User talk:Mr.choppers

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

  Babel:

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

Hi Mr Chopper:

The photo of the yellow Saab Sonett on Wikipedia from Lime Rock is my car. Nice picture. My only comment is about the comment. You indicated that the mirrors were incorrect, as they were supposed to be black, rectangular. The 1974 Saab Full line brochure shows a Sonett with chrome Talbot style mirrors. This is shown in a link from Hemming’s which follows.

https://www.hemmings.com/stories/2019/10/17/what-a-car-should-be-1974-saab-full-line-brochure

It is my understanding that the mirrors were dealer installed (in the US), and both styles were used.

Thanks for the good picture. Romanpart (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Romanpart: Thanks for the clarification! I will correct the description. Great car, thanks for showing and sharing. I remember chatting with you briefly (it was probably raining). Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I notice there are so many vandalism on the articles of Livan Automotive so I revert them all.

And I want to clarify some facts regarding with those articles. The Maple, Shanghai Maple Auto, and Livan Automotive are actually same company that evolved in name and capital structure in past decade. The original article Shanghai Maple has been moved to Maple (marque) by author Jengtingchen in October 28, 2020, and furtherly moved to Livan Automotive by me in May 17, 2023. (please see the contribution history of Livan Automotive). The vandal revert those edit thus created so many chaos and I just try to fix it.

Thank you. Infinty 0 (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

fancy name for brand. I suggest keeping Shanghai Maple and Livan Automotive as separate articles since the two brands are clearly distinct.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The text of this edit extremely closely paraphrases this source, (copyvios report) to the extent it is a copyright violation. Please be more careful going forward to be sure you are writing articles in your own words. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: - thank you - fyi, I didn't actually write this text, I just moved this paragraph from Livan Automotive (see old version). After a bit of sleuting, the text in question seems to have been originally added to an an earlier version by User:Jengtingchen. He was recently blocked for similar copyvios but appears to have taken it to heart and improved considerably as a result. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, thanks for letting me know. Your name came up on Who Wrote That, and I didn't think to check if you had moved the text from an existing article. That name is actually familiar to me as just yesterday I caught a copyvio they had added to Nissan Sentra. I'm not a car expert, so if I removed something important, please feel free to rewrite it and return it to the article. I took a look at some of the articles you've worked on and everything looked good, so I was wondering why this one edit by you had an issue. Glad to see you already understand copyright, keep up the good work on car articles.

This came up because I saw Shanghai Maple in the queue at New pages patrol, and I was about to mark it as reviewed but I found an issue on my copyvio check. I'm no longer worried about copyvio now, so I will mark it as reviewed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: - thank you, absolutely no need to feel bad at all. Best regards,  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what the new Lexus GX and Prado model codes are? I had a quick search and didn't find anything. I suspect somebody took the old J150 code and just added 100 but Toyota doesn't follow a very consistent pattern with the GX and Prado.  Stepho  talk  02:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably correct, I missed the earlier conversation and only saw the one cryptic edit summary. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did some more digging. https://www.drive.com.au/news/2024-toyota-prado-imagined-from-lexus-gx/ says that it will probably be badged as the 250 series and guesses that that reflects the model code. The smart guys at ih8mud.com are calling it the LC250 (dropping the Prado name in N.America). I've also seen some mentions of LC180 at team-bhp.com but that might only be a guess. Hopefully Toyota/Lexus will put some nice brochures on their Japanese site when it is released for sale - they typically mention full model codes there.  Stepho  talk  05:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stepho-wrs: yeah, no rush I suppose.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jidu Auto, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

CNMall41 (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nissan Pathfinder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page OHV.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Lumpenproletariat, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

There was a typo (give-speed manual) on the page prior to the removal. I reverted your edit since the trim section was already poorly written, and edited often by IPs, please don't revert every single edit done by an LTA or sockpuppet.

E.g. Alex Neman and MrDavr are both constructive editors, so revert them carefully. Thank you.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted because of restoring a poorly written section to a article. This is contrary to Wikipedia's rules.

95.12.39.6 (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewrote the section. Thankfully you didn't restore the "give-speed manual" typo. 95.12.39.6 (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello- Is your Dodge Ram van photo available for download to use for a cardboard cutout as party decor? If not, what is the cost to purchase a download? 2601:742:8000:87E0:E817:57D3:E349:629B (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anything on Wikipedia is freely licensed; the info is on the Commons page of whatever photo it is. Usually we request credit (like having "Mr.choppers @ Wikipedia" printed somewhere on the photo) but you do whatever you feel like. Have a good party.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- the photo you posted is of my car, which raced in the 348 Challenge series in 1995. Your annotation incorrectly states it never raced. The livery it currently wears is replicating that with which it raced at Moroso Motorsports Park in 1995. Can you please correct the note? Great pic, btw! 173.56.86.235 (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Thank you for the notice, great car. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  10:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you updated it already, thanks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, my parents bought a 1980 Buick LeSabre with the 350 Olds Diesel engine. I know the LeSabre article is uncited, but I thought I saw evidence of this on brochures. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Mr.Choppers, I have started a discussion at AN/I regarding Antares600's disruptive editing. The thread is here if you have any input. --Sable232 (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I have no idea what you are talking about. For the purposes of the

No, car and carmaker are not synonyms, thus no tautology. Produce and manufacturer are not synonyms. You are confusing the words manufacture and manufacturer, it seems. A writer writes things; also not a tautology. "Automaker" is in no way uncommon; I got 36,900,000 results with Google.  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologise for perhaps overreacting the other day. I think I was feeling stressed and allowed a minor pet peeve to get to me far more than it should. I hope you are doing well and wish you a happy new year. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanBodyPiloter5: Cheers, and Happy New Year. I do not think you have any need to apologize; I hope I didn't come across as overly negative either. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Simca Vedette. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to engage in gatekeeping of knowledge. Having articles at titles that only make sense to a very small number of people goes against all standard Wikipedia practice and also my basic ethical standards. If me

Excellent idea. From

WP:CRITERIA

: "When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent."

Such as how we use Toyota codes (

Mercedes-Benz W114).  Stepho  talk

 

There is a reason that consistency comes last in the list there. A consistently bad naming scheme is still a bad naming scheme. There is nothing recognisable or natural about a random series of numbers and/or letters as a disambiguator, whereas specifying the generation or the year the article subject entered production is far more natural and recognisable to a layperson while still being equally precise in most cases (the Corolla might be an exception, but it is a rare one). In most cases "[model name] (UIKLHUKAIGEASIOFUHYSDIKFHUSDIFHSDKILFLJ57839845734890573490825580934750375893475893027530758340397384973249889534298283952347)" is a fairly extreme case of

WP:OVERPRECISION. Whilst "[model name] ([nth] generation)" might be less concise than "[model name] (JQ83)" or whatever, that is not a major concern with the "[model name] (YYYY)" format. I am objectively correct here. I cannot comprehend what purpose using article titles that require pre-existing specialist knowledge to understand serves other than gatekeeping, which I view as being antithetical to the core concept of Wikipedia. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Please also note here that how Toyota or BMW articles are disambiguated is not directly relevant to how the articles on the Alfa Romeo Giulia and Maserati Ghibli should be disambiguated, and that there is a clear precedent with the Dodge Charger for disambiguating articles about reused nameplates like that in a manner that actually makes sense to someone who doesn't work for the company that makes the car. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanBodyPiloter5: as I explained to you already: either work to have the policy changed or redefined, or follow it. This is a collaborative project and you cannot unilaterally change how things are done. Discuss things. Communicate.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that I forgot to add a source, I just added a source, SEAT's UK boss hinted that SEAT will still make cars and will also debut an entry-level EV. 212.154.66.111 (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hints are not enough to add it to WP; except maybe as a brief mention at

WP:BALL.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

So I think I was right to delete one of my edits to the fugazza page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fugazza&diff=prev&oldid=1199066218) and one to the must page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Must&diff=prev&oldid=1199066397). JackkBrown (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. I am not the arbiter of everything, but I think those navboxes make sense on those pages. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.choppers: I refer to "collapsed". JackkBrown (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: you deleted the entire navbox at Gelato, not just the "Collapsed" parameter. I guess I do not understand what you are trying to accomplish? In general, I recommend not using your phone to edit as it causes a lot of trouble, especially with layouts and wikicode stuff.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said "don't use the comma-seperated related models and it looking like the Leon is unsourced", but you kept restoring the edit with the unsourced data and comma-seperated related models. I'm not going to start an edit war, just need help. 212.154.66.111 (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Slapped I got, and justly, too. Thanks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to ask for your advice regarding the "custom car" and "car tuning" articles since you're one of the most active editors on automotive Wikipedia. The custom car article was previously someone's rambling passion project where they chronicled the American hot rod and kustom car scene in great detail, and i've slowly been trying to remove a lot of the excessive detail and make it into an article that focuses on car customization as a practice more generally (i'm still far from done). I've also done a little work on the car tuning article which was just generally a sloppy and inaccurate article. What i'm wondering though, is what direction do you think these articles should be taken in? I'm not sure whether they should be merged, kept separate, and if the latter, where the line should be drawn as to what fits in each article. Would love to here what you think. TKOIII (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TKOIII: thanks for including me - as a nerd for originality, I am not particularly interested in customized/tuned cars. There is obviously a need for article(s), but I can also see them becoming dumping grounds for random people's pet interest and thousand-picture galleries. While there is a distinction between the terms, it may be one of those "I knows it when I sees it" situations. Personally I think English WP is a bit too obsessed with merging articles when there is overlap (like pickup and ute), so I lean towards keeping both.

I guess my short answer is that you've taken on a big and thankless job; I am perfectly content to focus on the things I care about and leave these two to the wolves, but I will be happy to check in and make sure that we maintain an encyclopaedic tone over there. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr.choppers!

• The
  New Pages Patrol
  is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read
  project talk page
  with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider
  applying here
  .

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I'd go so far as to call the Police Special Sierra a hoax (there were images of the vehicle in police livery among the cited sources), but I agree that surely, better sources should be available than enthusiast forums. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were absolutely British Police Sierras, but User:Sheriff LeMans is saying that there was a US-market SSP with a Cosworth engine and that these were then exported back to Europe. This is not true, and the sources do not support it.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, gotcha. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at

Draft:Michelotti Shellette. Thanks! Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Nissan TD engine. Thanks! Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Johannes Maximilian was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nissan TD engine and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at

Draft:Michelotti Shellette. Thanks! Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Michelotti Shellette, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For that thread, yes I ended up there because of your thread on ANI. I just wanted to show there is another editor with the same perspective as yourself and it's not just you going against the other editor. It's meant to be supportive. Canterbury Tail talk 18:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail: - thank you; this is a permanent issue at FSO Polonez and not only with that one user. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Where is Kate? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.