User talk:U1Quattro/Archives/ 1

Copyright problem on Lotus Esprit GT1
Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.supercars.net/forum/threads/the-worlds-only-lotus-esprit-gt1-gt2-race-car.45933/. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Koenigsegg Regera weight
I started a discussion about the weight of the Koenigsegg Regera at Talk:Koenigsegg Regera that you might want to participate in. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

XP5 Nordschleife lap time
Can you join the discussion in the "XP5 Prototype hoax" section at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Nürburgring_Nordschleife_lap_times ? Drachentötbär (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As this is already established that the lap time was a hoax, it was removed. Unless it is proven that it wasn't a hoax, it shouldn't be added back.U1Quattro (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "As this is already established that the lap time was a hoax" when was it established that this lap time was a hoax? I've found the discussion on List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times talk page, but so far all I see is speculation that the lap time given by Evo, was taken from Wikipedia. Has there been some proof either way regarding this claimed lap time? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there actually some proof that the lap time was real and not false? Because the talk page established that it was added without any source and then the controversial Evo source was added which had the same lap time copied from that unsourced time.U1Quattro (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have the Evo source. Evo is considered to be a reliable source. When was it established that Evo copied their time from Wikipedia? Did they make a statement or something? Reliable sources are to be trusted, that's the way Wikipedia works. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * They didn't replied to an email sent by a user from the discussion. You obviously haven't read the conversation.U1Quattro (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that in order for any source to be considered reliable, that source has to reply to e-mails from Wikipedia editors? And yes, I have read the discussion and saw nothing proving that the time or source are not to be trusted. I'm still interested in actual proof that the claimed time is inaccurate and/or that Evo took the time from the Wikipedia article, is there such proof, or is there just speculation that a highly respected automotive publication isn't a reliable source without any proof to back up that speculation? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Since you're so interested in that lap time, why don't you prove it?U1Quattro (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Mainly because I don't have to, we have reliable sources that we trust. Do I need to explain to you how and why we use sources, rather than saying "why don't you prove it?" to everyone who introduces content that we don't agree with? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless and until it is proven that a lap time is real and not fake, it's not being put back. Even reliable sources like Evo can be wrong sometimes.U1Quattro (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that just isn't how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia works by identifying reliable and verifiable sources and introducing content based on those sources. We don't come to conclusions. Statements like "Unless and until it is proven that a lap time is real and not fake, it's not being put back." don't mean a single thing on Wikipedia, and has zero effect on content being removed or kept. You might want to read about Wikipedia policy before you make similar statements again. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the edit was vandalism
Why would an addition for a Nurg time on the M5 be vandalism? 2601:205:8080:1154:ED7C:42FA:29AD:869A (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC).

Because: A) It was not sourced properly and there hasn't been an official Nurburgring time for the M5 yet.

B) It was an attempt to overstate the M5's performance. U1Quattro (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ferrari 488, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ferrari 308 ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ferrari_488 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ferrari_488?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

M3 galleries
This seems strange, on my display the photos look to be in the proper size, what do they look like on your end? Toasted Meter (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Also what resolution is your display? Toasted Meter (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I like your solution in the E90 section. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Haven't taken screen shots but they look oversized on my end. Hence they were put in that format which seemed feasible.U1Quattro (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The gallery template looks to have some scaling problems. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * That could be the case, the gallery should be scaled down to the right size then if it's going to be used.U1Quattro (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

British spelling: publicly or publically
In your update note to Ferrari_488, you wrote: A word doesn't need a source. However, you might add one if you feel necessary. Both variations are equally permissible with "Publically" being more commonly used.

You're making a claim that "publically" is the normal British spelling. I provided you with statistical data from a British source indicating that this spelling is used only about 3% of the time.

So I'm not asking you to provide a "source" for a word, I'm asking you to provide any kind of "indicative" information to support your claim that "publically" is the preferred British spelling.

Based on your logic (that no evidence of any sort is required to justify using a "rare" spelling, claiming it's actually the "common" spelling), I should be able to edit any article, changing the spelling of as many words as I want to have bizarre spellings, and nobody should be able to challenge that, because I say so.

How does that possibly make any sense? Fabrickator (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The wording has been changed to avoid any further conflicts thus ending this argument.U1Quattro (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Aston Martin DBS Superleggera and Aston Martin DB11

 * You asked for a history-merge of these files, or similar. What in detail do you want to be done with these two pages? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I requested a speedy deletion as this article has material copied from the Aston Martin DB11 page.U1Quattro (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion of Ferrari GG50
Hi U1Quattro, and thank you for your contributions. I'm somewhat puzzled about why you nominated this article for speedy deletion. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * the WP:A1 - a very short article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article criterion does not apply here. The article text starts with "The Ferrari GG50 is a concept car created by Ferrari to mark the fifty years during which Giorgetto Giugiaro had been designing cars. It was introduced at the 2005 Tokyo Motor Show..." which clearly indicates what the article is about.
 * the WPG1 - as a page that is patent nonsense, consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history criterion does not apply. It's clearly about an automobile.
 * As for whether the WP:A10 as a recently created article with no relevant page history that does not expand upon, detail, or improve information within the existing article(s) on the subject see I do not see any good reason why the Ferrari GG50 article should be deleted or moved getter desveiptio og thid aerticle/
 * Just to clarify:
 * "getter desveiptio og thid aerticl/"?
 * Looking into this, it appears that this part of the message was still in draft form when the "" button was clicked by User:Shirt58's cat.
 * Apologies for that. I have had the "please do not dance on my computer keyboard when I am away from my desk" conversation with her a number of times, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The article is based on what is already mentioned in the Ferrari 612 page. Meaning that the article is useless as there is already a detailed description of the GG50 in the 612 article. Furthermore it is poorly structured and has material copy/pasted from what is mentioned in the GG50 heading in the Ferrari 612 article. That is a reason good enough that the article should be removed.U1Quattro (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Understood. I acknowledge such accidents happen. I have had those done by my pet dog.U1Quattro (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Koenigsegg Agera. This is known as "edit warring" and is seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors.

A block will result if the edit warring continues, to prevent disruption caused by edit warring. You should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount.

This is actually the second time you're edit warring on this page. I looked up the edit history. The last time was ten months ago, and I don't know why you consider those edits "inacceptable" (actually spelled "unacceptable"). The anonymous user edited the page first. The IP address left you a message today explaining the reason for removal.

There are other infoboxes with an edit note without links, like ones for bands ("See Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians" was the edit note).

Wikipedia is a place where everyone has the right to edit. It's an encyclopedia with topics on just about every single thing in the universe. It's not a place to waste energy and time arguing about a little thing when you edited second.

In order to prevent an edit war, I'm going to leave it the way the anonymous user left it. As that user said, there are other edit notes without links, and they are invisible, therefore they are unnecessary. I never see anyone who treats the removal of something unneeded like it's a big deal. It's a waste of your and their time to keep edit warring. Please accept this edit. Note that I'm a rollbacker.

The IP fixed your writing a little, so I will guess your first language may not be English. Consider using a spellchecker.

Thank you.''

Dolfinz1972 (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I made a typo. That isn't a big deal at all. Plus you're from the US, not from Europe. There are differences in British and American English. If you actually see the edit summaries, I mentioned that the unlinking done by the anonymous user was not a typo as they mentioned it. They should've given appropriate reasons for removal. If they had done it in the edit summary, it would've been a lot better. You're a rollbacker, not an admin. You have no right to treat me like this because of the fault of an anonymous user in that they removed the links without any reasonable explanation.U1Quattro (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Dodge Viper (ZB II)
Reviewed. A bit of work to be done on citations. Try not to claim too much - leave that to the manufacturers. Just concentrate on demonstrable facts and you will be okay. Deb (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Manufacturer data Comment
Hi, I think its general rule in auto articles that we use manufacturer data, and there is good reason for it, there is thousands of Independently tested performance data available in internet, we can never be sure they are measured in right manner, of course there is good additional data available, but 0-100 km/h or 0-60 mph and top speed values should come from manufacturer if that data is available. And if we use other than manufacuter data that should told in article, references alone dont tell that until you go and read that article. If Im not totally wrong this thing is discussed in past in WP:Automobiles -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 20:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes but road and track along with car and driver are reliable independent testers. In the absence of manufacturer performance data, their tested data is used commonly. Plus I think Wikipedia guidelines do not allow citations from the manufacturer to be used in the articles. U1Quattro (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Independent times can also be useful to provide a more complete picture of cars made by manufacturers who quote times significantly lower than tested times. Mentioning the source in the text is fine. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Indeed. A change of heading with the description for a source is a more suitable choice. U1Quattro (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Alpina B4
I would repeat my above comments about the language in these articles. So much of it sounds like you took it straight off an advert. Try not to use words like "features", "offers" and "available": These are standard advertising jargon. Deb (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Any guidance regarding the above matter because I can't think of other suitable words like these about an automobile. U1Quattro (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Thank you so much. U1Quattro (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Alpina B3 N55/N54
I think you must have missed my comment on the talk page, "two new small turbochargers instead of the single unit" is very confusing when the car you are talking about came with the twin turbo N54 and the single turbo N55. This change needs to be mentioned and the N54 should be mentioned first. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Both of the engines were twin-turbocharged in the B3 so it's not that important because the engine codes aren't mentioned in the sentence.U1Quattro (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "instead of the single unit" implies that all the motors had a single turbo. The N54 is also only mentioned once on the entire page, if you look in the infobox you only see the N55. Toasted Meter (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

It is not confirmed whether the car used the N54 or the N55, some sources say the N54, some say the N55. U1Quattro (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Ligier JS2 R
Thanks for creating Ligier JS2 R.

A New Page Patroller Willsome429 just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:

"Headings need to follow sentence case - unless it is a proper noun, only the first word is capitalized. Also, citations do not belong in headings, you can just add a source line under the heading. Thank you for creating the article."

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

 Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 16:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * I don't know why you're removing links to Lamborghini Aventador, but the first one of those I noticed (at Millisecond) is a perfectly normal link. This is normal article, and links to it are perfectly valid.  Please stop unless you can establish some sort of consensus for doing this.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to guess that it was an accidental use of Twinkle's unlink feature. I've gone ahead and rolled them all back, but please be more careful.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to guess that it was an accidental use of Twinkle's unlink feature. I've gone ahead and rolled them all back, but please be more careful.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes it was the accidental use of the unlink feature. I was attempting to create an article on the Lamborghini Veneno and during that process, this disruption happened. I sincerely apologise for the inconvenience. U1Quattro (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * No worries then, it's all cleaned up now. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting evidence at the ArbCom 2018 election
SPID:     23713 -BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-

hQEMA+4bAwNwSISgAQgAqxe9xtf4S1MG0GYltgjOlCgnYptPU1POkh+ZAI4ShK20 bFeck3Vj1ULoNai8Pi06W/7z9pVHDs0IvWOO7Q5X0demqqy6qjGx0FJp/aJTN5aI rZvzAmGjSsLjZ3cb4BahOyY+18788YxzaokeGBoJ9Qfniji/LtK0yORxq+j7iNxz uobT9EaXreUXCpvU8rcLQsQKe9HLzs0ybOgn56Ws5Niu87abZ4Oi/0CLhXn1OjEL 34QmPb6eL3IoXwgG7/WLCrE/5ZijzJEpNBQjE4u7wenTJoeKCP//lGdz9aTUD0Tg S96c1MB6VEYuPj/fi4B9MTbezJrn3mIAh4TSAatinNLpASC7dxlid2sN/fKbz1MA B/gdts8h0q3DNBufHEHAUDrn3bth2AAwh/FV8wYKvh3ocUbmFHjR1Psi164klb0r S4G8w5EEfBNuJK9kk7YNnkjmEyUdtGOuQh2HQJW7snxjurImtfsq6apkcvvx7ERc LIcgb090QhJGQD4VIMdB3BdbyWmVfgIHun1dbx/w7BnwYdhjPBpA25y+Tij6t9zX rv/EsyOxn62zJzzlMZQuFUua3Ij2M3IvQgAh8yIa3BbhpISTJFGGjIs55QyTWJrD ZBqYRGei7veSiYLD1WMzE4wKGcmI8etWn4OCn74tNvJ/gai3BOhDEdVuk09wqTKb 6gWUvFak3CDiS63Jw1TYQqTfrdISbmlgveTA8p8EYxBnzqgDHpt5+v2sSX0grfLy RjbCOXtg5UVrR6PV/pM52Tph8/6fRlDxL9zFWZjdeAd4ic9s6wE2x0khP6CsnpqG 5gape68Hd0YifWX9/KGCPH0NcH6ZFO8wEBz2DmTuZVqsE8Yz5hKCtEXgKMqCr9dh qMjZsbGm1rYmmSpORIhtKpdsy26VQT85gGog2NKEs/nrTuSc3NBwf1Nu5qxYTpNA HPrbJChcJuuwag4xpcUD3FjewAJhFH4F2auHN/5hoiQ2DmswssrlLFRQ6asAGECd 4KLl+tdxCEpRgK4QhAbYYeXAYH5am3yEgueKoeKOUnZ4VKaCCpbF9+LBK0ZhZl4I hIp85kK+dO1/+Hd03h6EDlaxDKPnweUt3DnD1OAzTmsAL2EYE9+Aj/vJhHtay08O YkMO4Z4iFr39I9dgOL3qEyZnnLg37bgsfQvVA1f61sqxbR3tYPLu4IODo9u8tBSX eIfwIneVx5vrbWy35ZoHskaQ3PydjSvCGwUJ4gLgIqHSCF9UTfbpZWN3zOGsY2Rk UIFqC0FwpYKtUXPuuygQletAgqJ60eEFtES1hp2Ywf5udnxext1qbrwZFHzRHWMZ 6WrjKNHrNHaZeeNbJrQUSG9yXV9rM4yEFsj7Xl2lo+7ImLCoxYYMylujyjxmuQCe XVspKpLUETVZNtIoWEIRnzhQQA== =h25c -END PGP MESSAGE- U1Quattro (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Alpina articles: some remarks
Hello,

I have noticed your recent and great work on Alpina-related articles. It is really great to have more articles about this company and you have done a fantastic job. Yet, I have some remarks (please do not take it the wrong way, French people like me always criticise everything!). I have largely re-written the French article about Alpina since 2014 but I do not speak English well enough to do the same here, so my contributions on that topic have been more sparse.

As you have noticed, the company is not well-known. Quality references often lack. Many journalists actually make mistakes because they do not check properly what they write. Hence, as you may have noticed, some articles say Alpina cars are based on BMW M vehicles (whereas it is never the case), others are wrong about the engine (for example, they say the current B4S uses a B58 engine whereas it is sill the N55), some were even contradictory. Etc, etc, etc. These issues were a real pain when I worked on the French article as I had to be really careful when selecting sources. Good luck.

I have seen some missing information you could add to make articles complete and near-perfect:
 * Concerning the B6 E63, you should add racing results of the GT3 racecar since it has won races and a championship (with teams, pilots, etc). Additionally, the car got a mid-life update with improvements and a new engine.
 * Concerning the B6 F12/F13/F06, you completely missed the engine updates (sorry). While the Cabriolet was indeed first unveiled with the 507 PS engine of the B5 in September 2011, it never made it into production. It directly got the 540 PS engine, just like the Coupé (Alpina Modellhistorie ). Then there was the 600 PS (and not 600 hp) Edition 50 limited edition of the Coupé and Cabriolet). And then they all got a 600 PS engine as standard until the end of the production.
 * Concerning the B6 F06 Gran Coupé, it is also not true to say it was exclusive to the US. This is an US bias. The Gran Coupé was available worldwide where Alpina was, plus in the United States and Canada exclusively through BMW as an "official" BMW (same for the B7 since E65, and Z8).
 * Finally, I have also noticed you forgot the updated D3 E90. There a was at first a single-turbo D3 as said in the article, then it has been replaced by a more powerful double-turbo Bi-Turbo D3.

I hope you will be able to correct this better than I could.

PS: if you really drive a Lotus Carlton as said on your user page, you are really lucky! I envy you :)

Kind regards, NemesisIII (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC).

Hello,

Thank you for your kind words. It has really motivated me to write more on this company. This is really the underdog of German perfomance cars. You're right in saying that the internet lacks reliable information and honest reviews about Alpina automobiles. I honestly didn't know that the B6 Cabriolet had a 540 PS engine from the start until you told me. The rest of the information you mentioned also couldn't be researched because of lack of sources. Could you please tell me where I will be able to find the information about the B6 GT3's full racing history? Even sources in French much would count, because researching about the B3 (E90) was a daunting task indeed since there were the absence of reviews from known automotive magazines. Only Autocar reviewed it until I got hold of the Alpina registry.

Edit: I did mention about the D3 (E90) being a twin turbo car. Turbo diesel doesn't mean am engine with a single turbocharger. It can have multiple meanings.

Yes, I do have a Lotus Carlton and I love that car. It's fun to drive and equally fast. But I've been so impressed by Alpina after writing these articles that I'd also buy one and use the Carlton and the new car both (I'm undecided on which one to buy for now). Cheers.U1Quattro (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

M52/M54
Just to elaborate a bit more on the differences, this should provide enough info to identify a pre TU M52 at a glance.

Toasted Meter (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * One other note, all Alpina E46s use the M52 as well. Toasted Meter (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Roadster S uses an M52 as customer cars were converted to the Roadsrer S sepcification as Alpina Register points out. Alpina used the existing M54 and enlarged it in those cars. Unless you have a reliable source pointing out it's an M52, this can't be put over there.U1Quattro (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I can see absolutely no reason to make a 3.4 liter M54 when you have a M52 already made in the correct displacement, I can't prove it never existed but we have no proof it did, and we know that a S52B32 block was used (you can also see this here in the B3 S parts catalog ) and that the head is a pre TU M52/S52, simply because no M54 head looked anything like it. I looked at all the photos on Alpina Register that showed the motor and all of them definitely had a pre TU M52 head. If we have an iron S52B32 block with a single VANOS head we know that none of those parts could be from a M54. and and additionally we have no proof that any were fitted with an M54. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The articles say that the engine traces its roots back to the E36 M3 which had used both the S52 and the S54 so the M52 claim cannot be true. Also no one said that the engine had a single VANOS system like you put it. The engine was bored out to 3.4-litres because the M54 wasn't available in 3.4-litres, neither was the M52. The M54 also used an iron block and had proved its age. That's why it was discontinued. As I said, unless you can prove that its an M52, the M54 stays because I see no reason in downgrading to an older engine.U1Quattro (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * We know precisely what block it used, the parts catalogue for the B3 S (which we have a cite saying "it was powered by their recently enhanced 6 cylinder 3.4 Litre engine as found in the B3s" regarding the roadster) says it has a bored S52B32 block. And we know it is single VANOS by looking at the motor and noting the single VANOS head. Also the E36 M3 never had a S54, and the M54 never had an iron block (the S54 did but it has very little in common with the M54). Not using one's eyes to make reasonable conclusions in the face of a lack of sources is puzzling, by looking at the motor we can determine many things, no ITBs so not a S50 or S54, no raw aluminum valve cover so not a M20 or M30, protrusion on the valve cover so not a M54 or M52 TU, and that leaves us with.... Toasted Meter (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I think "Basic engine is the S52B32 (E36 M3 US; grey cast iron crankcase)." is about as definitive as it gets. Toasted Meter (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I had mistook the M3 for the Z3 for which I apologise. It was the Z3 M which had used the S54 engine alongside the M3 (E46). Plus the Alpina press release states that "The engine is a well known friend from the 3 Series so it doesn't specifically points out to which engine has been used.U1Quattro (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * That line from the press release is ambiguous in a vacuum, but by looking at the motor we can figure out they were referring to the also S52B32 based E46 B3. We have no reason to continue having the M54 on the page, we have zero proof that a M54 was ever fitted and very much reason to think it was not. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd just remove the engine codes.U1Quattro (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * On the page already is "The engine was essentially an enlarged version of the S52 engine" and we have a cite saying it's based on the S52B32. Toasted Meter (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Then it's an S52, not an M52 like you put it.U1Quattro (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!
Thank you so much. U1Quattro (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. Please also help me to achieve better photos. I learn from other editors. -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 04:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Some of your photos are good no doubt, but you should know the difference between a modified car and a stock car.U1Quattro (talk) 07:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Like quality wise mate, how can I achieve them to make them to QI. I want the best shots possible. — Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * You should see OSX's along with M-93's shots for guidance. They take the best shots on wiki commons as far as I have observed.U1Quattro (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I did use OSX and M 93 as guideline back when I started out in 2017 which I then later begin doing it in my own style. I really think Nim should work in different sections, I pity him begging at users to find ways to get a upper advantage like it some game by sending random WikiLove messages. --Vauxford (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * . Would you mind your own business. I can work on whatever sections I wish. Its Wikipedia, not a personal website. Everyone can contribute as many images as they wish. Focus on providing your own images, and I'll focus on doing it 'by the books'. Everyone has ways to edit. Theres plenty of chances for me to showcase later on, but you still have some badly cropped images, which I know could be improved. I like to learn, so therefore U1Quattro can mentor me in providing good shots, I don't mind and also I will work on any section as I wish. If you don't like my edit, and revert it, please utilise WP:BRD as it links to WP:CONSENSUS & WP:BOLD. You should also note that I do not replace all the time, a lot of your shots are decent, however its important that everyone can contribute to an effective degree. I can ask for as much help as I need, thats what Wikipedia is there for. Also I've asked you to focus on vehicles more prominent in Europe such as Ford, BMW, Jaguar, Mercedes-Benz, Land Rover etc. whilst I focus on the Asian and other non-European example. We established a compromise on this discussion with . I am beginning to now use consensus, as then we learn how to do it well. In fact, I recall some of the edits, you revert from me are because of the condition of the vehicle. -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * U1Quattro. No worries -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * As you've pointed out, condition of the vehicle is also a main factor in the photos. The vehicles should be clean and tidy and as far as possible, free of rust and corrosion. You also need to stop repetitive mentions of where the photo is taken, it kind of becomes annoying. The readers can see the photo location by clicking on the photo.U1Quattro (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, please don't use my talk page as a warzone. You both can settle your differences at your own respective talk pages.U1Quattro (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for your advice. Have a nice Xmas -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 08:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Ferrari F12
I appreciate your latest edit on the Ferrari F12 article; the overall content of it was pretty solid. However, the edit was riddled with typos, for instance, "havig" "tot he" "ans", as well as other grammatical errors. I see you a lot on Wiki and you're a great editor but it would be appreciated if you could take a little more time and make sure that as you're improving an article, that you're not also introducing new problems for other editors. TKOIII (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm experiencing some problems with my laptop. That's why the typos have increased in number. I hope to have it fixed soon.U1Quattro (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Automobile vs. car manufacturer ?
The WP article Car makes no distinction between car and automobile – it presents the two terms as interchangeable synonyms. But in your recent edit of Honda S2000 you chose to make a distinction between 'car manufacturer' vs. 'automobile manufacturer'. Can you please explain to me, how you see the difference between these two terms ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Car manufacturer means a manufacturer which solely manufactures cars. Automobile manufacturer means a manufacturer which manufactures cars as well as other automobiles such as SUVs, pickup trucks, motorbikes etc. Honda is an automobile manufacturer by that logic. U1 quattro  TALK''  11:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Reverting of edits and claiming that it is vandalism
Hi, I noticed that you reverted 4 of my edits of Koenigsegg Jesko & Koenigsegg Agera and claiming that it is vandalism when the things I did didn’t even mess up anything. Is removing unnecessary tabling parameters and placing it at the top of the table opening vandalism? Is changing Template:Convert to Template:Cvt when the parameter abbr=on is present vandalism? I would appreciate you to use your words properly the next time and I hope that you can revert my edits back. Thank you. Stingy Pingy (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I probably just messed up 1 or 2 of them but is there really a need to say my edits are bad faith when you could’ve just informed me about it? Stingy Pingy (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see that your edits contribute to those articles in any constructive way. You just messed up the templates. Leave them as is. Abbr=on parameter is used so that the template won't display the full unit and would instead display an abbreviation because that is not needed everywhere in the article where the template is used. You have confusion in the use of the convert template. U1 quattro  TALK''  15:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

/* Transmission */ Added Gear ratio
Youtube not allowed? It is pointing to a picture of the gearboks!?

I am not sure if or is you or Wikipedia that don't want facts ?

Why remove good data/facts ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsbg dk (talk • contribs) 13:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Pls dont remove my valid input to this page .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsbg dk (talk • contribs) 14:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I have been researching. It is mention here that it is allowed to have link to YouTube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Video_links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsbg dk (talk • contribs) 14:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not allowed, means it isn't. Your input isn't valuable because it is not sourced properly. You are basically pointing to a logo which has nothing to do with the mention of the gearbox. Also, you aren't being clear in expressing yourself. U1 quattro  TALK''  14:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

1. Why are you lying ? I have provided a link to wiki rules..... It is stated it is ok to link to youtube. Why do you say it is not ? 2. It is not an not an logo ...... It is an sign boltet to the gearbox. 3. So now you have seen the sign on the gearbox. You still not trust it before you have readed it in an printed magazine ? 4. Why do you continiue to vandalism my work here?, as is no problem with. Beside that you have not readed it in an magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsbg dk (talk • contribs) 15:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Are you going to say sorry - I was right in changing the name for the gearbox ? Or are you again going to delete my work ?

I'm not going to apologise because your source isn't a reliable source. The link you have posted states that it is only okay to cite the YouTibe sources when there are no other sources available and the source does not violate a copy right which in case of your source is a copyright infringement because the video is copyright protected.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article

Read about the sources here. You are just basing your edits on a logo embossed on the gearbox and are capitalising the mention of the gearbox unnecessarily which is certainly not a the way to describe it. Your gear ratios are still unsourced and you have not provided any source for them as of yet. You should leaned about Wikipedia guidelines before editing and starting edit wars. In your recent edit, you have referenced the manufacturer's website which in this case is a right source and therefore, the edit will stay. U1 quattro  TALK''  16:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with you when it comes to sources, but you have copyright very wrong. It is fine to link to a video that is protected by copyright if the uploader is the copyright holder or has permission from the copyright holder, in this case the video was made by the uploader, linking to it is fine. Toasted Meter (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * As the manufacturer source is more reliable, it is more preferable than a YouTube video. U1 quattro  TALK''  16:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * the uploader was Mr. JWW, whose videos are under copyright and he does not allow free distribution of his videos without his permission so you're wrong there. U1 quattro  TALK''  16:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Linking to a publicly available YouTube video that is uploaded by the copyright owner is absolutely fine, one is not distributing the video when you link it. Here is a quote from WP:COPYLINK "It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material". Toasted Meter (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Any how, YouTube sources are not reliable and should not be used as such when there are other independent sources available which was the case in this edit war. U1 quattro  TALK''  16:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am certainly not saying it should be used as a source for this claim, but using it as such would not be against the copyright policy. Toasted Meter (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Manufacturer field
The manufactuer field is not meant to explain company type, just manufacturer, IF you look almost any car article they dont list manufacturer business type there is no reason to told if its Ferrari S.p.a or not. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 21:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

E32 brakes
You can also see it mentioned on page 24 of this.


 * I can't seem to open the link. It might be broken. U1 quattro  TALK''  07:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Try this one page 46. You open the document by clicking on the image. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. U1 quattro  TALK''  14:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox automobile
The example in the documentation is not some kind of best practices guide, it was added by some IP in 2013 and has remained mostly unchanged, it is not some kind of grand consensus. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * that is what is the generalised use is. Good articles like McLaren F1 use this layout. U1 quattro  TALK''  01:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Jaguar XK (X150) into Jaguar XK. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The text I copied was my sole contribution. Thank you for the heads up though. U1 quattro  TALK''  14:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

retirement
I hope this is temporary. WP:ANI is not a fun place and many people get burned. Take a wikibreak and come back with more energy. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, all I have seen that a user who goes by the name of Vauxford has been grouping other users with the same unstable behaviour as him and using that grouping to oust me. I have recently posted an incident I'm having with another user named Ybsone. Now he comes over there and begins to claim that he is some kind of journalist who is always right. This is enough to make someone lose interest and feel disappointed and fed up to contribute here. U1 quattro  TALK''  03:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Sad to see you go, U1- you were helpful in showing me how to properly edit some auto articles. Hopefully we'll see you around in the future. Aab254 (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I have semi-retired as I have yet to consider whether to stay here or not. It's always nice to know I have been helpful to someone over here. Hopefully, I will stay here given that the some users over here stop being full of themselves. U1 quattro  TALK''  13:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Galleries
Hi, are you still removing countries in galleries of car photographs? Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  04:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * yes I am. Users don't need to know where the photograph was taken as the photo is there for illustration only. Commons is a better place to specify the country. U1 quattro  TALK''  06:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Please don't. The galleries are there to illustrate the cars and therefore it is useful to know the market the car was sold in. If you want to keep changing this longstanding practice, you need to have a discussion with other interested editors first.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  04:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe the now retired Eurovision Nim started this trend to its not longstanding. Plus majority of the sports cars sold in markets are very similar. If they are different, I mention the area for clarity. U1 quattro  TALK''  07:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It is a fairly longstanding practice (much much longer than EurovisionNim's tenure), but obviously it is mainly of use when cars differ visibly in various markets. The Audi R8, for instance, does not need such mention.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  05:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Neither the Audi R8 need such mention, nor the Hilux or the Land Cruiser need it, if you are refferring to me removing that on those respective pages. U1 quattro  TALK''  15:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

AN/I outcome
U1Quattro, the recent AN/I discussion has been closed, with a two-way interaction ban implemented between you and Vauxford. That means no posting on his talk page, no directly replying to him in article or project talk space, no referring to him - directly or otherwise - in comments or edit summaries, and the other restrictions noted in that link.

Furthermore, consider this a warning in regards to your tendentious editing - your tendency to bludgeon discussions, hold grudges, and hound other editors is disruptive and incivil. Judging by comments from other editors in that AN/I discussion, there isn't going to be any tolerance for more of that behavior on your part. Your article edits seem to be productive; you would do well to not let incivility impede that. --Sable232 (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I accept the decision. I would do well staying away from that user as I had said before. U1 quattro  TALK''  03:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Ares Design Progettouno) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Ares Design Progettouno.

User:Rosguill while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

signed,Rosguill talk 22:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit Summary
Please don't get involved in incidents that you aren't involved like you did | here. --Vauxford (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * sorry to say, but thats the truth. That is why you're adding your pictures to every aarticle you can find. That is why you are reverting edits for no reason. U1 quattro  TALK''  13:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Not the truth at all and I made a lengthy incident report to show that Charles01 has been harassing me for a long time. He even made a hate page accusing me of stuff I never done which thankfully got deleted. If you want to sit in your own ignorance then that's fine with me. The fact is, I don't edit here solely to be "famous". --Vauxford (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * He did this out of frustration about what you do which you continue to do on the Jaguar XK (X100) page. The current image has a good angle and quality yet your replaced it with your own image without any justification. Anyone viewing the page would draw the same conclusion from your actions which I did. U1 quattro   TALK''  13:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * His frustration doesn't sum up the fact he created the hate page and the many false accusation he had against me. It typical respond to someone complaining about being hounded by them. I find it fruitless trying to reason with you when your this stubborn. --Vauxford (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not going to say much about the hate page thing but I see the reason why he did this. You don't have any reason why you made those edits either which is why you continue to ponder about Charles01 rather than seeing your mistake. U1 quattro  TALK''  13:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You're also equally stubborn . That's why you aren't realising your mistake or providing me the reason why you added those images on the articles I mentioned when there was nothing wrong with the current images. U1 quattro  TALK''  13:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't fret about the images, I looked back on them again and I think they look fine, the only one I question is the infobox on the Jaguar XJ page, since I know others might not agree with it. --Vauxford (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Other might also not agree with the black XJ you posted there. Why shouldn't I fret about them? It is about the images.13:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No, what I meant is, I looked back to the edit before mine and I think you are right, they were fine as they was. --Vauxford (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That is what I'm talking about. You should edit when you find the images to be wrong. U1 quattro  TALK''  13:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited McLaren F1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Harris ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/McLaren_F1 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/McLaren_F1?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 13:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

XJR-15
50 cars production cars were produced not 53. One spare tub was produced 10 months post production at request of tom walkinshaw. This has been confirmed in conversations with Astec Technology employees pictured with the last chassis, No. 50. Also confirmed by TWR factory records at Don Law Racing. The popular media citation for appearances on Jay Leno’s Garage and Petrolicious can be confirmed by Youtube search of these episodes and by the confirmation that it was my personal xjr-15 shown on these media episodes. Thanks JasDhillon67 (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * If you have those sources, add them with your edits and they'd stay. Otherwise your edits will be removed. Please read the guidelines before you edit any further. U1 quattro  TALK  19:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The sources are explicitly listed in the edit. Posting erroneous edits/information repeatedly does no one any favors. 50 production XJR-15 chassis were made, one extra tub was ordered by Tom Walkinshaw 10 months post production. This has been verified from factory records at Don Law Racing, from employees that worked at Astec who manufactured the chassis...and the designer Peter Stevens himself.

Other media is exactly that...each of those XJR-15 video episodes (other media) have informative content and have been viewed over 400k each. They are still episodes of Jay Lenos Garage and Petrolicious inherently, that can be easily view on the youtube video platform (ie. other media). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasDhillon67 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, none of the references listed on the XJR-15 page mention 53 production cars...however 3 citations listed (9,11,13) mention 50 cars produced. You are reverting to an erroneous edit of 53 cars that is not supported. What is your source of 53 car production ? thanks JasDhillon67 (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source of information. You are vandalising the page and violating Wikimedia Commons guidelines to post images. Where are those factory records that you really mentioning? A mere mention of them in edit summary is doing no one any favours. Again, you are requested to read the guidelines of editing before you further make any edits. U1 quattro  TALK  06:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, you are choosing to play semantics here. It is not youtube content but content from Jay Leno’s Garage that is posted there for ease of access to all.  To suggest that this is not worth mentioning goes against the fact that 2.4 million people subscribe to Jay Leno’s Garage, the show is watched by millions on national television and he is a known motoring enthusiast with expertise in several different classes in the collector car world.  We cite popular appearances and mentions in obscure references 25 years ago but something that is current and relevant is arbitrarily blocked by you ? I’ll remind you you were stubbornly editing back 53 cars within the last 24hrs until it was shown that the same references listed on the XJR-15 pages don’t even mention 53 cars.  Once corrected you refer to it as “page vandalism” This is simply edit warring on your part and based on your narrow opinion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasDhillon67 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not against production numbers but your failure to abide by the article content and reading the editing guidelines. There are several cars appearing on Jay Leno's garage, so its not notable to mention that fact there. You have yet to understand why "Other Media" section is for. U1 quattro  TALK  10:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Agera
The Agera RS did a two way run and the speed was independently verified, there are many reliable sources saying that it broke the production car record and unlike with the Chiron prototype they are not overlooking key aspects like the lack of a two way run.

There is no requirement that 25 cars must be made, this is always going to be a somewhat arbitrary distinction, however the community has formed one and it requires no specific number. Toasted Meter (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * And the TÜV saying you reached a speed does not confer some kind of record, all it amounts to is an independent body verifying you did get to that speed. Also what is up with your talk page? I can't read any of the section headings because they are black on black. Toasted Meter (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * First, I can manage my talk page however I want. Second, Guinness an official body regarding world records has set the production car limit to 25. Even when Hennessy attempted their run, Guinness was there to confirm that and gave Hennessy a certificate regarding that. I saw no such thing happening with Koenigsegg. Only car journalists made it "offical" upon their own discretion. U1 quattro  TALK  13:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes and you might note that Guinness recognised the Bugatti Veyron 16.4 World Record Edition despite only 5 having the limiter removed. Toasted Meter (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Because the key which removes the limited was sold to all Veyron customers. U1 quattro  TALK  15:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The non World Record Edition cars are limited to 415 kmh [].


 * Im talking about the original Veyron 16.4 and you mentioned that in your comment. Also, sign your replies. U1 quattro  TALK  15:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Well I am talking about the Super Sport, which is a much more interesting example. Toasted Meter (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Then the rules are incorrect because your statement negates them. I think they are stipulated by Guinness. U1 quattro  TALK

stop reverting
could you pls stop reverting pininfarina and rimac articles, as told and referenced many times, these 2 cars are related if they share same powertrain and 50% of components. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 19:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * In this case I would rely more on what the manufacturer is saying instead of media guesses as the manufacturer will be producing the car. U1 quattro  TALK  12:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Chassis isn't the same" if chassis is same we use AKA field, otherwise they ARE RELATED cars, pls stop reverting it. Manufacturer never tells they are same cars, they always try to hide those facts. Noone says that their Saab is Opel basically -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 12:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh really? That isn't the case with the Audi R8. Even Audi accepted it's based on the Huracán. So again, they don't hide that. U1 quattro  TALK  13:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * oh really so you didnt understand that better brands never tell if they use worse brands stuff, not vice versa, is it really so hard to understand?? Audi can tell they use Lamobo stuff but Lambo never tell if they use Audi stuff. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 17:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually they do. The Urus' platform is VW based. Everyone knows that. If the manufacturer has stipulated about the chassis then you've got to believe them. That's the end of this discussion. U1 quattro  TALK  03:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, AKA field is used for the other names of the car. You really don't understand what each field in the infobox is for yet you come out here and argue with me about that. Know your stuff before arguing. U1 quattro  TALK  03:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Re:Re: Reign in your reverting
I've read your messages on my talk page and your previous response here that you deleted. I'm sorry but you're being incredibly hypocritical here, accusing me of the exact thing you've done first and then calling me childish when it's you who can't admit that you were in the wrong. Telling me that I "cannot do a simple thing yourself and are devoid of your responsibilities" when you did the same exact thing before me, which caused this situation in the first place. That you "don't need to go on talkpages to discuss about every single questionable edits that were made." while accusing others of not doing it.

The course of events is very clear, to recap: the Taycan article only contained the drag coefficient, which on its own does not tell you enough about how efficient the aerodynamics of the car are (did you revert the edit that added that information? No, that apparently was "clear" enough). So I added the frontal area including the official source on the Porsche Newsroom press homepage as additional information that allows anyone to calculate the drag area which allows to compare the aerodynamic efficiency of a vehicle properly (was it so hard to click on the Downloads sidebar of the linked source to see the technical documents? Why did you not ask for clarification on the Talk page? Why did you not attempt to improve the section further yourself?) After your revert I additionally clarified and added the drag area figures and the direct links to the technical specifications PDFs that very clearly state the figures I added on page four.

All very simple. The added information and the intent behind adding it was very clear, not "questionable" in any way and it was clarified more on top of that. And yet you're still claiming the edits aren't clear - without actually explaining what exactly the issue is - which really makes me question your expertise in the subject matter. What is your reasoning for including the drag coefficient but not the frontal and/or drag area in the article? Any at all? All you do is looking incredibly petty, splitting hairs over nothing. I'm repeating myself, reign in your reverting a bit by trying to be more considerate before taking action and attempt to open discussion before outright reverting edits while claiming they're "unclear". If you choose not to and are unwilling to resolve our dispute by discussing it with me we can take this to Dispute Resolution. A massive waste of everyone's time considering the insignificance of this edit but if that's what you're playing at then that's what where we will take this. You don't get to bully people around - people that actually try and take the time to improve the very same articles you're working on. -- Epistolarius (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * After reading all this nagging of you adding the frontal area I didn't get why didn't you add the explanation in the first place you assessing a thing. Yes it is hard to go on the website, download the PDF and then find this information you're pointing to. You know what? That IP which added the note heading in the modela on that very same page was far more better in explaining their edit after revert. Drag coefficients are there on a lot of automobile articles yet I haven't seen any article with the frontal area thing you added on this one. That's what makes it confusing. You want proof? Visit these:


 * * Lexus IS (WHERE is the frontal area with the drag coefficient?)
 * * Porsche 918 (same question)
 * * Koenigsegg Jesko (same question)
 * * Porsche 996 (same question)
 * * Porsche Carrera GT (same question)
 * * Porsche 959 (same question)
 * * Bugatti Veyron (same question)


 * And the list goes on. So to conclude, the information you added was indeed questionable as there are a majority of articles around here that only state the drag coefficient and not the frontal area. Which brings you into the wrong. I have presented my point with proof. Now I await your answer. U1 quattro  TALK  01:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Technical information missing from some articles (especially since manufacturers typically did not state detailed information about aero in the past) makes it "wrong" and "questionable" to add said information to another article? With an EV in particular? I don't agree that this is a valid reason for why it should not be included in an article. If your other complaint is that I didn't provide a short description of my initial edit then I would like to apologise, however that surely has been resolved with the subsequent clarification which included one. If that's all this situation has been resolved, as far as I'm concerned. Just hope you're not this trigger-happy with the next person. -- Epistolarius (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I raised the point because you stipulated that manufacturers do add this information about the automobile they introduce. U1 quattro  TALK  16:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

CKD debate
Hello, regarding my recent edits on the BMW 3 Series articles, I never thought that the 'Assembly' section is reserved for full assembly of the vehicle. As some other car articles, for example Mercedes-Benz C-Class series, CKDs were included as an assembly location. In the BMW 3 Series (F30) article, Chennai, India is listed as an assembly location. However, a quick Google search revealed that BMW India only did CKDs (https://www.dnaindia.com/automobile/report-rise-in-ckd-duty-hurting-make-in-india-bmw-2599205). I am also skeptical that Egypt did a full assembly of a BMW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andra Febrian (talk • contribs) 06:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Updating is in process about those articles you have mentioned. The 3 Series is produced locally in India as pointed out by the source mentioned in the F30 article. Before that, CKD assembly took place there. U1 quattro  TALK  07:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

BMW 3 Series (G20) - M3
Hello, please can you review your recent edit to remove the forthcoming M3 model from the G20 page. I added this as I believe it is a notable announcement, as there is currently no M3 in production. John a s (talk) 07:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Full specifications along with the model code isn't final yet. Media reports are based on speculation. Until the car is officially introduced, there is no reason to add that info. U1 quattro  TALK  13:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK thank you for clarifying. John a s (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Chill
Don't be so hot-headed with your edits, the one I did was only in good-faith. --Vauxford (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I know but please don't add photos of poorer angle. U1 quattro  TALK  14:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi U1Quattro, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AU1Quattro added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you . U1 quattro  TALK  17:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Engines
First of all, BRD.

Secondly, just see any other article. I recommend Talbot Samba, it is classified as a Good Article so it should suffice. All PSA X engines, different displacements. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  20:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Alright. Will check. U1 quattro  TALK  04:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The new talk page color scheme is much more readable, thanks.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  00:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, you're welcome. U1 quattro  TALK  03:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)