regards,
Alf
Autopatrol given
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have grantedautopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. Ben.MQ (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Hoi Mr.choppers, thanks for clarification. If you have a look at Category:Honda vehicles, how would you classify the T500? As an automobile (generic term for all kinds of car bodies) or as a small truck? Maybe it makes sense to create a new subcategory for Honda pickup trucks (including the Ridgeline, too)? Hmm, I guess you know better what to do, so I leave it up to you :-) I just think that it makes sense to differentiate between [type of vehicle] categories (automobiles, motorcycles etc.) and specific [model/series name] categories. --:bdk:14:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I reverted before I knew that there was a "Honda Automobiles" category, or I would have just put it there - sorry. Maybe a "Honda trucks" category would be in order; this could include the T500, Ridgeline, as well as their Kei trucks. I'll go ahead and do it. Mr.choppers (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
안녕하세요? 제가 영어를 못하여 부득이하게 한국어로 적으니 양해바랍니다. Mr.choppers님이 적은대로 1989년부터 1991년에 생산된 건 맞습니다. 하지만 적어도 제 사진의 설명에는 생산 연도 없이 차명만 적고 싶었기에 지운 것입니다. 감사합니다. Chu (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, Google translate doesn't help in making any sense from your response. I shall endeavor to find a Korean/English speaker to help me figure out what you may be trying to tell me. Mr.choppers (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
colt galant gto
Yes, the subject of debut vs production date needed differentiation, but for the sake wikipedia editing protocol, you should've indicated that during your first “royal” undo of my corrections
But instead you give an unsubstantiated generalized claim my edit made the article “worse.” To me this indicates you’ve claimed ownership of this article. So, despite the fact I wrote at least ½ of this article myself, I wash my hands of it
no question you are guilty of abusing your advanced user privileges
this fact coupled with with your acerbic and vague reasoning about my "confusing" edits indicates that you're not the sort of person I'd like to collaborate with anyway
thus, if you are really sincere about improving this article rather than just policing it, then I encourage you to research the changes I made for yourself
this may be the only way for you to win some respectability back. Otherwise, your actions can only be viewed as autocratic and obstructionistic, and will earn you a spot on the blacklist
I will be more than happy to discuss your changes individually, but you claimed that calling 1970.11 the date of introduction "contradicts the cited reference material" - which it does not. As for the rest of the edits, I find many of them obfuscating and confusing - for instance, you replaced "in 1972" with "for 1973". Model years are not preferred for non-American cars, since the MY convention is not recognized abroad - the 2.0 was introduced in 1972, end of story. Obviously changing the end date to 1977 is an improvement, but amongst such a hodgepodge of confusions I prefer reverting the whole bunch and reintroducing things on a piecemeal basis. Best regards (I mean it!), Mr.choppers (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the →Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 06:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for posting a picture of my 1991 Peugeot 405S. It now has 255,000 miles and still runs great. I wish they still imported them to this country. Excellent picture and thanks for including me on Wikipedia. Bruce Morel, MD (General Surgeon)
Heh, thanks for keeping it in such good shape and parking it on the street! I hope it was a nice little surprise. I used to run an '87 505 Turbo S and miss it a lot. Mr.choppers (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
What does "facelift" mean in the Pinto captions?
You put "(facelift)" after several pictures in the Pinto gallery ... what does that mean? Most readers won't understand it, so it should either be explained or, if that's too complicated, just removed. IMHO, of course! - 71.168.70.4521:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello !
Since you wanted to hide the Tercel's license plates, I was thinking that you also can convert the backround of this logo to transparent, and save a new version of the file as PNG or SVG, with no compression..
I tried it myself with XnView (set the transparency value to palette entry), but it didn't work for some reason.. I have no idea how to do it.
Sincerely, Hoikka1 (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Text Doesn't Display Tone.
In reply to your poorly received message.
"Since you do not respond to any messages on your talkpage, whether in actions or directly in the form of an answer, I do not know why I am even putting forth this effort:
Your edits to Ford Fiesta are less than helpful. If you prefer "bhp" to "hp" then fine; but deleting all of the is highly destructive. The nbsp shows up as a space, but ensures that there is no linebreak between "1.6" and "L" (for instance). Your deletion of all of the no break spaces is a massive headache, and I saw it too late to simply undo your edits. Ornery, but still wishing to make friends, I am your ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)"
I just visited Wikipedia, and it was highlighted that I have a message. So I'm replying. I'm not sure how I've done anything less than required/practical. For 20 years or so, I've spent WAY too long online. Yet Wikipedia follows completely different (clunky) ways to do simple things such as PM'ing. I've spent half of my life helping others, and that's all I ever want to do. I'm extremely selfless, much to my own cost (in every way). I'm not rude either. I'd never ignore a contact, even one from a complete stranger.
My edits to the Ford Fiesta page took several HOURS of painstaking checking & rechecking. I politely request you learn the difference between BHP and HP. Not one of my edits were based on preference. To do so would be moronic & selfish. I cleaned the page the one uniform & correct set of terms.
The NSBP thing is completely my error. I thought it was a coding problem, as I've seen many sites suffer when edited from many different character sets etc. I thought that's what it was, since it was in random places (or, at-least, so it seemed). Sorry for that mistake.
I don't know about you, but I feel that Wikimedia Commons is severely lacking based on the absence of the following categories: "automobiles with hubcaps", "automobiles parked", "automobiles without electric windows", "automobiles with amber side turn signals", and of course "automobiles with much more modern-looking clear side turn signals". OSX (talk • contributions) 12:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I was hoping to find some pictures of "automobiles with much more modern-looking clear side turn signals facing right", but maybe I could just simply use photoshop and flip a picture horizontally? It has been done before. Mr.choppers (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Choppers, I'm so sorry. I want to ask you a questions, can I upload file that I had taken photo myself, but I had published it on my facebook page?? If I download photo from facebook which I had taken by camera, can i upload it to wiki??Isn't the file copyright violations?
Don't be sorry - I know the feeling of really wanting to provide illustrative images for articles of interest. As long as you took the original picture (and I'm afraid that you will be under particular scrutiny considering your history), having posted it to Facebook first is not a problem. To be honest, I would recommend uploading a few shots hitherto unseen on facebook or anywhere else, preferably all taken with the same camera, to establish some credibility. Additionally, facebook images are usually limited by size: if you can download the original-sized image directly from your camera, this would help prove ownership. Best of luck, hope to see your images soon. Mr.choppers (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Honda Civic MA/MB/MC
As far as I know, the Honda Domani was available only as a sedan model, while the Civic was available as a hatchback and station wagon. So please rethink your revert. Best regards --MB-one (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I am not so very worried about the bodystyles in question, but the five-door Civic (Liftback and wagon) were a separate range of cars from the regular Civic - and were based directly on the Domani. This can most clearly be indicated by the 5-door Civics sharing and M-series chassis code with the Honda Domani, see the Japanese Domani entry. All other Civics have received carry chassis codes beginning with the letter E. Mr.choppers (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Porsche 90.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.
Thanks for uploading File:1980 R18 TL break.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).
Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.
Thanks for uploading File:1980 Renault 18 TL Break.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).
Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.
Thanks for uploading File:1980 Renault R18 TL Break.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).
Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.
Thanks for uploading File:1980 Renault R18 TL dash (break).jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).
Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.
No licensing information found those pictures, assumed that they are not free. However, if I'm wrong please let me know and revert my edit.--Ginés90 (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking that you would know what category/categories that image belongs to ? I didn't find any suitable.
Also, since I doubt that you know technical english vocabulary better than me, I would be very grateful if you edit the file's description to more professional/suitable.
There is a post on my talk page that has been waiting for reply !
Hello Hoikka, I altered the description a little bit (not really necessary and feel free to revert) and categorized it - there aren't that many images in this category, so for now it just sits in Category:Automobile repair until there are enough images of, say, "automobile diagnostics" for that to be its own category. And yes, some people get a little wild and crazy and possessive in defending their uploads. Mr.choppers (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.
If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!
Hello Supermat, first of all thanks for all of the lovely pictures from Rétromobile. A quick question: I believe that the linked file is actually an Alpine A108, but am not certain enough to just move it on my own. Any possibility that you could shed some light upon this? mr.choppers (talk)-en-16:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Bonjour, voici la même voiture vue de l'arrière. Je ne suis pas un expert mais l'Alpine 110 a un coffre long et l'Alpine 108 un coffre court. Si tu aimes les photos de voitures, il y en a ici et là. Bonne fin de journée. --Thesupermat (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Mr.choppers! I'm glad you like the images I've uploaded to Commons. I could find a Ford Corcel, we have those here. However, it's quite rare because it's very old. I could contact a seller in the classified ads, but it can take some time. Feel free yo fix my images, of course. I'm not an expert in graphics and the cameras I've been using are limited, so some tricks could do great. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
If you use the helper-the scripts, you will find the links next to the search box (vector) or as single tabs (monobook). They are named license+ and license-
importScript('User:ZooFari/licensereviewer.js'); // stable script for reviewing images from any kind of source OR
importScript('User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js'); // contains also user notification when review fails, auto blacklist-check and auto-thank you message for Flickr-reviews.
Feel free to remove the CSD tag then in this image file. Best Regards and Goodnight from Vancouver, Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure. Its no problem at all. I guess you are a car guy. My main interest is in Ancient Egypt but the museums in Western Canada mostly have European and native Indian art as you can see on my userpage. I managed to source some images on Ancient Egypt and some on Persia in the past here and here and here from flickr account owners. Most of the time people here ask for direct attribution...in the image title itself which is fair since they took the pictures themselves. Many of the pictures from the Cairo Museum are priceless today since they were taken before mid-2005 when the Egyptian authorities banned all photography there. Regards and Goodnight where its 11:50 PM here on the Pacific Coast of North America, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.
If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!
Hi Mr.choppers, thank you very much for your work at that collection - I really do not have any idea about cars so your help is extremely valuable. Unfortunately my internet connection is very limited so it will last some time until all pictures will be uploaded (first package are 58 pics, the second will follow the next days) I hope there are some cars usable for WP/WM projects. Best Regards, -- Achim Raschka (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Mmh, that was carried away when we arrived at that afternoon (we were very late) so unfortunately I have no shot on it. The problems were that I 1) have no ideas what cars are important and 2) I always had to run after my two sons for whom I arranged that short afternoon trip - the one wanted to see Ferraris and Porsche, the other tractors ;O) ... -- Achim Raschka (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
In this morning I uploaded the rest of the pictures, partly from the new account of my son (7 years old). Concerning the Monza he had one picture, but its quality is not top. I uploaded it together with the rest and maybe you can work with it. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 08:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mr.choppers. Per this discussion, I'm looking for a license reviewer with a flickr account who is willing to add another flickr member as a contact to allow verification of private images. Is there any chance you're willing to do this? Cheers, Nikthestunned (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
I didn't know there was some kind of interest in that picture (good quality options exists). I think the vast majority of the Polonez cars of that city were there, because on that street was established a big Fiat's spare parts distributor at the time. So it was a really common sight. Santa Rosa is full with rare examples of the automotive industry.
Anyway, if the picture will be kept, I would like to know how delete the first version of it, because that can be considered a sensitive information. Regards Urbanoc (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
[copyvio mark removed]
This file, uploaded as copyvio by Leonardo Caporale, was cropped by you, removing a watermark (an url) that might alert you about the suspicious origin of the file... Gunnex (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I don't remember that but I presume I thought he was a member of said group. There are TONS of Latin American pictures uploaded by members of car clubs, incorporating hideous watermarks. I don't think they're all necessarily copyvios, many are probably attempts at promotion. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en-18:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Please try to mark some images in this category above if they have no copyright problems and if you did not upload them. I am busy in real life unfortunately. I mark what I can but someone else should mark the other images too. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.
If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!
File:Catalyzed.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Hello Mr.choppers, I think that this car is a 2012 Acura TL and not a 2014 RLX. The RLX was on the left side (we can see its headlights on the picture !). Thank you for your work, Navigator84 - Talk 17:45, 07 July 2013 (UTC+1)
Hi Mr.choppers - you recently uploaded a set of car images from Picasa (File:1962-70 Ford F-100 (Brazil).jpg and related files), which I'm doing a license review on. I can find no evidence of any creative commons license on their Picasa pages. Do you have any information on licenses for them? If there is none, they will have to be deleted. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
You have to use Picasa's old layoutown layout, rather than Google+, to see the licensing. I'm out of town right now and cannot really get too deeply into this. 75.99.0.5818:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Really strange, the CC-BY license is showing on the picasa pages now, which it wasn't yesterday. I'll review them all tomorrow (too late to go through them just now!) - MPF (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Tagging the country
Hey. As you upload cars pics from all over the world, it would be good if you could include the location (or even just the country). Sometimes it is obvious, other times it is not. This can help with identifying models. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 02:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I almost always include a geo location, but obviously that's a bit troublesome. Will do from now on. Thanks for the recognition. I usually do a lot of legwork identifying each car, depending on the registration authorities of the relevant nation when possible. Norway, for instance, gives you a LOT of information. mr.choppers (talk)-en-16:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for that. I've only just recently realised the registration authorities in Australia have license plate checkers. It does make the identification job much easier.
I have been trying a little bit to fill the gap left by IFCAR, but I have a hard time staying á jour with what new cars are out there (due to lack of interest). Bull-Doser is a source of exasperation, concern, and ample amusement. I know there's a list of articles needing car photos, I should probably check it out once in a while. Would you mind giving me the address for the Aussie site? I like having them all in my bookmarks, even though I don't think I'll be getting there any time soon since we are expecting. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en-02:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations on the soon-to-arrive baby! I have always found it interesting that there are not more US-based car photographers here. For a long time it was just IFCAR, yet the Germans and Japanese with much smaller populations ended up with around three major photographers each.
For Australia, the registration for vehicles is state based:
Queensland and the Northern Territory don't seem to have these checkers, and for Western Australia, the website only tells you if the car is registered (not the model details). OSX (talk • contributions) 03:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Hm, that's more complicated but I guess you already did the legwork. I really don't think Americans actually like cars, and the anoraks here just seem to worry about Star Trek. Oh well, keeps me useful. mr.choppers (talk)-en-03:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
File:LZW 1010 in Taklamakan.jpg
DG 1021?
Hello Mr Choppers ! The white pickup behind the Liuzhou Wuling is made by ZX Auto (Zhongxing). Its logo looks really like of Opel logo. Thank you for your work ! Navigator84 - talk 20:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC+1)
Thanks! Feel free to just edit the file directly (I will add this fact). Also, a question - I uploaded another file from the same user's photo stream, and after lots of searching I'm pretty sure that it's a Shuguang DG 1021, except I can't find any pictures of a version with this high trim level. Also, the cursive on the side really seems to spell out "Something", which is a shit name for a vehicle even by Chinese standards. Here's some pics of a regular DG 1021. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en-18:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Hard work ! I'm really impressed about your searches on Flickr. About your picture, I'm sorry but I don't know the model of this pick-up without logo and/or series number. But I will ask. As you know, the old Isuzu TF pick-up is very popular (and its SUV versions - like the Chevrolet LUV Wagon sold in south America) for chinese constructors. I have pictures of Foton, Changfeng, JMC and Great Wall's TF copies but not all uploaded on Commons (just half of my pictures are uploaded). Navigator84 - talk 22:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC+1)
I've been considering making a spotter's guide to Chinese Isuzu derivatives (and one for Hiace copies, too) but I really don't know enough and there seem to be countless manufacturers. I like digging through Flickr streams, one ends up finding a lot of fun stuff that way, so thanks for the recognition. Still wish I had some airplane tickets instead! mr.choppers (talk)-en-20:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Don't forget all 1st-gen Kia Sorento copies ! I think the chinese car market is one of most interesting in the world. In 5 months I saw cars from everywhere : imported from US, Europe, Japan or South Korea, old chinese cars, Hongqi vehicles, chinese copies, .... One of most interesting place where I was to see cars is a huge second-hand car market in Beijing : http://i39.tinypic.com/15ybxo1.jpg (the blue building on the left bottom is the Beijing Auto Museum). In this car market, there are hundreds cars. In the 2 big buildings, there are used cars imported from US or Europe - none vehicles cost less than 50-60.000$ . In this place, we can see Ferraris, Lambos, Hummer limousine, 90's Rolls, chinese cars, Renault and others ~ an amazing place ! I hope go back in China next year. Navigator84 - talk 23:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC+1)
→ Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 06:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
V-wolf (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_sedan_01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
