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 17:02 — 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.

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)
Are you wondering where I've been? Well not back here. I did as I said I would up above and since then I've been fretting. Thought I'd come and tell you that and found the additional entries. Other topics. We have a page about a car ('s body). We must have a separate article about its engine? Am I misunderstanding? How about the Austin 25-30. I've paused for other reasons but I would usually have banged in a few inboxes by now. The same engine design (there are variations but principally of bore size) is used in chassis and bodies of quite different size. Good strong heavy boat anchors, they must have thought, were the things to keep the front wheels up front and after all you do make a dart's nose a bit heavier for a similar reason. Aargh, I'm lost now. Fretting, Eddaido (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC) oops, Fronte. But there is so very little interesting info available about these vehicles. The word conventional must have been invented for them. OK there's still variety but not what there was a century and more ago. Eddaido (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Eddaido. I am not quite sure what you are trying to tell me with this latest message, but I think maybe I ought to explain one more time that there's not necessarily any need for separate articles for any and all engines - just that the "engine infobox" template is intended for those dedicated engine articles.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:01, 11 March 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)

French IP in French-related automotive articles[edit]

I'm really getting boring with all the endless discussions with him. He even believes that the fact he's, according to his words, "a PhD" (although he first said he was a journalist, then a PhD and journalist, then a PhD and a "Professor", but well... ) gives him the right to ignore Wiki policies, not only on content, even the basic ones. I now think maybe is better if we (and I include myself, obviously...) let him do his stuff, as you first suggested. The article will be a biased disaster, but maybe that's unavoidable at this point. That's a weakness of the Wikipedia system, a single editor with a strong commitment to an advocacy cause can make a lot of harm, but maybe in two or three years from now another editor will fix it (Wikipedia is constantly changing, that's a strenght). What do you think? Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No! I am annoyed too, but I'd rather just us (and others, the more the merrier) agree on a decent version of the article and keep reverting to that one - until he can make a coherent, unbiased statement. If he can argue with me like a grownup then I am willing to discuss things, but not while he acts like some sort of offended primadonna.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I see, thanks, I wanted to know which were your thoughts. I was a little unsure of how to proceed, as this has been continuing for a long time now. The sad thing is some of the things he proposes could be useful or at least worth of debate if he wasn't feeling all people are conspirators that want to destroy the French marques image, and he needs to remove the conspiration on the articles by adding a biased tone, removing other marques and their vehicles and all text that doesn't sound to him like a straightforward compliment, focussing in positive achievements and so on. He even thinks we are a solid group against him, but all of us have different ideas. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
What's funny is that I agree with him in that some (in the main VW) German brand articles are a bit positively biased, but I ascribe this to the existence of a huge fanboy population and not a deliberate effort on any editors' part. I also find myself distrusting and disregarding any and all articles that smack of press releases, the kinds of articles that contains list of achievements, awards, and Semperit Irish Car of the Year Awards. An accurate and clear sighted article with no word of infotainment systems is to me a much stronger sign of a good manufacturer than a page which contains nonsense such as that.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

DS automobile marque[edit]

AX!

Hello M.Choppers. Would you like to cooperate on the creation of an article about the new DS automobile marque ? I did not find one on WP. PSA builds this brand little by little, so it is a big work to make a consistent view of the brand. For the first steps, a chronological and geographical expansion description would be probably the best to build the article. What are your opinion about these propositions ? For your information http://europe.autonews.com/article/20140609/ANE/140609869/0/SEARCH and http://www.driveds.co.uk/uk Bye. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow! That's a totally unexpected development for me, not being particularly interested in modern cars. Of course it deserves a page.
My notes and suggestions:
1) All WP work is a collaboration, with any and all comers. You don't particularly need me, but I am happy to keep an eye on it and occasionally offer constructive advice.
2) To make it a good one entry one would also be obliged to cover the troubles Renault and PSA have all had in the prestige sector in the past. I'm thinking 25, XM, Vel Satis, Safrane, 605, etcetera. In a way it is almost as if PSA is taking a page from the Toyota/Lexus playbook, which appears to be a good strategy. I wish them luck
As a sidenote I always personally preferred the small and barebones French cars (excepting the Facel Vega, Delahayes, etcetera). My favourite French car is probably the AX, exactly like this one that I photographed in Paris two years ago. Or an LN... or a Poncin, ever heard of those?  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Sunday March 22: Wikipedia Day NYC Celebration and Mini-Conference[edit]

Sunday March 22: Wikipedia Day NYC 2015
Statue-of-liberty tysto.jpg
2014 Barnard College Barnard Hall entrance facade.jpg

You are invited to join us at Barnard College for Wikipedia Day NYC 2015, a Wikipedia celebration and mini-conference for the project's 14th birthday. In addition to the party, the event will be a participatory unconference, with plenary panels, lightning talks, and of course open space sessions.

We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects.

10:00pm - 9:00 pm at Barnard College, 3009 Broadway, by W 118th St

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Identification[edit]

Транспорт в Донецке 106.jpg

Out of interest, do you know what this is, please? If you believe everything you read in Google translate (and I don't always, but here I probably did) it's called Transport in Donetsk.

If you're feeling so inclined, it needs classifying in wiki-commons ... and thanks if you did. Thanks for thinking about it anyhow.

And regards Charles01 (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

A Daewoo Matiz, and the taillights indicate that it is a late production UzDaewoo with the one-litre engine. I hope Putin won't have me assassinated now.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. Thank you. Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eraseroftheevilshit. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: Thank you, and thank you for the notice.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

1954 Siata 208S Balbo[edit]

Good afternoon Mr. Choppers. I ran across the picture you had posted from Lime Rock. Couple of things, it is a 53, not 54. It is also not a Balbo, it was bodied by Stabilimenti Farina. The first 6 208S were bodied by Farina, there were 9 others bodied by Balbo. The red Siata that was also at the show was bodied by Balbo. The car in your picture is number CS056 and the Tim Richie who was listed as the owner is someone who works for the company that was working on the car at the time. The actual owner wanted to remain anonymous. I also don't know if you would consider it a barn find. The current owner purchased the car in 57, it just ran into mechanical issues when he had young children so it remained in his garage until he was in retirement. He started rebuilding the car but ran out of time and passed away in 08, his wife took on the task of finishing the rebuild. Hope this helps some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208CS (talkcontribs) 16:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@208CS: Thank you - I don't normally believe people I encounter on the internet, but you seem sensible and knowledgable. I will go ahead and amend the description accordingly. Thanks again,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

about your pictures[edit]

Hi

If I get you to post pictures on Wikipedia, is there a fee that you'd pay? You seem to have a LOT of pictures... Hard to believe that this is all done for free...

Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B008:8F00:5191:8D19:38EA:E7AE (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a hobby and I receive no remuneration. The pictures (unless found elsewhere with a free license) are all by me - I just photograph the cars I happen to come across. Were you trying to have me take a photo of something? If I can help then maybe.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Above is my original question and your answer...
To be honest, I was feeling for information... I understand that you take pictures of cars on the street, but you took pictures of 4 of my cars and didn't let me know or something along those lines when I feel you had the ability to... Based on issues I've had with neighbors about my cars, the fact one car was towed, and several other of your pictures, something tells me you are in law enforcement... With thousands and thousands of pictures posted, I find it hard to believe that it is a "hobby" if you are using the time and energy to post pictures when you are obviously on the clock that taxpayers are paying for...
At the very least if I could get police assistance instead of being pushed away and letting neighbors deface my card, write notes on them, and write me threatening emails, it would be a help...
With the all the drug users and drug dealers in my area, hiding in plain sight, you'd think that the neighbors would care more about parking spots...
I use classic cars in TV and movies and it is my livelihood that is being threatened and it is definitely more than an inconvenience... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B008:8F00:5191:8D19:38EA:E7AE (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Mr.choppers, this one is mad as a hatter! And paranoid... OSX (talkcontributions) 12:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, wow... why are your neighbors defacing your card? I guess if you didn't leave your business cards out, your neighbors wouldn't have your email address with which to write you threatening mails. I was also unaware that cops were paid to take photos for Wikipedia. Please, tell me more. Lastly, how was I supposed to give you "information" about photographing your automobiles? And what difference would it make?  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

FTO 'Equip Lists'[edit]

Hidee

Noticed you are rather 'anti-lists' and deleted my recent FTO GPX spec list. Folks with FTOs are constantly trying to uncover the mysteries of what was OEM - so many are retro-fitted with stuff these days. I was actually contemplating doing sep pages for each of the models. What are your thoughts?

PS - Not sure why you chopped down the literal transcription I did from the Company Report. Should it not now end as '3 full points' as you've edited? i.e. "in dynamic and aggressive styling..."

I had recently begun assembling some sort of guide on the FTO Club pages to help uncover the differences of the 36805 built.
(Webcor (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC))

I understand the interest in these sorts of things, but going into this level of detail is usually considered too narrow and specific for Wikipedia. WP:STYLE is a good place to get an idea, or try checking out a Featured Article. Anyhow, prose is always preferred to lists (sometimes tables are best, such as for the specs). Lastly we generally only quote directly from the manufacturer (secondary and impartial sources are preferred) for plain dry facts. You're absolutely right about the missing ellipsis. Hope to see more of you. You could always add the spec list to the talk page, btw - us anoraks will be able to find it there.  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Mr Choppers
Not sure I'm 100% with your edits, but cool ;)
I shall beaver away at adding 'prized snippets' from time to time for you to hack at.
All the best (Webcor (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC))
@Webcor: Well, I am also not in charge here (I don't think anyone is) so feel free to ask some other experienced users. And obviously feel free to discuss any individual edits. To make life easier for others, try not to use brackets [ ] for text; parentheses are preferred. Commas for four-digit numbers are optional - I am of the opinion that we do not need them for rpms or ccs. Many of my edits are invisible on the page, but help avoid linking to redirects. The "nbsp" code provides a space that won't be split in case of a line break. Lastly, photo captions are best placed in conjuntion with the photos, as well-meaning editors often change images and miss the main body text which then becomes confusing. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Unclear as to why you believe the 1.8 GS did not become a Facelift in '97?
This broad chart I have for all models clearly shows a facelift GS = http://i1105.photobucket.com/albums/h349/photo-socket/FTO%20Paperwork2/FTO-16models01_1.jpg
Indeed, the facelift chart includes the model & prefix code for it (GF prefix). Nor would I term it a 'Light Alteration' - it's quite a radical & noticeable styling change. It is also likely the GS was being built with a facelift as early as mid 1996
Webcor (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
That statement was from the source used as a citation by you, at [1]. It says "Except for the comparatively unloved 4 cylinder 1.8 GS model, a facelift version was introduced in 1997 for the remaining 2 litre models." Anyhow, is there a good source for a date or any corresponding technical changes? Usually, facelifts apply to the entire lineup simultaneously. I am also still curious about the apparent early introduction of the five-speed auto on the Nakaya Tune edition. A good source doesn't have to be available online, by the way. I have looked through my own library but I own very little on cars built after the end of the Showa era.  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I merely cited that as an example for the term 'facelift'. This is much the ongoing problem with the FTO build - hence why I was attempting to make some sense of it all, as it was on 'day one' (albeit in 'simple terms' - but it does need a hint of anorak for some of it!). Brochures (which crop up for sale on the web & thus too 'transient' for linkage) have shown the spoilerless GS & GR clearly sporting facelift bumper. (Some Brochure pix I scanned into my personal ref sheet above, for example). The bumper fixing brackets also change to a new code on them in Mitsi CAPS from Feb '97 too...
Also - I have yet to meet a real Nakaya-tune owner or see one that is unequivocally a Nakaya. I have seen & have pix of GPs that come close (our Club has 2), but that carbon lip is always AWOL. Problem being is IMHO that for about 4 years the Japanese owners did lots of modding, before mass migration of models to UK or Oz.
This usually reliable source shows the Nakaya as a 5sp auto http://www.completefto.com.au/CompleteFTO.asp?aid=454
However - the same source will provide a GP as a Nakaya with 4sp auto if certain model codes are entered into VIN data file!
This is a GP Special in Mitsi CAPS http://mitsubishi.epc-data.com/fto/de3a/hnfh2/?frame_no=DE3A-0101871
(The owner believed it was a GPvR - sold as such from Japan to UK. Pix show it clearly isn't. However the VIN data of Complete FTO have it as a Nakaya - again, no lip in pix I have of it. It is simply a GP Special) Understand your concern - hopefully, I can rouse some interest from an irate Nakaya owner? Lol.
Re-written facelift preamble. Annoyingly, for c/right reasons can't use pix from brochures, but just found a fellow owner with an Aero. Pix shortly.
Thanks for your time. Webcor (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Yay, more photos! I just realized that there are lists of specs of all Japanese cars built in the last twenty or thirty years available at Goo.net and in a bunch of other places. The pictures are of no use, but there should be a lot of material.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Here is a pic of the front spoiler. I haven't come across any supporting evidence for the Nakaya having 5AT - it seems simply to have been a lightly tuned version of the runout pre-facelift FTO, and the parts seem to have been sold to be installed on existing cars. Hence, no specific chassis numbers and only the bolt-on parts are different. I have added a source to the article.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the Nakaya spoiler pic (we have Club members with the repro of it - it's not clear that's actually a carbon one btw). The fact that the Nakaya was a kit is a new interesting angle! However, the brochure clearly cites "300", so was there only 300 kits? Also, they would be logged if 'factory fitted' and would surely be dedicated to one model type and installed 'complete' - PLUS decal?
Drop links, roll bars etc varied across the range so it would surely be one model fitment - the preface GPX IMHO. (Aftermarket kits like the Bozz and Kaze etc also began appearing at the time of the Nakaya Taeivon btw)
Thanks for the 'Goo-net' - It's good, but also quite adrift on pix - The GPvRs seem to be minus spoilers, etc!
Edit: Here's a 'Nakaya body kit' red herring (yes, some were made in UK) http://ftoaustralia.com/v3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=18558
The spoilerless facelift GS and GR in the brochure (That I can't show) http://s1105.photobucket.com/user/photo-socket/media/FTO-paperwork/FTO-p21.jpg.html?sort=9&o=27
The Nakaya-Tune model brochure (I can't show) http://s1105.photobucket.com/user/photo-socket/media/FTO-paperwork/Nakaya-Tune_cvr.jpg.html?sort=9&o=56
Apologies if I've inadvertently deleted some operands - wasn't consciously done... Upward & onward with my Japanese phrasebook ;) Webcor (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Cool. Now that I've slept on it I reckon that the Nakaya Tune kit was dealer installed (complete). The source I quote in the article explicitly states that it was available across the 2-litre range. I can see no evidence for the Nakaya Tune having a different chassis code, but it had Mitsubishi's blessing (as one can see in the sales pamphlet - I wish someone would scan the other side of it!). The site I found also mentions that the Nakaya Tune seems to consist of ¥450,000 worth of parts but was discounted to ¥150,000 - I presume in order to get rid of the pre-facelift models. And yes, Goo-net really only use two or three pictures for the entire range, but is a gold mine of other info. They include all models officially sold by Mitsubishi (which, coincidentally, does not include the Nakaya Tune) and MMC's specs. I have used them for a variety of cars and have never found any data discrepancies.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a bigger (but blurrier) photo of the Nakaya Tune sheet here. If you look in the upper right corner, you can see a little asterisk in the bottom of the top right box - to me it looks to say that the Nakaya Tune package is available on the GPX, GP, and GR models. Also, on this talk page, users are making comments suggesting that the spoiler is just a "carbon look". Translating Japanese internet slang is really dodgy, though, but it seems to make sense.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all your insights on this. I'm having a go at rallying FTO Club members to look out for details. One thing seems certain - the chassis numbers that concur with Mitsi CAPS and Nakaya fitment (in various sites) all show as MIVEC models (that also have better 2-pot f/brakes etc over other models) - which eliminates the GR. "DE3A-0101871 HNFH2 GP Special (Mivec) May 1996" is one very likely Nakaya example. Also, the lip is simply black, but has a small Nakaya sticker in center. I shall stew on it a while.
Webcor (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
While I feel that the sales sheet states that it was available on all models, this may just have been their intention - it is quite possible that it was only installed on mivec cars in actuality. However, Wikipedia is not the place for such suppositions or for synthesis. See WP:OR for more. Stewing is always useful. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes - "While I feel that the sales sheet states that it was available on all models, this may just have been their intention..." - that was very much the lines of my thoughts. There were a number of slight differences in the suspension arrangements of preface models. Most were commonised by 1997 to that of the GPX (except GPvR which improved further). Note too the GR had smaller standard wheels/brakes (and no spoiler) to Mivecs - which could affect 'go-faster' / 'installation logic' of 'kit'...
Thanks again for your insights on this. Very helpful.
Webcor (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Another Jajadelera sock?[edit]

Asrockrpg - Areaseven (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

April 29: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC[edit]

Wednesday April 29, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
Wikimedia New York City logo.svg
Statue-of-liberty tysto.jpg

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our inaugural evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities.

After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery!

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street

Featuring a keynote talk this month on Lady Librarians & Feminist Epistemologies! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)