User talk:Mr.choppers/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hey Mr.choppers,

I actually made a stupid error with file *File:2009 Mercedes CLK Class.jpg, When you said it was a DTM it was not. I actually meant to subtitle the picture "2007-2009 Mercedes CLK 350 (Australia)". I would kindly request you post that file above with the subtitle with the caption "2007-2009 Mercedes CLK 350 (Australia). You do not have to but I want you to do it if you can. Please next time always ask me before removing the image off wikipedia.

Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Look, we don't need more pictures of the C209. The IFCAR one you added is a better picture (as was the previous picture you reverted), as it better shows what the car looks like. I understand the desire to see your photos appear in articles but you have no explicit right to expect it, nor to demand that I ask your permission to remove something. See

WP:OWN for more on that. As your photos keep getting better, you will find that other editors will choose to include them based on their quality alone. And please, keep your talkpage comments to one place and stop peppering my talkpage with so many new topics about the same thing.  Mr.choppers | ✎ 

02:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Panhard et Levassor Dynamic 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:

• positioned steering wheel.<ref name=Artc>{{citation | title = Artcurial Motorcars à Rétromobile (Vente n^o 1957 | page = 110 | ref = ABPT | date = 2011-02-04 | publisher = Artcurial-
• z16794/Panhard-Dynamic.aspx Panhard et Levassor Dynamic X76 von 1938 bei ''conceptcarz.com'' (englisch]

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

Hi, wanted to say I came acorss your pics of the 190d 2.5 Turbo here, here, and here. Aside from the euro headlights, I have one exactly like it. Same color too, cabernet red metallic. Mines bit worse for wear at the moment, working on fixing it up. This one even has an antenna delete like mine does. I have a flickr album of mine here if you want to take a look. Is this your car, or someone else's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamdigitalman (talk • contribs) 02:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi iamdigitalman, no, alas, it is not my car - I just saw it while out driving and thought it worth a few photos. Good luck fixing yours up, we need more old diesels and fewer hybrids!  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mr.choppers, we need the help of a neutral and good faith person to prevent the article of Renault to be harassed by User:Urbanoc, User:Vrac, User:Warren_Whyte. They :

• remove some whole paragraphs, writing briefly that they were duplicated, but analysing what they removed, these paragraphs were not duplicated
• remove some photos, stating that they were "too numerous" in Renault. But the photos are 5 times more numerous (!!) in the Volkswagen article, and it is not a problem in this case for User:Urbanoc...
• remove some texts, stating that there is no source, even for the most obvious facts. A good faith editor search some sources. A bad faith editor take the excuse of no source, to remove a true information that he doesn't want to be shown, and without asking to anybody.... They behave as gods who own Wikipedia and are all-mighty
• ask to remove the awards only for Renault, in the company article and even in the model articles, and only these 3 people participate to this false discussion
• behave like that also on Dongfeng Peugeot-Citroën, Citroën and general articles, where they remove the picture of Renault Capture, that is yet the leader of its segment in Europe.

These 3 people behave as a lobby that use Wikipedia to harass some companies, but don't use the same arguments for the companies that they cherish. They send to each others some barn-stars to enable their accomplices to have some more important rights on Wikipedia, in order to have the power to harass more some companies and some contributors.

I will send you a few links to prove their bad faith. I will also write this on the Automotive portal. Good faith people are welcome.

Please participate to the "discussion" here : Talk:Renault#Awards

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.157.24.224 (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. Urbanoc, Vrac and Warren Whyte "won" without any fair discussion to remove the award section only from Renault. But the Volkswagen article has such a section, and they did not ask to remove it. Why some different arbitrary "rules" are applied to some companies like Renault, but not to VW ? For consistency purpose and neutrality, if VW can have an "Award" section, why Renault cannot ? They behave as a lobby that harass some companies, but not their favourite. Notice also that anyway, strangely enough before they erased it this section was put at the end of the article (...) and named "Accolade" ONLY for the Renault article.

They have no argument, and they don't use the same arbitrary reasons against some other companies that are in the same situation : their malevolent intentions are obvious.

• Why removing the awards from the Renault article and not from the articles of the other brands ? For neutrality, fairness and consistency : no reason to apply a different treatment to Renault.
• Why removing the awards in the models article also, but only for Renault ? For neutrality, fairness and consistency : no reason to apply a different treatment to Renault.
• Why making a difference between an award to a car model and to the brand that made this car ? The awards are for the car and its constructor, obviously !
• Why using some arbitrary and inconsistent "reasons" to target Renault, but not using the same "reasons" for the other brands that are in the same situation ? Urbanoc says that the Renault badge is not logical as the Dacia badge also exist and that then the awards have to be removed. But all the Dacia models are conceived only by Renault. Dacia can not make such cars. So no problem actually. And most of these cars are sold with the Renault brand, e.g. 70% of te Duster were sold with the Renault brand in 2013. On the contrary, GM sells with the Cherolet/Opel/Vauxhall brands some cars CONCEIVED by Daewoo ! But as GM is not Renault, then the same fake "reason" is not used by Urbanoc against GM, because his motivations are arbitrary and malevolent against Renault. When VW buy Bentley, Porsche, etc they buy some brands that make better cars, but Renault went from nothing with Dacia. Dacia is only made by Renault. But Lamborghini is not VW and Daewoo is not GM either, for example. Malevolent motivations against Renault.
• Why saying that the Motor trend car of the year in the USA is not official enough to be mentioned in the Renault article, but the same award is mentioned in the VW article and then they don't ask it to be removed ? Not neutral request against Renault. Unfair treatment, malevolent motivations against Renault.

Why Urbanoc speaks about the award in Estonia ? I added no award from Estonia. The awards that I added are considered as very important by the professionals of the automotive industry.

• these awards are not french, so no problem of fairness for Renault, but only for Fiat/Chrysler and VW
• these awards are officially voted by the automotive journalists unions, or by several serious magazines, not less serious than the few ones that participate to the COTY in western Europe. In addition, there could exist a dozen of different award for COTY in Europe, voted by as much of sets of different magazines.
• Autobest is voted by 15 countries, representing more than 300 million people. It is equivalent to the COTY in western Europe. No reason to remove these awards.

Spain and Italy are important countries for the car industry to :

• Italy has a long history for the car industry, and Volkswagen even by their companies
• Spain has plants of all the brands, so it is involved in the car industry and it has no reason to be nicer with Renault than VW, GM or Ford etc.
• their population is approximately the same than this of the UK

So no reason to remove these awards from the Renault article.

And no reason to apply to Renault a different treatment than this for Ford, GM, VW etc.

If the "Wikipedia community" accept that an automotive brand can have an award section like VW, but not Renault, then the neutrality and fairness is not respected and it means that Wikipedia is under the control of a private interests lobby and some fanatical people. It is unacceptable obviously.83.157.24.224 (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mr.Choppers.

• Why removing the Motor trend car of the year award in the USA from the Renault article, saying that "it is not important", but keeping the SAME award in the Volkswagen article ? Why treating Volkswagen better than Renault ? Why some different "rules" are applied and not the same neutral treatment ? Such an unequal treatment is strange... Renault is harassed, VW is protected. This award is very official, so it worth to be mentioned in the Renault article, like it is in Volkswagen article. I will write it again, except if you remove the same award from the VW article. I am neutral and I want that all the brands are treated in the same way. Do you oppose to that ?

• On the contrary, in the VW article, a minor "Green Car Journal" award is mentioned. Peugeot etc. got some too, but I did NOT add such minor awards in the constructors page, because it is MINOR. Why keeping such a minor "one-magazine" award in the VW article, but removing some really important international and national awards, officially voted by the whole automotive journalists unions or several magazines ? It is inconsistent. A minor award from only one magazine is kept in the VW article and many important international and national awards voted by many different professionals are removed from the Renault article. Unfair, unlogical and big difference of treatment between brands...

• The Renault Symbole II was only Renault, never Dacia, so it is a false to remove the Autobest award from Renault and to put it in Dacia. And it is a non-sense to remove it from Dacia and not to put it BACK in Renault ;-)

• Why do you say that the list or REAL awards is boring in Renault, whereas citing all the non-awarded but only "short-listed" models in the VW article takes already a full screen height to make believe that VW got many ECOTY awards, but for true only 3 in 50 years ? Look the LONG HEIGHT list of non-awarded Volkswagen models here...

• This text is not neutral and lowering against the Autobest award : "This award is more focused on economy, as it represents 15 European and Eurasian lower-income countries". ECOTY also scores the costs, else the Mercedes Class S would have won the ECOTY award. The Vaxhall/Opel Mokka/Chevrolet Trax participated to both competitions, but it is not low cost for the ECOTY and the same Mokka is low cost for Autobest ? It is inconsistent.

• Sorry, but it is not possible to agree with these modifications : adding a Renault-only car in Dacia is irrelevant, removing Motor trend from Renault, but keeping it in VW is an unequal treatment, keeping a minor one-magazine "Green Car Journal" award in VW and removing some really important official international and official national awards from Renault is opposite to logic and an equal treatment.

You have been too bold ;-) But if Urbanoc and his friends did not trigger a non-sense request to harass Renault, all that would not happen. Look here a few of his malevolent actions targeting only Renault Non-equal treatment of articles - Vandalization. You should not support him, because there are many evidences that he is bad faith.

Have a nice evening. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we need to severely crop the awards bits at Volkswagen (and elsewhere). Motor Trend is not representative of US as a whole, and with the number of different magazines here proclaiming cars of the year this sort of stuff gets boring real quick. I meant the cost mention to be sort of an explanation why Dacia has won several awards, and to describe how Autobest differs in outlook from COTY - as far as I am concerned, Autobest seems to be more relevant to actual buyers.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mr.Choppers. Really ? You want to make some fair and equal rules to severely crop the awards bits at Volkswagen (and elsewhere). We'll see ;-) I bet that it will not happen to VW. Because VW got only 3 ECOTY, so which awards to crop ? NONE. Crafty ! ;-) Only its non-awarded list ? ;-) The truth is that the Renault awards section has been destroyed. You are certainly proud of that. Which awards to remove from VW, Ford, GM ? They never got UIGA or Spain awards. Crafty. Have a nice evening, Urbanoc's and Vrac's friend 8) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.157.24.224 (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

dear sir i am in need of information on mercedes benz 1977 model 1017 that i am repairing please call robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.144.88 (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I took the liberty of deleting your personal info as it is very visible here, this is a public page. I don't know much about old Mercedeses, I just occasionally take pictures and post them here. Try a Mercedes-Benz message board or something.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

I started to tweak something you wrote on the Pantera page, which is probably due to the fact English is apparently not your first language. On the Pantera page you wrote, "In 1980, beginning with chassis number 9000 according to De Tomaso themselves, the chassis was completely revisioned." You also included something on its talk page, to wit: "... but in 1977 Carrozzeria Maggiora was contracted to build the new chassis cars, introduced from chassis number 9000 (some say this was in 1980, dubious)" which contradicts what you wrote in the article. I have zero knowledge on this point and since I was only interested in adjusting the wording, I was wondering if there is any consensus on this question of when the change was made, in 1977 or 1980? If I've misunderstood something please let me know. __209.179.15.166 (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

According to a very confusing De Tomaso parts catalogue the change was carried out from 1980 on, this is thus a citable source. So, according to WP guidelines this is the info that (until a better source is found) goes on the page. In WP, verifiability trumps truth. The 1977 date makes more sense logically to me, but is based on info I have gathered from various message boards which is not a source good enough to use in the article. I included the contradictory information on the talkpage precisely in the hope that someone could find a definitive source for this. And my English is quite passable, thank you very much.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I wasn't trying to make fun of your English. However, "revisioned" is not a proper word - I think you meant revised. And since the De Tomaso is a thing instead of a person, the better word would've been "itself" instead of themselves, although I wouldn't have used it all. I think something like, "... according to the De Tomaso parts catalog, the chassis was completely revised" is better. Can you cite the source you used?

Like all WP editors, I'm just trying to make it the best possible. Hope this helps ... __209.179.36.85 (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, adjusted the sentence. Trying to write while also trying to figure out what De Tomaso did when made for a somewhat convoluted process. The cite was at the end of the following sentence, but now it's in both places. The page number in the reference refers to the page numbers in the parts catalogue, in the linked pdf file they are on pages 24 and 25 IIRC.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about my undoing, I didn't notice you was being

Mr.choppers, in the article Headlamp I have changed all the bullet points sections into prose format.--Arado (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

i am happy when people appreciate my work :). Yes, it's a reference to the old airplane manufacturer--Arado (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello , i noticed you are correcting a lot of mistakes on the page of the Essex V6 , thank you i realise i have done tons of mistakes and i am aware that my formatting is sort of crap , but i think the page is fine as it is now or am i wrong? -Laurie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurie Lind (talk • contribs) 06:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It's decent, but there is no page that cannot stand more improvements! Also, you should sign your messages, using four tildes. Like this: "~~~~". The WP software then adds your signature automatically, like this:  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I am currently in the progress of making a car quiz type iPhone app. Basically, my plan is to have data base of cars, photoshop all the badges off all the cars, and turn it into a game where you have to see if you can still guess the car right from a list of four choices. I was wondering if your photos are alright to use in this situation, as they are some of the best I've seen. It's a free app, but it's probably going to have a banner ad on the main menu. Would that go against the copyright? I'll definitely properly attribute you with a link back to your page for each car and everything. I'd really appreciate if it's possible. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CjNorth0015 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Attribution is all I ask, such are the Wikipedia rules. Commercial use is allowed. And thanks for asking, good luck with the app. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You rock. I'll make sure the credit comes your way. I'll also send you the link to the app when I'm done with it, so you can check it out. Thanks again!

CjNorth0015 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mr C, I write to apologise because I find I have enthusiastically, nay very freely, over-written a lot of your recent work and I see I got started only days after you had paused in November. I was aware you'd been working on it but did not comprehend it was only a matter of days earlier. So, I'm sorry I let this happen and if it disturbed any of your plans please let me know and I will try to make amends. Best, Eddaido (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any problems. I didn't have any particular plans except I was myself trying to figure out the various Roadster iterations and their relationship to each other. The only thing I don't like is the use of "infobox automobile engine" on a page which is not about the engine as a topic - I would prefer a table and might convert it. It would leave less blank space. Thanks for all the additional information added!  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Good, so long as I did it right. I did not realise the engine infobox is to be used only on a page where the engine is a topic. Does that not almost double the number of articles? Eddaido (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Nah, it's more that the infobox is only useful on a main page. If I wasn't so busy I'd change the contents into a proper table. I feel that I have already had this conversation with you somewhere else?  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

True. But I think again all you said was you did not like it and in the absence of any thought from anyone else I left things as they were with the (it turned out) vain hope some discussion would arise or a pointer come from you. I have a strong objection to the tables permitted by WP. They are required to have text the same size as the article when I would have thought usual practice was to make these things smaller. Is not an infobox a table? Not, I can see, in the specialised sense you are using but I think so. Can you point me to a place where infobox engine is used correctly and I will try very hard to divine your intent. Thanks and regards, Eddaido (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Toyota A engine is an example. Also, one can change the text size in a table. I have three different table layouts in my sandbox that I sometimes use as templates, the third one down has smaller text. I am not asking you to change it right now, but when I have more time I could make you a template or somesuch. Toodles,  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I make (I think) nice looking tables then later (sometimes years later) another party comes along and makes the text in the table the same size as in the article. Someone called BGWhite. Is BGW wrong to do this? I have used infobox engine many times (20? 30?), do you dislike them all? I am now off to study your sandbox. Many thanks, Eddaido (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Huh? What am I being accused of doing? Anybody can edit any page. Per the MOS accessibility page (see

WP:NOSTRIKE), text cannot go smaller than 85%. It also says, "The use of reduced font sizes should be used sparingly.". Not everybody has good vision (ie anybody over 45). One shouldn't do an entire table with a font size of 85%, if there is space for it. One cannot use <small> tags inside a table whose font size is already below 100%. Long story short... use common sense on text size (95% usually ok, 90% iffy, 85% almost never). Bgwhite (talk

) 22:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I personally like using smaller text for tables, since they usually contain more specific and less generally interesting information. And, yes Eddaido, I dislike all use of infobox templates on pages that cover other topics, and I reckon I am not alone (I remember this exact thing coming up earlier somewhere, but cannot remember where). Anyhow, I started using collapsible tables so as to avoid them taking up too much space, a solution that I think everyone can agree upon. See Suzuki Fronte for a few examples. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you wondering where I've been? Well not back here. I did as I said I would up above and since then I've been fretting. Thought I'd come and tell you that and found the additional entries. Other topics. We have a page about a car ('s body). We must have a separate article about its engine? Am I misunderstanding? How about the Austin 25-30. I've paused for other reasons but I would usually have banged in a few inboxes by now. The same engine design (there are variations but principally of bore size) is used in chassis and bodies of quite different size. Good strong heavy boat anchors, they must have thought, were the things to keep the front wheels up front and after all you do make a dart's nose a bit heavier for a similar reason. Aargh, I'm lost now. Fretting, Eddaido (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC) oops, Fronte. But there is so very little interesting info available about these vehicles. The word conventional must have been invented for them. OK there's still variety but not what there was a century and more ago. Eddaido (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Eddaido. I am not quite sure what you are trying to tell me with this latest message, but I think maybe I ought to explain one more time that there's not necessarily any need for separate articles for any and all engines - just that the "engine infobox" template is intended for those dedicated engine articles.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

What happened to the Mk1 Capri infobox engine list? Laurie Lind (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Somebody else broke it, I just restored it.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You know, I bet you haven't even watched Top Gear- this is probably due to the fact that you probably hate it because you seem to like very old, poorly made cars. Your nonsensical undos of my fair, neutral edits of other people's opinions, were, I believe, fueled by your personal dislike of the show. That is not a reason to undo my edits. (The fact that these cars appeared on the world's biggest motoring show gives the article even more credibility.) You can't edit articles based on whether you like what's on them or not- and considering you've been on here for more than 6 years from when I have started writing this message to you, that strips even more of the credibility of your undos of my edits- which, I will reiterate, were written in a fair, unbiased way with no personal vendetta towards those cars on my part. But I'll partially eat my own words on your behalf- if you undo those articles again- I'm reporting you. --Hmdwgf (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing- I took out most of the opinionated stuff- just to strike a compromise. But I'm still reporting you if you undo those edits. --Hmdwgf (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A) I do watch Top Gear. It's a lot of fun, but it's a TV show. It's rarely important enough to be included in an encyclopaedia. B) Report away. I reckon that most Wikipedians would agree with me that the majority of Top Gear's opinions have very little relevance. C) I love crap cars, and I love amazing cars. And I am happy to admit that crap is crap. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Top Gear is generally not a notable source. It is newstainment at best. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm really getting boring with all the endless discussions with him. He even believes that the fact he's, according to his words, "a PhD" (although he first said he was a journalist, then a PhD and journalist, then a PhD and a "Professor", but well... ) gives him the right to ignore Wiki policies, not only on content, even the basic ones. I now think maybe is better if we (and I include myself, obviously...) let him do his stuff, as you first suggested. The article will be a biased disaster, but maybe that's unavoidable at this point. That's a weakness of the Wikipedia system, a single editor with a strong commitment to an advocacy cause can make a lot of harm, but maybe in two or three years from now another editor will fix it (Wikipedia is constantly changing, that's a strenght). What do you think? Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No! I am annoyed too, but I'd rather just us (and others, the more the merrier) agree on a decent version of the article and keep reverting to that one - until he can make a coherent, unbiased statement. If he can argue with me like a grownup then I am willing to discuss things, but not while he acts like some sort of offended primadonna.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I see, thanks, I wanted to know which were your thoughts. I was a little unsure of how to proceed, as this has been continuing for a long time now. The sad thing is some of the things he proposes could be useful or at least worth of debate if he wasn't feeling all people are conspirators that want to destroy the French marques image, and he needs to remove the conspiration on the articles by adding a biased tone, removing other marques and their vehicles and all text that doesn't sound to him like a straightforward compliment, focussing in positive achievements and so on. He even thinks we are a solid group against him, but all of us have different ideas. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

What's funny is that I agree with him in that some (in the main VW) German brand articles are a bit positively biased, but I ascribe this to the existence of a huge fanboy population and not a deliberate effort on any editors' part. I also find myself distrusting and disregarding any and all articles that smack of press releases, the kinds of articles that contains list of achievements, awards, and Semperit Irish Car of the Year Awards. An accurate and clear sighted article with no word of infotainment systems is to me a much stronger sign of a good manufacturer than a page which contains nonsense such as that.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello M.Choppers. Would you like to cooperate on the creation of an article about the new DS automobile marque ? I did not find one on WP. PSA builds this brand little by little, so it is a big work to make a consistent view of the brand. For the first steps, a chronological and geographical expansion description would be probably the best to build the article. What are your opinion about these propositions ? For your information http://europe.autonews.com/article/20140609/ANE/140609869/0/SEARCH and http://www.driveds.co.uk/uk Bye. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow! That's a totally unexpected development for me, not being particularly interested in modern cars. Of course it deserves a page.

My notes and suggestions:

1) All WP work is a collaboration, with any and all comers. You don't particularly need me, but I am happy to keep an eye on it and occasionally offer constructive advice.

2) To make it a good one entry one would also be obliged to cover the troubles Renault and PSA have all had in the prestige sector in the past. I'm thinking 25, XM, Vel Satis, Safrane, 605, etcetera. In a way it is almost as if PSA is taking a page from the Toyota/Lexus playbook, which appears to be a good strategy. I wish them luck

As a sidenote I always personally preferred the small and barebones French cars (excepting the Facel Vega, Delahayes, etcetera). My favourite French car is probably the AX, exactly like this one that I photographed in Paris two years ago. Or an LN... or a Poncin, ever heard of those?  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Out of interest, do you know what this is, please? If you believe everything you read in Google translate (and I don't always, but here I probably did) it's called Transport in Donetsk.

If you're feeling so inclined, it needs classifying in wiki-commons ... and thanks if you did. Thanks for thinking about it anyhow.

And regards Charles01 (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

A Daewoo Matiz, and the taillights indicate that it is a late production

UzDaewoo with the one-litre engine. I hope Putin won't have me assassinated now.  Mr.choppers | ✎ 

03:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. Thank you. Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eraseroftheevilshit. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: Thank you, and thank you for the notice.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• No problem. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Good afternoon Mr. Choppers. I ran across the picture you had posted from Lime Rock. Couple of things, it is a 53, not 54. It is also not a Balbo, it was bodied by Stabilimenti Farina. The first 6 208S were bodied by Farina, there were 9 others bodied by Balbo. The red Siata that was also at the show was bodied by Balbo. The car in your picture is number CS056 and the Tim Richie who was listed as the owner is someone who works for the company that was working on the car at the time. The actual owner wanted to remain anonymous. I also don't know if you would consider it a barn find. The current owner purchased the car in 57, it just ran into mechanical issues when he had young children so it remained in his garage until he was in retirement. He started rebuilding the car but ran out of time and passed away in 08, his wife took on the task of finishing the rebuild. Hope this helps some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208CS (talk • contribs) 16:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@208CS: Thank you - I don't normally believe people I encounter on the internet, but you seem sensible and knowledgable. I will go ahead and amend the description accordingly. Thanks again,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi

If I get you to post pictures on Wikipedia, is there a fee that you'd pay? You seem to have a LOT of pictures... Hard to believe that this is all done for free...

Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B008:8F00:5191:8D19:38EA:E7AE (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a hobby and I receive no remuneration. The pictures (unless found elsewhere with a free license) are all by me - I just photograph the cars I happen to come across. Were you trying to have me take a photo of something? If I can help then maybe.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Above is my original question and your answer...

To be honest, I was feeling for information... I understand that you take pictures of cars on the street, but you took pictures of 4 of my cars and didn't let me know or something along those lines when I feel you had the ability to... Based on issues I've had with neighbors about my cars, the fact one car was towed, and several other of your pictures, something tells me you are in law enforcement... With thousands and thousands of pictures posted, I find it hard to believe that it is a "hobby" if you are using the time and energy to post pictures when you are obviously on the clock that taxpayers are paying for...

At the very least if I could get police assistance instead of being pushed away and letting neighbors deface my card, write notes on them, and write me threatening emails, it would be a help...

With the all the drug users and drug dealers in my area, hiding in plain sight, you'd think that the neighbors would care more about parking spots...

I use classic cars in TV and movies and it is my livelihood that is being threatened and it is definitely more than an inconvenience... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B008:8F00:5191:8D19:38EA:E7AE (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Mr.choppers, this one is mad as a hatter! And paranoid... OSX (talk • contributions) 12:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, wow... why are your neighbors defacing your card? I guess if you didn't leave your business cards out, your neighbors wouldn't have your email address with which to write you threatening mails. I was also unaware that cops were paid to take photos for Wikipedia. Please, tell me more. Lastly, how was I supposed to give you "information" about photographing your automobiles? And what difference would it make?  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hidee

Noticed you are rather 'anti-lists' and deleted my recent FTO GPX spec list. Folks with FTOs are constantly trying to uncover the mysteries of what was OEM - so many are retro-fitted with stuff these days. I was actually contemplating doing sep pages for each of the models. What are your thoughts?

PS - Not sure why you chopped down the literal transcription I did from the Company Report. Should it not now end as '3 full points' as you've edited? i.e. "in dynamic and aggressive styling..."

I had recently begun assembling some sort of guide on the FTO Club pages to help uncover the differences of the 36805 built.
(Webcor (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC))

I understand the interest in these sorts of things, but going into this level of detail is usually considered too narrow and specific for Wikipedia.

Featured Article. Anyhow, prose is always preferred to lists (sometimes tables are best, such as for the specs). Lastly we generally only quote directly from the manufacturer (secondary and impartial sources are preferred) for plain dry facts. You're absolutely right about the missing ellipsis. Hope to see more of you. You could always add the spec list to the talk page, btw - us anoraks will be able to find it there.  Mr.choppers | ✎ 

23:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

All the best (Webcor (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC))

@Webcor: Well, I am also not in charge here (I don't think anyone is) so feel free to ask some other experienced users. And obviously feel free to discuss any individual edits. To make life easier for others, try not to use brackets [ ] for text; parentheses are preferred. Commas for four-digit numbers are optional - I am of the opinion that we do not need them for rpms or ccs. Many of my edits are invisible on the page, but help avoid linking to redirects. The "nbsp" code provides a space that won't be split in case of a line break. Lastly, photo captions are best placed in conjuntion with the photos, as well-meaning editors often change images and miss the main body text which then becomes confusing. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Unclear as to why you believe the 1.8 GS did not become a Facelift in '97?

This broad chart I have for all models clearly shows a facelift GS = http://i1105.photobucket.com/albums/h349/photo-socket/FTO%20Paperwork2/FTO-16models01_1.jpg

Indeed, the facelift chart includes the model & prefix code for it (GF prefix). Nor would I term it a 'Light Alteration' - it's quite a radical & noticeable styling change. It is also likely the GS was being built with a facelift as early as mid 1996

Webcor (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That statement was from the source used as a citation by you, at [1]. It says "Except for the comparatively unloved 4 cylinder 1.8 GS model, a facelift version was introduced in 1997 for the remaining 2 litre models." Anyhow, is there a good source for a date or any corresponding technical changes? Usually, facelifts apply to the entire lineup simultaneously. I am also still curious about the apparent early introduction of the five-speed auto on the Nakaya Tune edition. A good source doesn't have to be available online, by the way. I have looked through my own library but I own very little on cars built after the end of the Showa era.  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I merely cited that as an example for the term 'facelift'. This is much the ongoing problem with the FTO build - hence why I was attempting to make some sense of it all, as it was on 'day one' (albeit in 'simple terms' - but it does need a hint of anorak for some of it!). Brochures (which crop up for sale on the web & thus too 'transient' for linkage) have shown the spoilerless GS & GR clearly sporting facelift bumper. (Some Brochure pix I scanned into my personal ref sheet above, for example). The bumper fixing brackets also change to a new code on them in Mitsi CAPS from Feb '97 too...
Also - I have yet to meet a real Nakaya-tune owner or see one that is unequivocally a Nakaya. I have seen & have pix of GPs that come close (our Club has 2), but that carbon lip is always AWOL. Problem being is IMHO that for about 4 years the Japanese owners did lots of modding, before mass migration of models to UK or Oz.
This usually reliable source shows the Nakaya as a 5sp auto http://www.completefto.com.au/CompleteFTO.asp?aid=454
However - the same source will provide a GP as a Nakaya with 4sp auto if certain model codes are entered into VIN data file!
This is a GP Special in Mitsi CAPS http://mitsubishi.epc-data.com/fto/de3a/hnfh2/?frame_no=DE3A-0101871
(The owner believed it was a GPvR - sold as such from Japan to UK. Pix show it clearly isn't. However the VIN data of Complete FTO have it as a Nakaya - again, no lip in pix I have of it. It is simply a GP Special) Understand your concern - hopefully, I can rouse some interest from an irate Nakaya owner? Lol.
Re-written facelift preamble. Annoyingly, for c/right reasons can't use pix from brochures, but just found a fellow owner with an Aero. Pix shortly.
Thanks for your time. Webcor (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Yay, more photos! I just realized that there are lists of specs of all Japanese cars built in the last twenty or thirty years available at Goo.net and in a bunch of other places. The pictures are of no use, but there should be a lot of material.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is a pic of the front spoiler. I haven't come across any supporting evidence for the Nakaya having 5AT - it seems simply to have been a lightly tuned version of the runout pre-facelift FTO, and the parts seem to have been sold to be installed on existing cars. Hence, no specific chassis numbers and only the bolt-on parts are different. I have added a source to the article.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the Nakaya spoiler pic (we have Club members with the repro of it - it's not clear that's actually a carbon one btw). The fact that the Nakaya was a kit is a new interesting angle! However, the brochure clearly cites "300", so was there only 300 kits? Also, they would be logged if 'factory fitted' and would surely be dedicated to one model type and installed 'complete' - PLUS decal?

Drop links, roll bars etc varied across the range so it would surely be one model fitment - the preface GPX IMHO. (Aftermarket kits like the Bozz and Kaze etc also began appearing at the time of the Nakaya Taeivon btw)

Thanks for the 'Goo-net' - It's good, but also quite adrift on pix - The GPvRs seem to be minus spoilers, etc!

Edit: Here's a 'Nakaya body kit' red herring (yes, some were made in UK) http://ftoaustralia.com/v3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=18558

The spoilerless facelift GS and GR in the brochure (That I can't show) http://s1105.photobucket.com/user/photo-socket/media/FTO-paperwork/FTO-p21.jpg.html?sort=9&o=27

The Nakaya-Tune model brochure (I can't show) http://s1105.photobucket.com/user/photo-socket/media/FTO-paperwork/Nakaya-Tune_cvr.jpg.html?sort=9&o=56

Apologies if I've inadvertently deleted some operands - wasn't consciously done... Upward & onward with my Japanese phrasebook ;) Webcor (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Now that I've slept on it I reckon that the Nakaya Tune kit was dealer installed (complete). The source I quote in the article explicitly states that it was available across the 2-litre range. I can see no evidence for the Nakaya Tune having a different chassis code, but it had Mitsubishi's blessing (as one can see in the sales pamphlet - I wish someone would scan the other side of it!). The site I found also mentions that the Nakaya Tune seems to consist of ¥450,000 worth of parts but was discounted to ¥150,000 - I presume in order to get rid of the pre-facelift models. And yes, Goo-net really only use two or three pictures for the entire range, but is a gold mine of other info. They include all models officially sold by Mitsubishi (which, coincidentally, does not include the Nakaya Tune) and MMC's specs. I have used them for a variety of cars and have never found any data discrepancies.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a bigger (but blurrier) photo of the Nakaya Tune sheet here. If you look in the upper right corner, you can see a little asterisk in the bottom of the top right box - to me it looks to say that the Nakaya Tune package is available on the GPX, GP, and GR models. Also, on this talk page, users are making comments suggesting that the spoiler is just a "carbon look". Translating Japanese internet slang is really dodgy, though, but it seems to make sense.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all your insights on this. I'm having a go at rallying FTO Club members to look out for details. One thing seems certain - the chassis numbers that concur with Mitsi CAPS and Nakaya fitment (in various sites) all show as MIVEC models (that also have better 2-pot f/brakes etc over other models) - which eliminates the GR. "DE3A-0101871 HNFH2 GP Special (Mivec) May 1996" is one very likely Nakaya example. Also, the lip is simply black, but has a small Nakaya sticker in center. I shall stew on it a while.

Webcor (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

While I feel that the sales sheet states that it was available on all models, this may just have been their intention - it is quite possible that it was only installed on mivec cars in actuality. However, Wikipedia is not the place for such suppositions or for synthesis. See

WP:OR for more. Stewing is always useful. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎ 

02:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes - "While I feel that the sales sheet states that it was available on all models, this may just have been their intention..." - that was very much the lines of my thoughts. There were a number of slight differences in the suspension arrangements of preface models. Most were commonised by 1997 to that of the GPX (except GPvR which improved further). Note too the GR had smaller standard wheels/brakes (and no spoiler) to Mivecs - which could affect 'go-faster' / 'installation logic' of 'kit'...
Thanks again for your insights on this. Very helpful.
Webcor (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Asrockrpg - Areaseven (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like it to me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your comment here, units in adjective form should be hyphenated. See

When using {{convert}}:

• {{convert|3.0|L|cuin}} produces: 3.0 litres (180 cu in)
• {{convert|3.0|L|cuin|adj=on}} produces: 3.0-litre (180 cu in)

Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 02:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Cool.  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Mr.choppers. Thanks for the note. Western Star Trucks is a client and they asked me to update their page. I just chose that name in case there's ever someone after me that would need to use it. There were a few inaccuracies and some out of date information. For instance, Zodiac was an internal code name for the 4700 model, never an alternate model name. If we need to add that back in, we can. They were worried about confusion. Our goal is to be accurate. They were also hoping to add some current photos of the models, but I'm honestly confused how to do that.

Thanks, SC — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesternStarTrucks (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Responding on WST's talk page.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to DB (car) 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:

• with Panhards "Monopole" racers. René Bonnet himself, together with racing legend [[Élie Bayol]]), finished tenth overall and best of the DBs. The other Panhard-engined also finished (in 16th),

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

Hi Mr.choppers,

Long time we haven't had a chat. I was just wondering that could you tell me what type of cars should I be photographing when I head to Vietnam. I will be writing up a list whilst on holidays and photograph the cars. Could you write some cars down on your talkpage and tell me which ones I should photograph. Thanks very much --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 06:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nim, I already answered this on OSX' talk page. I suggest anything that's not a Toyota Corolla. How about anything at least twenty years old? Photograph what grabs your attention, and try to find cars in original condition. Any Citroëns would be of interest, if you could spot a super rare Citroën Dalat.

Dear Mr.Choppers, Hullo,allow me to introduce myself,my name is Dee J,(short for Debbie Jean).I am interested in the Buick station wagon,is this vehicle for sale,or for that matter still available?Hope to hear from you.Thank You for your time.

Adieu,

Dee J. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.49.169 (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the faintest idea of what you're talking about. Best regards,  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

As you are a fan of the tiny little cars, the article for the N-Box Slash, N-WGN, Honda N-One, and Honda N-Box could use some attention. Interested in at least combining them into one page, listing characteristics and appearances? (Regushee (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC))

Hi @Regushee:, thanks for thinking of me. Alas I am spending the summer working my butt off with very little computer time, and then I begin school and ought not to be wikipedying for the next three+ years. A worthy endeavour though.  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw you posted a picture of a 1962 Buick special with jersey plates. I'm looking for that car. Think it may be my grandmas. Any info please call me at 973-527-4404. It's a pizza place. Leave message please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.204.100 (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I photographed this Buick Special in 2012. The geolocation is right there, I dunno anything else about the car. Cheers and good luck,  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Sent of behalf of Nikkimaria for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hi Mr Choppers,

I am in Vietnam on a holiday and have photographed some cars. I have taken a lot of photos of cars and there have been a lot of cool cars, I am staying away from customised cars such as one with incorrect wheel trims as they do not represent the quality of the car. I did the best to photograph the front view but it was difficult when people were in the car so I had to step a bit further back. I normally do that in Asian countries as the cars are most common. I didn't get on the roads as it was dangerous, as my dad stated that the bikes come at high speed.

I am in Hanoi but I will be photographing cars after the 29th as I am in Halong Bay so I will be focusing on other subjects and return to Hanoi to finish off the task Best wishes for the new year :) . I have been struggling though to find a Citroen Dalat, I have been asking people where it is but they have no clue. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 13:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the Dalat would be super rare. Like unicorn rare. I like your shots so far. It seems that all the cars in Vietnam are brand new? Also, be on the lookout for a Pyeonghwa! Vietnam is one of the only markets to get these North Korean built cars. Mekong Auto who sold them had a factory in Co Loa (Hanoi), but it seems to be closed now <sad>. Here is their location, who knows what's there now. If I was in Hanoi I would drag my wife with me there, but it might be harder with parents...

Also, check this page for a listing of interesting machinery, most of it probably hard to find. Enjoy, and Happy New Year!  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been trying so hard to make the point those cars got smaller. Some sources claim the Impala went back to full size earlier than 2014, but last time I went looking I couldn't find them.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I did ping on the DJ's discussion page but perhaps you didn't see it. Full list of topics at Sigala, sources at "Sigala is" and "Sigala was" Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, regarding your edit here, I do not think this has been raised previously, so there is no consensus on it. However, in my experience of auto publications, the decimal is almost always shown. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@OSX: I agree that the decimal appears in tables and infoboxes, but I feel that in prose it looks better not to use it. Definitely a style preference. I am glad VW agrees with me.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Choppers. Recently, you have edited the article about the Soviet car M-2140, writing in the summary of your edit that "pre-production models were shown during 1975 (I can show scans of publications from summer 1975 with pictures of and info regarding the 2140)". Although I cannot but agree with you and know perfectly well that the pre-production models were shown before 1976 (my only point was that the car was put into production in 1976), I have an impressive collection of Soviet publications, photos and other stuff related to Soviet automobiles and have contacts with a number of people who had their hands in the creation of some of these cars, so I'd like to see the "scans of publications from summer 1975 with pictures of and info regarding the 2140", which you have mentioned. Perhaps I haven't seen them yet. Also, I urge you not to delete the definite article in speaking of "the Russian car manufacturer AvtoVAZ" (here), since it is exactly where it should be. See: "Opel Mokka", "Opel Zafira", "Opel Rekord", "Opel Super 6", "Opel Admiral" and "Opel Kapitän", where "the German car manufaturer Opel" is mentioned in the text, or "Renault Kwid" and "Renault Kadjar" talking about "the French car manufacturer Renault", etc. Eriba-Marduk (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eriba-Marduk: Hi Eriba-Marduk, I can send you a picture of the page (from German Auto Katalog 1976, published August 1975) if you send me a wikimail. As for the "the", it should not be there. It doesn't belong on any of the other pages either. I wouldn't use Wikipedia itself as a reference for how to write in English; here is a better example from BBC - they do know how to write properly. WP is often a case of too many chefs spoiling the broth when it comes to style.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted your change, per the MOS for dates. If you disagree, please raise it on the talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@

MOS:DATEFORMAT.  Mr.choppers | ✎ 

18:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

So please raise it on the talkpage. You we're

bold, I reverted it, so please discuss it. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead}

19:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: No, you were bold, I reverted, you re-reverted.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you have more information about the South American Lada models? In particular, manufacturers and assembly plants are interesting. Another information key for that is the vhicle identification number.--134.3.250.83 (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello

that guy is literally all over the place.  !Winterysteppe (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

He's not always useless, he just has a very hard time accepting community practice. Anyhow, I would prefer improvement to blocking. See you around,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mr.choppers,

I recently suggested that the

Please stop stalking and hounding my edits. First and only warning. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Why do you persist in wasting your time and energy on messing up dates in defiance of policy? You also haven't apologized for your atrocious behavior previously.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed you anonimized the plates of the Truck pictured in the file described in the title.

Two things about this:

1. There is no need to anonimize Dutch license plates since they are not publicly linked to an individual. Cars have their own unique license plate number, rather than a person. Save yourself the effort :)
2. The license plate number is still readable from the back plate: NA-37-26.

--Rderijcke (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Jumping in uninvited .... I think about this a lot if only because I upload lots of car pictures, live in England, have in the past lived several years in Woerden (near Utrecht) and have some familiarity (and lots of cousins) with (all over) the US.

The obsession with licenses plate anonymisation is powerful in the UK and the US. In these countries many people feel endlessly spied upon. They may or may not be right, but in any case the thing that matters is the perception. Also, in both the US and UK many people regard the government and all their agencies as "them" or even as "the enemy".

The Netherlands (I suspect also Sweden) are at the other extreme. The Netherlands (unlike Belgium) has not regarded itself as anyone's colony since (from memory, so may be wrong) 1648. For most Dutch citizens, the people and the government are on the same side. To be sure, you still hear a certain politician identified as "that little crook". But compared to the UK or the US, most Dutch trust their politicians and "the authorities" more generally to be "the good guys". Though these days, alas, the direction of travel is probably moving away from that touchingly trusting approach. They watch a lot of English television in the Netherlands and some of them even listen to the BBC

In The Netherlands, if you know the registration number you know roughly when the car was first registered. At least, when it is first registered in the Netherlands. Variations on that theme apply in most European countries. That's something worth knowing as in seriously helpful / interesting. Also, to my taste, a car with an obviously phoney license plate looks somehow unrealistic/undressed. But no, you probably shouldn't wish to go there. Sorry I mentioned it.

@Rderijcke and Charles01: - Yes, and thanks. I am so used to paranoid Americans (see here: [2]) that I was just blanking as a habit. Sometimes I blank it because the plate is distracting, but I must admit that the Blitz would have looked better without the NA-NA-NA. Anyhow, thanks for your consideration. I have about the same stand on car privacy as Charles I think.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

In the UK, with cars spotted on the streets, I tend to change the license plate, but I tend to change it to something credible. I avoid AAA 999 Z. I tend, also, to leave the year code unchanged. If it's an old timer, and especially if it's at an old timer show, I tend to leave the license plate unadulterated, assuming he owner is proud of it, and might very well be glad of the publicity if it means there is an increased likelihood that someone may offer to buy his (her? - probably not often) beloved car for good money.

No further thoughts. But since you triggered these I thought I'd share them. Hope you don't mind. Success Charles01 (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

PS super picture of a Blitz Truck. The back plate's in a slightly shady place, so you must have a pretty impressive combination of adjustment-skill and equipment, too.

Wow Mr.choppers, the message at the link you posted is pretty aggressive. I understand where you're coming from now. Funny by the way how the writer doesn't realize that his location is public anyway because anyone in Harlem could have seen him driving his car over there. As for what Charles01 wrote; I don't necessarily trust the government blindly, but they have their own cameras everywhere anyway. Someone posted three pictures of my car on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/xbxg/6459621295/in/photostream/ Now everyone can see I've been in Haarlem too (no joke, that Dutch city where the photos were taken, is where the name 'Harlem' came from). Rderijcke (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Rderijcke Nice ride! I wouldn't be seen in a Grand Marquis over here, but in Holland it's a pretty awesome vehicle.  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Random thought, here – Have you ever thought about applying for

@IJBall: Thanks, I went ahead and applied. Can't possibly hurt.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mr.choppers, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on

The amount of stuff I have found in just a couple of weeks in those archives is quite staggering and much better than Google's news archive! More antipodean bias for you, if not quite the NZ flavour you were seeking. Have a good weekend. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi @OSX:! I found out about Trove a while back when editing other old Aussie Ford articles - my concern is that there is so much information so readily available; my collector's brain seems to prefer hunting down the rare and obscure. But yes, it's lovely to have all that info there and I hope that we will extract as much value as possible. Google also has some Malaysian/Singaporean papers which I noticed when I tried to find out more about the Asian market Fords. Now I'm going to go see what you were able to dig out!  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Volvo LCP2000, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages DAF, CVT and Direct injection. 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) 09:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:BRD. And if you'd cared to look at my edits you would have noticed that I have added numerous sources and intend to add more. All in the interest of making Citroën 2CV an acceptable article instead of the hodgepodge it was before. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎ 

01:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --John (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Nice use of icons. And no, you are contravening BRD. Restoring is not the same as adding. You will also notice that I have added several sources and am adding more.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. --John (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

You are not going to be able to bait me into violating 3RR, but I suggest you calm down a bit and start communicating. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

John has been reported for edit warring. I didn't realize how long this had been going on, until I looked at the history of the 2CV page. When I saw how many reverts he has made over a long time, I thought that reporting this, might result in a favorable outcome for the article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daihatsu Mira, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page All-Japan. 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) 10:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Mr.choppers! I've gone back to Automotive industry in Thailand and cleaned up the edit history. The article was originally created in your sandbox and then moved to the mainspace. Unfortunately, when the move was done, it also moved the entire edit history of the sandbox which included previous content edited there that was unrelated to the article 'Automotive industry in Thailand'. It meant that anyone going through the edit history of the 'Automotive industry in Thailand' would have seen edits about a completely different topic as the article's first versions. To fix this, I have restored the sandbox edits to User:Mr.choppers/sandbox 2. It takes quite a few steps to split edit histories but this should at least provide some sort of separation. Just wanted to give you this FYI since it involved moving it back into a sandbox inside your userspace. Cheers, Mkdw^talk 18:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a lot of work Mkdw! Thanks for the effort and for the heads-up.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, your edit here. You say 'RV seeming mistake'. Category:1980s automobiles is the parent cat of cars introduced in 1982, as can been by clicking on the link to the cat. Therefore my edit was not a mistake and I have restored it. Admittedly there was a typo in the ES but that cannot easily be rectified. Eagleash (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Eagleash Are those things automatic now? Cool, will make a note of that.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't know about 'automatic' ... but I've always understood that the 'lowest' category was the one to use and that parent or grand-parent cats should not be included. Sometimes that can appear anomalous at first sight though. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The

Hello, Mr.choppers. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, we run across each others path from time to time and I found a neglected Japanese car maker that has existed in some form or other since 1917, the remnants now being part of Nissan. The company is Tokyu Kogyo Kurogane or just Kurogane, which from translations means "black metal". I discovered them from an article I've been working on for one of their WWII vehicles, the Kurogane Type 95, or the worlds first four-wheel-drive car, four years before the Jeep, with a Harley-Davidson connection. I found the Japanese equivalent and translated it to the English side, and am now building up the Kurogane article from scratch. I also discovered they built one of the first keitora one year before the Subaru Sanbar, called the 1960 Kurogane Baby, which currently doesn't have an English article. Kurogane also briefly controlled another obscure Japanese company called Ohta, which is currently a stub on the English side, with a wealth of info on the Japanese side.

You interested?(Regushee (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC))

@Regushee: - Hi Reg, I am aware of Kurogane (especially the Baby) and have noted the lack of an article here. I am currently in grad school and have very little time for WP (I have a little daughter, too) but will definitely drop by if I have something. Thanks!  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Good work on the Type 95! So much content, so fast!  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, I've decided to create the Kurogane Baby, and it appears to be the first keitora before the Subaru Sambar and the Suzulight Carry, having been developed by Ohta before Kurogane took them over.(Regushee (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC))

Hi Mr Choppers. We've not talked for a while. I notice your addition to Ford New Zealand. As added it is misleading. It must refer to a brief period of perhaps part of the 1980s but that isn't made clear. You could get clarification from the author at this email address Donn Anderson [email protected]. In spite of the spelling he may well be of Scandinavian stock. However if you get knocked back the statistics are available, I'm taking a rest from NZ's auto industry. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Eddaido, I wasn't quite sure how to write it, but I think it mostly refers to 1983. It is interesting to note the differences in buyer preferences and tax structures across the straight.  Mr.choppers | ✎  08:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The strait as you put it (the Tasman Sea) is 1300 miles across (London to Greece?) and while we share an awful lot it is nothing like so much as the great bulk of Australians assume. We look out from here and see the world. It is totally natural to an Australian that we should only be able to see Australia! when in fact we completely overlook it just as much as possible (i.e. all the time unless there is very good reason). I'm not joking. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

While on the soap box: it is said the two big differences are: the attitude to the original inhabitants and; they have Irish (and a very large number of them) where we have Scots. Eddaido (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mr Choppers - the hat note has been arbitrarily restored by User:‎Regushee. I don't want to get into an edit war so have left it in place and continued the debate.

Hello Mr.Choppers. I thank you for putting up photos of the Fiat Albea. I have a question for you as you seem to know so much about cars.

I own the Fiat Albea and ave recently brought it to the UK. Problem ? It as the Fiat Fire 1.2 engine and it needs a new exhaust excluding the catalyst of course front to back. I do not know what is the English equivalent of my car so i cannot find or order one and I thought you could supply me with this information. If it helps I have the chassis number and other details. Is my car the same as the Sienna version ? I have to know exactly what will fit. Any help would be most welcomed and thank you so much in advance.

my email is [deleted] if you need it.

Take care & best wishes.

Ray McGarry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.175.233 (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Dunno, but a chassis number and year would be necessary. Try turkeyfiatparts.com/ for a start. Is it Turkish made?  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Mr.choppers. Thank you for cleaning up the image captions in

I also noticed, in your edit summary, that you "did not see many issues with wording."[3] Do you feel that it was placed in error? I appreciate your feedback, and your willingness to improve the core of Wikipedia: her articles.--

@

John Cline: - Hello JC, thanks for writing. I only really found one problematic caption, but I did feel that a large number of the images were unnecessary. If it was my page, I would have deleted more of them, but I lean inclusionist. I don't feel that it was placed in error, but it would have probably been easier just to rectify it, rather than adding a tag. Thanks, best regards,  Mr.choppers | ✎ 

15:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand, and agree. Best to you as well.--

John Cline (talk

) 02:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Me Choppers:

I am an author who is writing a memoir. I would like to publish your picture of the 1939 Chevrolet sedan in my book because one chapter in my book describes a trip I took in my youth with my uncle who owned a 1939 Chevrolet. Our trip was in his car and the chapter describes some of the problems we had in trying to open the locked trunk of his !939 Chevy. Your picture is perfect for my story. I would give you credit or acknowledgement in my book for your photograph. If you agree to let me use it, how would you like my credit to read?

Memoirauthor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memoirauthor (talk • contribs) 17:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Memoirauthor: - this picture? Of course you may use it, I have given away the copyright in return for credit. Simply "Mr.choppers at Wikipedia" will suffice. Thanks for asking, too.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thank you for your automobile article contributions Regushee (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Greetings. You edit automotive stuff so you get this assortment of words on your talk page.
You were/are involved with the Template:Infobox engine. I am proposing to make some changes to it and have posted about on the talk page for the WP Automobiles (click here). Seeing how most of these discussions go... maybe you can contribute to the non existing discussion.
After thinking about it there are some more minor changes that would make the template better. Putting the Chronology section at the bottom, like with the automobile template, for example. Nice picture btw for your edit notice.
2A04:4540:1109:2701:656B:4123:94DB:3B83 (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Some changes have now happened to the template. Maybe you'd like to take a look. Or revert and get angry. The lack of any real response from others means that there has been no discussion as to what's best for the template. Which I think speeds up the process and clears me to make a suggestion by editing the thing. Cheers. 2A04:4540:1101:E501:B57F:E9C6:3B5B:6B86 (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I checked up on a few pages that I was familiar with and everything looks good. I don't think there'll be any protests from any quarter. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Any more input or opinions? I have been rethinking my original proposal and decided that stuff like timing control should be left out of the infobox. Undecided on the valves per cylinder field - some engines did come in 2V or 4V variants, as SOHC or DOHC, there are camless engines in development and even in operation... I know the expression that "money talks" but why 25 cents would protest confuses me. Still need a better name instead of Combustion but nothing really fits. Fluids wouldn't fite entirely and need its own fairly useless section, Induction becomes confusing when no TC or SC is listed. Cheers. 2A04:4540:1100:5501:F421:FDA6:398E:464B (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The description to this file says it is a 1958 Mk III. Can you confirm which is correct? Chemical Engineer (talk)

@Chemical Engineer: - the board at the museum said "1950 Mk I." The description was amended by an ip (if you check the file history, he also explains that This is a Velocette LE Mk3 made after 1958. You can tell by the kickstart, foot gearchange and other details.). I know nothing about Velocettes but knowing the laxness of some of th other boards at this museum, the ip may indeed be right. Also, he doesn't say "1958" but 1958-on.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I have moved the image from the Mk I section to the MK III section in Velocette LE. I also do not know such things. Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. Sorry. See

Hello, Mr.choppers. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

...to you and yours, from Canada's Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The article Force Motors has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Advertising speech, tag since June 2017.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Yann (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Reading back I see I have caused a mess in your worlds. I am sorry. I have been playing with infoboxes and made a

@Sammy D III: Don't be sorry, I'd much rather be inconvenienced than erroneous. The list seems good to me, and if you have Crismon's book then I don't believe there is much I can add. I don't know if it's of any interest, but I only bought that book after I photographed an old IH Travelall (on the right) and was unable to identify it. There was no WP entry of any use whatsoever and other online sources were mostly contradictory - in the end spending waay too much on Crismon's book proved necessary. I've read every word up until about 1980 twice, but then my interest wanes considerably.  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I saw you were editing the BMW E21 page and thought you might be interested in [4] which should have some useful cites. Toasted Meter (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Toasted Meter: - thanks for the resource! I will explore, but now I got to make dinner for the kid...  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Mr.choppers, Wow. 450 socks? At least it's an even number; wouldn't want to have a mismatched pair. (:>{)> Great job! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

User:7&6=thirteen - 405 confirmed, 44 suspected, and now this one. Of course, the majority are just ip's...  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:Duck works more often than not. 7&6=thirteen (☎

) 22:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been meaning to thank you for your work on this page for a couple of months, so thanks for your efforts. It covers the subject very well. I'd been meaning to at least beef up the topic on the regular Fiat 1300/1500 page for some time but didn't get around to it. I certainly wouldn't have done one as complete as this one. The only thing I'd think about modifying is the title. It's clear what you mean when you come from the link on the Fiat 1300/1500 page; but I found your page by accident using generic Google; and the next Fiat 124 Spider was also a Pininfarina-designed car. Furthermore, you also include (properly, I think) the various coupe versions of the car. Something that incorporates the terms Fiat, 1200/1500/1600, Cabriolet, and Coupe might make it more clear. Thanks again for your work.PVarjak (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@

Fiat Cabriolet

a redirect just now.

As for the coupés, I feel that they are sort of small-series vehicles, incidental and secondary to the cabrios, which is partly why I left them out of the title. And then there is the Fiat 1200 TV Spider which also adds confusion. And all of a sudden the clearest, least confusing title occurs to me: Fiat Tipo 118. But any other suggestions are welcome.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers: You deserve the thanks for the work. I get it, it's tough to fit it all in the title. It was just a suggestion. I'm a Wikipedia novice, so I don't know exactly how the dab pages and redirects work, but I'll look at what you did. The coupes are beautiful, when you see them in real life. The first time I saw one was on a vacation to Italy (Rome). It was parked in a small street behind the Palazzo Farnese. I had never seen one before and I thought it might be a Ferrari I didn't recognize, since it had that egg-crate grille. As it turned out, it didn't even have any badges and it took me some time to figure out what it was from the photos I took. Great cars, especially the OSCA 1500S and 1600S models.PVarjak (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading