User talk:Mr.choppers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wbar purple.jpg
Crystal kmail.png Mr.choppers' talk page

Hullo. Please Click Here to leave me a new message. Please see my user page for more information about me.

  • To messages left on my talk page, i respond on my talk page. If you are responding to a conversation I started on your talkpage, please respond there - rest assured I have bookmarked your page and won't miss your responses.
  • You can write to me in any of the languages mentioned on my userpage. Usually I'll answer in English, unless you write in Swedish, then I'll use Swedish myself.
  • My current time is 00:26 — please have that in mind if leaving time-sensitive comments.
  • All messages on my talk page are archived once the page gets uncomfortably large.
  • Please do not remove/revert things here, as I like to archive everything.






  Babel:

  *sv, en-5, de-2, es-2, no-2, da-2, fr-1, ja-0

Wbar blue.jpg
Crystal xfmail.png Messages
Don't forget to watch this page, as I will respond here.
You'll regret about your words and about your dids someday ... It will be the day of your deportation ! Please never comeback ! Neverguesswhathappened 05:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Error[edit]

Hey Mr.choppers,

I actually made a stupid error with file *File:2009 Mercedes CLK Class.jpg, When you said it was a DTM it was not. I actually meant to subtitle the picture "2007-2009 Mercedes CLK 350 (Australia)". I would kindly request you post that file above with the subtitle with the caption "2007-2009 Mercedes CLK 350 (Australia). You do not have to but I want you to do it if you can. Please next time always ask me before removing the image off wikipedia.

Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Look, we don't need more pictures of the C209. The IFCAR one you added is a better picture (as was the previous picture you reverted), as it better shows what the car looks like. I understand the desire to see your photos appear in articles but you have no explicit right to expect it, nor to demand that I ask your permission to remove something. See WP:OWN for more on that. As your photos keep getting better, you will find that other editors will choose to include them based on their quality alone. And please, keep your talkpage comments to one place and stop peppering my talkpage with so many new topics about the same thing.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Panhard et Levassor Dynamic may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • positioned steering wheel.<ref name=Artc>{{citation | title = Artcurial Motorcars à Rétromobile (Vente n<sup>o</sup> 1957 | page = 110 | ref = ABPT | date = 2011-02-04 | publisher = Artcurial-
  • z16794/Panhard-Dynamic.aspx Panhard et Levassor Dynamic X76 von 1938 bei ''conceptcarz.com'' (englisch]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

190d[edit]

Hi, wanted to say I came acorss your pics of the 190d 2.5 Turbo here, here, and here. Aside from the euro headlights, I have one exactly like it. Same color too, cabernet red metallic. Mines bit worse for wear at the moment, working on fixing it up. This one even has an antenna delete like mine does. I have a flickr album of mine here if you want to take a look. Is this your car, or someone else's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamdigitalman (talkcontribs) 02:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi iamdigitalman, no, alas, it is not my car - I just saw it while out driving and thought it worth a few photos. Good luck fixing yours up, we need more old diesels and fewer hybrids!  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Your help is needed : harassment of Renault, Citroën etc.[edit]

Hello Mr.choppers, we need the help of a neutral and good faith person to prevent the article of Renault to be harassed by User:Urbanoc, User:Vrac, User:Warren_Whyte. They :

  • remove some whole paragraphs, writing briefly that they were duplicated, but analysing what they removed, these paragraphs were not duplicated
  • remove some photos, stating that they were "too numerous" in Renault. But the photos are 5 times more numerous (!!) in the Volkswagen article, and it is not a problem in this case for User:Urbanoc...
  • remove some texts, stating that there is no source, even for the most obvious facts. A good faith editor search some sources. A bad faith editor take the excuse of no source, to remove a true information that he doesn't want to be shown, and without asking to anybody.... They behave as gods who own Wikipedia and are all-mighty
  • ask to remove the awards only for Renault, in the company article and even in the model articles, and only these 3 people participate to this false discussion
  • behave like that also on Dongfeng Peugeot-Citroën, Citroën and general articles, where they remove the picture of Renault Capture, that is yet the leader of its segment in Europe.

These 3 people behave as a lobby that use Wikipedia to harass some companies, but don't use the same arguments for the companies that they cherish. They send to each others some barn-stars to enable their accomplices to have some more important rights on Wikipedia, in order to have the power to harass more some companies and some contributors.

I will send you a few links to prove their bad faith. I will also write this on the Automotive portal. Good faith people are welcome.

Please participate to the "discussion" here : Talk:Renault#Awards

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.157.24.224 (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. Urbanoc, Vrac and Warren Whyte "won" without any fair discussion to remove the award section only from Renault. But the Volkswagen article has such a section, and they did not ask to remove it. Why some different arbitrary "rules" are applied to some companies like Renault, but not to VW ? For consistency purpose and neutrality, if VW can have an "Award" section, why Renault cannot ? They behave as a lobby that harass some companies, but not their favourite. Notice also that anyway, strangely enough before they erased it this section was put at the end of the article (...) and named "Accolade" ONLY for the Renault article.

They have no argument, and they don't use the same arbitrary reasons against some other companies that are in the same situation : their malevolent intentions are obvious.

  • Why removing the awards from the Renault article and not from the articles of the other brands ? For neutrality, fairness and consistency : no reason to apply a different treatment to Renault.
  • Why removing the awards in the models article also, but only for Renault ? For neutrality, fairness and consistency : no reason to apply a different treatment to Renault.
  • Why making a difference between an award to a car model and to the brand that made this car ? The awards are for the car and its constructor, obviously !
  • Why using some arbitrary and inconsistent "reasons" to target Renault, but not using the same "reasons" for the other brands that are in the same situation ? Urbanoc says that the Renault badge is not logical as the Dacia badge also exist and that then the awards have to be removed. But all the Dacia models are conceived only by Renault. Dacia can not make such cars. So no problem actually. And most of these cars are sold with the Renault brand, e.g. 70% of te Duster were sold with the Renault brand in 2013. On the contrary, GM sells with the Cherolet/Opel/Vauxhall brands some cars CONCEIVED by Daewoo ! But as GM is not Renault, then the same fake "reason" is not used by Urbanoc against GM, because his motivations are arbitrary and malevolent against Renault. When VW buy Bentley, Porsche, etc they buy some brands that make better cars, but Renault went from nothing with Dacia. Dacia is only made by Renault. But Lamborghini is not VW and Daewoo is not GM either, for example. Malevolent motivations against Renault.
  • Why saying that the Motor trend car of the year in the USA is not official enough to be mentioned in the Renault article, but the same award is mentioned in the VW article and then they don't ask it to be removed ? Not neutral request against Renault. Unfair treatment, malevolent motivations against Renault.

Why Urbanoc speaks about the award in Estonia ? I added no award from Estonia. The awards that I added are considered as very important by the professionals of the automotive industry.

  • these awards are not french, so no problem of fairness for Renault, but only for Fiat/Chrysler and VW
  • these awards are officially voted by the automotive journalists unions, or by several serious magazines, not less serious than the few ones that participate to the COTY in western Europe. In addition, there could exist a dozen of different award for COTY in Europe, voted by as much of sets of different magazines.
  • Autobest is voted by 15 countries, representing more than 300 million people. It is equivalent to the COTY in western Europe. No reason to remove these awards.

Spain and Italy are important countries for the car industry to :

  • Italy has a long history for the car industry, and Volkswagen even by their companies
  • Spain has plants of all the brands, so it is involved in the car industry and it has no reason to be nicer with Renault than VW, GM or Ford etc.
  • their population is approximately the same than this of the UK

So no reason to remove these awards from the Renault article.

And no reason to apply to Renault a different treatment than this for Ford, GM, VW etc.

If the "Wikipedia community" accept that an automotive brand can have an award section like VW, but not Renault, then the neutrality and fairness is not respected and it means that Wikipedia is under the control of a private interests lobby and some fanatical people. It is unacceptable obviously.83.157.24.224 (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mr.Choppers.

  • Why removing the Motor trend car of the year award in the USA from the Renault article, saying that "it is not important", but keeping the SAME award in the Volkswagen article ? Why treating Volkswagen better than Renault ? Why some different "rules" are applied and not the same neutral treatment ? Such an unequal treatment is strange... Renault is harassed, VW is protected. This award is very official, so it worth to be mentioned in the Renault article, like it is in Volkswagen article. I will write it again, except if you remove the same award from the VW article. I am neutral and I want that all the brands are treated in the same way. Do you oppose to that ?
  • On the contrary, in the VW article, a minor "Green Car Journal" award is mentioned. Peugeot etc. got some too, but I did NOT add such minor awards in the constructors page, because it is MINOR. Why keeping such a minor "one-magazine" award in the VW article, but removing some really important international and national awards, officially voted by the whole automotive journalists unions or several magazines ? It is inconsistent. A minor award from only one magazine is kept in the VW article and many important international and national awards voted by many different professionals are removed from the Renault article. Unfair, unlogical and big difference of treatment between brands...
  • The Renault Symbole II was only Renault, never Dacia, so it is a false to remove the Autobest award from Renault and to put it in Dacia. And it is a non-sense to remove it from Dacia and not to put it BACK in Renault ;-)
  • Why do you say that the list or REAL awards is boring in Renault, whereas citing all the non-awarded but only "short-listed" models in the VW article takes already a full screen height to make believe that VW got many ECOTY awards, but for true only 3 in 50 years ? Look the LONG HEIGHT list of non-awarded Volkswagen models here...
  • This text is not neutral and lowering against the Autobest award : "This award is more focused on economy, as it represents 15 European and Eurasian lower-income countries". ECOTY also scores the costs, else the Mercedes Class S would have won the ECOTY award. The Vaxhall/Opel Mokka/Chevrolet Trax participated to both competitions, but it is not low cost for the ECOTY and the same Mokka is low cost for Autobest ? It is inconsistent.
  • Sorry, but it is not possible to agree with these modifications : adding a Renault-only car in Dacia is irrelevant, removing Motor trend from Renault, but keeping it in VW is an unequal treatment, keeping a minor one-magazine "Green Car Journal" award in VW and removing some really important official international and official national awards from Renault is opposite to logic and an equal treatment.

You have been too bold ;-) But if Urbanoc and his friends did not trigger a non-sense request to harass Renault, all that would not happen. Look here a few of his malevolent actions targeting only Renault Non-equal treatment of articles - Vandalization. You should not support him, because there are many evidences that he is bad faith.

Have a nice evening. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we need to severely crop the awards bits at Volkswagen (and elsewhere). Motor Trend is not representative of US as a whole, and with the number of different magazines here proclaiming cars of the year this sort of stuff gets boring real quick. I meant the cost mention to be sort of an explanation why Dacia has won several awards, and to describe how Autobest differs in outlook from COTY - as far as I am concerned, Autobest seems to be more relevant to actual buyers.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mr.Choppers. Really ? You want to make some fair and equal rules to severely crop the awards bits at Volkswagen (and elsewhere). We'll see ;-) I bet that it will not happen to VW. Because VW got only 3 ECOTY, so which awards to crop ? NONE. Crafty ! ;-) Only its non-awarded list ? ;-) The truth is that the Renault awards section has been destroyed. You are certainly proud of that. Which awards to remove from VW, Ford, GM ? They never got UIGA or Spain awards. Crafty. Have a nice evening, Urbanoc's and Vrac's friend 8) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.157.24.224 (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Help me please !!!!![edit]

dear sir i am in need of information on mercedes benz 1977 model 1017 that i am repairing please call robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.144.88 (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I took the liberty of deleting your personal info as it is very visible here, this is a public page. I don't know much about old Mercedeses, I just occasionally take pictures and post them here. Try a Mercedes-Benz message board or something.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

A question about your edit on the Pantera page[edit]

Hello,

I started to tweak something you wrote on the Pantera page, which is probably due to the fact English is apparently not your first language. On the Pantera page you wrote, "In 1980, beginning with chassis number 9000 according to De Tomaso themselves, the chassis was completely revisioned." You also included something on its talk page, to wit: "... but in 1977 Carrozzeria Maggiora was contracted to build the new chassis cars, introduced from chassis number 9000 (some say this was in 1980, dubious)" which contradicts what you wrote in the article. I have zero knowledge on this point and since I was only interested in adjusting the wording, I was wondering if there is any consensus on this question of when the change was made, in 1977 or 1980? If I've misunderstood something please let me know. __209.179.15.166 (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

According to a very confusing De Tomaso parts catalogue the change was carried out from 1980 on, this is thus a citable source. So, according to WP guidelines this is the info that (until a better source is found) goes on the page. In WP, verifiability trumps truth. The 1977 date makes more sense logically to me, but is based on info I have gathered from various message boards which is not a source good enough to use in the article. I included the contradictory information on the talkpage precisely in the hope that someone could find a definitive source for this. And my English is quite passable, thank you very much.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I wasn't trying to make fun of your English. However, "revisioned" is not a proper word - I think you meant revised. And since the De Tomaso is a thing instead of a person, the better word would've been "itself" instead of themselves, although I wouldn't have used it all. I think something like, "... according to the De Tomaso parts catalog, the chassis was completely revised" is better. Can you cite the source you used?
Like all WP editors, I'm just trying to make it the best possible. Hope this helps ... __209.179.36.85 (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, adjusted the sentence. Trying to write while also trying to figure out what De Tomaso did when made for a somewhat convoluted process. The cite was at the end of the following sentence, but now it's in both places. The page number in the reference refers to the page numbers in the parts catalogue, in the linked pdf file they are on pages 24 and 25 IIRC.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for Automobile Dacia undo edit[edit]

Sorry about my undoing, I didn't notice you was being WP:BOLD to help in reaching a consensus in the awards lists issue. I reverted myself and clarified my opinion in the Renault's talk page. Urbanoc (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Headlamp[edit]

Mr.choppers, in the article Headlamp I have changed all the bullet points sections into prose format.--Arado (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
i am happy when people appreciate my work :). Yes, it's a reference to the old airplane manufacturer--Arado (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Essex V6[edit]

Hello , i noticed you are correcting a lot of mistakes on the page of the Essex V6 , thank you i realise i have done tons of mistakes and i am aware that my formatting is sort of crap , but i think the page is fine as it is now or am i wrong? -Laurie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurie Lind (talkcontribs) 06:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It's decent, but there is no page that cannot stand more improvements! Also, you should sign your messages, using four tildes. Like this: "~~~~". The WP software then adds your signature automatically, like this:  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Photo usage for iPhone app?[edit]

Hello, I am currently in the progress of making a car quiz type iPhone app. Basically, my plan is to have data base of cars, photoshop all the badges off all the cars, and turn it into a game where you have to see if you can still guess the car right from a list of four choices. I was wondering if your photos are alright to use in this situation, as they are some of the best I've seen. It's a free app, but it's probably going to have a banner ad on the main menu. Would that go against the copyright? I'll definitely properly attribute you with a link back to your page for each car and everything. I'd really appreciate if it's possible. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CjNorth0015 (talkcontribs) 13:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Attribution is all I ask, such are the Wikipedia rules. Commercial use is allowed. And thanks for asking, good luck with the app. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


You rock. I'll make sure the credit comes your way. I'll also send you the link to the app when I'm done with it, so you can check it out. Thanks again!
CjNorth0015 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Singer Roadster[edit]

Hi Mr C, I write to apologise because I find I have enthusiastically, nay very freely, over-written a lot of your recent work and I see I got started only days after you had paused in November. I was aware you'd been working on it but did not comprehend it was only a matter of days earlier. So, I'm sorry I let this happen and if it disturbed any of your plans please let me know and I will try to make amends. Best, Eddaido (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any problems. I didn't have any particular plans except I was myself trying to figure out the various Roadster iterations and their relationship to each other. The only thing I don't like is the use of "infobox automobile engine" on a page which is not about the engine as a topic - I would prefer a table and might convert it. It would leave less blank space. Thanks for all the additional information added!  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Good, so long as I did it right. I did not realise the engine infobox is to be used only on a page where the engine is a topic. Does that not almost double the number of articles? Eddaido (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Nah, it's more that the infobox is only useful on a main page. If I wasn't so busy I'd change the contents into a proper table. I feel that I have already had this conversation with you somewhere else?  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
True. But I think again all you said was you did not like it and in the absence of any thought from anyone else I left things as they were with the (it turned out) vain hope some discussion would arise or a pointer come from you. I have a strong objection to the tables permitted by WP. They are required to have text the same size as the article when I would have thought usual practice was to make these things smaller. Is not an infobox a table? Not, I can see, in the specialised sense you are using but I think so. Can you point me to a place where infobox engine is used correctly and I will try very hard to divine your intent. Thanks and regards, Eddaido (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Toyota A engine is an example. Also, one can change the text size in a table. I have three different table layouts in my sandbox that I sometimes use as templates, the third one down has smaller text. I am not asking you to change it right now, but when I have more time I could make you a template or somesuch. Toodles,  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I make (I think) nice looking tables then later (sometimes years later) another party comes along and makes the text in the table the same size as in the article. Someone called BGWhite. Is BGW wrong to do this? I have used infobox engine many times (20? 30?), do you dislike them all? I am now off to study your sandbox. Many thanks, Eddaido (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Huh? What am I being accused of doing? Anybody can edit any page. Per the MOS accessibility page (see WP:NOSTRIKE), text cannot go smaller than 85%. It also says, "The use of reduced font sizes should be used sparingly.". Not everybody has good vision (ie anybody over 45). One shouldn't do an entire table with a font size of 85%, if there is space for it. One cannot use <small> tags inside a table whose font size is already below 100%. Long story short... use common sense on text size (95% usually ok, 90% iffy, 85% almost never). Bgwhite (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I personally like using smaller text for tables, since they usually contain more specific and less generally interesting information. And, yes Eddaido, I dislike all use of infobox templates on pages that cover other topics, and I reckon I am not alone (I remember this exact thing coming up earlier somewhere, but cannot remember where). Anyhow, I started using collapsible tables so as to avoid them taking up too much space, a solution that I think everyone can agree upon. See Suzuki Fronte for a few examples. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ford Capri[edit]

What happened to the Mk1 Capri infobox engine list? Laurie Lind (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Somebody else broke it, I just restored it.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Top Gear "nonsense"[edit]

You know, I bet you haven't even watched Top Gear- this is probably due to the fact that you probably hate it because you seem to like very old, poorly made cars. Your nonsensical undos of my fair, neutral edits of other people's opinions, were, I believe, fueled by your personal dislike of the show. That is not a reason to undo my edits. (The fact that these cars appeared on the world's biggest motoring show gives the article even more credibility.) You can't edit articles based on whether you like what's on them or not- and considering you've been on here for more than 6 years from when I have started writing this message to you, that strips even more of the credibility of your undos of my edits- which, I will reiterate, were written in a fair, unbiased way with no personal vendetta towards those cars on my part. But I'll partially eat my own words on your behalf- if you undo those articles again- I'm reporting you. --Hmdwgf (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing- I took out most of the opinionated stuff- just to strike a compromise. But I'm still reporting you if you undo those edits. --Hmdwgf (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
A) I do watch Top Gear. It's a lot of fun, but it's a TV show. It's rarely important enough to be included in an encyclopaedia. B) Report away. I reckon that most Wikipedians would agree with me that the majority of Top Gear's opinions have very little relevance. C) I love crap cars, and I love amazing cars. And I am happy to admit that crap is crap. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, Top Gear is generally not a notable source. It is newstainment at best. OSX (talkcontributions) 07:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)