User talk:U1Quattro/Archives/ 2

E36 M3 Imola Individual
Please check Wikipedia's own page about DriveTribe. There are other sources as well that confirm the GT2 usage and other info in that section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BMW_M3#E36_M3_Imola_Individual_(GT2)PVarjak (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't find any sources other than these sites with no editorial control. Also, stop tampering with the grammar of that section. U1 quattro  TALK  03:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

BMW M3
Hi U1Quattro. Could you please explain what "You're in the contravention of both of them" means in your edit summary? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I meant that you're in contravention of the rules you mentioned by constantly adding disputed content to the article. U1 quattro  TALK  03:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * That doesn't seem to be what the policies are saying regarding the reverts. Please see the 2nd dot point and "Proper Approach" paragraph. 1292simon (talk) 08:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You're starting an entirely different discussion here, at the wrong place. On BMW M3 the consensus is against the content you were adding about the "G80 M3". U1 quattro  TALK  18:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * They are actually separate topics. And your claim about the M3 is not correct. 1292simon (talk) 08:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not claiming anything. Read the RfC results. U1 quattro  TALK  08:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * the RfC states rare circumstances in which the edits like you're making to the BMW M3 page can be added. I don't see the "G80" thing as an extraordinary circumstance. The onus is on you to prove that it needs to be included in the article when the car is nothing but spiced up rumors at this point. U1 quattro  TALK  08:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * How did you come to that conclusion? The RfC was closed without any rulings. PS, thanks for changing the colour scheme on this page, it is much easier to read now. 1292simon (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Stay on point. Yes it was closed it a ruling. Can't you read the sentence "the majority is against it" written by the admin who closed it? U1 quattro  TALK  09:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Huh? The font colour comment was a genuine compliment. Indeed I can't read the "the majority is against it" sentence, because the closing comment does not say it. 1292simon (talk) 08:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes the closing comment states that. RfCs aren't closed without a decision and in this case the decision was to exclude speculative content and only to add it if the content in itself is noteworthy which it isn't. U1 quattro  TALK  08:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually, the closing comment also stated "attempting to codify the particulars... harmed the poignancy and cohesiveness of this comment request", therefore leaving implementation to interpretation. And the G80 section is not speculation. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * No, that was meant for Stepho-wrs. U1 quattro  TALK  03:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I disagree, it was part of the closing comments intended for all editors. 1292simon (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thats just part of your assumption. If you read how Stepho-wrs started the RfC, that was being addressed. U1 quattro  TALK  03:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * There's nothing in the closing comments to suggest it is just for Stepho-wrs. So actually it is your assumption. 1292simon (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Stepho-wrs started it in a controversial way so yes the closing comment is for him. U1 quattro  TALK  09:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your edits on Lamborghini Sián FKP 37
I don't want to start an edit war on the actual page so I figured i'll start a discussion here regarding your edits on Lamborghini Sián FKP 37 about overlinking. I read through MOS:Overlink and it states "An overlinked article contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding significantly". Furthermore, under the section "What generally should be linked" it says "An article is said to be underlinked if words are not linked and are needed to aid understanding of the article." and lists types of link which should be included. This list contains the following: 1) Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully. This can include people, events, and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, so long as the link is relevant to the article in question. 2) Articles with relevant information, for example: "see Fourier series for relevant background" 3) Articles explaining words of technical terms, jargon or slang expressions/phrases—but you could also provide a concise definition instead of or in addition to a link. If there is no appropriate Wikipedia article, an interwikimedia link to Wiktionary could be used.

The links for supercapacitor, lithium ion batteries, and electric motor (although that one is slightly more well understood by most readers, the page does provide good technical information), fit the criteria for 1, 2 and 3. TKOIII (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Supercapacitors have been explained in detail in the article and don't need to be linked. Furthermore, as you are admitting, electric motor is understood by a wide audience now so therefore, it doesn't need to be linked either. The only thing that needs a link is the lithium-ion battery according to the brief explanation above. I have read it as well and I don't really think that the article is underlinked by any means like you put it. U1 quattro  TALK  09:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * First, I agree, electric motor doesn't really need a link. I believe the other two, however, still do. The article explains some rudimentary things about the supercapacitor such as why its used instead of Lithium ion batteries, that its a substitute for Lithium Ion batteries and where its located but for many readers, myself included, many aspects are still left a mystery. Most readers dont know off the top of their heads what a capacitor, and a supercapacitor, actually are and what they do. The supercapacitor article helps by thoroughly explaining what it is, how it functions, and what it does. Additionally, linking to lithium ion batteries is helpful to be able to understand the difference between them and supercapacitors. Furthermore, I dont see why linking these is a problem as many much more widely understood concepts are linked such as "hybrid", "sports car", "mid-engine", etc. And while these alone aren't necessarily reason enough to include the two links, it does point to the fact that the people reading this article are probably not very technically experienced. You and many other car experts may think this is basic stuff but a lot of Lamborghini fans and car fans probably have zero idea what any of it means. TKOIII (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, these reasons are valid enough. I'll restore the two links which you mentioned. U1 quattro  TALK  18:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Undid revision 920512848 by U1Quattro (talk)
U1Quattro, noted you undo of my mod related to "Pre-Facelift" of Jaguar XK (150). Please visit "https://www.kbb.com/jaguar/xk/2007/" or "https://www.cars.com/research/jaguar-xk-2007/" and note fog lights (pre-face lift) vs no fog lights (one of the changes made with face lift). The rear taillights were also changed.

Visit "https://www.cars.com/research/jaguar-xk-2010/" for an example of the face lift model.

Thanks,

SWCofer — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWCofer (talk • contribs) 00:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at BMW M8
Please refer to the complaint which you opened at WP:AN3. Both you and 1292simon are risking a block if you continue to revert without first getting a consensus in your favor on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
You are most welcome brother.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC) 

Chiron
Hiya, I don't mean to be rude and I might've acted a little cocky on that edit, but I do not think it is very correct or clear to the reader to use "stiff" as a verb. I do somewhat get that you'd prefer differentiating between "making the springs stiffer", and "making the suspension stiffer", but in my opinion (correct me if I'm wrong), "stiffer" or "firmer" is much more logical, even if it makes the article more similar to the source. As per the possible copying, if any edit I've made has been too similar to the source, it was not on purpose, but I welcome criticism on the quality of my edits so I can learn and improve. Galopujacyjez (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I wasn't criticising you, it was not my intent. I'm just telling you to write in your own wording instead of copying and pasting the whole thing from the website. It can be done for some things but that paragraph seemed too close to be called a copyright violation (copyvio). I'd put an alternative word for "stiff". U1 quattro  TALK  02:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Hiaces
I agree, all the Chinese clones are swamping the Toyota content. Maybe we should have separate article just for Hiace clones; it's actually an interesting topic in its own right.  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  03:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not denying that its an interesting topic but it has no place in the article about Toyota HiAce. I have removed places of production and production timelines of these clones. U1 quattro  TALK  03:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, that's what I was saying: I support the removal of this stuff.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_53  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think its confusing for the HiAce. Already added a talk page discussion challenging what was added about the H200 based on sales alone. U1 quattro  TALK  03:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks as if you already tried to remove all the Chinese clones in May last year - Return of the Clones! Maybe if we make a new article, those editors can focus their energy there instead.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to regularly patrol this article and shoo those editors off. If necessary, I'd obtain administrator assistance over this issue. I have already explained enough reasons why these clones need to be removed in the article talkpage. U1 quattro  TALK  03:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --YBSOne (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for continuation of a feud and violation of interaction ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Your second unblock request makes me think you're hoping someone is going to give you a detailed explanation of what you can and can't do due to your iban. Maybe someone will offer to help provide advice, but I expect you're not going to get exactly what you want. First, note that it is ultimately your responsibility to understand what is expected of you from your iban. People are generally willing to offer help, but never forget it is on you to take on board what is written and what you've been told. While I don't know exactly what you've been told before, the fact this isn't your first block suggests you have been provided some guidance before. As wikipedia is not a WP:Bureaucracy, expecting a detailed list of what you can and can't doesn't generally work, especially in something complicated like an iban. Note that if anyone does provide guidance, don't think you can WP:wikilawyer about whether something you did is covered by that guidance. You need to get into the right frame of mind and understand that when we say you need to avoid the other editor we mean it. And yes it does require some effort on your part. The fact that back in July you thought removing links to a website you knew was run by the person you were ibanned from was okay, and even now you still think modifying content a day later, that was added by the person you were ibanned; strongly suggest you're still far from understanding the iban expectations. And I'm not sure if people can say anything which will really help you understand. I think at this stage, it's mostly on you. Nil Einne (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh and I just remembered I'd completely forgotten that you also thought it was okay to directly revert the editor because you felt they had violated the iban or they were misinterpreting it. This is something which, even with a lot of wikilawyering about what the policy says, I don't understand how you thought was acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This is in answer U1Quattro's questions, but I'll post the same thing to both users because I hope it will help.
 * Don't go to a page the other person has created and fiddle with the wording.
 * Actually, don't fiddle with the wording of the other person's additions at all, particularly when your edits don't significantly improve anything; it's basically baiting them.
 * Don't over-react when the other person tweaks your wording; no real harm has been done to you.
 * Don't revert the other person while claiming to be enforcing the interaction ban. Enforcing the interaction ban is not your job.
 * Don't bicker at each other incessantly whenever an ANI thread is created
 * In general, go out of your way to avoid bugging the other person, and go out of your way to avoid bugging the community by complaining about the other person.
 * If I had remembered that your previous mutual blocks were for 1 month, I would have likely made this longer. It really should be clear by now that everyone is tired of your constant feuding. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation. Now maybe the other stops taking assumptions about the IBAN and stop labelling everything I do as an IBAN violation. U1 quattro  TALK  18:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dodge Viper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daimler ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Dodge_Viper check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Dodge_Viper?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Jaguar XJ
Hello I do not understand why you are removing the image I had uploaded to Jaguar XJ (350) as it is relevant to the page being correct model type to the page is not offensive or covered by copywrite as I took the image, Please what am I doing wrong ?? Do you just not like it ? Please advise as I am unclear why you have chosen to take this action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GORDONX358 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Because an image of the front view is already there in the infobox. Gallery of useless images which don't serve any purpose are not needed. You have a history of adding those to the article. Adding your image for no reason in the article indicates that you're here to gain fame or something. A behavior condoned here. U1 quattro  TALK  02:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Lotus Europa
U1Quattro could you possibly check my edits on the Lotus Europa page, and see if I made any mistakes/unsourced info? Redstoneprime (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a look. U1 quattro  TALK  10:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

U1Quattro thanks. (My edit is the one on the GS Europa, btw). Redstoneprime (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

U1Quattro I see you made some edits to the page. If you don't mind me asking, what edit did you make? Redstoneprime (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * your edits seem fine to me. But please control the white space you add in articles as it disturbs the position of the text added. Otherwise, you are making an effort to improve articles and I appreciate that. I'd advise you to find reliable sources about the content you add best as you can. This makes your edits more credible. Please read Reliable sources guideline to see which sources are considered as reliable. Self published blogs, blog posts, social media posts as well as websites with no editorial control are considered as unreliable sources so be sure to avoid such sources. On the last note, I'd say that keep up the good work. Wikipedia needs more good editors who maintain a neutral point of view and make an effort to improve the quality of the articles. U1 quattro  TALK  16:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I basically made some changes to the infobox to add the Europa which was produced between 2006 to 2010. I also improved the wording of the lead section. I'd be making more edits to the page later today or tomorrow. U1 quattro  TALK  16:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

U1Quattro obviously, I do have proof that the GS exists. Redstoneprime (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that it doesn't exist. But be sure to add a reliable source with your text so your changes aren't seen as unsourced. Also, please don't add unnecessary pipe links. They take up space, if anything. U1 quattro  TALK  18:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:McLaren Elva


Hello, U1Quattro. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "McLaren Elva".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Toyota Coaster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hino ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Toyota_Coaster check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Toyota_Coaster?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Iso Lele
You removed lots of sourced contents and your edits display a lack of knowledge. The Replica Marlboros were made by Iso themselves, for instance, and aren't "replicas" in the way you seem to think. Please slow down. I will sift through and reinstate the useful portions of your edits.  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  19:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * First, there was only one source over on the content that I removed. Second, the wording was very poor, the infobox was not proper and there were red links. I rewrote the whole thing in proper wording. If you think the article was properly sourced before, then you're wrong. U1 quattro  TALK  00:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Some of your edits were good, I am trying to bring them back. You are obviously completely incorrect in removing the "Marlboro Replicas" because you thought they were something else. You need to slow down and use more consideration.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  00:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * For instance, you removed the cited "In 1972, after about 125 Leles had been built, General Motors demanded that Iso pay in advance for the engines" and replaced it with "The car was initially powered by a General Motors V8 but due to delay in payment to General Motors because of the financial issues faced by Iso Rivolta, a credit deal was made with Ford to use the Cleveland V8 engine", now without a citation. I am glad to see the original text restored, but if you take a bit more care initially then you won't constantly make so many other editors upset with you. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  00:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree I wasn't careful, I used the cited source somewhere else but now I have made major improvements to that article and even added citations which shall grant it a better status. U1 quattro  TALK  01:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was wrong in removing the replicas because initially I thought they were made by some aftermarket company and were added there but now after confirmation from a source, they were made by the factory. I apologise for any inconvenience over that matter. U1 quattro  TALK  01:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice, thanks. Be good.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  07:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Jaguar XJ220 reversion
@U1Quattro: I am a newbie at editing and need some guidance. I recently expanded upon a paragraph in the description of the Jaguar XJ220's racing history. I fully explained the reasons for my changes in the summary box, and included a link to the 1993 Italian GT Supercar series, along with the statement that I had recently come into possession of knowledge not reflected here (specifically, I own TWR chassis XJ220-N 003, one of 3 XJ220-N cars produced by TWR in 1993, and know the owners and locations of the other 2), but I did not include my ownership for various reasons. However, the link to the 1993 Italian GT championship clearly lists the other 2 cars and their drivers, as well as their results in each race. I see that you reverted these changes, stating that "there were no reliable sources in support of this". I am unsure what "this" refers to, as I added a number of facts about the car (number produced, type of modifications, competition history). Based upon personal knowledge, there were 3 cars built by TWR, not one car as is currently stated, and as the owner of one of these cars I can attest to the modifications made to the car as far as reduction in weight, changes to chassis, suspension, brakes, and engine, which I would not consider "lightly modified". I am not well versed in how to use the editor, and I would like to know what I did wrong that caused you to remove my edit so that I may offer more substantive information in the future. However, the original entry that was reverted to is clearly incorrect at least in part (there are a minimum of 2 independently verifiable cars in case my personal ownership and experience with the third car is not considered a reliable source). As the only XJ220's to officially win a race and finish on the podium multiple times (win at Vallelunga, 1993, while the 1993 LeMans XJ220C had it's class win revoked for some bureaucratic nonsense), I felt that these cars represented an important part of Jaguar's competition history. Kindly let me know which parts of my edit are unsupported, and what type of evidence would constitute support. I have posted this on the Jaguar XJ220 Talk page, but have seen no further discussion about this subject. Thank you. Drsolly57 (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thorough explanation about the matter . As you are new to editing, I would request you to read Reliable sources along with Original research on the matter. The source which you added only covered the racing results of the XJ220-N, it did not cover how many were made and how they were modified. You added the information about modifications to the car based upon your knowledge and experience from owning the car as well as the knowledge of the 2 other owners that own this car. This is considered original research on Wikipedia and is not allowed. I will quote an excerpt from the Original Research guideline here:


 * Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion.


 * Your intention behind the information was not wrong but please note that the information that you added has to be verified from a reliable, third party source (in this case, an automotive publication). If you can find an automotive magazine or any website which verifies what you added to the article, you are free to post information on the XJ220-N. I hope this helps. If you need further assistance, you can post about that on my talk page. Cheers. U1 quattro  TALK  01:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Trivia
Hello,

I'm keen to understand why the section of music video appearances for the Lotus Esprit was removed? I have read the guidelines regarding trivia in Wikipedia articles, which admittedly this is, but that whole section is full of trivia, why are the film appearances any more or less relevant than the appearance of the vehicle in a music video? I also think it relevant to the vehicle, as presumably the reason it has made the appearances listed is based upon the style of the vehicle, which is subjective, but this is relevant to potentially indicate that the styling of the vehicle is of note for historical automotive design reasons.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.31.182.76 (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Note that the changes you made about appearance in music videos does not indicate ant thing about the shape of the vehicle. The movies which are mentioned have their pages linked to them where a proper mention has been made about the Esprit appearing in those movies whereas in those music videos, the Esprit is just a background item and is not the main part of the song in anyway, hence it is not notable. U1 quattro  TALK  16:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Jaguar XJ220 reversion
Thank you for your quick and concise answer. Information about these cars is very hard to come by, but I will keep looking for verifiable 3rd party sources. Does the Italian GT website which I referenced count as an independent 3rd party source solely for verification that there were at least two cars made, that they had multiple podium finishes, and an outright win? Or is that website not considered good evidence? Thanks again. Drsolly57 (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The Italian GT website is a good source for the racing history of the car. But it does not necessarily reflect how many were made as history of race cars has proven that the actual number of built might be more made than those entered in competition (prototypes, pre-production cars or there might be more made but few entered due to financial reasons etc) so it is not a good source to cite in that aspect. I would appreciate the effort you are making to find a reliable source to cite while adding information that is correct. Cheers. U1 quattro  TALK  00:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for the barnstar. I really appreciate your kindness. All the best! Magnolia677 (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You're welcome :) U1 quattro   TALK  13:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Etiquette and worthwhile work
Thanks for calling me a "lazy sleazeball" that is "bickering that he's right instead of adding the source". And all your arguing before that. That is definitely the proper way to address people that may either have accidentally introduced errors, or may have read the source more thoroughly - who knows - and I already feel much more appreciated for the time I put into this website. https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Epistolarius my quest to improve Wikipedia totally feels worthwhile with people like you around!

But I'm afraid that's coming to an end. I'll have to refrain from editing before I'm getting a stroke from looking at your responses. I'm sure everything is in best hands with you, and only you apparently. And it'll even save me time! Perhaps you'll realise one day that you can work with other editors and not just against them? Either way, have a nice day and stay safe! -- Epistolarius (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * That just goes to show that if you had added the source in the first place before arguing with me like you did in the edit summaries, you wouldn't have got that kind of a response. Plus your responses on the talk page of Porsche 992 were a contributing factor. When I say don't get on my nerves or I'll bite. I mean it. Before you say I can't work with other editors, why not check my responses in the above discussions? U1 quattro   TALK

I-ban FYI
U1Quattro - This is FYI only (don't break the interaction ban when responding!). Note that I've commented on YBSone's talk page noting their i-ban violation last week at ANI, and that further comments about you will result in blocks. While I'm here, also note that this was technically an i-ban violation, albeit I'm sure it was inadvertent, given the long time between that edit and YBSone's, so this isn't an official warning or anything. But be aware that part of the hassle of i-bans is being careful to not revert the person you're i-banned from (that's why most people do what they need to do to avoid them). Be aware that if YBSone returns to editing, we're at the point where we'll have to start enforcing the i-ban with blocks.

Also note that it is not your responsibility to enforce i-bans, so if YBSone violates it, do not revert them. Instead, tell an admin. Your revert of their post as an IP last week was also a violation. Don't interact with each other, even if the other is at fault too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I haven't branded every edit as an "IBAN violation" as the comments indicate over there . This has been getting excessive. Blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. I think there needs to be some education given on the topic seeing that there has been a treatment of admins as if they are one's user rights and back and forth bickering about the administration just because I wasn't "punished" for what I did. While I agree that it is not my responsibility to enforce an IBAN, others should understand it as well. Calling everything by me an IBAN violation has been nothing but discouraging me from editing here. While I have tried as much as I could to avoid violating the IBAN on my end ever since the last block, there has been an attempt to provoke me over this IBAN and that has been a cause of frustration. This is one of the reasons why I'm on a break right now. U1 quattro  TALK  04:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Electrohydraulic manual transmission
Hi U1Quattro, I'm just messaging to see if you'd like to help edit the Electrohydraulic manual transmission article... We're doing a whole redo of it, with new sources, pictures, and information, to constructively improve it, and make it less vague and non-descriptive. The article was really lacking in terms of structure and description before, but we're improving it with a wide range of sources and hard facts. We've trying to make it easier for the average first-time reader who stumbles across the article and wants to know what it's about, without compromising or sacrificing the quality and quantity of information. It's looking much more like a complete article now, but it's still very far away from being finished. Your input in the article or any useful knowledge or expertise you have would be valued and much appreciated. I love cars, and I'm assuming you love cars too, correct? Your help with expanding and improving this article page will be very much welcomed. Let me know your feedback and what you think. We need to expand this article with more info and knowledge, you'd be a great help with this! Kind Regards, Davism0703 (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do. Currently I'm working on some other articles but would eventually check there. U1 quattro  TALK  10:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Buddy! :) Kind Regards, Davism0703 (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I would not be making edits to the page you have requested me to contribute to as there is a user editing there who is in constant disagreement with me. I don't want to begin an edit war so I will keep myself out of trouble. Best of luck for your future contributions and on a final note, do consider the warnings given by other users over the use of American English on your talk page. U1 quattro  TALK  18:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletions
I am not sure why you had Isuzu Giga deleted, it needed very little work to be better than nothing. Could you please provide a list of other deletion requests you have made in a similar fashion? Thanks.  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  11:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wiki can do better without stub class articles having no sources. The Giga article needs a lot of work to be considered as acceptable. With little to no third party reliable sources covering it, this can be a hindrance for the article to stay. If one is writing an article, one should follow proper guidelines. U1 quattro  TALK  14:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Before you nominate stubs for deletion I suggest reaching out to editors who may be interested, i.e. those who may have edited them. A stub is better than nothing, and deleting the silly list portions isn't complicated.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  17:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you were interested, why didn't you improve the article before hand? Why did you have to call me out after I nominated it? I'm not wasting my time on stubs over which no sources can be found and which are too poor to even stay on wiki. When I'm seeing stubs like that, I'm nominating them. That's they the option is there at the first place. U1 quattro  TALK  03:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because there are lots of articles that need attention, and I cannot fix them all. Just nominating everything for deletion is of no use to anyone.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It removes poor content from wiki so why not? Notability is not the sole reason for an article to exist. U1 quattro  TALK  03:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Improving is better than deleting entries. Again, engage other editors and please start being civil. I am not asking you to be funny, I am just asking you to be minimally collegial and to consider people beside yourself.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They can engage themselves just as they are engaging themselves right now on the two truck articles I nominated for deletion. No one is stopping them. Beforehand, no one bothered with those anyway. Seeing how things are dealt around here, I doubt anyone would take the task to improve those and find sources unless the article is nominated. Deleting is not all about me. Wiki can do better with poor quality articles that serve no benefit towards the readers. Your justification that just because something is "long running" and "notable" are not enough reasons for poor articles to stay. They ought to be properly sourced which is not what is happening at all at those two articles. The Giga article now has two manufacturer sources rather than third party sources and has the same poor structure as before. The Forward article still lacks sources. There has been no significant improvement over these two articles. U1 quattro  TALK  03:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you need to engage. If you had contacted concerned editors then the article would have been improved. Your rudeness and lack of concern for others is deeply troubling, it is only the fact that you are really careful to not cross any WP lines that have kept you from being censored thus far.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is still not improved. I'm not wasting my time over something which cannot be fixed. Sure, if you think that you can avoid me. I'm not changing for anyone. U1 quattro  TALK  04:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You should change. This is a collaborative effort, not just your private hobby.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  04:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not taking permissions from anyone before I nominate an article. When I see that it does not meet WP:GNG, I'm nominating it. If someone then improves it, kudos to them. U1 quattro  TALK  04:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hino Ranger
I am not sure what is the matter with you, but you have committed several errors at Hino Ranger. First of all, you removed several assembly locations without stating a reason (Philippines, Taiwan). Secondly you changed a section that stated "engine type A was replaced by engine type B" to saying "engine A was upgraded and complemented by engine B". It was not, according to any sources I have seen. If you know better you should add a source, not just change things around without explanation.  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  21:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason for removing those locations was lack of sourcing. Sure if you have sources pointing out that your statement is correct, you can use them. U1 quattro  TALK  03:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Clearly that is not the case. You kept several production sites that were equally uncited. Add tags if there is anything controversial that you think ought to be cited (don't just apply them to be a nuisance), don't just delete randomly.


 * As for the engine section that you messed up, it was always cited, from the Japanese Motor Vehicles Guide Book 1978/1979. Your error here is not a simple spelling mistake or anything, this is you actively introducing errors into WP. And now you are trying to make it out as if you do not understand what I am telling you, rather than apologizing and changing your behavior. You are very much skating on thin ice.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not apologising for anything. Controversial things are not dealt with effectively over here so no need to add tags when one encounters this behaviour. I didn't say that my error was a spelling mistake. It is your assumption. If you have imrpoved it then it is fine by me. U1 quattro  TALK  03:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, it's not controversial and you claim that you "removed a location" beacause of "lack of sourcing". This is nothing like what you did: you changed content and made it incorrect. The reason I mentioned spelling is because those kinds of things are minor, but this is not minor. Fine, everyone makes mistakes - and then they say "oops, I am sorry" and then everyone moves on. Your inability to recognize this and your absolute refusal to own your error is problematic. You either need to apologize or stay away for a few days if it is indeed impossible for you to type those words.


 * You also committed a further error on the same article here, when you broke a link and messed up the spelling of "Massy". You then compounded the error here and here. So instead of a link we now have no link and a misspelled name. Please slow down and look at your edits before and after.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you improved the article? No? I haven't seen that. I don't know why you keep highlighting it then. You have made mistakes like these on TVR Cerbera where you have reverted edits there even when cited sources say otherwise. If I have been at fault, the same goes for you. I will not apologise over what happened neither you can make me. U1 quattro  TALK  04:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice red herring attempts. And yes, I have improved Hino Ranger over the years - most recently by removing your recent introduction of factual and verifiable errors, which you still haven't acknowledged.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  04:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not doing that, sorry. Like I said if you have removed the errors then so far so good. U1 quattro  TALK  04:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  05:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)