This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mr.choppers.
Mr.choppers' talk page
Hullo. Please Click Here to leave me a new message. Please see my user page for more information about me.
To messages left on my talk page, i respond on my talk page. If you are responding to a conversation I started on your talkpage, please respond there - rest assured I have bookmarked your page and won't miss your responses.
You can write to me in any of the languages mentioned on my userpage. Usually I'll answer in English, unless you write in Swedish, then I'll use Swedish myself.
My current time is 01:26 — please have that in mind if leaving time-sensitive comments.
All messages on my talk page are archived once the page gets uncomfortably large.
Please do not remove/revert things here, as I like to archive everything.
The photo of the yellow Saab Sonett on Wikipedia from Lime Rock is my car. Nice picture. My only comment is about the comment. You indicated that the mirrors were incorrect, as they were supposed to be black, rectangular. The 1974 Saab Full line brochure shows a Sonett with chrome Talbot style mirrors. This is shown in a link from Hemming’s which follows.
@Romanpart: Thanks for the clarification! I will correct the description. Great car, thanks for showing and sharing. I remember chatting with you briefly (it was probably raining). Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 16:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I notice there are so many vandalism on the articles of Livan Automotive so I revert them all.
And I want to clarify some facts regarding with those articles. The Maple, Shanghai Maple Auto, and Livan Automotive are actually same company that evolved in name and capital structure in past decade. The original article Shanghai Maple has been moved to Maple (marque) by author Jengtingchen in October 28, 2020, and furtherly moved to Livan Automotive by me in May 17, 2023. (please see the contribution history of Livan Automotive). The vandal revert those edit thus created so many chaos and I just try to fix it.
@Infinty 0: Maple is a separate, budget oriented brand, whereas Livan is focused on electric cars. While there is clearly some overlap in the corporate structure I disagree with merging these. "Maple (marque)" is a bad title, "marque" just being a fancy name for brand. I suggest keeping Shanghai Maple and Livan Automotive as separate articles since the two brands are clearly distinct. Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, thanks for letting me know. Your name came up on Who Wrote That, and I didn't think to check if you had moved the text from an existing article. That name is actually familiar to me as just yesterday I caught a copyvio they had added to Nissan Sentra. I'm not a car expert, so if I removed something important, please feel free to rewrite it and return it to the article. I took a look at some of the articles you've worked on and everything looked good, so I was wondering why this one edit by you had an issue. Glad to see you already understand copyright, keep up the good work on car articles. This came up because I saw Shanghai Maple in the queue at New pages patrol, and I was about to mark it as reviewed but I found an issue on my copyvio check. I'm no longer worried about copyvio now, so I will mark it as reviewed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what the new Lexus GX and Prado model codes are? I had a quick search and didn't find anything. I suspect somebody took the old J150 code and just added 100 but Toyota doesn't follow a very consistent pattern with the GX and Prado. Stepho talk02:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did some more digging. https://www.drive.com.au/news/2024-toyota-prado-imagined-from-lexus-gx/ says that it will probably be badged as the 250 series and guesses that that reflects the model code. The smart guys at ih8mud.com are calling it the LC250 (dropping the Prado name in N.America). I've also seen some mentions of LC180 at team-bhp.com but that might only be a guess. Hopefully Toyota/Lexus will put some nice brochures on their Japanese site when it is released for sale - they typically mention full model codes there. Stepho talk05:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jidu Auto, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Lumpenproletariat, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
There was a typo (give-speed manual) on the page prior to the removal. I reverted your edit since the trim section was already poorly written, and edited often by IPs, please don't revert every single edit done by an LTA or sockpuppet.
E.g. Alex Neman and MrDavr are both constructive editors, so revert them carefully. Thank you.
Anything on Wikipedia is freely licensed; the info is on the Commons page of whatever photo it is. Usually we request credit (like having "Mr.choppers @ Wikipedia" printed somewhere on the photo) but you do whatever you feel like. Have a good party. Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi- the photo you posted is of my car, which raced in the 348 Challenge series in 1995. Your annotation incorrectly states it never raced. The livery it currently wears is replicating that with which it raced at Moroso Motorsports Park in 1995. Can you please correct the note? Great pic, btw! 173.56.86.235 (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, my parents bought a 1980 Buick LeSabre with the 350 Olds Diesel engine. I know the LeSabre article is uncited, but I thought I saw evidence of this on brochures. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
With all due respect, I have no idea what you are talking about. For the purposes of the MOS:FIRST sentence of the lead it is entirely a tautology to say that a car was made by a car maker, and it doesn't matter which particular synonyms you use to say so. While from an extremely pedantic perspective "produce" and "manufacture" might have slightly different definitions, accuracy matters more than precision in the opening sentence of the lead of the article, which is supposed to give a concise definition of the subject of the article. Cars are inherently the products of car manufacturers, and it is only helpful to comment on the subject when their manufacturer is an entity that does not usually produce cars. MOS:REDUNDANCY and MOS:LEADCLUTTER entirely apply here. Poorly-written opening sentences give a bad first impression of an entire article and can devalue the hard work editors put in to writing the rest of them. There is also the issue that "automaker" is not a commonly used term in British English and sounds like a term that might refer to an industrial robot or a 3D printer, and thus isn't appropriate to use in articles about British cars. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, car and carmaker are not synonyms, thus no tautology. Produce and manufacturer are not synonyms. You are confusing the words manufacture and manufacturer, it seems. A writer writes things; also not a tautology. "Automaker" is in no way uncommon; I got 36,900,000 results with Google. Mr.choppers | ✎ 23:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to apologise for perhaps overreacting the other day. I think I was feeling stressed and allowed a minor pet peeve to get to me far more than it should. I hope you are doing well and wish you a happy new year. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Simca Vedette. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to engage in gatekeeping of knowledge. Having articles at titles that only make sense to a very small number of people goes against all standard Wikipedia practice and also my basic ethical standards. If me WP:BOLDly moving the article to an objectively better title annoys you that much then you move it back yourself. Read WP:CRITERIA, please. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea. From WP:CRITERIA: "When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent."
There is a reason that consistency comes last in the list there. A consistently bad naming scheme is still a bad naming scheme. There is nothing recognisable or natural about a random series of numbers and/or letters as a disambiguator, whereas specifying the generation or the year the article subject entered production is far more natural and recognisable to a layperson while still being equally precise in most cases (the Corolla might be an exception, but it is a rare one). In most cases "[model name] (UIKLHUKAIGEASIOFUHYSDIKFHUSDIFHSDKILFLJ57839845734890573490825580934750375893475893027530758340397384973249889534298283952347)" is a fairly extreme case of WP:OVERPRECISION. Whilst "[model name] ([nth] generation)" might be less concise than "[model name] (JQ83)" or whatever, that is not a major concern with the "[model name] (YYYY)" format. I am objectively correct here. I cannot comprehend what purpose using article titles that require pre-existing specialist knowledge to understand serves other than gatekeeping, which I view as being antithetical to the core concept of Wikipedia. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note here that how Toyota or BMW articles are disambiguated is not directly relevant to how the articles on the Alfa Romeo Giulia and Maserati Ghibli should be disambiguated, and that there is a clear precedent with the Dodge Charger for disambiguating articles about reused nameplates like that in a manner that actually makes sense to someone who doesn't work for the company that makes the car. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanBodyPiloter5: as I explained to you already: either work to have the policy changed or redefined, or follow it. This is a collaborative project and you cannot unilaterally change how things are done. Discuss things. Communicate. Mr.choppers | ✎ 16:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noted that I forgot to add a source, I just added a source, SEAT's UK boss hinted that SEAT will still make cars and will also debut an entry-level EV. 212.154.66.111 (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JackkBrown: you deleted the entire navbox at Gelato, not just the "Collapsed" parameter. I guess I do not understand what you are trying to accomplish? In general, I recommend not using your phone to edit as it causes a lot of trouble, especially with layouts and wikicode stuff. Mr.choppers | ✎ 21:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said "don't use the comma-seperated related models and it looking like the Leon is unsourced", but you kept restoring the edit with the unsourced data and comma-seperated related models. I'm not going to start an edit war, just need help. 212.154.66.111 (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I wanted to ask for your advice regarding the "custom car" and "car tuning" articles since you're one of the most active editors on automotive Wikipedia. The custom car article was previously someone's rambling passion project where they chronicled the American hot rod and kustom car scene in great detail, and i've slowly been trying to remove a lot of the excessive detail and make it into an article that focuses on car customization as a practice more generally (i'm still far from done). I've also done a little work on the car tuning article which was just generally a sloppy and inaccurate article. What i'm wondering though, is what direction do you think these articles should be taken in? I'm not sure whether they should be merged, kept separate, and if the latter, where the line should be drawn as to what fits in each article. Would love to here what you think. TKOIII (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TKOIII: thanks for including me - as a nerd for originality, I am not particularly interested in customized/tuned cars. There is obviously a need for article(s), but I can also see them becoming dumping grounds for random people's pet interest and thousand-picture galleries. While there is a distinction between the terms, it may be one of those "I knows it when I sees it" situations. Personally I think English WP is a bit too obsessed with merging articles when there is overlap (like pickup and ute), so I lean towards keeping both.
I guess my short answer is that you've taken on a big and thankless job; I am perfectly content to focus on the things I care about and leave these two to the wolves, but I will be happy to check in and make sure that we maintain an encyclopaedic tone over there. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 22:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that I'd go so far as to call the Police Special Sierra a hoax (there were images of the vehicle in police livery among the cited sources), but I agree that surely, better sources should be available than enthusiast forums. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!21:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were absolutely British Police Sierras, but User:Sheriff LeMans is saying that there was a US-market SSP with a Cosworth engine and that these were then exported back to Europe. This is not true, and the sources do not support it. Mr.choppers | ✎ 22:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Johannes Maximilian was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nissan TD engine and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Michelotti Shellette, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
For that thread, yes I ended up there because of your thread on ANI. I just wanted to show there is another editor with the same perspective as yourself and it's not just you going against the other editor. It's meant to be supportive. Canterbury Tailtalk18:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Yeah, I goofed there, came back to fix it and you'd already done it, so thanks. Didn't see the reference links hidden up in the petrol engine section before, that would have saved me a *lot* of looking around elsewhere for verification. Seems there's some dodgy info out there for these particular (and remarkably low-torque) engines, and that's leaked into the Fiorino article at least (seems to have the torque figure for the 1.3 JTD instead?). I'm going to go address that one now but maybe you've also fixed that? :) 92.12.82.40 (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nissan TD engine, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
Hi, I just wanted to ask your advice on the matter of sales vs production numbers, as well as which sites may or may not be reliable for finding them. I'm not sure if this is something you're experienced with, but as you're a very experienced editor, I figured i'd seek your advice. Recently I added a handful of production totals from Volkswagen global annual reports to articles, but after doing so realized that I had actually added production totals to the sales chart. I was wondering if I should self revert these edits, or simply create a second chart for production totals aside from the sales totals (since often sales totals by years are hard to find from official sources). Additionally, I noticed sites such as goodcarbadcar and autoo (for Brazil) being cited heavily, and was wondering what your thoughts were on their reliability. TKOIII (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TKOIII: Thanks, I would say you're pretty experienced yourself. - Personally, I favor adding a column to existing tables. A simple example at Mitsubishi Town Box - only one generation, very limited markets. For things like the Toyota Corolla, where it was built in many places and sold in hundreds of countries, tons of overlap and potential confusion, I think separate tables would be best. For me, production is more relevant than sales if I had to chose to delete one.
Not sure about those sources in particular; I generally lean inclusionist. It would have to be a very crappy source for me to prefer no content. Always happy to weigh in on specific cases, of course. Mr.choppers | ✎ 20:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, I appreciate it. I'm decently experienced, but when it comes to making sales charts, I'm definitely a newbie. TKOIII (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reference for the 4 speed manual in the corolla, any idea where you find these sorts of sources? Apparently the same car had a 6 speed manual option too HoldenFan1104 (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The internet. Nextage and Goo-net are invaluable, Google will help you translate things. The C160 transmission is listed in the article, I don't know but I am sure it was in the sportier Levins. Mr.choppers | ✎ 13:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I just wanted to know if you have any more information about or access to this publication. I saw you referenced it in edites dating back to 2016. Cheers. Ananinunenon (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I bought nine old issues from a Bidorbuy vendor back then and used them to reference any interesting information I encountered. They are not digitized (although I did upload one article as I am obsessed with the Chevrolet Hatch). They are in my basement somewhere nowadays. Mr.choppers | ✎ 19:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thank you for the information, if possible I really would recommend to digitise them as there is barley any mention of the publication online. Cheers. Ananinunenon (talk) 09:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I was a library, I would. If I ever get to retire (I live in the US, we don't get luxuries like "free time" or "hobbies") I might do it, too. Mr.choppers | ✎ 12:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Why did you revert all my changes (188.75.135.42) in the A6 C5 engine table when there are now many things wrong? Just like before. We can discuss if, for example, I didn't choose the correct formatting, but deleting all the information I added from VAG technical sheets and replacing it with the original, incorrect information seems a bit much to me. VavrysxD (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a mix of good and bad - you converted 250PS to 187kW (not right), there were a whole slew of changes which didn't make any sense, like adding "i"s to the engine names. How can the 2.4 ALW have 25kW less than the BDV at the same engine speed, with the same torque figures? Provide references, please. I will approach your edits in a more collegial manner, too. Mr.choppers | ✎ 15:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of converting 187kW to 250PS anywhere. Everywhere I had written that 187kW = 254PS and 184kW = 250PS.
I agree with adding the “i” after the engine name. That was unnecessary, just like rearranging the order from kW>PS. Regarding the confusion with 2.4 ALW and 2.4 BDV, there was a mistake where I forgot to change the rpm during the performance. It should correctly be 5750rpm. Otherwise, everything comes from the original Elsawin tables. Here is the source: VavrysxD (talk)
Looks good, thank you for taking the time. Note: thanks for uploading the file but I think it will have to be deleted now, because of copyright laws. To share things like that you can email other editors or upload them somewhere outside of WP. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 14:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. I originally wanted to upload it elsewhere, but I thought that would be a problem. So if you ever have time and can edit the article, I would appreciate it.VavrysxD (talk)18:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your response on my talk page makes me feel like I should help calm things down, as there might be some misunderstandings. Yes, you have been here for years, but that doesn't mean everyone is always correct; mistakes do happen frequently. Did you know that WP's main page has been deleted once before? I don't know what Vanderwaalforces may have told you, but I'm sure he didn't mean to "bite" or attack you. Your reaction escalated what was a normal discussion, which wasn't appreciated.
You also linked, listed and cited the WP's AFC guidelines on my talk page. You could have just used the shortcut instead of cluttering my talk page, even if your citations weren't entirely misplaced. Additionally, this part stood out to me: "Avoid declining an article because the reliable sources are not free, online, or in English. Books, magazines, and other print-only sources are perfectly acceptable, and may be in another language. Your behavior seems to contradict WP:NOTHERE."
Please be careful with how you react to disputes, or even discussions. You might want to revisit WP:CIVILITY and the subtop, WP:PERSONAL ATTACK; remember to focus your arguments on the draft that was declined and not on personal issues. You can always submit a draft for another review instead of reacting against other as you did. My statement is neutral and meant to correct both of us. I didn't expect that from you because, although I haven't interacted with you much, I have seen your work and dedication. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!17:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the object of AFC is a form of gatekeeping, that doesn't mean the aim is to reject everything which doesn't meet FA standards. As for citing guidelines, you posted responses that suggested you didn't read the text which I already quoted directly; I figured they needed to be made clearer yet. Do you have any reason to suspect the references at Coriasco of being faked or is there anything contentious that wasn't cited? No. How could you consider the boat-car well cited enough to meet GNG but not the company that built it, when that company is the subject of a standalone book?
I am not protesting for myself but on behalf of those new editors whose articles are incorrectly rejected; I may have the energy/stubbornness to revise and resubmit until some other editor accepts it, but newcomers may not.
As for Vanderwaalforces, he bizarrely accused me of citing myself and telling me to recuse myself from the conversation. I am not going to take it any further, but that's crazy. Anyhow, best regards. Mr.choppers | ✎ 21:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You must follow me around Wikipedia! Obviously I am missing something on compression ratio, perhaps you could explain how you came to the idea it should be 6.6 to 7 : 1, what does the : 1 mean? I've never seen a compression ratio expressed this way. You could have explained this in comments instead of attacking me, consider reading WP:CIVILITY and WP:PERSONAL ATTACK. Remember you don't own the article, we all collaborate. Avi8tor (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7 to 1 is how an expression ratio is expressed, commonly formatted 7 : 1. Renault Frégate has been on my watchlist for years, and since you persistently introduce factual errors I do tend to check when your edits appear in my watchlist. Mr.choppers | ✎ 23:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, I already know what a compression ratio is. If you look at the Wikipedia article on Compression ratios it appears that formatting was the problem because of the   between the numbers, it did not make sense, it should be "from 6.6:1 to 7:1 without a space. Then it makes sense.
On another subject, I was at an antique car show this past weekend. If you find you need a picture of any older vehicles or even newer ones, tell me and I'll take a picture and forward it.Avi8tor (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very rambly article; smells like a haphazard translation from the Polish. The Smyk is a long-time favorite for quizzes and any time someone needs a photo of a weird car. Mr.choppers | ✎ 14:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review
Hello, in an update on the Morgan +4 you mentioned the series II switching to a steel chassis. I was puzzled as all Morgans have a steel, or in later cars aluminium, chassis. I think you must be referring to the switch to a galvanised chassis in 1995. I would replace "steel" with "galvanised". D edmondson (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appearances can be deceptive. I do have an awful lot of Morgan books and a Morgan 4/4. I've made edits on a few pages over the years but I'm in awe of the amount you seem to do. I should do more. Regards, Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by D edmondson (talk • contribs) 22:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Since you seem to have constant issues with the edits I am making, please explain the following:
Howcome a car with a broken rear bumper or any broken bits began to be considered as a good representation of the automobile on which the article is written?
Since when ambiguous terms such as "turbo" considered reader-friendly?
Howcome a low quality image with a lot of noise considered a better representation of the automobile on which the article is written?
How did you determine that a car which is clearly based on the car's platform should not be mentioned in the infobox? Have you obtained consensus on this with others?
You talk about discussing the edits yet you do not start any talk page discussions yourself as seen by the removal of a content at Alfa Romeo 164.
You seem to have not read WP:CARPIX yourself like you instructed in your latest edit summary at Lancia Thema. The image guideline starts with the following "We strive to illustrate our articles with high-quality images..." and further you have not read point 6 either which states "Use images of cars in good, complete, clean, and original condition whenever possible." which is not true in your persistent insistence to use an image of a Saab 9000 CD with a broken rear bumper and rusted components.
