User talk:Mr.choppers/Archive 6

Your dreaded humongous blank field ...
Thanks for your message. I'm afraid I know very little about Macs and their foibles. I have looked at the source code of the Maruti Suzuki article, and I couldn't find anything unusual about it. I also used two different PCs to display the article itself, using the Internet Explorer browser, and it displayed okay. The problem you're experiencing may be with your browser rather than with your Mac. You might therefore want to try downloading either a different browser, or the latest version of your current browser, to see whether that fixes the problem. Meanwhile, I note your interest in Japanese cars. I'm not all that interested in them myself (although my first two cars were Hondas). However, I remember photographing a few on a visit to Japan about 10 years ago, and I must get round to uploading the pictures to commons some time. I've also got some pictures of Marutis and other Indian cars taken in India - I've already uploaded one of them, but it's a Mumbai taxi, which is basically a Fiat design. Regards, Bahnfrend (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I figured as much, thanks for looking into it! And yes, please upload all of them photos! I'll be happy to edit them for you if you're not interested in photoshop fiddling, just upload them the way they are. Thanks, cheers,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  16:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I am also an Apple user and have noticed the same thing. I am using Chrome as browser. Seems strange to have lingered on this long, and it applies to all articles with infoboxes I view (so my guess is there must be an issue with the infobox code). OSX (talk • contributions) 23:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I feel like the field is bigger the more references there are, but I might be crazy.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  11:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Photos
Okay, here's a photo of an intersection in Old Delhi with a Maruti featuring prominently. I think you could probably copy the photo, crop the copy, and use the cropped copy to illustrate a Maruti article. I'll leave it up to you to identify the Maruti. I believe it's a Maruti 1000, but I'm not sure whether it's also an Esteem. Either way, the infobox doesn't have an image of it, so I also suspect that this is the first commons image. It turns out that I didn't have as many suitable Japanese photos as I previously thought, but I'll soon be uploading one of a Nissan President 250 with rectangular headlights (also not yet in commons), which I suspect will need a bit of sharpening. Bahnfrend (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Super! The Maruti is the 2004-2007 facelift model, it received the Chang'an Suzuki Lingyang's headlights, taillights, and bumpers. I'll go ahead and extract it. Mmmmm.... President.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  11:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It also has the update model's spoiler. Anyway, the picture I originally thought was of a Nissan President is actually a Toyota Century.  Still, big, luxurious and rare, though.  The image is not a particularly good one, but you may be able to improve it somewhat. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hallo Bahnfrend, and thanks. Please keep sharing. Sadly the (awesome) VG40 has aftermarket wheels on it so it won't be very useful for our purposes here. Good spotting, though!  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  05:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=574787414 your edit] to Mazda Capella may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * | File:2000 Mazda 626 ES V6 rear.jpg|Rear view of 2000 Mazda 626 (facelift model)

Another sock puppet
I suspect User talk:2602:306:cdb2:4130:c8a8:6fa1:de3b:ce5c is another sock puppet of User:RonaldClownsterMcDonaldHater.  Stepho  talk 00:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Delta possibly typo.
'DV28 for the B-engined Delta 2000 diesel.' Should that be DV28 or BV28 at Toyota Dyna ?  Stepho  talk 22:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * DV28 - in several places in the book. I'm not sure how Daihatsu's chassis coding system worked in the seventies, can't seem to identify any consistent logic.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  22:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, no problem.  Stepho  talk 22:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Always good to know someone is paying attention.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  06:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Suzuki FB series engine
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Toyota LiteAce and TownAce
I noticed that you recently edited the Toyota LiteAce and TownAce pages. For a while now I have been pondering about what to do with them. There seems to be a lot of overlap so do you think there is a case to combine the two? Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 09:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. They develop in parallel, but always very differently until the introduction of the current generation which seems to be just a badge difference - but I don't know much about the most recent one. The original one only shared the doors and some underlying metalwork, having different tread and wheelbases as well. I'd lean towards leaving as is for now.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok. I have looked into this more. What I see are two distinct lines similar to narrow- and wide-body Camrys. We have the M-Series (M10, M20, M30) and then the R-Series (R10, R20/R30, R40/R50). I have created a proposal at User:OSX/Toyota LiteAce. Please tell me what you think. You will notice that most of the models overlap: exceptions are the original models (R10 and M10) which as you said share some componentry anyway (e.g doors). The 1982–1992 R20/R30 (Toyota MasterAce equivalent) is the only other exception—only with the major facelift (rebodied) version in 1992 did the LiteAce re-merge with the TownAce. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Lovely. That is very clear and also clarifies how the anomalous TownAce truck is an M-chassis model (of which I was hitherto unaware). Toyota's light truck lines may rival Mitsubishi's naming practices for absolute confusion. I fully support a merger into such an article, although I am missing all of the content from Toyota MasterAce (which is called the H-series - if one is to believe that article). I fondly remember this vehicle as the Toyota Model F, and also remember my surprise at finding out that not everyone called it that... I am also missing whatever Daihatsu Delta content I had added to the various "stem" articles, but these are minor and easily rectifiable niggles while the structure of your proposal is very sound looking. Go Bold.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  06:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The Toyota ID manual (export) denotes the Model F/Tarago/Van/SpaceWagon as the R series. The LiteAce is the M series, the Hiace is the H series, the ToyoAce is the Y series, the Dyna is the U series.  Stepho  talk 07:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice. I've just added a timeline. Do you think this is too confusing? Obviously it's a work-in-progess so for now I have only touched on Japanese market models badged Toyota. Other markets need to be added, along with the Daihatsu Delta rebadge. Not sure why the Toyota MasterAce page uses codes like YH51, in Australia the Tarago (MasterAce) used codes like YR22RG (and JDM only used YR20G). The Tarago was an extremely popular car in the 1980s and 1990s. The original version that liked to hop around all over the road at speed sold over 100,000 here. When the Estima arrived in 1990 this became our new Tarago and these were far superior in every way (except for the dangerous fun at-the limit handling). These 1990s cars are still quite common out in the suburbs, but the originals are increasingly a rarity nowadays. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Cool. I don't know why it says H, I will do some archeology to try and find out.


 * It was added by someone named TruckMatt a long time ago - I can't find any supporting evidence and would recommend removing the H-series codes for now. US market "vans" are also coded "R". Btw, the "wonderwagon" name was just a nickname used in some advertising and shouldn't really be used as an offical name for the US Van.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  22:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The YH51 was a Hiace van with 3Y engine sliding side door, seating for 9 people (as opposed to 3 or 15). Only sold in S.Africa from June 1983 onwards. The YH61 is a Hiace with 3Y engine, long van body for 3 people. I don't have records of the YH53/63/71/73 but they follow the same pattern. In short, that editor confused the Hiace with the Tarago.  Stepho  talk 11:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That ought to settle it. Thanks,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking into that Stepho. I'll remove it from the MasterAce page now. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mr.choppers. I have rephrased large parts of the work I had earlier stolen from Toyota's historians and made various other changes. Considering the original articles were incomplete with missing generations, I have salvaged whatever I could from LiteAce, TownAce, and MasterAce and submitted my proposal from October linked above as the actual article located at Toyota LiteAce. I have hidden the plagiarised information that has yet to be reworded as per Wikipedia policy.

P.S. I had a laugh when reading the exact dishes on offer at the W222 S-Class launch that you correctly deleted. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I was surprised that the menu had lasted as long as it had...  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  11:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Metro article
Once I saw your edit summary for the reduction of photos, your edit made sense and I can see the logic in it. I appreciate your input and contribution to the article. Best regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your understanding! Looking forward to seeing more of you here.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  22:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

RK45
You are he same guy who owns Toyota Stout group on facebook, right? Ivan (RK45 in NM, USA)
 * Nope, maybe it's this guy: Whysmee. Is it an Aussie?  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Ein barnstar fur dich!

 * Hopefully my German will improve as a result. :)  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  05:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Name of Ford Taunus
You might have an opinion on this: Talk:Ford Taunus P1

Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

hi lux and the lite stout
Greetings again. No I am not ivan and I also own a RK45 and an admin on the Facebook group, anyway the hilux is the successor of the lite stout RK43, RK41 US spec and not the "full" stout RK100, RK101. There was only two main production runs of the lite stout, with and without cab extension production ending 7/1965 when it seems as if the chassis/frame manufacturing equipment was relocated to south Africa and the RK44 stallion/stout commenced production with various variations in engine that continued into the early 70's. The hilux as I understand was built as a more luxurious upgrade of the lite stout and I know this is a bold statement but post 7/1967 lite stout such as the odd one that pops up here in Australia might have been assembled in south Africa on chassis/frames made there but the rest of the components were still being made in Japan as knock down units based off the RK101 face lift and not that of the RK100 Whysmee (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey Whysmee, I think you ought to read things more carefully. A guy named Ivan thought I ran the FB group, and I suggested that perhaps it was you - it seems I was correct. As for the rest of your comment, it's an interesting speculation but again would need sourcing before it could be added to the page. Cheers,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  13:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

In reference to the hilux being successor, the description of the hilux on toyotas own 75 years of toyota, states that the hilux succeeded the light stout, something that is also stated on the hilux wiki chronology predecessor light stout (stout)Whysmee (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry yet again for my annoyance, I just noticed that the separate wiki for the lite/light stout no longer exists, it was blank anyway and only linked back to the main page. What I was wondering is it worth separating lite/light stout models within there own page article and the models of them such as the US spec and the south African stallion, as there is much confusion between the two and many are confused and do not understand the structural difference. So a separate sub section just on the lite light stout models RK40, 41, 43 and the ZA RK44 stallion, plus an interesting item popped up recently on Flickr a 1968 lite stout advertisementWhysmee (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Labutnum III
Not sure if I should kneel or bow in your presence, but either way, congratulations! :)  Stepho  talk 12:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course you should. Everyone should. Thanks!  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  13:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Uh oh. I forgot to do this the first time.  Although you cannot tell from my posting below, in real life I was bowing my head and down on one knee, waving my hat in front of me zealously!  I hereby repeat the performance, per thy command.   Banzai Mr.choppers, huzzah!  :-)     You are silly, I must note, but not as silly as that Hej fellow.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Flow92
The German vandal seems to be back as, making mass reverts of edits by you here on en-WP. Thomas.W  talk to me  10:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, he lost his arbcom case in German Wikipedia so he is probably a bit moody. I don't know that there's much to be done except revert, revert, revert.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  11:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I assumed it was the German guy so I reversed all of the IP's edits. Thomas.W   talk to me  11:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've also just blanket reverted another IP on the same range, doing the same thing... and also made tweaks to all of the articles involved as well. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I saw that and I think that it's nice that you're making lemonade.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  11:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * At some point, I'm going to say something that is a very aggressive personal attack, if this carries on... -.-" Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Given the current situation, I would suggest not bothering to revert (if you get my drift). TigerShark (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right - I'm gonna take a nap instead.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  14:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

59 Studebaker Deluxe

 * Sir, not sure how this works but,, if I am correct you are the person that put a picture on line that is of my 59 Studebaker Deluxe. It is rather startling to have someone look for a picture on google images and my truck and I appear as the first one. I am currently the chairman of a public arts commission in a small suburb in Texas. I had hoped if any of my life entered the world stage it would be my efforts in creating the public art programs here in Leander Texas. We are about to double in size 30,000 to 60,000+.
 * Thank you for choosing my truck to represent studebaker's attempt at a "pretty truck". I have many years in the Studebaker world and being the current owner of the truck that comes up in that image search is very funny to me. Thanks again   20:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.120.95 (talk)
 * Hello Mr (I removed your name since this is a public page), I found the photo in question on Picasaweb - it was taken by someone named Geoffrey Straubinger rather than me. It's a nice truck in any case, I see why you're proud of it. I hope I identified it correctly, I don't know much about these kinds of vehicles. Cheers,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  23:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

your name came up in a discussion
Hello Mr.choppers, you can call me 74, when reading stuff on Drmies talkpage I noticed some trouble you were having with 24 aka 98 about the Honda engine-specifications stuff. I'm trying to train them on WP:NICE and WP:RS and such. You are free to comment if you wish, of course, but as you've done nothing bad, feel free to skip it. :-)    User_talk:Drmies.  Anyways, thanks for improving wikipedia, and hey, don't let Drmies give you too much trouble about the flatter nature of certain geographical regions, stand tall and remind them that Alabama mud does not taste sweeter than Scandinavia mud.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Moved to here now -- User_talk:74.192.84.101. Thanks for improving wikipedia.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

can you make this redirect please?
Please click here, D15B8, and then paste in this magic incantation:


 * 1) REDIRECT Honda_D_engine

At least I think you can create a redirect... but anons cannot. Along the same lines, Drmies has opted to keep the semi-prot in place. Are you okay with being the person who edits mainspace, if we get the sources and such worked out on the talkpages first? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I will be happy to help every so often - I can't always promise prompt action and I certainly also don't want to accidentally enter incorrect data, so I will always double check before entering something. Cheers,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Never mind - Yngvadottir was quicker!  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Tack så mycket! Skönt att slippa vakna tidigt också.  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  18:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you!
Thanks!  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  01:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Mazda
See talk page of user Thomas.W.---Now wiki (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Isuzu Elf
Thanks from the wiki and the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Jajadelera strikes again
He's on the move again. Caught him adding false Philippine information on Suzuki Swift. - Areaseven (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I hit rollback on a couple of their other edits, because I am very dubious on whether they were valid or not (particularly given who made them) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's a page to add to your watchlist, as Jajadelera likes to target new and upcoming cars: Hyundai Xcent. - Areaseven (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks A7, and thanks for your editorial efforts as well.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Toyota LiteAce
You commented at the DYK nomination of Toyota LiteAce that you'd be willing to help dig up some citations. Do you still intend to do some work on that article in the near future? If not, the nom will have to be closed as unsuccessful. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Altimgamr
Looking back at the damages done by Altimgamr, could he possibly be a sockpuppet of Jasons99Contour? - Areaseven (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have been vaguely assuming as much for a while, but I looked at his linked YouTube page and it provides much more personal info than we ever got from Jason. Also: haha! I think that they are just very similar personalities, but I also wouldn't be surprised if I was totally wrong! Cheers,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Apparently he uses 0slavsan0 as an alternate account on YouTube. So we'll know that sock when it arrives...  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Altimgamr put another fake car, haha! He also uses Shaggy and Super8 as alternate accounts on fastestlaps.com. --166.137.208.17 (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Luckily open edit sites like fastestlaps can be thrown out immediately as per WP:SPS. On that website I could add say my kitty cat has 300 hp.  Stepho  talk  05:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

MR2 page
Hi,

Not sure if you're new to MR2s, but the picture you removed and noted as "Undid revision 594854109 by Nbvolks (talk) rm picture of modified car (for the twentieth time))", was not a picture of a 'modified' car. It's a stock 1994 model, with Rev5 wheels ('98-'99).

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbvolks (talk • contribs) 21:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "With Rev5 wheels". Aside from the strange angle which hides the shape of the car.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  23:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Day-Elder
The DYK project (nominate) 23:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Is sharing a link considered copyright violation?
Whenever I share a kidsmediausa.com or youtube.com link and put it here, people always keep reverting whatever I put. --Ford Taurus (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * YouTube links are not appropriate for inclusion in articles, and doing so will appear very spammy, particularly when you persist in doing so. Kidsmediausa is not a reliable source. If multiple people are reverting you, that's a sign that what you are doing is wrong. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Parihar
Those sources are not about parihars but taken from article Gurjar. The Mihir etc stuff are being used for gujars in those sources, and not for parihars. That's why I reverted. thanks

Suzuki Alto
Do you think we should split the Suzuki Alto article, as Maruti Suzuki has made different variants of the car such as the new Celerio? - Areaseven (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I feel that there ought to be a Maruti Suzuki Celerio entry, containing a brief paragraph on the preceding A-Star. I guess this marks a divergence, agreed.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, someone already made such an entry. I added a link to the Alto page.   Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Buick Lucerne
Mr. choppers, I was wondering if I could call upon your assistance I seem to be engaging in an unintentional edit war with IP:166.137.208.34. The IP asserts that the Buick Lucerne has a full-frame and not a unibody structure. I am sorry to try and drag you in on this but I do not know what else to do. Much appreciated. VX1NG (talk • contributions) 20:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "The Truth about Cars" does not sound like a website that is likely to be reliable. Regardless, it doesn't verify the claims at all - in fact, it verifies the exact opposite, if you read the article writer's replies in the comments. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And given that the website's FAQ says "Back in the day, Robert Farago was a freelance writer living in the UK. After Autocar blacklisted the auto writer for slating then Editor-In-Chief Steve Sutcliffe (for boasting about driving a Lamborghini with his eyes closed), Farago started posting rants on www.pistonheads.com. Despite (or because of) Fahrenheit 451 temp replies, he created a regular series called “The Truth About Cars.” When Farago moved to the U.S., he started TTAC." amongst other things, I'm even more dubious of its reliability. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In what way is TTAC not a reliable source? It's affiliated with AutoGuide.com (VerticalScope Inc), has a genuine editorial team, etc. What is so bad about the FAQ? Farago is a journalist who lost his job for condeming his old boss for driving with his eyes closed and then created his own publication (people start there own ventures all the time; just because the publication is not decades old does not make it unreliable). Lastly, the TTAC website doesn't even mention the Lucerne as being body-on-frame. The IP is a troll. Revert and move on. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * IP troll, same one who's been vandalising my talkpage so heavily lately. Also went by Altimgamr and dozens of other names. Revert and move on!  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  05:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's what I figured but wanted to verify! Regards, 13:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Lombardi Grand Prix
The DYK project (nominate) 16:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting looking little car, one I've not heard of. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I was excited when I saw and photographed it, then I was exasperated when there was no article in which I could place the image, then I was excited again to realize that I could now make a needed new article rather than just a DYK-fishing one. Cheers,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  04:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

One of your posts got erased
It was probably inadvertent from an edit conflict, but another editor erased one of your posts here. Just a collegial head's-up. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, very kind. And yes, appears accidental for sure. Another editor already restored my comment so I feel properly taken care of.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Attempt at resolution before visiting Wiki editor dispute options
I don't know if there's some sort of personal issue on your part, but I've noticed you seem to be going out of your way, to revert photo edits I have made that seem to be based on 'personal feelings' rather than actual Wikipedia violations. As someone who is doing such things, I'd expect the person in question to be following Wikipedia guidelines to the utmost. Immediately, I realized you have not followed essential Wikipedia guidelines, on any of the occasions I've seen you revert edits. Viewing the [|Dispute Resolution] page on Wikipedia, it quite clearly states: 'To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war.' Vague comments like "better photo for main infobox" and "please stop adding lamp photos," does not follow the clear guidelines of always explaining your changes in the edit summary and if an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. The notion that your revisions are based on either personal vendetta or personal feelings, are further made valid by the fact many many other editors have also made changes in the articles that you made reverts to, and none of them had any issues with the changes I made. Even taking all of that out of the equation, the fact that you did not follow the Wikipedia guidelines of clearly explaining your reverts, is enough justifications for this course of action. Please explain yourself, whatever issues you may have, and supposedly what I am doing wrong which includes whatever Wikipedia policies I'm not adhering to. Thanks. --Khemistry (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree, and would like you to re-read what Stepho wrote on your talkpage here: User_talk:Maryland_Pride. Bold, revert, discuss - but you simply restored your photos immediately. And once it has been explained to you why your edits are altered it seems pointless to explain it over and over again as you keep continuing to make the same kind of problem edits. Most of your photos are not of very high quality, strange angles and lots of glare and other distractions. See WP:CARPIX, resolution is not the only thing. You will notice that I too take lots of photos, but when I change the photo in an article it is not exclusively to add one that I took myself. You, it seems, are only here to add your own photos. That other editors have made edits without reverting yours means nothing, even outright vandalism (I don't consider you a vandal) often goes unnoticed for weeks and even years.


 * And yes, when I realized that you were going around changing good high quality images for much lower quality efforts of your own across the board, I did walk after you to clean up. For the good of everyone, except perhaps your own ego.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

would like to talk to you
Hi, read your comments with which I agree. Could I discuss something via email? Thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, but be aware that I am not an expert on Bitcoins in the least.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  05:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks, i didnt see you responded until now- i am no expert on bitcoin either. so how do I email you ?--Wuerzele (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , there should be an "Email this user" option on this page. On my page it is on the left hand side.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  00:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Suzuki Swift
As the Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire sedan has undergone two generations, perhaps it would be better to separate it from the Suzuki Swift article. - Areaseven (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Is it still a sedan version of the Swift? I see no mention of the second gen Dzire (hate that name!) at Suzuki Swift.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  11:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's still the sedan version of the Swift. No one's posted anything about the second generation model yet, but here are some useful links. - Areaseven (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Official site
 * Top 10 Exciting Features of Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire
 * Updated Maruti Swift and Swift Dzire Launching This Year
 * Maruti Swift DZire Review


 * Since it is still just a variant of the Swift, I suggest keeping it in Suzuki Swift for now. If its evolutionary path begins to diverge, this will naturally no longer be the case. I added a mention of it, using one of your references above, thanks!  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  18:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Expo LRV
Hi, just letting you know that you have a picture posted of a Mitsubishi Expo LRV, however, the model listed is incorrect. The picture is actually of a Mitsubishi Expo; the Expo LRV is smaller and has sliding doors instead of the conventional swinging rear doors. Just an FYI. THanks! -Adam

Chevrolet Colorado and Isuzu D-Max merger
Mr. Choppers, Just wanted to hear your thoughts on a merger between the Chevrolet Colorado and the Isuzu D-Max. From the best that I can gather, the only reason these articles are split is because of location. Regards, VX1NG (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Although it would be a big job, I support a merger of the two. I get the impression that Isuzu did most of the design for both generations, albeit using GM platforms. The original series was released as an Isuzu in 2002, GM did not start producing the North American models until 2004. It should be noted, the USA models share very few parts:


 * "Originally planned as a joint venture with Isuzu, and sharing some common architecture with Isuzu's D-Max pickup, the Shreveport-built Colorado-and its stablemate, the GMC Canyon-has morphed through the R&D stages into its own unique entity. The only parts the new Chevy shares with the D-Max are the transfer case and dash-mounted 4WD pushbutton panel. (The D-Max, built in Thailand, isn't offered for sale in North America.) — Four Wheeler"


 * For the second generation Chevy Colorado, General Motors do Brasil did the GM-isation of the D-Max for Asia and South America.


 * Therefore, I propose Isuzu D-Max as the head article, which would encompass:
 * First generation:
 * Chevrolet Colorado (Asian/South American version; a rebadged D-Max)
 * Chevrolet Colorado (North American version; a derivative of D-Max that appears to be almost identical but enlarged in size—has otherwise the same appearance, doors, body, interior)
 * GMC Canyon (North American version; a rebadged Chevrolet Colorado)
 * Isuzu i-Series (North American version; a rebadged Chevrolet Colorado)
 * Isuzu MU7 (Asian/South American SUV version; a wagon version of the pickup)


 * Second generation:
 * Chevrolet Colorado (Asian/South American version; a rebadged D-Max with different front and rear styling)
 * Chevrolet Colorado (North American version; a derivative of the Asian/South American Colorado that has revised front styling and a new interior)
 * GMC Canyon (North American version; a rebadged Chevrolet Colorado)
 * Isuzu MU-X (Asian/South American SUV version; a wagon version of the pickup)
 * Chevrolet TrailBlazer (Asian/South American SUV version; a wagon version of the pickup)


 * OSX (talk • contributions) 03:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will post a merger proposal on to the respective pages. If you wouldn't mind, could you please reiterate your position there. Thanks, VX1NG (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Help
Fleetham is in all-out edit war mode deconstructing all manner of carefully phrased sections, consensus. and then he calls his changes WP: status quo if I revert. ive seen that his talk page is full of comments from people who had similar experiences and that are not editing Bitcoin anymore. I am too tired tonight, to play this game with an insomniac. can you help?--Wuerzele (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

How is my Buick Lucerne edit considered vandalism?
........ Ferrari S.p.A (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Because as with nearly all your edits, you deleted a bunch of urls in references. Go away.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, it was the proxy server I'm currently using. Thanks for letting me know, though. Ferrari S.p.A (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

IP 116.118.34.78, Mercedes-Benz C-Class and other pages
When you are having a problem like this, please make a comment on the user's talk page. Simply adding something like to the IPs talk page helps move the situation towards resolution. There is a list of the various different ones at Template messages/User talk namespace. The editor has to edit after receiving a "4" or "4im" warning in order to be blocked. More information on their use can be found at WikiProject User warnings/Usage and layout. &mdash; Makyen (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know and thank you. But of course, this editor just hops between ip's so it seems to make no difference.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  11:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors like this one have a "signature" to their edits. Once they are blocked and then avoid the block by switching IP addresses, it is much faster to get any new IP address blocked. With a defined signature, a "4im" can be placed on the IP address and the address immediately reported as avoiding the block. This, obviously, requires that the edits have some kind of identifiable signature so it is possible to say "This new IP is the same person as this other one which was blocked. Usually they have a limited pool of IP addresses from which they can draw. The IP addresses almost always come from a single provider, which further identifies that the person on the IP is the same one as the one avoiding a block.
 * Yes, doing so is a bit more work. However, it should be only a few mouse clicks and a copy & paste or two to drop the templates onto their talk page and report them, when appropriate.  Yeah, it can be that it just forces them to put out more effort to change their IP, which they may or may not know how to intentionally do.
 * On the other hand, not doing so probably keeps them on a single IP address for longer. This might make it easier to watch the contributions of the IP address for reversion.
 * Yet another side of it is that the edits of this particular IP were not unequivocally vandalism. The changes to the images would be more classified as a content dispute than anything.  In such case you have to go back to relying on them violating WP:3RR, which this editor appeared more than willing to do. &mdash; Makyen (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maserati Biturbo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KONI (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

U Toronto promotion spammer
Hello. In case I don't notice it myself please let me know when the U Toronto spammer (142.150.48.*) shows up again. He/she has been properly warned, and has acknowledged being warned, so a surprise might lie in wait for him. Thomas.W talk 09:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Will do, and thanks for making me not feel so lonesome about this particular "editor".  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hyundai i20
Can you keep an eye on the Hyundai i20 article? Some user named Anand7954 insists that the main pic should be one that he took of an i20 molested with aftermarket crap. - Areaseven (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's on my watchlist.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  14:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

May need assistance with Nissan Lucino article
I found a fragmented article about the Nissan Lucino, which had duplicate pages for the Nissan 200SX, created by someone who wants to keep the article just the way it is, and has reverted requests for merge action. Could you take a look and see if my request for merger is unwarranted? (Regushee (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC))


 * I will look into it, cheers,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  17:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears we have an editor who doesn't seem to recognize how disputes are resolved at Wikipedia, and currently hasn't demonstrated consensus concerning his assertions.(Regushee (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC))


 * Tiresome, but I'm trying to be patient with him. Btw, Japanese market name only takes precedence if English language markets are not all using the same name for a car. Hence Mazda 3 and not "Mazda Axela". Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  21:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

GM Family II engine
Mr. Choppers, I seem to have run into a little dilemma. I had proposed to have the information at GM Family II engine moved to General Motors Ecotec engine per WP:commonname "...the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred". However, I was unable to get a consensus to move it within the needed time and I was wondering if you could weigh in on the subject. Thanks, VX1NG (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I honestly am entirely confused by all of these engine names - and I am probably not alone. Since GM uses "ECOtec" for a huge number of engines, I also understand the reluctance to name it thusly. Also, GM Family II was supposedly introduced in 1994 - but the article mentions nothing from before 2000?  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  20:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand the reluctance to use "ECOtec" but from all the sources I have come across that is the actual name of the engine family. Currently, the information at GM Family II engine covers the Ecotec engine family, introduced around 2000 features an all-new aluminum block, with an aluminum cylinder head with DOHC driven by a timing chain and dual balance shafts. The GM Family II engines are currently found at Opel Family II engine, they were introduced in the late 1970s, have a cast iron block, aluminum cylinder heads with either a belt driven SOHC or DOHC setup. If I understood the story correctly the GM Family II engine was used as the basis for the Ecotec engine family; however due to the extensiveness of the changes and the evolution of the design it is considered its own engine family. Reflecting back I should have moved the Ecotec engine family information out of the GM Family II engine article instead of moving the GM Family II engine information to Opel Family II engine. I hope that explains everything and I apologize for the inconvenience, I was just trying to end the confusion. Thanks, VX1NG (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I see, and I feel safe deferring to (read: supporting) you on this. Perhaps a nifty little chart at the list of GM engines page would be useful, and might also help engender further support for you view.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your support. Is this the style of chart you are looking for? With regards, VX1NG (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That helps me get a handle on things! Question: the 1389cc four is listed on both Family 1 and Family II (with the same bore/stroke) - what makes it one or the other? Which came first? It seems that Opel's engines were developed in a very gradual fashion, making it hard to group them in any reasonable way. The CIH begat the OHC which begat the Family engines and so on. Do the "Family" names denote size or are they chronological? Thanks for all the clarifications.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * From the best I can discern, when Family II engines added DOHC, the DOHC medium-displacement versions become their own separate engine family; Family I. However, there seems to be a significant dearth of information on the Family I engines, so that is just a theory. I do not know what the "Family" names denote my guess is relative size, but I have been wrong before. And thank you for lending an ear to this engine mess. Regards, VX1NG (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a mess. Not your fault, obviously! There seems to be a real dearth of information on 1980s and 1990s GM Europe engines - I have all the tech specs in catalogs etcetera, but very little text or explanations of relationships. The German Opel engine entries are very limited, only available for a few engines such as the Opel X16SZ. I assume you have explored the Italian "Motori Opel" category? The Italian editors are really good at engines and I often base my research on their efforts (if I don't just translate it directly). Cheers,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  16:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

According to the Italians, the "Opel OHC" engine (from 1977 on) was complemented by the 1.8 and up Family II from 1986 (which largely replaced the CIH). The OHC range was modified and turned into the "Family 1" in 1996, and also replaced some of the lower range of the Family II. It seems that the little 1.4 and 1.6 motors shouldn't be on the Family II page, but I dunno for sure.  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  17:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, now things are starting to make more sense! Everything I read on the Family II engines only mentioned 1.8 - 2.4 L displacements but when I searched for "Opel OHC engine" all the sub-1.8 L engines also appeared and they look very similar to the Family II engines. I think the Italian editors have the some of the major missing pieces to this engine puzzle! Thanks!! VX1NG (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I split out the sub-1.8 L engines into their own article Opel OHC engine, now the similarities between those engines and GM Family 1 engine are really starting to be apparent. Regards, VX1NG (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Great! Although I included the 1796cc engine (84.8 x 79.5 mm) as well. I have a feeling it doesn't actually belong on the Family II page. Also, the Italians have different bore/stroke for the 1.6, I will try to verify this.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Another snag, in the engine puzzle! This page (http://media.gm.com/media/de/de/opel/company_opel/Werke/Kaiserslautern.html) states that the 1.8 L is a Family II engine. I am going to continue searching to see if I can confirm this. Regards, VX1NG (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow! And it states that production (of 1.8 and 2.0) began in 1981 - which is unlikely, considering that the 1998cc engine didn't arrive 'til 1984, I reckon. That is a pretty reliable source, but it still feels weird to group together engines without common bores or strokes.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The source could be wrong and I agree the lack of a common bores or strokes is weird. But, I can confirm that the 1.8 L was available in late 1982 because some vehicles here in the States offered it as an optional engine. Regards, VX1NG (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The 1.8 for sure, it appeared in the Manta B2 in May 1982. The 2.0 was later, AFAIK.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Check this out: . I think it is an Opel OHC engine with a different cylinder head, that might have variable valve timing. Regards, VX1NG (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This page talks a little about Family I production (http://media.gm.com/media/intl/en/opel/company_opel/plants/szentgotthard.brand_opel.html) Regards, VX1NG (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Mr. Choppers, I think I have made some serious headway on the Family series of engines. Your thoughts, would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, VX1NG (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I've noticed parts of it, and have full faith. I wish I could provide a good sounding board for you, but a three-month old baby precludes too much editing of late... I appreciate your work and will peek as the feeding schedule allows. Cheers,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  23:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks, VX1NG (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Magna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mitsubishi_Magna#Lead_image)
Hello Sir, I have finally found a talk page to raise comments! Repeat apologies for not having been in touch previously about the latest changes... I have to thank OSX's buddy, Bohooka for finding the talk page. I have communicated with Stepho too who seems to have had some rational approach to this. Cheers152.91.9.115 (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I like to think that we are all rational, but some people's hackles are raised when things are just being reverted without comment. I welcome you to the conversation.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  20:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Steyr 90 series) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Steyr 90 series, Mr.choppers!

Wikipedia editor Carriearchdale just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"This article is nicely written and quite informative. Thank you!"

To reply, leave a comment on Carriearchdale's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chrysler&oldid=599386459&diff=prev
Hi,

I'm happy you are a great contributor, and that you delete a lot of vandalism from unknown IPs, as I do when I saw them. You undid my revision on this page and I can't figure it. It's aimed to make this brand present on this page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Luxury_brands in the same way it' in this category : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Luxury_motor_vehicle_manufacturers

So, to be consistent we have to choose between no category at all, or both. In my POV, as Chrysler produced Luxury vehicules (From the article itself : "Product line Chrysler: Luxury sedans, convertible, and minivan " I do think it worth its place in the Luxury vehicules and brands Categories. You could also argue about many other brands I don't personnaly consider as Luxury in the luxury vehicules and brands categories, like Citroen and Volvo.

In a word, I think it's safer to let Chrysler in both categories and let readers agree or not about this, rather than making it non visible and not allowing readers to think of.

Have a nice day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanuel JARRI (talk • contribs) 13:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, and it's worth discussing. Personally I think that all three brands you mention ought to stay out of all luxury car categories. But then I think that to be useful, categories need to be carefully pruned. Cheers,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  21:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Chilean vandal / Toyota Tercel
RE: this edit, I apologise for the bad revert. I was made by that pesky Chilean vandal (who keeps changing IPs every day) so I assumed it was false. I am doing my best to crack down on him. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no worries. I will keep an eye on him too.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  00:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Mercedes-Benz Vito
I believe the earlier discussion to move Mercedes-Benz Vito to Mercedes-Benz V-Class may have been a bad decision, so I have initiated a review of that decision at Talk:Mercedes-Benz Viano. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 02:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=624760496 your edit] to Renault Alpine GTA/A610 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * cleaned engine with 180 PS, bigger bumpers, and flip-up headlamps ( http://www.renaultalpine.co.uk/gallery/album.php?album_id=2&amp;sk=t&amp;sd=a&amp;st=0&amp;start=11

Acura MDX
Thanks for fixing the references on Acura MDX, where would be a good place in the article to mention competitors (if at all)? JacksonRiley (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing! Generally we don't include competitor lists as they are often subject to debate (I just read a road test of an E30 BMW 3-series against a Fiat Croma) and the lists just tend to get longer and longer as various people try to get their cars mentioned. I thought that this was spelled out somewhere in the conventions but can't seem to find it. Also visit the auto talkpage if you would like to ask other editors in the Automobile Project. Hope to encounter you again.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  16:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Marcos (automobile)
 * added a link pointing to Triumph


 * Marcos GT
 * added a link pointing to Keith Adams

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for everything you take exception to
I'm quite prepared to be accountable for things I've done, but not for things you imagine that I've done. Eric   Corbett  13:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mr.choppers !
From September 1 in Georgia we have new EU-style vehicle registration plates, if you want to add something link is here :) ► Vehicle registration plates of Georgia (country) -- g. balaxaZe  ✰  12:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion vehicle categories
Hi Mr Choppers, I have a concept which I put forward from time to time that, to my mind, would solve the category problem under discussion. I have put it on that page and I would be very pleased if you would read it and comment. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Marcos GT
HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Dab blanking
Hello. You've blanked the page Vauxhall Viva, and I've reverted the blanking for now. If there was a reason for it, feel free to revert my edit. Regards.  KJ  Discuss? 01:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, the page was incorrectly (IMHO) moved and so I blanked this entry in order to move the original content back. However, that didn't work, and I am afraid that I forgot to restore the content. Sorry and thanks.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  23:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Why did you revert the image
Hey,

I am really risen to the point when you reverted my edit on *File:2009 Mercedes CLK Class.jpg. I mean that was a good quality image and that i took it well but you had no right whatsoever to revert my edit on that. If you wanted to revert this image firstly you needed to talk to me on my talk page and discuss what the problem is. I am going to soon delete this image off wikipedia. I thought that image was a good quality image because I did follow WP:CarPix and inserted the image. In retaliation I removed another of what you inserted.

Please give me a good reason why you reverted my edit.

Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Whooa there. First of all, we don't "retaliate". Secondly, your photo is not of a CLK DTM and therefore doesn't belong in that section. Thirdly, deleting your pictures just because they are not in use in an article is not really an option - once you upload a picture with a free license you have given it away and it is no longer yours. Same with "my" photos, they don't belong to me. Take a chill pill and familiarize yourself with WP:ETIQ.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  06:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Also Nim, no need to be so concerned that if you upload an image that it must be inserted into an article. Considering how many images exist on the Wikimedia Commons of a given car (generally speaking), there is only a small chance that an image will be the best available. If it's not the best, it remains on Commons. There is no need to delete it. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, the caption was an error. What I really mean't was *File:2009 Mercedes CLK Class.jpg in my subtitle [2007-2009 Mercedes-Benz CLK 350 (Australia)] and I made a slight error as I was distracted. I have instead replaced it with *File:2007-2009 Mercedes-Benz CLK350.jpg as it looks a good image compared to mine. I might've removed the earlier pic but I like the one that I have inserted. It belongs touser:IFCAR

Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Revertion of Mercedes CLK-Class
Hey,

Concerning with the photo you reverted *File:2009 Mercedes CLK Class.jpg onto the article Mercedes CLK class. You said you reverted it because it was a DTM. I made a stupid error when I subtitled it. Could you please have a look through and tell me, if the picture is good quality and if it is could you insert it. Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)