User talk:Mr.choppers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

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

Re: Thanks

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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))

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)

hp relevancy

Hello , 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It has to be PS because of the {{convert}} tool, which turns PS to kW to hp and viceversa, automatically. The metric horsepower (usually quoted PS) is not identical to the imperial horsepower. The hp unit translats as 745 W, and the PS unit as 735 W. --Pc13 (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you found the relevant conversation! Like you say, 80hp becomes 60 rather than the correct 59kW - this was the reason I didn't use {{convert}}, I wanted to be able to write "hp" (more easily understood) in the article text. The way it looks to the reader is the same, and after all, PS is just German for horsepower. Many countries use "hp" to refer to metric horsepower. What about "hp (DIN)", does that work? I still consider using three different units (80PS, 79hp, 59kW) for this car as redundant, avoiding that was my main goal. Thanks.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The {{convert}} tool is there to save people work. Most people don't know the correct formula to convert to kW (which, while being the correct SI unit, throughout history hasn't always been a lawful unit, or the one advertised by the manufacturer), or will use the Imperial horsepower equivalent to make the conversion, does creating an error anyway. The use of PS prevents that. Not only that, by using the convert tool, and adding the modifier "|abbr=off", it will be shown as "metric horsepower". In addition, for cars sold in the UK, some manufacturers will actually advertise the correct Imperial hp values, and some won't (even though all are rendered as hp in UK publications), such as the previous generation Opel Astra powered by the 2.0 Ecotec engine (136 PS, shown as 134 hp in UK magazines, which is actually a correct conversion), so by having PS/kW/hp on the convert tool, we make sure all used measurements are correct. --Pc13 (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As for saving work, I had already done the work, spelling it all out. As you say, most refer to PS as hp's. The article as originally written by me was in PS/kW, but then another editor added the "hp", which looked like this:

80 PS (59 kW; 79 bhp) - correct, but rather confusing and silly to have three units, one of which has no relevance to the car in question. Also not conducive to decent prose. Other options were these:

80 PS (59 kW) - absolutely correct, but apparently confusing and was, as I said, changed by others.

80 metric horsepower (59 kilowatts) - cumbersome. I can't stand it.

80 hp (60 kW) - less confusing, but incorrect as it was not of 60kW.

80 hp (59 kW) - correct, without the cumbersome "metric horsepower" expression. I just didn't use {{convert}}.

I wanted to avoid using three units of measurements, two of them so close together. The other editor, correctly, pointed out that "PS" will confuse people. As you say, most countries refer to metric horsepowers as plain hp. So I spelled out 80 hp (59 kW). I didn't use the work-saving convert tool on purpose. I was just trying to minimize possible confusion.

I also want to make it clear that I'm not writing all this so as to pick a fight with you, I am more interested in resolving an issue that has been nibbling at me for a while. When was it decided by the automobile project to refer to metric hp as "PS"? Seems an odd decision to use the German word, when as I've noticed and you say too, British car magazines use bhp for imperial hp and just plain hp or hp (DIN) for metric horsepower. Maybe it should be addressed from that angle instead? I'm now also interested as to which countries use bhp (745W) and which prefer hp (735W).  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but you are mistaken. "Bhp" is used in British publications, "hp" is used in American publications, even though they refer to the same thing. "Hp" for metric horsepower is used on English language press-releases for the Eurowide market, but it's not used in any official publication, as each country will then use the correct abbreviation for their specific language (CV for italy, ch for France, ...). I used to do the same you thing you do, with "hp DIN", until the convert tool was introduced. PS actually prevents confusion, it doesn't add to it, mainly because of identical power numbers for US and Europe. The case in point is the old Mercedes E 320: 160 kW is 218 PS and 215 hp. If you switch to "218 hp" on that one, for example, well, it will start an edit war between European and American editors, even though it's linguistically correct. Not only that, after you see a converted number you can replace the convert tool with fully written text, sure, but most people don't know how many kW "X" ammount of horsepower is, and without it, might instead try to calculate it using the incorrect value, because they don't know if the original hp number is metric or Imperial. It might be clunky to have "hp (kW, PS)", but it's the best way for every user to introduce correct numbers. --Pc13 (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, having read the conventions page more carefully, I noticed the following statement on expressing power output: "Metric measurements should be expressed in kilowatts (kW) or pferdestärke (PS) for older vehicles." Thus, I see it as correct by Project standards to express the power of the never-built Suzuki Fronte 1100 only in PS, and not in kW or bhp or any other measurements.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

More on Suzuki

You'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).

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)

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 Laguna

Can 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)

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)

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)

advice on photo

hi 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)

Re: AMC

I 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)

Gremlin

If 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I am not sure why were my edits removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shwir (talk • contribs) 06:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the link because it was of very low relevance. Skins? The external links must be kept down to a very few, and then useful ones. Some of the ones that are already there (on the Honda City page) should probably be removed too, but that's another story. If we were to provide an external link every time a car manufacturer is mentioned by any online group, these pages would be nothing but very long lists of such. See WP:EL for more. I'm sure you could be a good editor, but it requires writing your own stuff instead of just dropping links everywhere.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dodge "Suburban" photo

Thanks for posting File:1949 Dodge Suburban.jpg. Beautiful truck. I never knew these existed! Was it actually called a suburban?

I used to own a 1964 Power Wagon Carryall -- bought it used in '68 for $1600, drove it for 10 years, sold it for $1,000. Good truck, but very hard-riding: 2 solid axles, leaf springs all around. I think you'd blow the tires before you bottomed those stiff springs. Lots of clearance, but very top-heavy -- not a good choice for side-hill driving. Not much different than the WW2 ambulances it was based on. Still see these around now & then.

Appreciate your 4x4 contributions. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, honestly I don't know the first thing about the "Dodge Suburban" aside from the label applied to it on Flickr - I'm currently Flickr mining, you see. I think "Suburban" back then was just a common term, perhaps like SUV is used today. But yeah, if it's gonna be 4WD it had better be pretty beastly as far as I'm concerned - I used to borrow a friend's Puch Pinzgauer every so often, which was fairly noisy and bouncy but absolutely killer offroad.

I'll keep my eyes peeled for more needed 4x4 photos.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a good source -- more people seem to be posting photos as CC.

I try to remember to thank photographers when I use their photos, as at [2]. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, I should definitely thank mr. Rex Gray.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• After giving the matter some thought, IB the generic term (before SUV) was "carryall" -- at least, this is what was in use in the mid-60's. Panel trucks with side windows and seats in the back, basically. Both Chevrolet and Dodges were popular, I don't remember seeing Fords. Most colleges had a few for hauling students on field trips.

I think Suburban was introduced as a brand for Chevy in -- whoah -- 1935: Chevrolet Suburban -- "the longest-lived continuous automobile nameplate still in production, dating from 1935." And I see I should look for photos of early Chevy carryalls -- I drove an early-50's version in geology field camp, a looong time ago. The Suburban article seems to confirm the generic carryall usage. I'll put Carryall on my fix-up list. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Move request. Your opinion welcomed

Here: User talk:Catabv23/Renault Symbol —Preceding undated comment added 05:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Suzuki engine

Hi, did you notice that Suzuki LC10 engine redirects to the same section as List of Suzuki engines#Straight-3 ? so it was not wrong -->Typ932 ^T·C 08:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The end result is correct, but the implications are odd. F5A ≠ LC10 and so on. If someone were to make Suzuki LC10 engine into a proper article (I plan to, some day, time admitting) then these links would become very confusing.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, the indiscriminate use of script makes for some problems. For instance, this perfectly legible table (where numbers in parentheses denoted data for the automatic version):

1990 Suzuki Cervo Mode
model	transmission	engine	power	weight
S-Turbo FF (CN21S)	5MT (3AT)	F6A, 657cc 3-cyl	61 hp (45 kW) @ 6000 rpm	650 (670) kg
S-Turbo 4WD (CP21S)	5MT	F6A, 657cc 3-cyl	61 hp (45 kW) @ 6000 rpm	710 kg
SR-Turbo FF (CN21S)	5MT (3AT)	F6A, 657cc 3-cyl	61 hp (45 kW) @ 6000 rpm	650 (670) kg
SR-Turbo 4WD (CP21S)	5MT	F6A, 657cc 3-cyl	61 hp (45 kW) @ 6000 rpm	710 kg
SR-Four FF (CN31S)	5MT	F6B, 658cc 4-cyl	64 hp (48 kW) @ 7000 rpm	670 kg
SR-Four 4WD (CP31S)	5MT	F6B, 658cc 4-cyl	64 hp (48 kW) @ 7000 rpm	730 kg

Now looks like this, messy and less informative:

1990 Suzuki Cervo Mode
model	transmission	engine	power	weight
S-Turbo FF (CN21S)	5MT (3AT)	F6A, 657 cc 3-cyl	61 hp (45 kW) @ 6000 rpm	650 kg (1,433 lb) (670 kg (1,477 lb))
S-Turbo 4WD (CP21S)	5MT	F6A, 657 cc 3-cyl	61 hp (45 kW) @ 6000 rpm	710 kg (1,565 lb)
SR-Turbo FF (CN21S)	5MT (3AT)	F6A, 657 cc 3-cyl	61 hp (45 kW) @ 6000 rpm	650 kg (1,433 lb) (670 kg (1,477 lb))
SR-Turbo 4WD (CP21S)	5MT	F6A, 657 cc 3-cyl	61 hp (45 kW) @ 6000 rpm	710 kg (1,565 lb)
SR-Four FF (CN31S)	5MT	F6B, 658 cc 4-cyl	64 hp (48 kW) @ 7000 rpm	670 kg (1,477 lb)
SR-Four 4WD (CP31S)	5MT	F6B, 658 cc 4-cyl	64 hp (48 kW) @ 7000 rpm	730 kg (1,609 lb)

Also, compare these two sentences:

Top speed according to German Auto Katalog was up 5 km/h, to 120 km/h (75 mph).

Top speed according to German Auto Katalog was up 5 km/h (3 mph), to 120 km/h (75 mph).

When I wrote that sentence, I deliberately did not convert the 5km/h part, because it was unnecessary and a hindrance to understanding. I did convert the resulting top speed, because it suffices. I won't make any changes to Cervo yet, but a large number of your edits did not improve the article. A lot of them were useful though, and I don't want to throw out the good with the bad.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What comes to the table weight wrote like this 650 (670) kg is very confusing anyway, it does not get any more messy that it was already, nobody knows what the hell means that another weight, the redirects will be converted like that not only that script but all bots will do it, that redirect should be reomoved alltogether if we dont want to use it, redirects always goes over anchors. Every edit I made made that article more easily understandadble for people using different units. Also its on conventions to use XXX cc with space. Also refs were made more better by the script, you converted all improvements back-->Typ932 ^T·C 18:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you can not in honesty claim that your version of the table is more legible or understandable. Yes, there should be a space, but your version is a mess. The parenthesis for the (automatic) a not uncommon method. you did not reply to my other issue (5 km/h, 120 km/h). Please refrain from using the bots indiscriminately. You made some improvements, but some of the edits were plain disruptive. I will go back and repair and rewrite a lot of what you did, but please try to be a bit more careful in the future.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry but you should stop reverting improvements, if you think you are right in certaint things you should only change those things not all changes, next time try to be more carefully with your reverts. 99% of those changes were improvements to that article, only things is that weight table, which maybe is slightly more messy, but it should have been more clear at first place, if you revert certain improvments again, I need to revert those again, so just use your head and think something before reverting blindly, thx -->Typ932 ^T·C 17:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yulon edits

I did remove the list of models made. While I saved most of this content on List of Nissan vehicles Yulon Motors has built under license, I don't think it belongs on the page because it will be hard to cite. As there's almost no way to determine if this is actually a list of models Yulon Motors made or if its simply a list of Nissans, I don't think there's much of a reason to include it or even include a link to the list. Fleetham (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "save" the info. on the SouEast page in an easily-accessible form, but maybe I should treat it like I did with Yulon Motors.

And I wasn't planning to spend much more time on the Yulon Motors page but will try harder to source citations that support removed material. A lot of it seemed to be "native knowledge" and not easily sourced. I won't replace anything I can't cite. Fleetham (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Volvo 240 Trim levels

thanks for going to the effort of referencing the meanings. all of my material is literally 17,000km away on the other side of the planet and getting anything here in iceland is nigh on impossible. another source although i can´t quite remember if it works for the luxe model is the actual badges on the back on the 140 series that actually explicitly say "deLuxe" and "Grand Luxe" although i have read L being referred to as Luxe explicitly i can´t remember for the life of me where... cheers aagin --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to be sure

"are there any cases of this sort of policy having been applied heavy-handedly (or abused) in the Wikipedia universe?"

Where you not around when this happened?AerobicFox (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Separating vehicles by generation rather than powertrain or trim level

Hi, I am just dropping a note to inform you of a discussion currently taking place here (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Mass article merger). In summary, WikiProject Automobiles is soliciting opinions based on the separation of automobile articles by generation, as opposed to other means such as powertrain or trim level. For example, rather than having an article on the Audi S3, the Audi A3 article would be split into two sub-articles (one for each generation), and the S3 content would be moved to the appropriate location. This would place automobiles with common engineering in the same place, as opposed to grouping by a mere marketing term. Since separate articles are always provided to detail the powertrain (engine and transmission, et cetera), the partitioning of articles based on this principle is superfluous (the powertrain is only briefly discussed in the article about the car). The reason for giving the actual powertrain a separate article is to cut down on overlap: engines and transmissions are almost universally used in more than one model.

This message will be/has been posted on the talk page of all editors who contributed to the previous discussion at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 23:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you are not an electric car person, you seem to not have much of a clue about this subject. Being an electric car person I do appreciate as do everyone else I know, separate articles. If you do not appreciate them or understand why we want separate articles, that is fine. Stay out of our business. We don't care what you do with articles which are not electric, and I personally don't care about hybrids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by High voltage41 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Columbia University Library

Dear Mr.choppers! Are you living in New York? Is it possible to scan some pages from a script holding by Columbia University Library? I can't get this script anywhere here in Germany, so I am very hoping to get any help from you. Thank you very much for an assent or a reply. Greetings, Doc Taxon (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Give me the info of what you are looking for, I'll see what I can do. I'm quite busy, but I would love to be able to help.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Super! I am looking for

• Mapanza Nkwilimba and Roy Clarke: Gabon Aftermath: the mistreatment of the football widows. Zambia Association for Research and Development, Lusaka 1994, ISBN 9982818228. http://clio.cul.columbia.edu:7018/vwebv/holdingsInfo?bibId=1760088

It is of 22 pages only, so it were not much work, to make scans and to send by email. I would be very grateful. Doc Taxon (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Could it be possible? Doc Taxon (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It does not seem to be accessible to the public, but I have asked a friend of mine who works at Columbia to help me out. It is also stored offsite and will take two or three days to retrieve, should it be possible. I'll get back to you as soon as I know more.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You got a wikimail now! Doc Taxon (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Special Barnstar
		For Mr. Choppers - to a cool guy and a Wikipedia asset for sure

Hello fellow New Yorker! (I'm a skeptic and atheist-I think.. too) Thanks for the compliments. My username says it all I guess, but I'm an (any) post-war Chevy fan and Corvette C3 fan as well...and yes, I did get carried away with the Vega article. It's been trimmed down now and a couple of seperate articles were made (Astre, Cosworth Vega and GM-Wankel) Regards. Vegavairbob (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

My first barnstar! Thanks Bob!  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome!! Regards.Vegavairbob (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz History edit

Dear Mr Choppers

I am completely new to all Wikipedia editing in slightly more advanced form. I notice that you have done some editining on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz and hope maybe you would be able to help out...

In the bottom there is a fantastic time-line. I would like to add the fact that there is a new version of the SLK from 2011 and that it has internal code R172

If you would be able to edit it would be great.

If I have used the "talk" in a wrong way please let me know.

rgds /Mats

90.227.116.147 (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Kirrat (Template:Mercedes-Benz vehicles). Du kan titta under history-fliken för att se hur jag gjorde det. Också suddade jag bort din e-mail ovanför, eftersom den här sidan är synlig för alla. Och välkommen till Wikipedia - jag skulle rekommendera att starta en egen userpage.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yulion motors explanation

Kinda difficult to explain, but you made the citations for that MIT thesis so that the first one would link to the file and subsequent ones said "Chen, pg. 24".

I changed the "first one" from page 16 (which names Yulon Motors as incorporated in Sep. '53) to page 24 (which has the most number of uses in the article). I increased the probability that someone clicking on a citation superscript would be directed to the citation that includes a link to the file.

Does it make any more sense now? I'm sure I could be more perspicuous. Fleetham (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need or requirement for the "first one" to also be the most cited. And no, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I really honestly want to help you out, but it seems that I don't know how to explain very basic things. I don't know if I'm lacking or if you are, but I give up. Henceforth, I am just going to go ahead and clean up the messes you make and will no longer ask you for help nor for explanations.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

131

I use widescreen 21.5 display, and that page had lots of white space around 15 centimers after series 1 section because those images in right we situated below each other and there isnt so much text,after series 2 section there was as much white space next to the engine table as the whole table took. Maybe we need some expert to say which is best layout for most screens -->Typ932 ^T·C 16:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)