- 1 Your picture is used on this Finnish website
- 2 A Tesla Roadster for you!
- 3 One-Golf magazine
- 4 Edits
- 5 Otto schimik bio sources?
- 6 Production car
- 7 Use of photo
- 8 e-book
- 9 UNC-P Photo
- 10 Images
- 11 You've got mail!
- 12 revert
- 13 LCBH used your photo
- 14 Thanks for editing
- 15 My M-170
- 16 1957 Rambler Station Wagon
- 17 Photo credit
- 18 Editor of the Week
- 19 You erase the contributions without any discussion
- 20 use of 1954 Hudson Hornet image
- 21 Photo of 1925 Nash by Christopher Ziemnowicz
- 22 Gas cap picture
- 23 Use of image
- 24 Photo Usage
- 25 I used the file 1968_AMC_Rebel_Station_Wagon-GoldWhite.jpg for another wiki
- 26 Palm Beach Florida
- 27 Chrysler
- 28 South Palm Beach
- 29 JEEP COWBOY
- 30 1969 427 rs / ss
- 31 Edits to Propane Autogas under Alternative Fuels
- 32 December 2014
- 33 Merge discussion for Timing belt (camshaft)
- 34 65 Mustang
- 35 AWSUM CAR
- 36 1967-1970 Ford Mustang Edit
- 37 Plymouth Barracuda
- 38 car classfication
- 39 TWL HighBeam check-in
Your picture is used on this Finnish website
- Thank you! - CZmarlin
A Tesla Roadster for you!
|A Tesla Roadster for you!|
|Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)|
Dear Sir/Madam, On behalf of One-Golf magazine in Taiwan, we are pleased to contact with you and reveal our requirement for this image. As a publisher in the leadership of Golf report in Taiwan, Car-News has never stopped looking for every quality work from the spheres that all the males are fascinated with. To fill the acquisitiveness of our readers, the articles for production cars or limited edition supercars have been also well written in our monthly issue from its beginning. This is not just our obligation to bring good reports to them but a pleasure to offer the profits for the car makers through our magazines. We believe, anyhow, that this image from you is supposed to be considerably appreciated.
Thank you for your time and may the joy around you always
- Ok, but I am not sure which image you are referring to because I have uploaded about 1,800 photographs, so far. CZmarlin (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Otto schimik bio sources?
I'm trying to write an article on Otto for a national Catholic magazine in the U.S., and can find nothing in print publishing, English or Polish, that confirms this Otto Schimek Wiki bio. Can you help?
- I will update the Otto Schimek article to current URLs and access dates because I just checked and two of the citations are no longer live. That is a typical problem of change over the years in the Internet and is described here: link rot.
- Nevertheless, a Google search on Otto Schimek provides numerous websites with some information. However, you should select "books" under the "more" Google search options to see several reputable published sources. Moreover, you should also use Google Scholar in your research. For example, please click here. I hope that helps!
- CZmarlin (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking time to answer my inquiry. I've found one biography. [ http://www.worldcat.org/title/spor-o-grenadiera-schimka/oclc/15697580 ] Having no Polish skill, I'm limited. Could this be a credible source? Found it in the backpages of google "scholar." Its the only thing I've seen thus far that may offer biographical details of his life and death. Every thing else just comments on his place in the political spectrum. Let me know.
- You appear as one of the original contributors to the Wiki article on Otto that gives the most detailed English explanation of Otto's life and death that I've been able to find in 3 weeks of research and correspondence. Where did these fairly unified details come from? Otto's sister seems to be the most positive proponent of his story. Did she write anything to a Polish publisher? Did any member of the formal Polish Catholic church write of his life? Was he ever nominated for sainthood? Thanks again for any help you can offer. Mike McCarthy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccpax (talk • contribs) 21:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- My contributions to this article were to provide appropriate referenced material, as is the goal throughout the WP effort. However, this is not my area of expertise! The contributions and references I added came from my Internet searches. However, there is controversy regarding the life and actions of this individual. The Polish WP has a different view of Schimek, as well as a link to this recent Wprost magazine report. Nevertheless, there are additional Polish web sites that repeat the myth about him, such as this one. Wishing you all the best in your research. Please be sure to add material this article! CZmarlin (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
CZmarlin, Thank you for the response and the link to the parish webpage on Otto Schimek. This is very helpful. And mindful of the controversy, I'll continue to research. In solidarity, Michael McCarthy, Port Huron, MI USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccpax (talk • contribs) 16:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi - saw your recent edits to the article - thanks. I just want to understand what is meant by two of the sentances you added as they seem to be missing context. The sentances were: The fastest production American sedan for 1957 was the fabulous Rambler Rebel... a limited-production car—only 1,500 were produced..." According to tests by Motor Trend, "only a fuel-injected Chevrolet Corvette sports car was faster overall compared to the six-passenger Rambler for that year.
- It is meant to illustrate the definition of what number makes it a "production car". In this case, the author describes "only 1,500 units" as being "limited production" but all of these sedans were marketed to the general public! I was hoping to expand on the section of how many does it take to qualify as a production car. I don't think there is any definite number for reaching "limited production" status in credible sources. In any case, the existing examples described cars built in very few numbers or were clearly "modified" and unusual, purpose-built sports or racing vehicles. I think this example adds to the discussion of production cars in the form of more ordinary automobiles, as was the case with the use of the Model T example. CZmarlin (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks - I thought that might be what you were wanting to do. The whole "what is a production car" is a minefield, with about as many differing definitions are there are car makes. I, along with several others, have been trying to nail down the definition for some time. There was a fairly lengthy debate on Talk:List of fastest production cars/Archive 3#Page protected/20 car limit - new discussion which failed to reach any consensus, but if you are interested it does provide some idea of the difficulties encountered. Regards - NealeFamily (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Use of photo
Used your photo of '67 Rebel interior on the back page of our monthly newsletter, April 2014 WeatherEyeNews for CascadeRamblers.org. Thankyou220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC) 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- You are more than welcome to use the pictures of AMC vehicles! The 1967 Rebel is one of my favorite models! - CZmarlin
- Yes, you can use photos that I have posted in the Commons! Please also let me know the e-book! CZmarlin (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Christopher - I wanted to let you know that I am using your photo of the Givens Performing Arts Center in the May edition of ARRAY Magazine, a free publication available in the Fayetteville area. Thank you for releasing the photo for use. If you need to reach me or have questions, email irisinnc at gmail.com -Iris Carter Irisinnc (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you! - CZmarlin
Magníficas imágenes de muchas marcas he seguido tu trabajo y grancias por ponerlas disponibles al public un saludo desde Mécio D.F. J. Ortega — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- It is good to know that you enjoy the pictures I have uploaded! CZmarlin (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
You've got mail!
- The reason why I removed your bandsaw example is that they do not all use solid rubber or other polymer tires. Sorry that I did not put this explanation in the edit summary. - CZmarlin (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
LCBH used your photo
I wanted to let you know that we used your photo for our 5th annual Tenants in Foreclosure report. The report is titled "Chicago’s Foreclosure Crisis: Community Solutions to the Loss of Affordable Rental Housing" and is available at http://lcbh.org/reports/foreclosure/2013. We also gave you credit which appears on the inside front cover.
Thanks for editing
|Thanks for editing|
|I appreciate you helping out with the page" Automotive industry in the United States", but if you could leave it for few days until I get my feedback from my instructor.|
I want to thank you for the early pictures of my M-170. We were at car show at the Frederick, Maryland MVA show. I have slowly improved it's restoration since then. If you want I can send you updated pictures of it. Kevin Lancaster
- Kevin! Great to know about your restoration of your vehicle! I enjoy original old vehicles and like to spread the word about them, as well as make images of them available for all to enjoy. I would encourage you to post pictures in the Commons, because you are the author of them! Of course, it would be great to see your Jeep M-170 at a show in its new condition! If you are not already a member, I would suggest the Sugarloaf Mountain AACA ~ CZmarlin (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
1957 Rambler Station Wagon
Two of your photos of the restored 1957 Rambler Station Wagon were used in the July, 2014 edition of the Friends of DuPont Forest newsletter that featured an article about a 1957 Rambler Cross Country Station Wagon with 74,445 miles on the odometer that was abandoned and is now rusting alongside Poplar Hill Loop Trail in DuPont State Forest in western North Carolina. Thanks for putting these photos in the public domain. Sprinter10 (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your Foto, which i use on my blog www.myfloridablog.de
Hi, CZmarlin, I have just used a cropped and flipped version of your photograph, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AInternational_Harvester_B-120_flatbed_red.jpg, on my elder-care blog, JoyousParadox.com. Here is the link to the post, which is entitled "Notebook: International Harvester Memory": http://joyousparadox.com/2014/08/01/international-harvester-memory-fifties-sixties-trucks-writing-exercise/. I included a photo credit to you and a link to the Wikimedia page. With thanks, Mary Ann Barton. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Editor of the Week
|Editor of the Week|
|Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for eight years of contributions ranging from images to article work – here for the sheer joy of contributing. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)|
- I'm nominating 1950s American automobile culture. I found that he has uploaded a tremendous amount of his own images, mainly automobile and related images, to Commons and Wikipedia over the years. His photography and other works adds value to Wikipedia every day, and it easy to see he has watchlisted a number of articles, gnoming, protecting, cleaning and preserving the work of others, plus adding his own prose. While he avoids the limelight, his work is worthy of notice. Editors like CZmarlin are the lifeblood of Wikipedia, people that contribute for years on end, purely for the joy of it. Thanks CZ, Wikipedia really is a better place because of you. on June 13th, his 8th WikiBirthday. In this time, he has produced over 20,000 edits and a dozen DYKs. Fully 86% of his edits are to articles, showing that he is here solely to build an encyclopedia. I first noticed him when I used one of his images in the lede of an article I was working on last year,
- Thank you for your wonderful contributions and your respect for fellow editors. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
You erase the contributions without any discussion
Hello. You can not erase the contributions of the other people like you often do, without participating to any discussion and deciding alone (or alone with some of your friends hee). People will think that it is vandalism. Wikipedia is a common project. It is necessary to accept that some other contributors do not have the same ideas than yours. The readers too...
As to me, I opened a discussion, I presented the arguments and proofs, I traced the date of the modifications, I did not erase, but I added etc.
So please, don't erase violently the modifications of other people. It is not respectful for the others, for the Wikipedia "team" spirit. Someone who does something about which you did not think yourself is not an enemy to erase as well as her contributions.
Why have I added some pictures and not removed some ? Because I have some relevant reasons:
- I respect the other contributors
- to increase the neutrality, else mostly VW group, Ford and GM are represented in all articles, what does not respect the reality of the offer
- a photo for different segment size of MPV
Why have I added a picture of the Twingo and a caption with some historical and statistical informations ? Because almost no car makers interested to city cars in the 80s, but when the Twingo has been unveiled, then it triggered the launches of some city cars in all the other brands, in the 10 next years. BMW did not interest to Mini, before the Twingo triggered the trend. Neither Smart. Etc. But no old and "awarded" contributor wrote that.
I asked in the discussion if I could replace one of the 2 BMW photos to increase the balance. You did not answer about that. But you erase my contributions.
Why did you remove some texts too ?
"5 doors or estate" => I wanted to point out that there is still a subcompact model as estate, whereas the Peugeot 207 has not been replaced, and the other subcompact models do not exist as estate. So it brings a relevant illustration for the readers. But you come and you erase without thinking that a contributors had her relevant reasons to write that. It is not respectful for Wikipedia and all the readers who would appreciate this information. You should have not erase that arbitrarily.
I am a good person and with knowledges. So an honest person would be happy to welcome her contributions, to work with her and to discuss to improve the content, instead of erasing her contributions and wanting to kick her away, don't you think so ?
Look here Vehicle size class#Europe : "a car such as the Volkswagen Golf might be described as being in the Ford Focus size class, or vice versa. The VW Polo is smaller, so it belongs one segment below the Golf, while the bigger Passat is one segment above." Citing 2 times the Golf in 2 lines, 4 times VW, once Ford, no other. No "old" contributor with "awards" changed that to improve the neutrality of the content. Perhaps, because they support this non-neutral content. What else ?
Look here City_car#The boom, same kind of problem, desperate attempt to promote VW and GM : "These Korean city cars were much cheaper than most of the European models, especially the Opel/Vauxhall Agila (2000) and Volkswagen Lupo (1999), yet were still reliable."
Why all articles about cars are mostly glorifying only 3 brands and even changing in the text the reality of the car industry history ? Because the oldest contributors let that do. They do not erase when it corresponds to their arbitrary ideas. But my honest and relevant contributions are erased...
So some "awarded" people don't respect "assume good faith", but let some ridiculously arbitrary contents in the articles.
The is a problem to solve. Do you want to participate to an honest solution ? Obviously, the old contributors who let this non-neutral content for years on Wikipedia will not be arbitrarily happy that the content will be more TRUE and neutral...
Have a nice day.
use of 1954 Hudson Hornet image
I will use your image of the 1954 Hudson Hornet in my blog www.misswandaandi.com. This is a free, no commercialization blog featuring my musings and opinions. I shall be happy to make attribution. The piece isn't written yet, but it will have to do with using the imagination listening to old radio shows like "The Green Hornet." My father bought a green 1954 Hornet since he was such a fan of Hudson and the show. Thanks David Phillips McDade TX 78650 dkp@Austin.rr.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Photo of 1925 Nash by Christopher Ziemnowicz
Used your photo of the 1925 Nash automobile on Facebook, University of Wisconsin-River Falls (UWRF) University Archives & Area Research Center. Posting about someone counting types of cars in downtown River Falls in 1926. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- You are most welcome to use the pictures of the cars to illustrate a particular era!! CZmarlin (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Gas cap picture
The band Flimsy has used the photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_Gremlin#mediaviewer/File:AMC_Gremlin_logo_gas_cap_Cecil%2710.jpg on http://www.flimsyrock.com/new-gallery-2/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Looks great! I lope you have success in marketing your music! CZmarlin (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Use of image
Hello, Would like to use image in a digital story about an Australian bushman who used to have a similar truck. The story is being used for not for profit. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, you can use photos that I have posted in the Commons! CZmarlin (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I will be using your picture of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Offices in a school project. The project has the potential to be used on a phone app giving a historical tour of locations in Indianapolis. You have been given credit.
I used the file 1968_AMC_Rebel_Station_Wagon-GoldWhite.jpg for another wiki
Hey, I used one of your photos for my wikia about an own video game. I credited you of course, just leave a message there if you don't want me to use it. :)
Palm Beach Florida
I have reverted your photo that from a technical standpoint has no where near the quality or general perspective that the updated on has. That photo might be placed down a bit on the page, but the claim the other picture is superior is utterly ridiculous honestly, it looks to have been taken with a drone, and does not in any way depict what the city and the WHOLE city, looks like. I have requested other parties respond on the project talk page, please refrain from removing the picture now in place until we have other users chime in. Thanks.talk→ 20:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I reverted your revert, but am working on rewriting that entire bit in the lead, and within the body of the article. The way it reads now is unbalanced, and I'm trying to get it to a sufficient NPOV. I should have it done later today. Onel5969 (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
South Palm Beach
Yes the photo ALSO shows the other areas but how on EARTH does a sign visually depict the city better then a picture that has the city and surrounding areas? talk→ 02:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. I am sure that as a pilot you can take an aerial picture that will include only a specific area of the Earth, rather than showing several towns stretching to the distant horizon. Your image illustrates far more than the small Town of South Palm Beach. Yes, it is a nice photograph, but it needs to have the various town limits drawn on it. Otherwise, it makes the Town of South Palm Beach look as if it covers a huge area because this image clearly shows several land masses among the numerous water features in the region. A traditional map can more clearly show the political boundaries of the town, as well as its Atlantic Ocean and Intracoastal shorelines to help the reader "visualize" the place and its surrounding areas. None of these are readily evident to specifically position the Town of South Palm Beach in the aerial image you have uploaded for a reader who is not familiar with the region. On the other hand, I think that most people can easily visualize South Palm Beach from a picture taken of a sign, buildings, and the only street in this town that is less than 3/4 of a mile long. I am sure that the vast majority of WP readers visualize a town's features, streets, buildings, etc. from the surface of the Earth. Most WP articles contain an image of a typical land-based characteristic in a particular town or city. I hope this helps to explain my revert. CZmarlin (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- From a perspective of value, as a pilot it defies logic to have a picture that is ONLY of a focused area that as the pic that I cropped out of the one you reverted shows. A aerial photo that shows surrounding land masses and visual aids to aviators would have far more value then the view that you seem to prefer. As far as using a street sign over a real aerial photo of the area, that is simply not a argument and it is silly to argue about it. As I have said before, you had mentioned your personal desires. I am aware of what you want, and after years and years and years of contributing original aerial photos, I have yet to hear the street sign over aerial photo argument, nor did you address the request that you start by using a talk page before you simply revert my contributions. Thanks. talk→ 03:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- WPPilot, Please be honest and show the original image that was reverted from the article that shows a huge portion of Palm Beach County, and not just post another version on my talk page in an effort to deceive me. I would also comment that your new picture still shows more than just the Town of South Palm Beach. Moreover, putting messages on an contributor's talk page before making changes to a WP article is not typically expected nor required. All editors are expected to work to improve WP. Your professional expertise as a pilot clearly shows a preference for aerial views. I am sorry if you think that land-based images seem inferior to help readers visualize towns and cities. Please continue to upload your images and respect the views of other contributors to WP articles. Thanks, CZmarlin (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you calling me a liar, Both are the same photo! Any rational person is going to prefer the aerial photo to the one you "like" of the sign. I posted the cut out version, above before you replied so if someone needs to be honest it is you, my integrity is without question here. I posted a alt and then put it, on the page. Not once has any other person, other then YOU ever made these type of comments or strict criticism perhaps next time I can use your plane and take the pictures that you like, of street signs? "I am sorry if you think that land-based images seem inferior" the standard I try to use for ANY photo I upload is "Will this pic fill the requirements of the featured photos requirement's. The photo of a street and the sign, would NEVER be nominated as a featured photo, much less become one. On the other hand, the editors of Wikipedia HAVE chimed in and nominated MANY of my photos as FEATURED photos, if someone other then you were to chime in that would be fine, but your way off base if you think I care enough about you, to try to deceive you, that's just whacky. Your photo has the rear end of a person (I count 8 asses total) as well as a car well, 8 cars 2 parked 5 rear ends and one coming at you, in it. Professionally speaking that photo has NO VALUE WHATSOEVER. I am sorry but that is the truth, no one would EVER publish the rear end of a man walking away with the town sign in the right hand corner much less 8 peoples rear side. Your February 2008 Canon PowerShot photo is useless to anyone in professional media. Go have another slice of pie and enjoy the rest of your turkey day! talk→ 04:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Vážení jsem nadšencem automobilů JEEP již 60 let. Chci vytvořit obrazovou encyklopedii a proto bych rád získal Vaše svolení k použití některých obrázků. Děkuji Gustav Josef Toufar. email:email@example.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
1969 427 rs / ss
I would like more info on my 1969 camaro pre x car 427 rs / ss ..can you provide me with how many of these cars was produced please and any other info about this car ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B105:925A:B04A:A4BF:4A45:B561 (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Edits to Propane Autogas under Alternative Fuels
Can you please explain why you felt it necessary to remove the section on Propane Autogas from the Alternative Fuels section?
There was no spam, the additions were referencing government and research sources and there was no commercial content.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- [[==Fourth generation==
Merge discussion for Timing belt (camshaft)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Timing belt (camshaft), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
You're right, it's a '67. I had to look a bit closer before I realised that.05:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I drove one similar to this one, but it had a 4 speed manual...And could it run,,, Drove mine in 1972..They sure do not make cars like this BAD BOY Anymore....Love all the pics..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
1967-1970 Ford Mustang Edit
The 1967-1970 Mustangs did get bigger. I'm not disputing that. They DID get more powerful,much more so. Just because something is referenced that makes it true? If there is a webpage somewhere that says that '1967-70 Mustangs got bigger but not necessarily more powerful.' It's okay to leave it on there. I disagree. That statement is blatantly false. Did you compare any engine horsepower numbers across the years before re-posting what I deleted? The most powerful engine in 1966, made 271hp in 1967-70, the most powerful engine all made well over 300hp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbigjohnson (talk • contribs) 15:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I used the Nash Healey photo in our AACA Region newsletter with credit given to you. Thank you for sharing your work. Joe Pinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems that I reverted your improvements to Plymouth Barracuda when I was attempting to remove some promotional material. I just wanted to let you know that it was unintentional and I'm sorry that you had to redo your edits. Deli nk (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Please only change the part of my edits you disagree with and give good reason. Sorry I didn't give explanations for each edit because i am using a tablet and carnt edit the whole page and only give reason at end i will try to change this`Lukeblake (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
TWL HighBeam check-in
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,
You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
- Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
- Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
- Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
Stop messing with edits you stupid piece of crap you know nothing about Chevy canaros or crown Vic's so just stop it you lazy sack of crap — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)