User talk:Mr.choppers/Archive 9

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Suzuki Alto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VVT.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Foreign exchange controls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Special:Diff/998152640
Hi!

You say that PS was a relevant unit in the 1980s in Germany and Europe – I am here to disagree with you ;-) It's true that people used it back then, (and it is still very common today), but seen from a legal perspective, things are quite different: The SI System had been introduced in 1972 (in West Germany), and in 1978, the Technical Unit System was officially discontinued. BMW switched from the Technical Unit System to the SI system in 1972; there are some E12s that were still sold with TUS figures, but by the mid-1970s, everything was already advertised in SI (with some additional TUS here and there). From 1978, BMW (like every other manufacturer) was mandated by law to use the SI system for all of their cars. This is why SI figures are just fine, and there is no need for using TUS figures for any post-E12 BMWs. It doesn't hurt to put TUS figures, but technically they don't need to be there ;-) I'd say it's more important to state the standard that was used to determine the figures, since different standards lead to different figures for the same quantities. Best regards and a happy new year to you, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 02:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I disagree. When BMW claimed power outputs of 115, 150, 170 PS in the 1980s it was because PS was relevant in terms of marketing and customer understanding. Most European markets used PS/cv/hk/pk/etc for decades after SI was made official. For instance, are you stating that the Veyron's claimed 1001 PS is an accident? Piëch went for the bragging rights of >1000PS and >400km/h precisely because those units still had relevance in 2005.


 * Also, since hp and PS are so similar we get a constant stream of editors mixing up the units and getting the numbers wrong. Including PS for another couple of decades is historically correct, respects period sources, and eliminates confusion. We can surely lead with kW after the 1970s, but PS is very much relevant into the early 2000s. You will also notice that German WP includes PS even for current cars, as it is still a popularly used and understood unit. Thanks.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You probably misunderstood what I was trying to say – BMW have not been claiming any PS power outputs since 1978, because they have legally not been allowed to do so. They must claim an SI power output, which they may then convert into anything they like (PS for instance), and this can then be used for marketing and customer understanding. But technically, it would not be necessary to do this conversion for BMW and ultimately Wikipedia (which is what I'm trying to say). I'm not saying you shouldn't be adding it :-) The idea is that, (West) German vehicles from the pre-SI era typically had their power outputs claimed in TUS figures, and I believe that it's necessary to have them in Wikipedia, but for anything post-1972, TUS figures can be omitted (but it's okay if you add them).


 * The Bugatti Veyron has a claimed power figure of 736 kW, which converts into 1000.7 PS, which was then rounded to 1001 PS. If they had rated the engine at 735 kW, this would have only been 999.3 PS, which would have been rounded down to 999 PS. This is why the Veyron doesn't have an 1000 PS engine – power outputs are given in natural numbers, and there is no claimable natural number SI power figure that would convert into exactly 1000 PS. They could have rated the engine at 736 kW and then advertised it as 1000 PS, but 1001 PS is even more than 1000, so they decided to use that instead. This is also the problem with engines that were rated 240 PS; it doesn't convert into an SI figure with a proper natural number.


 * I agree that adding PS to hp eliminates confusion, but regarding historical accuracy and sources, I disagree; all post-1978 German language sources state something that ultimately goes back to an SI figure. So if a German-language source from the era states a 120 PS figure, it means that the author or editor has taken the Zulassungsbescheinigung Teil I and converted 88 kW into 120 PS (which means that using any such sources doesn't make things more accurate).


 * So keep adding PS figures, it definitely helps eliminating confusion. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 03:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think. However, what about the many '80s/'90s BMWs with 115PS? Is that 84 kW or 85 kW? Here is BMW's answer. By the mid-1990s BMW changed to claiming 116 PS, which seems to signify a change towards a more complete SI adoption. On a side note, BMW most certainly claimed non-SI power outputs in European countries other than Germany for decades after 1978. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The 115 PS engines are all 85 kW, at least that's what the owner's manuals of the BMW E28, E30 and E12 say. I guess the M21(!) engines were advertised as 115 PS because that's a nice figure? Maybe you're right about other European countries, but in BMW's domestic market Germany, SI was mandatory from 1978. I have seen many editions of BMW owner's manuals, and a lot of them contain rounding errors, typos, or completely false figures. That is one of the reasons why I tend to stick to the "original" figures. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 05:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Manual of Style, lead units.
@Mr.choppers, you appear to be following me around Wikipedia? I see that despite the eloquent analysis by @Stepho on Talk:Nissan S30 (which I hope you read) on why the Wikipedia Manual of Style chooses SI as a preference unless a country has strong ties to a unit. Those countries listed are the United States and United Kingdom, not France which is metric. The article you reverted is a French Truck made in France, per the manual of style this should lead with the SI unit. As Stepho pointed out, Many English readers outside the US and UK are not familiar with historical units. You are imposing your preferences and not following the manual of style. Please do not revert article that follow the Manual of Style instead of your preferred unit, or future articles without discussion.Avi8tor (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * PS is simply horsepower. France was most certainly not using kilowatts in the 1950s. They were built and designed and the power stated using metric hp, and absolutely no one who discusses these trucks would use "441kW" to describe the 600cv Berliet. For god's sakes, the truck has a giant metal logo in the grille which reads "600 ch.".  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  14:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello to you both, I filed a dispute on the Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Nissan_S30_Berliet_T100 if you'd care to make some comments. Avi8tor (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Syclone page - external link wars
Not sure what the deal is with the back and forth on the external link forum stuff other than a guy apparently on the sytyforum who has a bone against someone on the sytyregistry. Both are separate communities.

This is an active link/page with news and information that keeps getting removed from the IP offender:

https://internationalsytyregistry.com/

Can we establish that this stays active? Over it. Trying to add legitimate content to the page since no one else seems to be putting any good relevant information on it lately.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyTySoGT (talk • contribs) 00:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You sound not crazy, so probably. I recommend starting a conversation at the Syclone talk page - this would help you make your case and make sure that other editors support your endeavors. I also recommend checking WP:OR and WP:CITE and WP:CRUFT for some pointers on editing methods and etiquette (don't read it all, but be aware that they exist, they are useful resources). Another tip is to find a good looking article or a Featured one and see how things were done there. Take care, please write me again if you need anything else.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Far from crazy, just a passionate owner who has been helping do historical preservation and data collection on the trucks for more than 22 years. Im just trying to clean up the wiki page (finally) and get actual good content on it that has been certified as factual from both GM and PAS documentation that both I and other enthusiasts own. Will take note on how to properly add more content with links and cites - never been interested in the wiki platform but I can see now its useful, so still learning to navigate and use it properly. Thank you! SyTySoGT (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I see that. I will be happy to help you out with technical concerns if you ever need it. The benefit of doing things the right way, following WP:NPOV and other guidelines, is that your work will gain longevity. The better your edits, the more likely that they will remain ten years from now. Take care,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  16:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I do actually need help. I cant seem to figure out the proper copyright syntax to use on the PPG Syclone image (got a notice from a bot that its incomplete). Its a GM press release pic, but I dont have documentation saying or showing its an open source free to use picture made for the media and public use. Any help to properly correct that would be appreciated. Thanks for your patience with me! SyTySoGT (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Uploading pictures taken by others is very very complicated business, unless you are a copyright lawyer or if the picture has a very clear copyright release. I do not think that any of the pictures I see on your page meet the requirements. I would strongly suggest self nominating them for deletion before GM sues Wikipedia over their use. Sorry I do not have a better answer for that dilemma.
 * I recommend waiting until there are some car meets and bringing a camera or a smartphone, uploading your own photos is always safer and easier. I will try to upload the ppg picture here, it might pass the en.wp guidelines for commercial free use.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  17:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So, even on public press release images that were meant for distribution and sharing will cause an issue? I see a handful of images that have been uploaded by other users that have incorrect copyright information that I know for fact are GM press release images. Id like to stay within the boundaries of wiki and copyright law of course, but this just makes things much harder unfortunately because the best interpretations of the trucks are the press release pictures done by GM that were intended for public sharing. :(
 * Yes, that is sadly how it is. Those other pictures should be taken down as they are probably copyright infringements (I think old pictures are available, but again, it's complicated and every country has its own rules). Side note: ping is not required on a user's talk page, I get a headsup whenever someone posts here. It can be a great to draw a user's attention at other talkpages, though. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  18:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Arrrgghh, ok...time to open up the time capsule and sort through my photography. They'll be some hardcore edits on the page that will be happening. The GMC Typhoon page is the next goal along with creating a proper GMC Sonoma GT page as well. Once again, appreciate your patience and help! SyTySoGT (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. Your photos will be more interesting anyhow, as the standard photos have been seen thousands of times. Again, I strongly recommend nominating your uploads for deletion yourself, it looks a lot better than having someone else delete them. I would not recommend creating a separate page for the Sonoma GT; it does not meet the requirements for a standalone article. It will be better served by fleshing out its section at the S-10 entry. I have uploaded a small version of the PPG photo, I think it meets the free rationale requirements.
 * Also, my only truly useful contribution here is the photo of an S-10 Cameo - I hope you like it.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  18:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * One more detail: your sources do not have to be available online. Period print sources are totally okay to use as a reference, and may actually be preferrable to enthusiast forums. See WP:RS for more. You have to be somewhat prepared to provide scans or something of the source in question if someone doubts the veracity of a claim, but it has never happened to me in 12 years of editing.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  18:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Curious, why wouldnt the GMC Sonoma GT meet requirements for its own page? It was a stand-alone truck that was made and marketed and is separate platform from the Syclone and Sonoma production. I think its still relevant to include it on the S10 pages (even though its not the S10 platform, its a Sonoma platform...similar but different) as well include it on Syclone page, but it truly needs to have its own page as the SyTySoGT community sees it as its own truck, not meshed into other platforms. While it doesnt have the glorious history as the Syclone, the Sonoma GT still existed as part of the PAS Sportmachine production.
 * Bonus - I have one of my sources looking into finding the paperwork from GM that states that their images are allowed to be used and distributed for public use. Hopefully that can be utilized for the copyright information and the press release images can eventually be used and with properly tagged copyright syntax. SyTySoGT (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The Sonoma GT simply does not have enough differences to qualify as more than a version. The GMC Sonoma itself is merely a rebadged S10, which is why it has never had its own page (as with just about every GMC product). Good luck with the photo release...  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  20:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Kia Optima edit
Hi Mr. Choppers, just a question, why did you change the power units to KW and nm on the Kia Optima page when the car is Korean and the original power rating which comes from the factory is using Korean units (PS, kg.m)? Alawadhi3000 (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, there is an ongoing debate at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions - the WP standard prefers SI units, with some allowances for customary ones. While a few editors want to always lead with kW for all cars (excepting US and UK ones), I believe that there should be some space for using the units preferred by the manufacturer/country. However, I do believe that for newer vehicles (after 2000 or so) kW ought to come first in WP. I did keep PS in the output as it is a popularly used unit worldwide. Kgm is rather archaic at this point, I rarely see it used outside of Korea and on older Japanese cars. I welcome you to weigh in at the linked debate.


 * Please note that I did retain the manufacturer's units as the basis for conversions, to ensure that the output is not corrupted. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I will read and join the debate later then, thanks for the explanation and reply, take care. Alawadhi3000 (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited BMW M30, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solex.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Trucks
Good afternoon, I think you did a good job on explaining the 1973-1987 (1991) Chevrolet C/K series pick up trucks, also known as one of the best performing and looking trucks Chevrolet has made, I can go on and on about "square body" Chevrolet trucks. One of my favorite trucks and vehicles, I love all vehicles, u.s or foreign. Big or small. SUV or compact car, does not matter to me! Thanks
 * Ok, you're welcome.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  22:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

russische Fahrzeuge
Hallo Mr.choppers,

ich bin faul und schreibe auf Deutsch, ich hoffe das ist ok. You may answer in english, if that's more convinient for you. Danke Dir für die ganzen Rücksetzungen in den Artikeln zu russischen Fahrzeugen. Im Moment ist da ziemlich der Wurm drin. Die IP bzw. der Benutzer hat das Buch von Thompson - das es tatsächlich gibt - definitiv nie in der Hand gehabt. Ich hab es hier liegen und es stimmt eigentlich nichts, was er schreibt. Auch die ganzen Rev's sind mit gefälschten Seitenzahlen. Siehe auch als Vergleich. Alle diese Anmerkungen "Wird bis heute produziert, für Export" etc. sind Blödsinn. Hast Du ja schon gesehen.

Ich versuche einen Blick drauf zu haben, ich bin aber auf en.WP nur mittelmäßig aktiv. Ich freue mich sehr, wenn Du auch ein Auge darauf hast. In diesem Fall lieber mehr zurücksetzen als weniger.

Grüße, --Druschba 4 (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hallo Druschba 4. Ja, der ist eine langzeitige Vandal, siehe bitte hier. Er wird bald blockiert aber dann fängt er wieder an, auch von eine mänge IP Adressen. Ich habe auch das Thompson Buch, eines gutes Werk. Es gibt auch andere Augen, wie Sable232. Danke, alles bestes,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hallo Mr.choppers,
 * ich melde mich noch einmal zu dem Thema. Schau doch bitte mal hier vorbei. Ich denke, dass dieser, dieser und dieser Artikel in den Benutzernamensraum des Users verschoben werden sollten. Es ist unklar, ob es etwas wie "Roman Diesel" als Baureihe je gab, vom Rest im Artikel mal abgesehen. Eher freie Fantasie. Ich habe jedoch keine Ahnung von der Verschiebung und den Formalien. Kannst Du das bitte anstoßen? Es handelt sich mit Sicherheit um unseren gemeinsamen Freund, ich kenne das Muster der rumänischen Fahrzeuge schon aus fr.WP. Einen Großteil habe ich schon zurückgesetzt. Danke und Gruß, --Druschba 4 (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hallo - I am sorry, I am currently a little stressed out dealing with one particular editor who wants to prohibit all mention of metric horsepower (PS) across English WP and I don't have the energy to deal with Vanebbe/Zerolandteam as well. But yes, their edits are often fakes. They are getting ever more sophisticated, too. Vanebbe also adds sources I originally wrote up to prove purely imaginary things.


 * Should be blocked, but I don't think there are any admins left. Vielleicht sollte ich meine deutsch verbessern und Wikipediasprache wechseln?  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Buying Fluorescent Lamp
Buy Lamp! Buy Lamp! I Chop You!

Te Datsun 1200 Old Lady Fish Car. 14.192.212.213 (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Zerolandteam385
I started a discussion at AN/I here in regards to Zerolandteam385's prolific use of IP sockpuppets, if you have any input. --Sable232 (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Haval H6
Sorry can you correct the article Haval H6? it's really badly written and full of repetition. And can you merge items Aeolus AX7 and Dongfeng Fengdu MX5 Thank you! :)
 * Sorry, I am not particularly interested in Chinese cars. Get an account, do it yourself! I will be happy to help you out.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  13:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Buick Reatta
I'm writing a blog on my experience with the Buick Reatta. I was wondering if I may have permission to use one of your pics of the Red Reatta for my blog. It is on a commercial page. www.1057kokz.com

Thank you!

Shawn Foxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.253.44.221 (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Of course, it is uploaded with a free license. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Tamora
Hi,

I believe an injustice has been done here regarding the credits for the design of the Tamora. Lee Hodgets, Darren Hobbs and Peter Wheeler styled this car.

I was the head of design from 1994 to 2003, when I left the company. I frequently offered my guidance and opinion regarding certain aspects of the design but was overruled by Peter Wheeler, which was indeed his right as owner of the business.

Stay safe,

Best Regards

Damian Mactaggart MA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:2390:C001:5059:47D6:2C95:4242 (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You may be right, and you may even be Damian MacTaggart (hard to prove on the internet, I myself am the Safavid General Nader Shah Afshar), but Wikipedia operates based on verifiable sources. CAR Magazine is a reputable source and they credit you. Find a WP:SOURCE which states otherwise and we will have a discussion. If you send me a link or something I can help you format it for inclusion; if it's a paper source you can scan it and send it to me through the mail function. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  12:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

2600:1700:75A0:980:0:0:0:0/64
You can ping me directly if they come back on another IP or range. I've blocked this one and another one for 1 year. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you, much appreciated. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  10:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. YODADICAE👽 15:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Mitsubishi lancer tredia GLX
Hello, Mr.choppers

Where i can find the engine number of my car ? ( lancer tredia 1986 )


 * Honestly, no clue. The internet says that "the 4G6x Sirius series (1800/2000) have it on the block under the exhaust manifold close to the dipstick hole in the block, the 4G1x Orion (1400) and 4G3x Saturn series (1600/1800) has the number stamped on a tab coming off the block on the exhaust side, by number 1 cylinder where the head meets the block." Which engine does it have? What's the chassis number? Best of luck,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  12:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Categories
Hey, I see you reverted a couple of my category removals. Basically, I'm trying to remove some categories, like Category:GME vehicles and Category:Passport vehicles, which only have 1 or 2 pages (and for vehicles, they're all redirects) and will never have more. If there were a PROD template for categories, I'd use that. But I'd have to do a CFD instead, and I felt there would be no objection, since these categories haven't been touched in a long time, so I took the route of removing pages/sub-categories from categories and letting speedy empty category delete trigger after a week. Do you think I should just put them on CFD instead? --Vossanova o&lt; 13:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Vossanova - I don't really see the need for categories to exist at all, only because I myself do not use them. But if we do have categories, I don't see why these two should be deleted merely because there are not going to be any more pages added in the future. If so, Category:Paintings by Leonardo da Vinci should be deleted. If there is a minimum number of entries required to have a category then I agree that these should be removed, but I can't find such a rule. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  13:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not just the number of pages, it's also the fact that they're all redirects. There's no rule but there is WP:SMALLCAT (I wasn't saying that no more pages was delete criteria by itself). I think the categories for these short-lived rebrand categories (GME, Passport, Asuna) just add clutter to the Category:General Motors vehicles page, making it harder to find more significant brands (e.g. "GME vehicles" appears right after "GMC vehicles"). Anyway, I can create a CFD for the above brands' vehicles pages. --Vossanova o&lt; 13:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. No need, I won't reinstate them. I don't think they do any harm, but then again, I guess they do not do any good either. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  14:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Your recent reverts.
Your revert reason was incorrect. , the RSQ8 images were never added by me, I was still in sanctioned when the photos taken by me was added by Ghostofakina back last August, same with this | one. On my revert reason, I meant to say "What do you mean by plugging my own photos?". I reverted them since I personally disagreed with them. | This revert you did here was confusing, who was the other editor other than you? The photo was taken by Alexander-93 himself. --Vauxford (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Alexander is an editor other than myself. In these two articles, his pictures are clearly better than the ones you uploaded. Please stop.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  21:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * He self-inserted his OWN photo. It currently only you who think it better, that like me saying two editors prefer this image taken by me because you and I said so. It doesn't work like that. --Vauxford (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

File:1966 Dodge Coronet 440 2dr HT fr.jpg
Nice pic! One of the best unassuming sleepers that I've seen. Dyno Tested (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * - it is, right! Not my photo though, it's by Gregg Gjerdingen from Flickr. I just uploaded it. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

IPs are human too
Hi. What does "better before" mean in your edit summary ? And can you clarify what you mean by "plenty editorializing here already"? I hope your reaction will allow me to understand why you reverted my edit. Thanks. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 07:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is written from the viewpoint that IPs should be allowed to edit without creating a profile. It already made its case without you trying to add emphasis.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  10:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you assessment. Any suggestions on how we'll solve this disagreement? --143.176.30.65 (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll start with making a request. Can you re-read both the current lead section and the lead section of the old revision as it was after my rewrite. While re-reading both, given your stance on IP editors, it might be useful if you pretend the current lead was written by IP editors, and my rewrite by an administrator. And then give me thorough feedback on why the current lead section is better than my rewrite. So far, all you've given me is that the rewrite would be overemphasizing something. Also keep in mind that the article is an essay that attempts to convince its readers. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest you do not accuse me of discounting your writing just because you haven't created an account. I reverted your edits because they lowered the quality of the essay. I believe that you not having an account lowers your ability to meaningfully contribute to WP, and I find the only believable reason not to create an account is because someone wants the ability to melt away and vanish if things don't go their way - to edit without having to worry about any consequences. Creating a username is a (very minor) investment which grows and becomes more valuable the longer one edits, which in turn makes editors think twice before being rude or doing stupid things. You have invested nothing - although your location is clear for all to see, so maybe you have.


 * As for your edits, compare the following:

"Occasionally, edits by unregistered users are unjustifiably reverted and their contributions to talk pages discounted, because of misconceptions."

"Because of these misconceptions, edits by unregistered users are mistakenly reverted and their contributions to talk pages discounted."


 * Yours is longer and does not read better IMHO. Your edits made the intro about fifty percent longer and harder to read, while adding nothing.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  12:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, my version of the lead is more accurate and more detailed, and thus better conveys the essence. It's not harder to read. The increased length is irrelevant. In your response, I see nothing that will allow us to engage in substantive discussion. Your general stance towards IP editors, of which I am one, is hostile. I will request dispute resolution at WP:DRN. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Added at WP:DRN. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:IPs are human too. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Honda Mobilio
Hello Mr.Choppers, an editor opened a new discussion at the talkpage of the Honda Mobilio article, you may consider checking it out. Thanks! VictorTorres2002 ( talk ) 08:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Isuzu engines
I'm busy showing you how it should be done - at your invitation! Would you mind not interfering?

'not an improvement' - you can't be serious.

86.145.8.249 (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't remove alternate units, at least not hp and PS.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Innocenti
Hi there. In expanding Deaths in 1995 I came across this obituary on Luigi Innocenti. Given your interest in editing the Innocenti article, I thought it might be of interest to you in expanding it further. The article currently does not mention Luigi who led the company after his father died. He's also not mentioned in the Lambretta article which apparently he designed. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - thanks! Not sure what to do with it right now but definitely merits inclusion. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll leave a note on the article talk page. Maybe someone will figure out how to use it. This isn't my editing area of expertise. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Content of Rolls-Royce Motor cars and related pages
I'd like to ask you not to engage in content removal as I haven't only added images but also new content. For example, before being edited by me, the Rolls-Royce 2 gen had a little info about an EWB car and I have brought all the info in articles to date. I do not appreciate your actions and am asking you to redo them as Ihave made the article more detailed and have brought all the facts to date. ගොඩය (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

RR Motor cars
there is no need to undo the whole thing. just adding imgs is necessary and I do not think that the "ghost" picture is up to date and its article should not be put at the start and the phantom should take its place as it is the flagship model.
 * I started a conversation at your talk page, can we keep it in one place please? Also, go read WP:BRD.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

rr mtr cars
please do not undo the whole edit for the 'faulty with the images' just replace them or remove them(images) and I think 'main' templates are needed as it makes the readers see what the models are. when you go through the wikiproject automobiles most popular articles, it is seen that the rolls Royce mtr cars article is at a top position and it is seen that the articles of its models are not. therefore keep the changes and if anything is wrong with images just change them without undoing the whole article.

What is wrong with you??
You are reverting every edit I make for stupid reasons. Your latest excuse for reverting my edit are adding a large amt. Of images and mentioning tuners. I would like to tell you that So I ask you not to act like you Own the Rolls-Royce Ghost page and to let constructive editors to continue adding facts.
 * I did not add new images but I did put them to their relevant sections
 * I added more information to the Black badge section which was not even mentioned
 * I added extra information on tuners to make the article more detailed

Thank You!

Please leave a reply.
 * I have told you several times already, keep the discussion at your talk page where I have tried to talk to you for several days already. Stop adding new sections here.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  09:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Mr.choppers, I've started a discussion about the above editor at AN/I, if you have any input. --Sable232 (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Reply
I am sorry, I didn't ignore your message, but I couldn't access that very email of mine. Currently driving home, will reply ASAP. Thank you so much--Carmaker1 (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Kia Optima Size Class
Hello,

Until 2010 the Optima/Magentis appears to be much closer to the size of a BMW 3 Series, or Mercedes C Class i.e. a Category D car.

From 2010-Present, it is more similar in size to a BMW 5 series or Mercedes E Class, i.e. a Category E car. It is Physically longer than a BMW E60 5 series.

As the owner of a 2013 Model, I know this from first hand experience.

Thanks
 * This is why I posted a link to WP:OR on your talkpage back in May. You have to provide dependable references, your own feelings and opinions are not sufficient for WP. FYI, size is not the only requirement for being considered an exectuive car.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  18:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

MG Magnette
Hi Mr Choppers. You've carefully recreated a lot of white space on the top of that article. Don't know why but I used to be reprimanded if I did that, left so much white space behind me. Maybe things change? Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, not sure why you were reprimanded but to me the article is more legible when the infobox for the second section aligns with the beginning of the section itself (and so on throughout the article). Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  13:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have very carefully undone what I did. Possibly your layout burns down more forests for electricity, I don't know. Eddaido (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * After forty seconds of searching I cannot find any official rule on this, but to me the little bit of white space makes the article much more legible as the infoboxes no longer impose on each other. Could you provide me with a link to the conversation where you were told not to use

after the table of contents? Also, perhaps this looks different on different screens? Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  13:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You must use a very powerful search function. I wrote many new articles about cars between 2008 and say 2015 and fixed many more stubs. Bossy editors not interested in cars would come along with these admonitions including "wikipedia is not a gallery" kill what they considered excess white space and reduce the images to one in the top right hand corner. It has happened recently enough for me to be surprised that others haven't done the same to you. But then time passes more quickly as we experience more of it . . . Eddaido (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the white space, but I too wrestle with what ought to be included in galleries. I am aware that not everyone is interested in the same things I am, so I try to restrain myself. I never tried making a gallery in the Commons, but that might be a good compromise. Meanwhile, crazy galleries like Suzuki Wagon R remain.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyway, white space is deprecated. Eddaido (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Plates
I am a mason and I would like to get a Masonic license plates, can you help me with this , my email is lairwinge1@gmail.com. Thank you 2600:387:C:7011:0:0:0:4 (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1952 24 Hours of Le Mans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Allard J2X.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?
- I slowed down my editing a lot lately, feels pointless when IPs can run amok. When WP wakes up and starts requiring registration I will be back.  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  13:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

1G-GE intro date
Ae you sure about the Aug 1981 intro date? Earliest production mention I can find in my various brochures is mid 1982. Earliest official date is Aug 1982 as given by https://www.3sgte.com/page_12.htm The only earlier mention is the one you found for the showing at the Oct 1981 Tokyo Motor Show but I think this is a pre-production version.  Stepho  talk 12:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

All these rather dumb (in my opinion) disputes about... car photos in articles?
As someone who likes to somehow find 30 year old crappy cars that are somehow still running and take photos of them, what's the point of all this dispute about which car photos are better? It's not like this is some art critic level type thing, it's usually just pointless disputes about photos of some random van that is 30 years old, which make me laugh when I think about it, but do you know what the source or the mentality behind this nonsense is? Thanks, Cutlass Ciera  04:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Some people get mad when someone has a different opinion, being reverted is definitely triggering to many. People really put great value on their own shots. I try never to push my own photos (although I am sure I promoted my own pictures when I was fresh) and I try never to get caught up in the debates.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Cressida data
Though you might enjoy this: http://members.iinet.net.au/~stepho/cressprd.htm and http://members.iinet.net.au/~stepho/brochures/Cressida/  Stepho  talk 04:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, always love data. Are the X60-series really IRS? I thought the difference between the GX60 and the GX61 was precisely that.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  14:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You might be right. I'll check through my sources and see if I made a copy/paste error (wouldn't be the first time).  Stepho  talk 00:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Mini Moke
Good morning, Mr.choppers. I left a note on Talk page of Mini Moke article re: some of the edits I made. Please take a minute to review. Interested in your advice and counsel. (Also: great collection of car photos. Some rare gems there.) Cheers Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

PS: Sorry if every edit I just made to the Talk page pinged you again. (Just wanted it to be correct.) Cheers

I agree about the MR model
Hello; I live in the UK and US. In the UK we were lucky enough to be able to buy cars restricted to the JDM market. I'm on my third Mitsubishi GTO MR, it's a 1997. The GTO MR was an add on package for the JDM market, it was only offered there. It has slightly closer gearing and is *much* lighter. I never mod my cars. The GTO MR launches harder than any of it's AWD competitors and was much faster than the Nissan R32 and R33 Skyline GT-R, it's on video by Best Motoring on this page. Speed and acceleration times aren't important overall but the whole reason Mitsu made the MR was for explosive acceleration...it's like a page on the Ferrari F50 without any performance times. I give you tons of love for leaving that link in. That link alone is a very good one. Appreciate that and you helping people get into the 3s scene. I'm going to fix the link and add one more.
 * The link you inserted leads to the drag race where the '95 GTO MR runs 0-400m in 12.8s*

The MR section 2603:8000:C33E:11B:FD1B:D9FA:6A15:EE84 (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it was also to build a version that would cost less since GTO sales were in the gutter. Like Porsche's RS models. The Ferrari F50 page doesn't have reams of different times achieved by different testers; it is simply of no interest. Official published figures for 0-60 (or 100km/h) and 0-400m (or quartermile) and top speed is enough for any car.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Section move discussion for Ferrari flat-12 engine and Scuderia Ferrari 60°-180° V12/flat-12 F1 engine
I have proposed that some content from Scuderia Ferrari 60°-180° V12/flat-12 F1 engine be moved into another article that you have been involved with (Ferrari flat-12 engine). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Talk:Ferrari flat-12 engine. Prova MO  (talk)  19:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Who's Zerolandteam385 and why my edits are reverted as "usual vandal Zerolandteam385 "?
Hello.

Today, you have reverted my edits in Panel truck article I made yesterday.

I made a proper sub-section on panel trucks in USSR, basically. Would argue. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ALSO. If you really think UAZ SGR (aka "Bukhanka") is not a "panel truck", let's argue it out. In my opinion, it's a panel truck which shares its chassis with a pickup. And UAZ pickups are like Kei truck pickups. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, there's no "kei" category for small cars in Russia. However, UAZ SGR cars are considered to be "category "B" regular cars, (unless there's 8-or-more passenger seat)s. Therefore, we have something similar to 40's/50's panel trucks / vans, that share their chassis with a pickup truck platform. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * On an unrelated note: there is a sentence on your personal Wiki-page:


 * http://www.indiana.edu/~hisdcl/h207_2002/autoindustry.pdf - page 658 = drag coefficient of Cd=0.34 IP from Reading, UK - where to report


 * So, I click the link, and main page of Indiana.edu comes out, not the PDF. Is it broken or that's because the link requires an academic "subscription"? Thanks in advance.


 * P.S.: I do consider creating a proper personal account at this point.
 * Probably a dead link, I recommend internet archive as a jumping off point if you are sleuthing. I can't remember why I originally added the link.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  14:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Here you go: a PDF from archive.org. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Capacity of the engine.
Please, understand me, why 4,134 is 4.2 L, not 4.1???!!! Tsikhotskyi19 (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It isn't, but it's still what Audi called it. So we have to explain it, making it as clear as possible.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  00:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure?
Hello, you asked me to "see sources", but are you sure that you have yourself seen the source? Please have another look; I do have a physical copy and I can see figures 4 and 5 as well as a section on the engine control system on page 3. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I added a source, 654cc x 4. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  22:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * On page 2, the source states the chamber volume Vk=654 cm³ (i.e., the displacement per chamber) and number of rotors i=4 (it also states e=15 mm, B=105 mm, and R+a=80 mm). I suppose what you have done is multiply the chamber volume Vk by the number of rotors i to obtain the displacement Vh; the source does not do this, i.e., it doesn't state a displacement figure of 2616 cm³ anywhere. The chamber volume Vk has to be doubled per rotor to obtain the displacement, i.e., Vh=2·Vki Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 22:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Reverted my Action
Because you reversed my action since the creators themselves said that it reaches 452 km h and these cars are so modern that we have no choice but to believe them Super Dogger (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please spend a little more time on forming sentences. Add a reference. Thanks,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  19:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

McLaren P1, Czinger 21C and Bugatti Eb110
If I add the reference, will my edit stay there? Super Dogger (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Possibly (likely even) but please don't go hunting references until you find one that supports your point. That is, if you feel that the Speedtail replaced the P1 and you look through reference after reference until you find one that agrees with you, you're not actually doing research. See WP:RS for more of what constitutes a reliable source. I will be happy to help you with formatting if you need it.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  20:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I give up
I looked everywhere but I did not find anything before about 2 years ago there was a page that said that if it reached 400 km h but it no longer exists Super Dogger (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That probably means it wasn't true, especially since there are other sources which state that it cannot reach 400. Really makes no difference anyhow.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  21:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Mclaren P1
I found it, I found an article that states that it reaches 400 km/h but it is in Spanish To answer just leave a message on my discussion page that I don't get your notifications Super Dogger (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 395km/h looks like people echoing the top speed the P1 can reach in a video game, see here. Try searching for the truth and not what you want to be true.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  19:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK Livio Castiglioni
A bit out of your wheelhouse usual lane (perhaps), but wanted to let you know that the article Livio Castiglioni is on DYK today. (This was my first contribution starting from a blank-page, so the acceptance of the DYK nomination was something of a milestone.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! I remember the feeling the first time I got through; haven't attempted it in a while though - it was always a fair bit of work and it feels like it's harder every time. Good work. Once I had to replicate a Bruno Munari kinetic sculpture in school which made me rather fond of him - his entry feels a bit truncated, nudge nudge.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  23:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I certainly would've submitted the new Moke article for consideration when you first published it had I known about DYK at the time. [NB: Being featured on the Main Page absolutely supercharged the pageviews of the Castiglioni article(s) — compresso fratelli e padre.] Nudge noted re: Munari. I don't know too much about him — though I did add him to the Compasso d'Oro recipients category a while back when I was focused on that (I created the category and tried to find them all, though I probably missed a few). I've got some of his books. I'll go back and look at them again (been a while). Anything you've got that could improve the article? (I'll gladly do the drafting.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, but I will re-read some of his books soon as I am moving and thus finally able to access the parts of my library which has been in storage for the better part of a decade. I am afraid you've made me realize that I am a monomaniac, and if it's not a car built between circa 1935 and 1998 it is unlikely to hold my interest for long. BTW, at the top of my userpage there should be a row of eleven question marks - each one is a link to every DYK I ever managed. I am telling you, in case you would like to borrow the markup (I borrowed it from someone else).  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Picked-up the DYK topicon (wondered what those were). Very cool, thanks! Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Naoki Sakai (industrial designer)
Monomanias aside, you might find that Sakai's work is squarely in your lane (small Japanese cars, quirky design, etc.). I've added a few odds and ends to the article, however it's still rather spartan at best. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sparse, yes. I made some minor edits (the Figaro club page contained scans of old Sakai interviews). Can't find which of the WiLL cars he designed; I think he was involved with the 1999 WiLL Vi show car, but it has also been credited to others so who knows. To show you the depth of my nerdiness, the Patton (NYT) article first appeared in March 2011 and stated that the Pike cars were keis. I immediately wrote to them in a fury, and after nearly two months of fact checking they finally corrected the article (there is a notice at the bottom of the article). I felt/feel chuffed and wish that they would have me fact check everything they write on Japanese cars...  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting editor
Remember this disruptive IP editor you brought up on my talk page? ( 158.140.167.44 ). Turns out it was just one of countless sockpuppet accounts of the now community-wide banned, infamous Alex Neman. Check out his sockpuppet archive page, it stretches for miles. It's near impossible to actually "ban" him because he manages to create a new IP address every 2 seconds. So it's basically an endless, agonising game of whack-a-mole. He's quite easy to spot though - along with his very distinctive brand of edit warring and constant image changing on automotive pages, his IP accounts always geolocate back to various locations in East Java, Indonesia. If you could join in with just reverting anything he does whenever you spot his various IP's, that would be a huge help. There's no reason to be lenient with him as he shouldn't be anywhere near wikipedia anyway. I find the twinkle tool to be very useful - just go through and revert everything Democfest (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * - yes, I agree. Most of his edits aren't blatantly harmful, but the constant shuffling of photos (and preference for photos from Indonesia) is rather disruptive and really serves no purpose. I am not a full time anti-vandalism warrior, but I do revert sometimes. I wish there was a lower level admin power, where we could block IPs for 30 hours or something without the whole rigmarole. Thanks.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

RE: Main Images
Main images are to be updated to the latest to ensure articles are up-to-date to their fullest (and to avoid confusion), as all Wikipedia articles are to be expected to have accurate up-to-date information, else articles end up looking dated. These edits are not intended to be malicious or vandalism, nor am I looking to butt heads with other editors. 76.135.144.239 (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * respond at IP talk page

Your lane?
Thought you might like this. (Was looking for something completely unrelated and stumbled upon it by chance — as it's small, quirky, Japanese, and a vehicle, naturally I thought of you.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * - thanks! I knew about it this delightful little thing, but the article was only ever edited in 2018 so definitely needs some wikilove! How did you come upon it?  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  13:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Searching Commons for photographs of Fujifilm cameras designed by Mario Bellini (in the context of my ongoing attempts to improve the visual content of articles about architecture, design, creativity, and the arts in general — as well as anything else that might benefit from better imagery). Bellini did a few vehicle related projects too (see this and this), if ever of any use to you. Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: This too!
 * Cool - the Kar-a-sutra seems to have crossed over into art entirely (although I guess one could argue that it is an early example of Flex seating), but the Trevi's dashboard is one of my favorite designs ever.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The early through 70s DS steering wheel is pretty high-up on the list for me. One spoked Gallic élan or just extra-planetary bizarre — cool either way. Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Clio
I have seen that the Renault Clio uses the Peugeot sourced dCi in the Wikipedia article. Is this true? I have not seen a reliable source for it. 88.241.120.74 (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe it has already been removed.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  14:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

MOKE revival photos
Hello Mr.choppers, I came across some additional Moke (revival) material on Commons (see Talk page). Please have a look when you have a minute. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Diesel page reverts
Thank you for making an effort to avoid an edit war at the diesel page. However, as you must be aware, all that link does is take someone immediately to a sentence that says (I paraphrase) “For more about four-stroke engines, see four-stroke engines above.“ Which of course sheds absolutely no light on why an inherently efficient two-stroke engine would be produced in four-stroke design.

If I thought I was capable of summarizing the advantages of doing so, I would’ve done it in a sentence clause instead of resorting to the Why template. If you feel you’re capable of it, why don’t you do so. If not, why don’t you restore the edits as I made them, in hopes that someone who is qualified can do so, and shed the much needed light on the subject there.2601:196:180:8D80:95D6:F25D:2025:C7FB (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Mighty Boy Forum?
Hello Mr. Choppers, I recently bought a ‘86 Mighty Boy (Australia) and I’d love to know if there’s any resources you’d recommend. Anything that remotely relates is appreciated. This is my first step into the car scene! Kind regards- tiny_boy_86 Tiny boy 86 (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I am just a WP editor and this is not a forum. Nonetheless: I buy my parts from PartsSouq, BeForward, Amayama, Yahoo Auctions Japan, and wherever else the internet sends me. I try to keep wear and tear parts on hand or buy in advance if something feels like it could become an issue. My best advise is to find a mechanic with a sense of humour and patience, and a partner who is equally equipped. Congrats on the car, please upload a few pics to the Commons if she looks original.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  12:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring at the Buick Special page
Dear My Choppers. Please desist in your ramp-up to an edit war at the Buick Special page. The edit you keep reverting - the third one will qualify you for warring - is plain and simple and *true*. Accurate. The existing statement is *not*. And is by no means (as edited) "too much detail" for the lead of an article where the matter of its engine (family) being introduced by that model has been brought up (previously). Thank you. 2601:196:180:DC0:F81B:58F8:49B5:BDFF (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Your edit is confusingly worded and introduces irrelevancies that belong on the V6 page. Also, the grammar is faulty. And get an account so that one can have a conversation.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Another quirky gem
Hello Mr.choppers, I found another oddball that might be in your wheelhouse. Please have a glance at the rough draft (and even give it a quick polish if you've got time – especially the proper infobox formatting for dims, powertrain, etc.). As it's pretty quirky, I'd appreciate having your eyes on this one ;-) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I love that even at this ripe old age, I am still finding out about new vehicles. I didn't check any of your references, but it all looks legit. Check the capitalization of the title before going live. I did some formatting changes but I also have two comments:
 * Fewer than one of these rare models are known to exist, and if so would go on to set auction records for the highest price paid for a wheelbarrow of any sort at RM Sotheby's for decades to come. - this sentence seems to be missing something
 * Zagato is famous for their double-bubble roof; did they by any chance use a double-bubble bottom for the Carriola? Just speculating, of course.
 * Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  14:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting the mangled syntax (above). I'll iron and starch that sentence before publishing the article. Also, well spotted re: IVECO not coming into existence until 1975! I've now corrected this error (FIAT Veicoli Industriali was the precursor, if that's of interest). Formatting improvments appreciated too. Much better.
 * I'll also dig around some more to see if I can locate any more details about the Z-Carriola (I was secretly hoping that there might be a photo of this rarest of rare gems hidden in your vast treasure-trove of vehicle photos, alas). The only photo I have seen is the grainy black and white image from Quattroruote, but the trim and finish of the Abarth 750 GTZ you've included certainly appears to be in the same vein.
 * One last question: regarding capitalisation, may I assume that you mean that the article should be named "Vespa Carriola"? If so, would it be best to simply change this when moving to mainspace? (I'm still a bit shaky on the dos and don'ts of naming and page moving.)
 * Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Capitalization: yes, that was my concern. I've never tried it, but I assume that would be the time. As for refereces, I am currently in the process of unpacking and organizing all of my books, but all the relevant volumes still seem to be in a box somewhere. When do you plan to go live, sometime next week perhaps?  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  16:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Aiming for Saturday (assuming all the pieces come together by then). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good to go to me! If I was to add anything, it would be about when Audrey Hepburn famously rode in one in The Tree of Wooden Clogs. All the girls wanted wheelbarrows after that.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  17:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't know how I missed that! Probably merits an "In popular culture" section. I will try to pick-up on this again later (or tomorrow) and add the Wooden Clogs, kitchen sink, et al. (and a few other odds and sods) in order to give it a last polish before Saturday curtain-call. Thanks again (as always) for your expert advice! -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

La nuit porte conseil – as they say in Saint-Tropez. Found a few more unexpected (and truly unbelievable) pop-culture references which I've added to a new "In popular culture" section (in addition to The Tree of Wooden Clogs, etc.). I've also tidied-up syntax and flow, added a bit more nuance and detail, and fixed a few egregious factual errors that somehow crept into the earlier draft. Think this might be pretty nearly ready to go. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC) PS: Put a bit more gas in the tank, but must now park it before I go over the cliff of no return. Have a last look if you're so inclined.

PPS: Not entirely certain I know how to accomplish the rn/mv --> mainspace operation.
 * "Composter" is the best clerical error yet. Bonne chance.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  21:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Merci. Thanks again for your help! I'll probably re-read it a few too many more times in order to verify and make sure the facts are just so, but I'm feeling like this article is ready for general readership. One question of form: Is it acceptable practice to duplicate this thread on the Talk page of the article itself (essentially copy/paste from your Talk page --> Vespa Carriola:Talk)? My thinking is that it might be helpful for other editors to see the evolution of the piece and some of the framework discussion (e.g., the addition of the Double Bubble information and accompanying ref image). Thoughts? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: A few other points I'm not sure about: to which (if any) categories should the Carriola be added; idem re: WikiProjects; lastly, should a banner shell or any other technical, under the bonnet details be added?
 * The die is cast, Godspeed. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Q: Would a DYK nomination be pushing the boundaries of common-sense? Thinking ahead to next year, really (though mindful of DYK 7 day rule). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sadly, the Vespa Carriola is no more. It was legendary, ever so briefly. I did think it added something valuable to the subject (and the project), but alas, it seems that not everyone agrees. Not sure if there are any grounds for contesting the deletion on not... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Four days ain't bad...  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  13:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I certainly enjoyed it. Perhaps you can get it added to April_Fools/April_Fools%27_Day_2023.  Stepho  talk 02:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I was looking for it there but couldn't find it; I thought I was maybe looking in the wrong place. Should be added imho.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, that would be magnifique! Thanks Mr.choppers and, I didn't even know that this existed. I previously sent a polite expository mea culpa note to the editor who vanished the article suggesting something of the sort, but have yet to hear back. Perhaps didn't realise the article was published on April Fools' Day? I also tidied-up a few remaining redlinks to the erstwhile "ground-breaking [...] power assisted wheelbarrow" as a show of good faith and community mindedness – so it's really gone except for the cool photo on Commons (which was the inspiration for my little prank in the first place) and a wikidata entry (which seems accurate and anodyne). I will remain optimistic about a Vespa Carriola revival (Vespa Skottkärra väckelse)! Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have reinstated the page to April Fools/April Fools' Day 2023/Vespa Carriola. Normally April 1 day's pranks are cleaned up at the end of the day, but everyone seemed to miss this one. But it appeared in the Chemistry new pages list. Also take a look at Rules for Fools rule number 1, which says that pranks should not appear in Article space. But I did enjoy the page! I included a link from April Fools/April Fools' Day 2023 so others can see what you got away with. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! (tusen tack!) Much appreciated. (molto apprezzato.) (Ok, ok, knock it off, enough already...) I will read the rules and be mindful not to do anything that strays too far into the weeds next year. I actually learned a lot of useful little tricks and treats doing this one – all of which will (I hope) benefit the more serious work I'm doing elsewhere in the project. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: Thanks for the use of the parking spot on your Talk page too, Mr.choppers!
 * Haha, happy to host. I had assumed that you were doing this with official backing all along...  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  12:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Panel truck: I get it now
OK, I now get it why "panel trucks" shouldn't have extra pics of (still manufactured to this day!) car known as Bukhanka. You, among other reasons, don't want to mix cool shiny trucks from 1940 with gloomy, stark-looking cars that have no glamourous chrome. Ironically, that reason also makes sense, but that would require to add a couple of links to the article to elaborate on such a point:
 * 1950s American automobile culture
 * American automobile industry in the 1950s
 * "Faster food" section: it needs some info about "canopy express" cars as mobile food kiosks (as in "the opposite").

Kind regards. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Trolling and Harassing others
You are the only one guilty of disruption here. Where are all these imaginary people that are disagreeing with my edits? I don't see anyone disagreeing. You are the problem here. Nobody else has a problem here but you and you are manufacturing a problem where one does not exist. There aren't any commenters or editors that are disagreeing with my edit or that have a problem with my edit. What about that do you not understand? Nobody has even answered my post on the Talk page. Do you understand that? Don't you have anything better to do than chasing people all around wikipedia and constantly harassing them to no end? I know I'm not the first you are doing this to. You are a menace and a serious problem and a disruptor to the peaceful and quiet operation of wikipedia that generally prevails. What you are doing is called stalking in the real (non-digital) world. Are you aware of that? The only reason you revert my edits is to harass me. That much is plainly obvious. You are the one that is warring with me. I'm just trying to get away from you. But yet, you keep following me again and again and again. So who is the real disruptor and the real one warring? Here's a clue: It's not me, it's you. 108.6.237.202 (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I keep an eye on you because your edits are disruptive and damaging to Wikipedia. You will notice that your talk pages are packed with people who have problems with your edits, and you have been reverted by several users besides me.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  22:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Aha, so you admit to trolling and harassing. None of my edits are disruptive or damaging to Wikipedia. The fact that you think that only shows how much is wrong with you. And just because there are haters around doesn't mean they're right.--108.6.237.202 (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nissan TD engine (April 15)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Mattdaviesfsic were:

The comment the reviewer left 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.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Nissan_TD_engine Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattdaviesfsic&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Nissan_TD_engine reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Goldmine (your lane)
Hello Mr.choppers, I hope you are well. While looking for something entirely different (photographs of Franco Albini's furniture designs), I stumbled across Category:Automobiles in the Museo Nazionale dell'Automobile di Torino (1960). Thought it might be of interest. (You may well already know of this treasure trove, in which case, carry on.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I was not aware! Some awesome, rare vehicles there. Thanks!  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  12:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Renault Mirai
I never heard of this Renault. Is it a made-up model? Megane Trent Fan (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably vandalism, there are a lot of hoaxers out there.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  13:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Same time next year? (Another Quirky Gem II)
Hello Mr.choppers, while browsing Commons for unusual design related imagery, I came across that may be adjacent to your interests (small, quirky vehicle, etc.). Perhaps there's an article worth developing at some point in future? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Good choice in prototype, too. If I was a bee I'd definitely drive a Metropolitan.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  16:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, thriving Metroploitan bees, it seems. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: Hornets too, coincidentally.
 * I am obviously sick, because when you said Hornet I immediately thought of the kind in this photo.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  20:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not in the least. All's well – I was simply alluding to the "Hornet" thread below (which, granted, doesn't concern me – but as it was there, I glanced). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not many vehicles are named after bees. All I can think of is the Piaggio Ape.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  20:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Vespa is of course "Wasp", but that's so last year. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

"it obviously existed"
...sure, but it has nothing to do with the subject of the article: they share nothing but the name. So what is the reason to bring it in here, esp. in such a conspicuous place? Drmies (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I just happened to watch that silly ad for the Dodge Hornet, and look at this--Dodge Hornet. This seems perfectly applicable. You found sources for that concept car (good job, BTW), so maybe this is the way to go. Drmies (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - yes, that's an option, but I don't think the concept car was important enough to merit a standalone and to turn Renault Talisman into a dab page. Erasing the entire thing seemed to violate WP:BABY. I only put it on top for chronological reasons, but I realize that most pages list show cars at the bottom of the page.
 * A brief mention seems to give this pointless show car all the attention it deserves. Compare with Opel Insignia. That one is closer to the finished product both in terms of time and class, so not a perfect match. We shall sleep on it. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Another goldmine
Hello Mr.choppers, I came across another repository of photographs that may be of interest (see: c:Category:BMW automobiles in the BMW-Museum and, of which the latter I've already made good use). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)