Hello, Coachbuild! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Beagel (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Themfromspace (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Karrosserie Pennock with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Karrosserie Pennock.
You make it just too complex and time consuming for me to contribute...
All I do is adding info about all coachbuilders I know and all you do is questioning and deleting it.
I am not violating any copyrights from www.coachbuild.com, because I have their permission.
I have quite a lot to add about all coachbuilders (first hand, second and third hand) out of my own knowledge and from notable people and friends in the business and I've only just started. There's a lot of crap and false details in many articles about coachbuilders and car manufacturers, but it seems it is not always appreciated if I correct these articles. Much information cannot be found on the internet so it's almost impossible to refer to other online sources and besides, many other online sources are false as well...--Coachbuild (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my intention, nor anyone else's, I should think, to gang up. Yes, the encyclopedia does have guidelines which can make it difficult to create a new article, and text cut-and-pasted from other web sites sends up red flags. Notability is a perennial issue as well. If there is little information online about the subject (I looked, too, and did not find much, either) then printed publications are invaluable. For all the articles I have written or contributed to in a major fashion, I have relied far more on my personal library, and that of the college where I teach, than on the internet. The best and most comprehensive references for writing an article on Wikipedia reside between book covers. Good luck, JNW (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still, most of the info I can provide comes from people I know, not from print. I am sort of a dinosaur when it comes to internet. I'm just an old guy who knows a thing or two and is very willing to share. The same as I share my knowledge with my friends at www.coachbuild.com
Therefore I have their permission to copy-paste it into wikipedia.--Coachbuild (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm a bit of a dinosaur in my field, too. I write for a national publication, but I never contribute anything to Wikipedia without providing reliable published sources. You and I might be experts, but we have to support whatever we write with the scholarship of others, which is as it should be. You could use the web site as a reference, re-writing the text, but for the article to stick it will probably needs more sources. If you can find anything in print...JNW (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then... I will share my expertise with dedicated websites. However, the thing I can not appreciate is that Wikipedia is full of false info as long as the refered piblications are false as well. Which happens a lot in the automotive industry. A certain car manufacturer is publishing false performance figures about their cars, but because it is published all over the internet it is considered as true... ?? While newly established companies or less well known coachbuilders from the past have difficulties to appear correctly on Wikipedia as long as there are no other publications...--Coachbuild (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a lack of caring, at least I hope not. What you suggest is sad, but probably true. Large institutions can effectively transmit propaganda through advertising, which can be taken as fact, if it's repeated loud and long enough. It might not always work, but Wikipedia does discourage contributions from interested parties, WP:COI. And if there is content from a neutral party that contradicts a manufacturer's claims, then it must be shared and cited. Granted, there is information from not so long ago that has not been transferred to the internet, but that is the value of libraries and booksellers, which one hopes never go out of fashion. JNW (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Michiel van den Brink, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Non notable car, never saw production, to photographs to prove that, all I see is CGI image. I doubt it ever went past the drawing board let alone being authorized by Ferrari themselves, no third party media coverage to do with it to establish notability either.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vandenbrink GTO until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Donnie Park (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
