Voting evidence at the ArbCom 2017 election
BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
END PGP MESSAGE-----
Disambiguation link notification for October 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maserati MC12, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Targa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
IGI 2 article
Just wanted to say that my edit summary was referring to the article talkpage, not mine. I've created the entry here. Eik Corell (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.supercars.net/forum/threads/the-worlds-only-lotus-esprit-gt1-gt2-race-car.45933/. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Disambiguation link notification for December 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aria FXE, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HRE (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ferrari F40, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amalgam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ferrari 348, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leonardo Fioravanti (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
incorrect source of Ferrari production
This source is not correct, examples:
456 GT and GTA
Total production: 1,936
Ferrari states 1951 made!
Total production: 500.
Ferrari states 400 made!
Total production: 380.
Total production: 558
Please do not use this source in the future
Use my source that is based on Ferrari sourced material: http://www.bozhdynsky.com/tipos/ferrari-tipos/
Disambiguation link notification for January 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited McLaren F1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Stevens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ford GT90, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dearborn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 26
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- BMW Nazca C2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Formula One Grand Prix
- Lamborghini Jalpa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Sant'Agata
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Koenigsegg Regera weight
I started a discussion about the weight of the Koenigsegg Regera at Talk:Koenigsegg Regera that you might want to participate in. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
XP5 Nordschleife lap time
Can you join the discussion in the "XP5 Prototype hoax" section at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Nürburgring_Nordschleife_lap_times ? Drachentötbär (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- As this is already established that the lap time was a hoax, it was removed. Unless it is proven that it wasn't a hoax, it shouldn't be added back.U1Quattro (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- "As this is already established that the lap time was a hoax" when was it established that this lap time was a hoax? I've found the discussion on List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times talk page, but so far all I see is speculation that the lap time given by Evo, was taken from Wikipedia. Has there been some proof either way regarding this claimed lap time? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Is there actually some proof that the lap time was real and not false? Because the talk page established that it was added without any source and then the controversial Evo source was added which had the same lap time copied from that unsourced time.U1Quattro (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, we have the Evo source. Evo is considered to be a reliable source. When was it established that Evo copied their time from Wikipedia? Did they make a statement or something? Reliable sources are to be trusted, that's the way Wikipedia works. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- They didn't replied to an email sent by a user from the discussion. You obviously haven't read the conversation.U1Quattro (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that in order for any source to be considered reliable, that source has to reply to e-mails from Wikipedia editors? And yes, I have read the discussion and saw nothing proving that the time or source are not to be trusted. I'm still interested in actual proof that the claimed time is inaccurate and/or that Evo took the time from the Wikipedia article, is there such proof, or is there just speculation that a highly respected automotive publication isn't a reliable source without any proof to back up that speculation? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Since you're so interested in that lap time, why don't you prove it?U1Quattro (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Mainly because I don't have to, we have reliable sources that we trust. Do I need to explain to you how and why we use sources, rather than saying "why don't you prove it?" to everyone who introduces content that we don't agree with? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Unless and until it is proven that a lap time is real and not fake, it's not being put back. Even reliable sources like Evo can be wrong sometimes.U1Quattro (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that just isn't how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia works by identifying reliable and verifiable sources and introducing content based on those sources. We don't come to conclusions. Statements like "Unless and until it is proven that a lap time is real and not fake, it's not being put back." don't mean a single thing on Wikipedia, and has zero effect on content being removed or kept. You might want to read about Wikipedia policy before you make similar statements again. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the edit was vandalism
Why would an addition for a Nurg time on the M5 be vandalism? 2601:205:8080:1154:ED7C:42FA:29AD:869A (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC).
A) It was not sourced properly and there hasn't been an official Nurburgring time for the M5 yet.
B) It was an attempt to overstate the M5's performance.
U1Quattro (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ferrari 488, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ferrari 308 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
This seems strange, on my display the photos look to be in the proper size, what do they look like on your end? Toasted Meter (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Also what resolution is your display? Toasted Meter (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- I like your solution in the E90 section. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Haven't taken screen shots but they look oversized on my end. Hence they were put in that format which seemed feasible.U1Quattro (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- The gallery template looks to have some scaling problems. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- That could be the case, the gallery should be scaled down to the right size then if it's going to be used.U1Quattro (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
British spelling: publicly or publically
In your update note to Ferrari_488, you wrote:
A word doesn't need a source. However, you might add one if you feel necessary. Both variations are equally permissible with "Publically" being more commonly used.
You're making a claim that "publically" is the normal British spelling. I provided you with statistical data from a British source indicating that this spelling is used only about 3% of the time.
So I'm not asking you to provide a "source" for a word, I'm asking you to provide any kind of "indicative" information to support your claim that "publically" is the preferred British spelling.
Based on your logic (that no evidence of any sort is required to justify using a "rare" spelling, claiming it's actually the "common" spelling), I should be able to edit any article, changing the spelling of as many words as I want to have bizarre spellings, and nobody should be able to challenge that, because I say so.
How does that possibly make any sense? Fabrickator (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- The wording has been changed to avoid any further conflicts thus ending this argument.U1Quattro (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vector M12, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Stevens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- You asked for a history-merge of these files, or similar. What in detail do you want to be done with these two pages? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I requested a speedy deletion as this article has material copied from the Aston Martin DB11 page.U1Quattro (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi U1Quattro, and thank you for your contributions.
I'm somewhat puzzled about why you nominated this article for speedy deletion.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Just to clarify:
- "getter desveiptio og thid aerticl/"?
- Looking into this, it appears that this part of the message was still in draft form when the "Publish changes" button was clicked by User:Shirt58's cat.
- Apologies for that. I have had the "please do not dance on my computer keyboard when I am away from my desk" conversation with her a number of times, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- The article is based on what is already mentioned in the Ferrari 612 page. Meaning that the article is useless as there is already a detailed description of the GG50 in the 612 article. Furthermore it is poorly structured and has material copy/pasted from what is mentioned in the GG50 heading in the Ferrari 612 article. That is a reason good enough that the article should be removed.U1Quattro (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Understood. I acknowledge such accidents happen. I have had those done by my pet dog.U1Quattro (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Koenigsegg Agera. This is known as "edit warring" and is seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors.
A block will result if the edit warring continues, to prevent disruption caused by edit warring. You should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount.
This is actually the second time you're edit warring on this page. I looked up the edit history. The last time was ten months ago, and I don't know why you consider those edits "inacceptable" (actually spelled "unacceptable"). The anonymous user edited the page first. The IP address left you a message today explaining the reason for removal.
There are other infoboxes with an edit note without links, like ones for bands ("See Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians" was the edit note).
Wikipedia is a place where everyone has the right to edit. It's an encyclopedia with topics on just about every single thing in the universe. It's not a place to waste energy and time arguing about a little thing when you edited second.
In order to prevent an edit war, I'm going to leave it the way the anonymous user left it. As that user said, there are other edit notes without links, and they are invisible, therefore they are unnecessary. I never see anyone who treats the removal of something unneeded like it's a big deal. It's a waste of your and their time to keep edit warring. Please accept this edit. Note that I'm a rollbacker.
The IP fixed your writing a little, so I will guess your first language may not be English. Consider using a spellchecker.
Dolfinz1972 (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- I made a typo. That isn't a big deal at all. Plus you're from the US, not from Europe. There are differences in British and American English. If you actually see the edit summaries, I mentioned that the unlinking done by the anonymous user was not a typo as they mentioned it. They should've given appropriate reasons for removal. If they had done it in the edit summary, it would've been a lot better. You're a rollbacker, not an admin. You have no right to treat me like this because of the fault of an anonymous user in that they removed the links without any reasonable explanation.U1Quattro (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Dodge Viper (ZB II)
Reviewed. A bit of work to be done on citations. Try not to claim too much - leave that to the manufacturers. Just concentrate on demonstrable facts and you will be okay. Deb (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I think its general rule in auto articles that we use manufacturer data, and there is good reason for it, there is thousands of Independently tested performance data available in internet, we can never be sure they are measured in right manner, of course there is good additional data available, but 0-100 km/h or 0-60 mph and top speed values should come from manufacturer if that data is available. And if we use other than manufacuter data that should told in article, references alone dont tell that until you go and read that article. If Im not totally wrong this thing is discussed in past in WP:Automobiles -->Typ932 T·C 20:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes but road and track along with car and driver are reliable independent testers. In the absence of manufacturer performance data, their tested data is used commonly. Plus I think Wikipedia guidelines do not allow citations from theamufacturer to be used in the articles. U1Quattro (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Independent times can also be useful to provide a more complete picture of cars made by manufacturers who quote times significantly lower than tested times. Mentioning the source in the text is fine. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed. A change of heading with the description for a source is a more suitable choice. U1Quattro (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lamborghini Countach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horacio Pagani (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I would repeat my above comments about the language in these articles. So much of it sounds like you took it straight off an advert. Try not to use words like "features", "offers" and "available": These are standard advertising jargon. Deb (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Any guidance regarding the above matter because I can't think of other suitable words like these about an automobile. U1Quattro (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
- Thank you so much. U1Quattro (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Alpina B3 N55/N54
I think you must have missed my comment on the talk page, "two new small turbochargers instead of the single unit" is very confusing when the car you are talking about came with the twin turbo N54 and the single turbo N55. This change needs to be mentioned and the N54 should be mentioned first. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Both of the engines were twin-turbocharged in the B3 so it's not that important because the engine codes aren't mentioned in the sentence.U1Quattro (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- "instead of the single unit" implies that all the motors had a single turbo. The N54 is also only mentioned once on the entire page, if you look in the infobox you only see the N55. Toasted Meter (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
It is not confirmed whether the car used the N54 or the N55, some sources say the N54, some say the N55. U1Quattro (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Ways to improve Ligier JS2 R
Thanks for creating Ligier JS2 R.
A New Page Patroller Willsome429 just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:
Headings need to follow sentence case - unless it is a proper noun, only the first word is capitalized. Also, citations do not belong in headings, you can just add a source line under the heading. Thank you for creating the article.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know why you're removing links to Lamborghini Aventador, but the first one of those I noticed (at Millisecond) is a perfectly normal link. This is normal article, and links to it are perfectly valid. Please stop unless you can establish some sort of consensus for doing this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm going to guess that it was an accidental use of Twinkle's unlink feature. I've gone ahead and rolled them all back, but please be more careful. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes it was the accidental use of the unlink feature. I was attempting to create an article on the Lamborghini Veneno and during that process, this disruption happened. I sincerely apologise for the inconvenience. U1Quattro (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- No worries then, it's all cleaned up now. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Voting evidence at the ArbCom 2018 election
BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
END PGP MESSAGE----- U1Quattro
) 04:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Alpina articles: some remarks
I have noticed your recent and great work on Alpina-related articles. It is really great to have more articles about this company and you have done a fantastic job. Yet, I have some remarks (please do not take it the wrong way, French people like me always criticise everything!). I have largely re-written the French article about Alpina since 2014 but I do not speak English well enough to do the same here, so my contributions on that topic have been more sparse.
As you have noticed, the company is not well-known. Quality references often lack. Many journalists actually make mistakes because they do not check properly what they write. Hence, as you may have noticed, some articles say Alpina cars are based on BMW M vehicles (whereas it is never the case), others are wrong about the engine (for example, they say the current B4S uses a B58 engine whereas it is sill the N55), some were even contradictory. Etc, etc, etc. These issues were a real pain when I worked on the French article as I had to be really careful when selecting sources. Good luck.
I have seen some missing information you could add to make articles complete and near-perfect:
- Concerning the B6 E63, you should add racing results of the GT3 racecar since it has won races and a championship (with teams, pilots, etc). Additionally, the car got a mid-life update with improvements and a new engine.
- Concerning the B6 F12/F13/F06, you completely missed the engine updates (sorry). While the Cabriolet was indeed first unveiled with the 507 PS engine of the B5 in September 2011, it never made it into production. It directly got the 540 PS engine, just like the Coupé (Alpina Modellhistorie ). Then there was the 600 PS (and not 600 hp) Edition 50 limited edition of the Coupé and Cabriolet). And then they all got a 600 PS engine as standard until the end of the production.
- Concerning the B6 F06 Gran Coupé, it is also not true to say it was exclusive to the US. This is an US bias. The Gran Coupé was available worldwide where Alpina was, plus in the United States and Canada exclusively through BMW as an "official" BMW (same for the B7 since E65, and Z8).
- Finally, I have also noticed you forgot the updated D3 E90. There a was at first a single-turbo D3 as said in the article, then it has been replaced by a more powerful double-turbo Bi-Turbo D3.
I hope you will be able to correct this better than I could.
PS: if you really drive a Lotus Carlton as said on your user page, you are really lucky! I envy you :)
Kind regards, NemesisIII (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC).
Thank you for your kind words. It has really motivated me to write more on this company. This is really the underdog of German perfomance cars. You're right in saying that the internet lacks reliable information and honest reviews about Alpina automobiles. I honestly didn't know that the B6 Cabriolet had a 540 PS engine from the start until you told me. The rest of the information you mentioned also couldn't be researched because of lack of sources. Could you please tell me where I will be able to find the information about the B6 GT3's full racing history? Even sources in French much would count, because researching about the B3 (E90) was a daunting task indeed since there were the absence of reviews from known automotive magazines. Only Autocar reviewed it until I got hold of the Alpina registry.
Edit: I did mention about the D3 (E90) being a twin turbo car. Turbo diesel doesn't mean am engine with a single turbocharger. It can have multiple meanings.
Yes, I do have a Lotus Carlton and I love that car. It's fun to drive and equally fast. But I've been so impressed by Alpina after writing these articles that I'd also buy one and use the Carlton and the new car both (I'm undecided on which one to buy for now). Cheers.U1Quattro (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Just to elaborate a bit more on the differences, this should provide enough info to identify a pre TU M52 at a glance.
M52 single VANOS (note the protrusion at the front of the valve cover)
M52 dual VANOS (note the smooth front of the valve cover)
Toasted Meter (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- One other note, all Alpina E46s use the M52 as well. Toasted Meter (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think the Roadster S uses an M52 as customer cars were converted to the Roadsrer S sepcification as Alpina Register points out. Alpina used the existing M54 and enlarged it in those cars. Unless you have a reliable source pointing out it's an M52, this can't be put over there.U1Quattro (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- I can see absolutely no reason to make a 3.4 liter M54 when you have a M52 already made in the correct displacement, I can't prove it never existed but we have no proof it did, and we know that a S52B32 block was used (you can also see this here in the B3 S parts catalog ) and that the head is a pre TU M52/S52, simply because no M54 head looked anything like it. I looked at all the photos on Alpina Register that showed the motor and all of them definitely had a pre TU M52 head. If we have an iron S52B32 block with a single VANOS head we know that none of those parts could be from a M54. and and additionally we have no proof that any were fitted with an M54. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- The articles say that the engine traces its roots back to the E36 M3 which had used both the S52 and the S54 so the M52 claim cannot be true. Also no one said that the engine had a single VANOS system like you put it. The engine was bored out to 3.4-litres because the M54 wasn't available in 3.4-litres, neither was the M52. The M54 also used an iron block and had proved its age. That's why it was discontinued. As I said, unless you can prove that its an M52, the M54 stays because I see no reason in downgrading to an older engine.U1Quattro (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- We know precisely what block it used, the parts catalogue for the B3 S (which we have a cite saying "it was powered by their recently enhanced 6 cylinder 3.4 Litre engine as found in the B3s" regarding the roadster) says it has a bored S52B32 block. And we know it is single VANOS by looking at the motor and noting the single VANOS head. Also the E36 M3 never had a S54, and the M54 never had an iron block (the S54 did but it has very little in common with the M54). Not using one's eyes to make reasonable conclusions in the face of a lack of sources is puzzling, by looking at the motor we can determine many things, no ITBs so not a S50 or S54, no raw aluminum valve cover so not a M20 or M30, protrusion on the valve cover so not a M54 or M52 TU, and that leaves us with.... Toasted Meter (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think "Basic engine is the S52B32 (E36 M3 US; grey cast iron crankcase)." is about as definitive as it gets. Toasted Meter (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- I had mistook the M3 for the Z3 for which I apologise. It was the Z3 M which had used the S54 engine alongside the M3 (E46). Plus the Alpina press release states that "The engine is a well known friend from the 3 Series so it doesn't specifically points out to which engine has been used.U1Quattro (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- That line from the press release is ambiguous in a vacuum, but by looking at the motor we can figure out they were referring to the also S52B32 based E46 B3. We have no reason to continue having the M54 on the page, we have zero proof that a M54 was ever fitted and very much reason to think it was not. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'd just remove the engine codes.U1Quattro (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- On the page already is "The engine was essentially an enlarged version of the S52 engine" and we have a cite saying it's based on the S52B32. Toasted Meter (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- Then it's an S52, not an M52 like you put it.U1Quattro (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
A cheeseburger for you!
||Thanks for your hard work on most Toyota articles and talkpages !!! – I hope you have a wonderful day and see you in the near future :). Merry Xmas EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much. U1Quattro (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Okay. Please also help me to achieve better photos. I learn from other editors. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 04:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Some of your photos are good no doubt, but you should know the difference between a modified car and a stock car.U1Quattro (talk) 07:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Like quality wise mate, how can I achieve them to make them to QI. I want the best shots possible. —EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- You should see OSX's along with M-93's shots for guidance. They take the best shots on wiki commons as far as I have observed.U1Quattro (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- I did use OSX and M 93 as guideline back when I started out in 2017 which I then later begin doing it in my own style. I really think Nim should work in different sections, I pity him begging at users to find ways to get a upper advantage like it some game by sending random WikiLove messages. --Vauxford (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Vauxford. Would you mind your own business. I can work on whatever sections I wish. Its Wikipedia, not a personal website. Everyone can contribute as many images as they wish. Focus on providing your own images, and I'll focus on doing it 'by the books'. Everyone has ways to edit. Theres plenty of chances for me to showcase later on, but you still have some badly cropped images, which I know could be improved. I like to learn, so therefore U1Quattro can mentor me in providing good shots, I don't mind and also I will work on any section as I wish. If you don't like my edit, and revert it, please utilise WP:BRD as it links to WP:CONSENSUS & WP:BOLD. You should also note that I do not replace all the time, a lot of your shots are decent, however its important that everyone can contribute to an effective degree. I can ask for as much help as I need, thats what Wikipedia is there for. Also I've asked you to focus on vehicles more prominent in Europe such as Ford, BMW, Jaguar, Mercedes-Benz, Land Rover etc. whilst I focus on the Asian and other non-European example. We established a compromise on this discussion with Oshwah. I am beginning to now use consensus, as then we learn how to do it well. In fact, I recall some of the edits, you revert from me are because of the condition of the vehicle. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- U1Quattro. No worries --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- As you've pointed out, condition of the vehicle is also a main factor in the photos. The vehicles should be clean and tidy and as far as possible, free of rust and corrosion. You also need to stop repetitive mentions of where the photo is taken, it kind of becomes annoying. The readers can see the photo location by clicking on the photo.U1Quattro (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Also, please don't use my talk page as a warzone. You both can settle your differences at your own respective talk pages.U1Quattro (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thankyou for your advice. Have a nice Xmas --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 08:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Dry weight in the infobox
I started a discussion about dry weight in the infobox at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_automobile . You're welcome to participate. Drachentötbär (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Casio AE-1000W, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Water resistance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your latest edit on the Ferrari F12 article; the overall content of it was pretty solid. However, the edit was riddled with typos, for instance, "havig" "tot he" "ans", as well as other grammatical errors. I see you a lot on Wiki and you're a great editor but it would be appreciated if you could take a little more time and make sure that as you're improving an article, that you're not also introducing new problems for other editors. TKOIII (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm experiencing some problems with my laptop. That's why the typos have increased in number. I hope to have it fixed soon.U1Quattro (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited BMW M1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bosch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aston Martin DBS V12, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aston Martin V8 Vantage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)