User talk:Mr.choppers/Archive 6

• Interesting looking little car, one I've not heard of. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I was excited when I saw and photographed it, then I was exasperated when there was no article in which I could place the image, then I was excited again to realize that I could now make a needed new article rather than just a DYK-fishing one. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It was probably inadvertent from an edit conflict, but another editor erased one of your posts here. Just a collegial head's-up. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, very kind. And yes, appears accidental for sure. Another editor already restored my comment so I feel properly taken care of.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if there's some sort of personal issue on your part, but I've noticed you seem to be going out of your way, to revert photo edits I have made that seem to be based on 'personal feelings' rather than actual Wikipedia violations. As someone who is doing such things, I'd expect the person in question to be following Wikipedia guidelines to the utmost. Immediately, I realized you have not followed essential Wikipedia guidelines, on any of the occasions I've seen you revert edits. Viewing the [Resolution] page on Wikipedia, it quite clearly states: To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war. Vague comments like "better photo for main infobox" and "please stop adding lamp photos," does not follow the clear guidelines of always explaining your changes in the edit summary and if an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. The notion that your revisions are based on either personal vendetta or personal feelings, are further made valid by the fact many many other editors have also made changes in the articles that you made reverts to, and none of them had any issues with the changes I made. Even taking all of that out of the equation, the fact that you did not follow the Wikipedia guidelines of clearly explaining your reverts, is enough justifications for this course of action. Please explain yourself, whatever issues you may have, and supposedly what I am doing wrong which includes whatever Wikipedia policies I'm not adhering to. Thanks. --Khemistry (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, and would like you to re-read what Stepho wrote on your talkpage here:

WP:CARPIX

, resolution is not the only thing. You will notice that I too take lots of photos, but when I change the photo in an article it is not exclusively to add one that I took myself. You, it seems, are only here to add your own photos. That other editors have made edits without reverting yours means nothing, even outright vandalism (I don't consider you a vandal) often goes unnoticed for weeks and even years.

And yes, when I realized that you were going around changing good high quality images for much lower quality efforts of your own across the board, I did walk after you to clean up. For the good of everyone, except perhaps your own ego.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, read your comments with which I agree. Could I discuss something via email? Thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but be aware that I am not an expert on Bitcoins in the least.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers: thanks, i didnt see you responded until now- i am no expert on bitcoin either. so how do I email you ?--Wuerzele (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Wuerzele:, there should be an "Email this user" option on this page. On my page it is on the left hand side.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

As the Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire sedan has undergone two generations, perhaps it would be better to separate it from the Suzuki Swift article. - Areaseven (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it still a sedan version of the Swift? I see no mention of the second gen Dzire (hate that name!) at Suzuki Swift.  Mr.choppers | ✎  11:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's still the sedan version of the Swift. No one's posted anything about the second generation model yet, but here are some useful links. - Areaseven (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Official site
• Top 10 Exciting Features of Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire
• Updated Maruti Swift and Swift Dzire Launching This Year
• Maruti Swift DZire Review

Since it is still just a variant of the Swift, I suggest keeping it in Suzuki Swift for now. If its evolutionary path begins to diverge, this will naturally no longer be the case. I added a mention of it, using one of your references above, thanks!  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, just letting you know that you have a picture posted of a Mitsubishi Expo LRV, however, the model listed is incorrect. The picture is actually of a Mitsubishi Expo; the Expo LRV is smaller and has sliding doors instead of the conventional swinging rear doors. Just an FYI. THanks! -Adam

Mr. Choppers, Just wanted to hear your thoughts on a merger between the Chevrolet Colorado and the Isuzu D-Max. From the best that I can gather, the only reason these articles are split is because of location. Regards, VX1NG (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Although it would be a big job, I support a merger of the two. I get the impression that Isuzu did most of the design for both generations, albeit using GM platforms. The original series was released as an Isuzu in 2002, GM did not start producing the North American models until 2004. It should be noted, the USA models share very few parts:

Originally planned as a joint venture with Isuzu, and sharing some common architecture with Isuzu's D-Max pickup, the Shreveport-built Colorado-and its stablemate, the GMC Canyon-has morphed through the R&D stages into its own unique entity. The only parts the new Chevy shares with the D-Max are the transfer case and dash-mounted 4WD pushbutton panel. (The D-Max, built in Thailand, isn't offered for sale in North America.) — Four Wheeler

For the second generation Chevy Colorado, General Motors do Brasil did the GM-isation of the D-Max for Asia and South America [2].

Therefore, I propose Isuzu D-Max as the head article, which would encompass:

• First generation:
  • Chevrolet Colorado (Asian/South American version; a rebadged D-Max)
  • Chevrolet Colorado (North American version; a derivative of D-Max that appears to be almost identical but enlarged in size—has otherwise the same appearance, doors, body, interior)
  • GMC Canyon (North American version; a rebadged Chevrolet Colorado)
  • Isuzu i-Series (North American version; a rebadged Chevrolet Colorado)
  • Isuzu MU7 (Asian/South American SUV version; a wagon version of the pickup)

• Second generation:
  • Chevrolet Colorado (Asian/South American version; a rebadged D-Max with different front and rear styling)
  • Chevrolet Colorado (North American version; a derivative of the Asian/South American Colorado that has revised front styling and a new interior)
  • GMC Canyon (North American version; a rebadged Chevrolet Colorado)
  • Isuzu MU-X (Asian/South American SUV version; a wagon version of the pickup)
  • Chevrolet TrailBlazer (Asian/South American SUV version; a wagon version of the pickup)

OSX (talk • contributions) 03:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I will post a merger proposal on to the respective pages. If you wouldn't mind, could you please reiterate your position there. Thanks, VX1NG (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham is in all-out edit war mode deconstructing all manner of carefully phrased sections, consensus. and then he calls his changes WP: status quo if I revert. ive seen that his talk page is full of comments from people who had similar experiences and that are not editing Bitcoin anymore. I am too tired tonight, to play this game with an insomniac. can you help?--Wuerzele (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

........ Ferrari S.p.A (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Because as with nearly all your edits, you deleted a bunch of urls in references. Go away.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, it was the proxy server I'm currently using. Thanks for letting me know, though. Ferrari S.p.A (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

When you are having a problem like this, please make a comment on the user's talk page. Simply adding something like {{subst:uw-v1|}} to the IPs talk page helps move the situation towards resolution. There is a list of the various different ones at

Yeah, I know and thank you. But of course, this editor just hops between ip's so it seems to make no difference.  Mr.choppers | ✎  11:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Editors like this one have a "signature" to their edits. Once they are blocked and then avoid the block by switching IP addresses, it is much faster to get any new IP address blocked. With a defined signature, a "4im" can be placed on the IP address and the address immediately reported as avoiding the block. This, obviously, requires that the edits have some kind of identifiable signature so it is possible to say "This new IP is the same person as this other one which was blocked. Usually they have a limited pool of IP addresses from which they can draw. The IP addresses almost always come from a single provider, which further identifies that the person on the IP is the same one as the one avoiding a block.

Yes, doing so is a bit more work. However, it should be only a few mouse clicks and a copy & paste or two to drop the templates onto their talk page and report them, when appropriate. Yeah, it can be that it just forces them to put out more effort to change their IP, which they may or may not know how to intentionally do.

On the other hand, not doing so probably keeps them on a single IP address for longer. This might make it easier to watch the contributions of the IP address for reversion.

Yet another side of it is that the edits of this particular IP were not unequivocally vandalism. The changes to the images would be more classified as a content dispute than anything. In such case you have to go back to relying on them violating

WP:3RR, which this editor appeared more than willing to do. — Makyen (talk

) 20:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Mr.choppers. You have new messages at Talk:Volkswagen Phaeton.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maserati Biturbo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KONI (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) 09:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello. In case I don't notice it myself please let me know when the U Toronto spammer (142.150.48.*) shows up again. He/she has been properly warned, and has acknowledged being warned, so a surprise might lie in wait for him. Thomas.W ^talk 09:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Will do, and thanks for making me not feel so lonesome about this particular "editor".  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you keep an eye on the Hyundai i20 article? Some user named Anand7954 insists that the main pic should be one that he took of an i20 molested with aftermarket crap. - Areaseven (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I found a fragmented article about the Nissan Lucino, which had duplicate pages for the Nissan 200SX, created by someone who wants to keep the article just the way it is, and has reverted requests for merge action. Could you take a look and see if my request for merger is unwarranted? (Regushee (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC))

I will look into it, cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It appears we have an editor who doesn't seem to recognize how disputes are resolved at Wikipedia, and currently hasn't demonstrated consensus concerning his assertions.(Regushee (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC))

Tiresome, but I'm trying to be patient with him. Btw, Japanese market name only takes precedence if English language markets are not all using the same name for a car. Hence

Mazda 3 and not "Mazda Axela". Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎ 

21:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Choppers, I seem to have run into a little dilemma. I had proposed to have the information at

I honestly am entirely confused by all of these engine names - and I am probably not alone. Since GM uses "ECOtec" for a huge number of engines, I also understand the reluctance to name it thusly. Also, GM Family II was supposedly introduced in 1994 - but the article mentions nothing from before 2000?  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand the reluctance to use "ECOtec" but from all the sources I have come across that is the actual name of the engine family. Currently, the information at

Opel Family II engine. I hope that explains everything and I apologize for the inconvenience, I was just trying to end the confusion. Thanks, VX1NG (talk

) 11:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I see, and I feel safe deferring to (read: supporting) you on this. Perhaps a nifty little chart at the list of GM engines page would be useful, and might also help engender further support for you view.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Is this the style of chart you are looking for? With regards, VX1NG (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That helps me get a handle on things! Question: the 1389cc four is listed on both Family 1 and Family II (with the same bore/stroke) - what makes it one or the other? Which came first? It seems that Opel's engines were developed in a very gradual fashion, making it hard to group them in any reasonable way. The CIH begat the OHC which begat the Family engines and so on. Do the "Family" names denote size or are they chronological? Thanks for all the clarifications.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

From the best I can discern, when Family II engines added DOHC, the DOHC medium-displacement versions become their own separate engine family; Family I. However, there seems to be a significant dearth of information on the Family I engines, so that is just a theory. I do not know what the "Family" names denote my guess is relative size, but I have been wrong before. And thank you for lending an ear to this engine mess. Regards, VX1NG (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a mess. Not your fault, obviously! There seems to be a real dearth of information on 1980s and 1990s GM Europe engines - I have all the tech specs in catalogs etcetera, but very little text or explanations of relationships. The German Opel engine entries are very limited, only available for a few engines such as the Opel X16SZ. I assume you have explored the Italian "Motori Opel" category? The Italian editors are really good at engines and I often base my research on their efforts (if I don't just translate it directly). Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

According to the Italians, the "Opel OHC" engine (from 1977 on) was complemented by the 1.8 and up Family II from 1986 (which largely replaced the CIH). The OHC range was modified and turned into the "Family 1" in 1996, and also replaced some of the lower range of the Family II. It seems that the little 1.4 and 1.6 motors shouldn't be on the Family II page, but I dunno for sure.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, now things are starting to make more sense! Everything I read on the Family II engines only mentioned 1.8 - 2.4 L displacements but when I searched for "Opel OHC engine" all the sub-1.8 L engines also appeared and they look very similar to the Family II engines. I think the Italian editors have the some of the major missing pieces to this engine puzzle! Thanks!! VX1NG (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I split out the sub-1.8 L engines into their own article Opel OHC engine, now the similarities between those engines and GM Family 1 engine are really starting to be apparent. Regards, VX1NG (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Great! Although I included the 1796cc engine (84.8 x 79.5 mm) as well. I have a feeling it doesn't actually belong on the Family II page. Also, the Italians have different bore/stroke for the 1.6, I will try to verify this. Mr.choppers | ✎  02:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Another snag, in the engine puzzle! This page (http://media.gm.com/media/de/de/opel/company_opel/Werke/Kaiserslautern.html) states that the 1.8 L is a Family II engine. I am going to continue searching to see if I can confirm this. Regards, VX1NG (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow! And it states that production (of 1.8 and 2.0) began in 1981 - which is unlikely, considering that the 1998cc engine didn't arrive 'til 1984, I reckon. That is a pretty reliable source, but it still feels weird to group together engines without common bores or strokes.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The source could be wrong and I agree the lack of a common bores or strokes is weird. But, I can confirm that the 1.8 L was available in late 1982 because some vehicles here in the States offered it as an optional engine. Regards, VX1NG (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The 1.8 for sure, it appeared in the Manta B2 in May 1982. The 2.0 was later, AFAIK.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Check this out: [3]. I think it is an Opel OHC engine with a different cylinder head, that might have variable valve timing. Regards, VX1NG (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This page talks a little about Family I production (http://media.gm.com/media/intl/en/opel/company_opel/plants/szentgotthard.brand_opel.html) Regards, VX1NG (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Choppers, I think I have made some serious headway on the Family series of engines. Your thoughts, would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, VX1NG (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed parts of it, and have full faith. I wish I could provide a good sounding board for you, but a three-month old baby precludes too much editing of late... I appreciate your work and will peek as the feeding schedule allows. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks, VX1NG (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sir, I have finally found a talk page to raise comments! Repeat apologies for not having been in touch previously about the latest changes... I have to thank OSX's buddy, Bohooka for finding the talk page. I have communicated with Stepho too who seems to have had some rational approach to this. Cheers152.91.9.115 (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I like to think that we are all rational, but some people's hackles are raised when things are just being reverted without comment. I welcome you to the conversation.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Steyr 90 series, Mr.choppers!

Wikipedia editor Carriearchdale just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This article is nicely written and quite informative. Thank you!

To reply, leave a comment on Carriearchdale's talk page.

Learn more about

Hi,

I'm happy you are a great contributor, and that you delete a lot of vandalism from unknown IPs, as I do when I saw them. You undid my revision on this page and I can't figure it. It's aimed to make this brand present on this page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Luxury_brands in the same way it' in this category : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Luxury_motor_vehicle_manufacturers

So, to be consistent we have to choose between no category at all, or both. In my POV, as Chrysler produced Luxury vehicules (From the article itself : "Product line Chrysler: Luxury sedans, convertible, and minivan " I do think it worth its place in the Luxury vehicules and brands Categories. You could also argue about many other brands I don't personnaly consider as Luxury in the luxury vehicules and brands categories, like Citroen and Volvo.

In a word, I think it's safer to let Chrysler in both categories and let readers agree or not about this, rather than making it non visible and not allowing readers to think of.

Have a nice day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanuel JARRI (talk • contribs) 13:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, and it's worth discussing. Personally I think that all three brands you mention ought to stay out of all luxury car categories. But then I think that to be useful, categories need to be carefully pruned. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: this edit, I apologise for the bad revert. I was made by that pesky Chilean vandal (who keeps changing IPs every day) so I assumed it was false. I am doing my best to crack down on him. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries. I will keep an eye on him too.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Sunday August 17 NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share (RSVP). 2pm–5pm at Yeoryia Studios at Epic Security Building, 2067 Broadway (5th floor). Afterwards at 5pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant (to be decided). We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

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

I believe the earlier discussion to move Mercedes-Benz Vito to

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Renault Alpine GTA/A610 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• cleaned engine with {{Convert|180|PS|kW|0|abbr=on}}, bigger bumpers, and flip-up headlamps ([http://www.renaultalpine.co.uk/gallery/album.php?album_id=2&sk=t&sd=a&st=0&start=11

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Thanks for fixing the references on Acura MDX, where would be a good place in the article to mention competitors (if at all)? JacksonRiley (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! Generally we don't include competitor lists as they are often subject to debate (I just read a road test of an

E30 BMW 3-series against a Fiat Croma) and the lists just tend to get longer and longer as various people try to get their cars mentioned. I thought that this was spelled out somewhere in the conventions but can't seem to find it. Also visit the auto talkpage if you would like to ask other editors in the Automobile Project. Hope to encounter you again.  Mr.choppers | ✎ 

16:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Marcos (automobile)

added a link pointing to Triumph

Marcos GT

added a link pointing to Keith Adams

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite prepared to be accountable for things I've done, but not for things you imagine that I've done.[4] Eric Corbett 13:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

From September 1 in Georgia we have new EU-style vehicle registration plates, if you want to add something link is here :) ► Vehicle registration plates of Georgia (country) --g. balaxaZe✰ 12:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mr Choppers, I have a concept which I put forward from time to time that, to my mind, would solve the category problem under discussion. I have put it on that page and I would be very pleased if you would read it and comment. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

On 3 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marcos GT, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Marcos GT (pictured) had a plastic body, a wooden chassis, and a cast-iron engine? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marcos GT. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. You've blanked the page Vauxhall Viva, and I've reverted the blanking for now. If there was a reason for it, feel free to revert my edit. Regards. KJ ^Discuss? 01:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the page was incorrectly (IMHO) moved and so I blanked this entry in order to move the original content back. However, that didn't work, and I am afraid that I forgot to restore the content. Sorry and thanks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey,

I am really risen to the point when you reverted my edit on *File:2009 Mercedes CLK Class.jpg. I mean that was a good quality image and that i took it well but you had no right whatsoever to revert my edit on that. If you wanted to revert this image firstly you needed to talk to me on my talk page and discuss what the problem is. I am going to soon delete this image off wikipedia. I thought that image was a good quality image because I did follow WP:CarPix and inserted the image. In retaliation I removed another of what you inserted.

Please give me a good reason why you reverted my edit.

Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Whooa there. First of all, we don't "retaliate". Secondly, your photo is not of a CLK DTM and therefore doesn't belong in that section. Thirdly, deleting your pictures just because they are not in use in an article is not really an option - once you upload a picture with a free license you have given it away and it is no longer yours. Same with "my" photos, they don't belong to me. Take a chill pill and familiarize yourself with

WP:ETIQ.  Mr.choppers | ✎ 

06:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Also Nim, no need to be so concerned that if you upload an image that it must be inserted into an article. Considering how many images exist on the Wikimedia Commons of a given car (generally speaking), there is only a small chance that an image will be the best available. If it's not the best, it remains on Commons. There is no need to delete it. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, the caption was an error. What I really mean't was *File:2009 Mercedes CLK Class.jpg in my subtitle [2007-2009 Mercedes-Benz CLK 350 (Australia)] and I made a slight error as I was distracted. I have instead replaced it with *File:2007-2009 Mercedes-Benz CLK350.jpg as it looks a good image compared to mine. I might've removed the earlier pic but I like the one that I have inserted. It belongs touser:IFCAR

Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Mr.choppers. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

Hey,

Concerning with the photo you reverted *File:2009 Mercedes CLK Class.jpg onto the article Mercedes CLK class. You said you reverted it because it was a DTM. I made a stupid error when I subtitled it. Could you please have a look through and tell me, if the picture is good quality and if it is could you insert it. Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)