User talk:Mr.choppers

File copyright problem with File:Autozam Scrum 1989.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Autozam Scrum 1989.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good now, thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks

No problem :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 00:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Minica.skipper.73.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Minica.skipper.73.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 19:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mr.choppers. You have new messages at File talk:Minica.skipper.73.jpg.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nyttend (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Ford Granada (Europe), is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. — Jeff G. ツ 05:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your user page. Mr.choppers (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Suzuki Jimny needs some love

Finding someone who is willing to devote some time to this internationally influential mini-jeep is not very common, and I will say if you want to make some much needed changes, you probably won't find any opposition, meaning I don't think their are any editors actively watching this article. Try to locate active sources when making a statement of some type and I'll keep an eye out for any suggestions. Have at it :) (Regushee (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hp relevancyHello , why you think hp is not relevant here? I think this wikipedia has readers from all over the globe, and they use different units. Using more units more readers car read/understand this encyclopedia --Typ932 ^T·C 17:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I think that since the Fronte 800 was only ever sold in Japan (who use PS), quoting both 80 PS and 79 hp only consumes space and hinders legibility. The difference is very slim. Only if I was writing about a car which was sold in a hp country and a PS country would I use both, so as to remove any concern with otherwise slightly differing outputs. If I was to write about a UK-market car I would only use hp. I may be wrong, but using three different units (when two are very similar) is something I figure should be avoided when not necessary. All the best &c. ⊂Mr.choppers⊃ (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Anyway the PS should be linked to horsepower article as using lk=on parameter on conversion, Ill bet many in USA dont even know what is PS --Typ932 ^T·C 18:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] True. I am thinking about just writing it as 'hp' when used in prose. I think that this would be ok, since 'PS' is after all German for horsepower ⊂Mr.choppers⊃ (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] hi , I think it should go as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Units says, but I would put all units, its easier that way to be undestandable to everybody --Typ932 ^T·C 05:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]More on SuzukiYou've improved the Suzuki Jimny article greatly by among other things separating the section on the CR lawsuit into its own article, which eliminated the undue weight devoted to that issue. The new article requires more editing IMHO. It's mostly uncited, it doesn't mention several important facts, like Suzuki winning a judgement allowing the matter to continue to a jury trial and that the settlement did not include any damages. Also, there remains some POV, for example 'Consumer reports was forced to comprise". I intend on editing this article in the upcoming weeks and would welcome any input or comments on the talk page. 199.20.68.40 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]Yes, I agree. I'm not particularly interested in the CR lawsuit, as I think that consumers ought to have enough understanding of physics to comprehend that a car so tall and narrow cannot be driven the same way as a regular sedan without consequences. Suzuki's beef should really have been with their uneducated sheeple consumers, not with CR. However, I also reckon that CRs style of reporting is at least partially to blame for the gray, uniform porridge currently being served up by car companies in the US.As for the article, the one thing which really irks me is the comments from "internal Suzuki documents", which seems to consist of a fragment of a sentence and is lifted from a website dedicated to suing car companies. Definitely not a reliable source, I would like to get a look on the original document. But as there are many dedicated followers of both sides out there I am very hesitant to get embroiled in anything.One thing which bears pointing out is that the Samurai was sold without troubles in many many other countries where the populace is not as easily frightened nor as lawyered up as Americans, and remains in production in several countries. ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃ (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mr.choppers. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

18:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Renault LagunaCan you recheck what you did to the Renault Laguna entry, please? I'm not sure you did what you intended to do. And while I am tempted to correct the spelling of declning and turn the string of words into what we pedants call a sentence, it seems silly for me to do that if you are about to remove the whole paragraph as excessively woolly or insufficiently relevant/objective/sourced. (I don't offer a view abut the paragraph. Except that if you removed everything from wikipedia that was woolly or unsourced there would not be too much left. And ultimately, we all have to put our personal pragmatic frontiers concerning such matters in slightly different places, if only because of the differentness of the places from which we approach ..... things...) Thanks and regards. I think convention might require that I enter a smiley face here but (1) I try not to know how to do that and (2) I think it looks a bit ... but never mind that. Charles01 (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]You're absolutely right, I was going to remove the entire section on Lagunas in the UK, but if you'd like to let it stand, go for it. But please do fix it. I'm quite tired of seeing long lists of supposed competitors and survey results in the UK added to articles everywhere, so maybe I'm getting a little too drastic with the pruning. Also not a smiley user ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃ (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]It's not the sort of thing I'd have entered myself (I hope), but I tend to leave it for folks blessed by less self-doubt (than I can routinely muster on such issues) to prune out other folks' work. Else where do you stop? So another iffy para lives to fight another day ... until one of us wakes up and decides he (or she? - probably not) can stand it no longer! Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]advice on photohi mr. choppers, thank you for the advice regarding the cropping of the image i added (of the renault 19 16v cabriolet phase 1) I have obliged you and revised my addition —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrlno1 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Re: AMCI checked a few of the article talk pages and didn't see anything else, so as far as I know it's just that discussion. At any rate, there's a pretty clear consensus so we should be done. --Sable232 (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]GremlinIf you look at the amount of work I do here you'd understand. Are you busy? If you'd like the correct titles of the American Motors cars maybe you can bring up a discussion. I'm busy adding text and images, and actually improving articles. Luckily adding text and images don't require discussions. I guess nobody here has seen a Gremlin advertisement. It says at the bottom -American Motors Gremlin. (AMC Gremlin is an aka) The last name change took a week...Not again. I won't be changing any more incorrect titles...not to worry. Regards. Vegavairbob (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]The cars are referred to as AMCs in most literature. It's shorter, it looks good, and unless you want to spend the time counting the number of times AMC is used versus "American Motors" in their own promotional material we won't know which is preferred. AMC is accepted as the preferred nomenclature by just about everyone, from The Standard Catalog of Independents past Auto Katalog and through to Car Graphic. Another problem is having articles findable with fewer redirects.If you're upset about having wasted work, well, that's why it's useful to reach some sort of consensus before embarking on changes that are liable to upset others. ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃ (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm not upset. AMC is too generic. AMC is also outboard boat engines. American Motors makes a better title for an encyclopedia! and after all, is used in their logo. (AMC is aka) OK how do we bring up a discussion. I forgot..only did it once. Do you think it's worth the effort?Vegavairbob (talk) 02:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Sometimes it's not worth it being correct. As a German speaker I could pronounce BMW in German (beh-emm-veh), but it wouldn't benefit anyone. As for a discussion, I think one already started here. Usually the best place for such is the article's own talkpage, but since this affects many an article I would suppose that Project Automobiles is the best place. I remain strongly in favour of using "AMC", for ease and familiarity, but I understand how you feel. Nice panel van Vega, btw. ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃ (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks...Ok then AMC I made a mistake doing that without the discussion. I apologise. I think I'm atheist too. lol You like Japanese cars..quality!! I had several 86-88 NUMMI Nova/Toyotas (the engines in them were Toyota, Japan made, final assenmly US..used them for p/t delivery work. The best engine... 1.6 lasted and never faulted. I just like GM design and styling, but Japan has it over on us for sure. They are serious and dedicated..that's the only reason I can think of why. Vegavairbob (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Personally I am obsessed with Kei cars, especially the older ones. I like them precisely because they are everything that new Japanese cars aren't... ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃ (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]I am not sure why were my edits removed.