User talk:Toasted Meter

None of these example apply to a competitor tables. 1) The cars listed were the DIRECT competitors of the time - this is fully within context, if not - why would the magazine articles themselves include it? 2) Nothing genealogical 3) No white/pages directory 4) Nothing to do with sales 5) No silly cross categorization 6) no simple listings

Please do not censor data - was there a datapoint in there that was wrong, misleading? I am assuming at this point there was a car near and dear to your heart that you seem intent on HIDING information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Changomo (talk • contribs) 00:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is it? The M6? the Corvette?

Claims that I have some bias against the Mondial or that I am attempting to suppress information are counterproductive and from my perspective are beginning look like

WP:RS that says something to the effect of "The later Mondials were competitive with other cars in their price range/class" would not be impossible. Would you be interested in having some other editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles weigh in? Toasted Meter (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Also did you write the competitor comparisons section? Toasted Meter (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	I shortened the section because I combined a few pages of the VW Jetta facelifts and generations in China into one. The original text was rearranged into the combined page with all the photos arranged in a more understandable matter. See Main article: Volkswagen Jetta (China) . Thank you. Jengtingchen (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, I have changed it back to your version. One hint, on large edits like that one a descriptive edit summary can be very useful. Toasted Meter (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 7 series has been related to the 5 series in terms of design and mechanics. Which ultimately relates it to the M5. Don't know why you don't seem to understand. U1Quattro (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may have different understandings of what the related field should be used for, I think it should be reserved for vehicles that share a platform, like the Audi A3, Volkswagen Golf and SEAT León, and that cars like the Volkswagen Jetta and Volkswagen Passat are distinct, despite both being front wheel drive sedans that share many motors and have similar designs, they are not related in the same way as the Golf and A3. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of your statement, the M3 should be removed from there as well as the M6 as they aren't built on the same platform as the M5. U1Quattro (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Related section is used for the vehicles that share design and mechanical elements with each other rather than the platform. If you see other articles, it's the same case as I stated. U1Quattro (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The M3 is not in the related section and the E63 is based on the E60. All BMWs share some design and mechanical elements, at one time you could get a M54 in every car BMW sold (OK not the Z8), all cars from an automaker will have shared parts and similar design. Toasted Meter (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added the 7 series in the 'See also' section which you reverted. That action contradicts with your statement. U1Quattro (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also the BMW 7 Series (E32) page already establishes that the E34 5 series is related to the E32 which is what the M5 E34 is based on. U1Quattro (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes on the E32 page they do note that some motors are shared and that the styling of both is similar, this is true for every 5 Series and 7 Series.

I did not notice that you placed the 7 Series link in the see also, this certanley changes the argument, I am not sure if there is any reason not to add it, if you think it would be useful to readers go for it. Toasted Meter (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would be useful as the 7 series and the 5 series share components. U1Quattro (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About the design, the 7 series and the 5 series have been different when the E39 5 series came out. U1Quattro (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the E32 and E34 share around the same amount as the E38 and E39. Toasted Meter (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite the same as the E39 5 series was different in terms of design and the usage of engines.U1Quattro (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pls stop removing permanent refs -->Typ932 ^T·C 19:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one reference for a statement that had two other good refs, all the other ones I replaced, I don't see why you insist on keeping this guy's blog as a reference, especially over an established publication like Auto Bild. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also what is a "permanent ref"? I have never heard of such a thing. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And do you think that being "archived" confers credibility? Toasted Meter (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not but archived ref doesnt disappear after one year. Do you understand whats the reason for archived ref? -->Typ932 ^T·C 19:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And learn also to make refs http://www.autobild.de/klassik/artikel/fiat-panda-wird-30-jahre-1207574.html isnt very well made reference look for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners -->Typ932 ^T·C 19:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Auto Bild ref has already been archived 21 times, I don't think it is necessary to make it 22. Do you think it necessary to add an archive link to every cite URL preemptively? Oh and you can blame Drachentötbär for the formating. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really if its archived why you use plain http ref then??? and yes fully acceptable archived ref (autozine) is much better than bare http url in ref, there was no reason to change the ref anyway -->Typ932 ^T·C 21:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement to provide an archive link preemptively, in the event it does go down I or another editor can add the archive link when it becomes nessisary, you can see that it has been archived here [1]. I might also note that you do not preemptively add archive links to references [2]. Oh and blame Drachentötbär for the formating, all I did was revert to his version. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is no requirement to add archived ref, but if one has had huge work to add archived ref there is no reason to replace those fully acceptable ref, with worse onesm and make tidy article look like shit -->Typ932 ^T·C 21:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see Autozine is a self published blog and not a reliable source, three editors (including me) agree that it is not reliable source, you look to be the only editor who disagrees. Under

All sites are selfpublished and all sites are nowadays more or less blog types, actually autozine isnt blog it has also normal articles its not fully blog type site ( do you even know what is blog?) . And its not any worse than for example autoblog.com , you and those other guys seems to have some sort on vendetta against that site. Usert Drachentötbär went so far that he replaced autozine with other ref which had wrong info look here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfa_Romeo_Giulia_TZ&type=revision&diff=846186544&oldid=845574347, so pls stop that, autozine is fully acceptable ref with good information, if you find erros of course you can replace those ref but dont delete them if you dont have any replacement. And finally not even auto motor und sport or EVO magazines are always reliable source they have also quite often errors. -->Typ932 ^T·C 21:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All sites are not self published, when a publication hires writers and editors they are not self published, however one man reading a bunch of car mags and trying to stick it all together is self publishing, as to the idea that real publications have moved to a blog style format and this is comparable this is specifically addressed at

WP:RSSELF

with

"Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." Autozine is not that.

And is it likely that all those editors have a "vendetta" or is it more likely that they came to the correct conclusions and you are the odd one out? Toasted Meter (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So whats the difference of autozine or autoblog? Your conclusion is just wrong. Is ALL same as you and that other guy? thats just 2 unaware wikipedia writers not all - already pointed to you that you and your friends add wrong info with your "acceptable" refs. There is no matter if writer is professionals or not if the data is correct , there is many "professionals " in those automagazine sites who just keep writing wrong info, there is actually just web updaters who keep up those pages, they are not even journalist, some summmer guys just add content to pages. I already pointed to you DONT REMOVE VALID REFS UNTIL YOU HAVE MORE RELIABLE SOURCE, and keep the articles tidy dont make them look bad after your edits. Learn to make refs correctly etc. before editing-->Typ932 ^T·C 21:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of that matters in relation to being reliable sources, this is a wikipedia policy it does not matter what you think of the source if it does not comply it should not be used. You haven't even tried to explain how it complies with

WP:RSSELF

.

Oh and stop complaining about cite formatting to me, the Fiat Panda one was not added orginaly by me [3] blame Drachentötbär, I just reverted. Toasted Meter (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if you think any other editors will agree with you why don't you ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles?

I tried AutoZine as well for a source. Toasted Meter is correct, it's a blog by one person who hasn't driven half the cars he "reviews". I REALLY wanted to use an AutoZine article, but if you look closely at that site it's not a mag or professional group. VR-4 Enthusiast (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Typ932. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. >Typ932 ^T·C 07:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, excuse me for my disturbance. I recently added a few explanation words to the description of Mercedes-Benz R129 SL 73 AMG, of which you removed. I admit that I shouldn't have used the phrase of "fancy power", but I considered it not necessary to remove all of them. Also I noticed that you changed the performance figures as well. Perhaps you may have doubts on my words, and I want to know your advice or suggestions. We need to help improve the article, isn't it? Anyway, thanks for your reminding and welcome to reply. :) ArcTempesta (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was not necessary, it was me being lazy and choosing the fastest way of doing it but not the best. Toasted Meter (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

please, can you help me in Tata Sumo in the references? There is an error. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.99.52 (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Toasted Meter. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I agree, it is no longer necessary to add bore, stroke, compression ratio and other data to the main text if it is already existing in the infoboxes.

Sounds good. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I do not want to start an edit war, I started a section here to discuss the main image in the BMW Z8 infobox. I believe the image I put (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grey_BMW_Z8.jpg) is better suited, my rationale being that it is high resolution, professionally taken, is more well sized and shows off the shape of the BMW Z8 more accurately. I believe your image is too small and shows the car in a very dirty state, especially the front wheels, which are covered in brake dust.

Looking at it more closely I think you are absolutely correct. Toasted Meter (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm GhostOfDanGurney. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Audi that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I might note that

MOS:OVERLINK says "A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from." and "The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar—unless there is a contextually important reason to link: This generally includes major examples of geographic features (e.g., the Himalayas, Pacific Ocean, South America), locations (e.g., United States; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear" I don't think this adds anything to the page, however it is not particularly consequential. Toasted Meter (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• The German project went for a full chronological approach and put all motors from 1960 onwards in the same timeline (not a fan of that choice) de:Vorlage:Zeitleiste BMW-Ottomotoren

• The Japanese project also has a chronological approach with a much more reasonable period covered ja:Template:BMWの自動車用エンジン系譜図

• The Indonesian project seems to have gone with something similar to the English list id:Templat:BMW motor vehicle engine timeline, 1980s-2000s

• And one more example Template:Timeline of lighting technology shows what a template concerned only with introduction dates looks like

I would love to see a way to represent end dates unambiguously without adding so many new lines, I just have not thought of one I like, perhaps some kind of colour code or symbol/notation to indicate that the end date is not shown. Toasted Meter (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is tricky to accurately show the end dates without adding many new lines. Thanks for sharing your research. I also went digging around to see what articles for other manufacturers do, but it turns out that not many have timelines. The only ones I could find were

talk) 22:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I looked through the timelines I could find and found some candidates, something like

Template:Ferrari car timeline 1960s-1990s with the colored box applied to those with production overlap, or footnotes with some kind of disclaimer like "Production continues beyond what is represented here". Toasted Meter (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree, the colored boxes could work. Cheers,

talk) 03:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I quite like the way your version looks, and the changes to the text are a big improvement. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wow, you got onto fixing the background colour quickly! To be honest, I'm still not sure about the wording, so feel free to tweak further. Cheers,

talk) 07:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

the interrupted colour band seems like it might work well as it can both show the introduction date of the new model and the end of production of the previous one. I would like to get your input on this. Toasted Meter (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work with the CSS stuff, very tricky! (hope it's ok that I had a fiddle with your test above, feel free to revert if you like).

I really like the concept of the diagonal bands, but it seems they can't be done across part of a cell group? Also, it is quite fiddly to implement. Anyway, the solid colour example in the top row also works well, I am happy with that.

Sorry to harp on about colours again, but I prefer subtler colour (eg the blue-grey above), so it doesn't become too distracting. Cheers,

talk) 23:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The one thing I don't like about the blue is that if it reaches the link it provides poor contrast with the text, you can see this in the table above. Do you have any other colours you like? Toasted Meter (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, yes. Good point. Could the purple be softened a bit please (see above)?

Purple looks good but I am again concerned about contrast, this time with visited links as they are also a purple/blue. Toasted Meter (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the visited link text stands out ok. But if you prefer the brighter purple, that is fine by me. Cheers,

talk) 22:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I saw your new changes to the timeline, I very much like it and your choice of color is very nice. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words, I'm glad to hear that you are happy with the end result! The trick you found with the background shading made it all possible, thanks. Cheers,

talk) 11:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, I didn't add spam to original equipment manufacturer here: Link. I merely reverted Volvoupdates' edit to your last version. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry about that, my mistake. Toasted Meter (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. To err, is human after all. :) --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.reddit.com/r/BMW/comments/ai24w8/i_am_refreshing_the_list_of_bmw_vehicles_i_have/ E30 apex (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be using Reddit to communicate about wikipedia, to do so on Reddit would exclude other users who do not wish to make a Reddit account. Toasted Meter (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am here to see what your problem is, are you ojust fucking about? tell me and we can come to an conclution. as for now it seems you are 80+ and have a real bad life outside the internet.

you have not come to my page and told me anything just deleted content. I am here now so tell me E30 apex (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read

MOS:OVERLINK and stop with the personal attacks. Toasted Meter (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

And I think it looks cluttered and provides very little advantage over the old page. No one cares about power ranges, all they tell you is that over the years power goes up, the page works much better as a collection of links so that readers can see accurate referenced statistics about specific models by clicking on the link for that model. I would be sort of OK with the figures if they were in addition to the old formating, were in a collapsible table, the glaring errors were fixed and with actual references for the numbers. A bit like this, although the table would need to be narrowed a bit. Toasted Meter (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for helping with the BMW articles and trying to explain to E30 apex he can't use reddit. Also, sorry for warning you instead of him. I had the wrong talk page pulled up. I also apologize for messing this up the first time I tried to post it. talk) 02:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

Thank you very much, and no worries about the warning, it's an easy mistake to make. Toasted Meter (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a tragidy tanks for helping. it has only bin me trying to communicate and you have just removed posts. I tried to start a communication with real messaging tools so we can get a REAL dialog. but that did not work out. Now when I ask him here on the precoius wiki talk. I get the answer No one cares about power ranges. why do you think I came here to add it? waste my time?- there is NO single page with all BMW power outputs, exept here on wiki now after my work. the glaring errors were fixed there were no errors. you just removed content. the table would need to be narrowed a bit why does it need to be narrowed? all the additional info is to the right and you somply dont need to look there. My passion is cars, BMWs specifically but not exclusively it seems this is your passion but still I find faults on the wiki. why do you care so much about me fixing things when you are to lasy to fix them?-all bmw x3 and x6 does not have pages of their own.-there were faulty links and no links. and the biggest thing THERE WERE NO MC LIST. you had not even tried making one. your passion is whanting to be some one your not <this line will probably get me baned, but it is the harsh truth. E30 apex (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think Wikipedia being imperfect is due to a lack of "passion" I think you are mistaken,

also there is a BMW motorcycles list

and you can see it at the bottom of the List of BMW vehicles page.

I was proposing what I would want changed if I were to be supportive/ambivalent towards the tables, by "glaring errors" I mean Alpina numbers being used, race car numbers being used, and many of the older figures being wrong, by narrowing the tables I mean using the convert range function to show a range in one cell rather than have a cell for high and low, and a few other tricks that will narrow the table while leaving the data intact, this is needed because it looks absolutely awful on mobile. When it comes to "real messaging tools" why pick one text based medium over another? I don't think upvotes are going to make this discussion go any more smoothly.

If you think anyone else thinks power and torque ranges are a thing that should be on a list page go ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles and see if anyone agrees, if you can find a consensus among editors I will of course respect that, I find it unlikely I will sway your opinion or vice versa so asking some other editors for their input is just about the best way to solve it. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, It was observed in your recent edits on the BMW M3 page that those edits were based on confusion. I suggest that you only add information to an article when you are absolutely sure that it would make an article better. Cheers. U1Quattro (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rimac Automobili (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Toasted Meter. How is your patience holding out? You appear to be struggling with an editor who won't follow

It's frustrating but not too much. Long term protection would probably work, although if only the main Rimac article were protected this problem might move to the Concept One page. And a block seems like it would also resolve the problem. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since I forgot to put a edit summary of why I reverted your edit. The discussion from 2 years ago with that IP editor didn't really reach a consensus, it was more of a session of mockery about the appearance of the car, calling the wheels ugly etc. Only one other user agreed who isn't particularly dedicated to automobile from what I can tell. One other user did agreed the silver one was better. Please don't shadow revert my edit, I'm happy to create a new discussion if people are actually interested. --Vauxford (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Literally everyone disagreed with you, (the one bit of agreement was about a different photo), do you ever let things go? Two years on you are still trying to add the same worse photo. Post this on the project talk page and watch anyone with eyes come to the same conclusion. Toasted Meter (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that would be sad if I did try and add the same picture for 2 years straight. In fact I would've been blocked for disruptive editing if I did that. I just stop doing it because the IP editor was patrolling some of the German cars articles and then completely forgot about it until now. I really don't think their anything wrong with the one I proposed, it completely original, it has the uncommon lower spec wheels as well and matches with the rear shot, seeing as I redone and retouched the photo to be more presentable then the original, I say it worked out well, I wouldn't of replaced it otherwise. --Vauxford (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its an improvement, but I would suggest that you solicit some comment from the project talk, perhaps other editors disagree with me on this. Toasted Meter (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vauxford: are you going to ask anyone else for their opinion on this?

@Vauxford: I reverted it, precisely zero editors preferred the photo to the alternatives, yes it has been somewhat improved by editing but you have found no more editors who like it this time around. Don't just revert, if you think it is an improvement find some consensus, I will be happy to accept consensus. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if you stopped stalking me for no reason, otherwise, I have to take matters to the administration. U¹ _quattro TALK 13:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have your talk page on my watchlist from when we were discussing something, if you do not want me to comment on your talk page you can tell me that. Toasted Meter (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its awkward when you suddenly jump in when I'm involved in a discussion with another user. I'm not stopping you from commenting but please don't do that. It doesn't feel right. U¹ _quattro TALK 18:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Toasted Meter (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Literally every US source states that the Audi R8 will skip the 2019 model year. 137.25.35.93 (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide them? Toasted Meter (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr/Mrs Meter, I bet you will be very glad when BMW announces that the final F31 has rolled off the production line! In the meantime, thanks for your tireless efforts to keep correcting the dates in the articles. Cheers,

I can't wait, then we will get people changing the date to 2018. Toasted Meter (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you blind? that Vauxford picture is catastrophe, it has wrong colors , car end is messed with horrible reflections, its bloody awfull picture. -->Typ932 ^T·C 06:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pls dont start edit warring, better read messages before startin to war- -->Typ932 ^T·C 06:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, the colour is the factory colour, it was practically new at the time I taken it and highly HIGHLY unlikely someone would give it a respray already. --Vauxford (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa has no orange/pink color in their cars -->Typ932 ^T·C 06:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has NONE of that in the photo. --Vauxford (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes it has, better to calibrate your monitor. Alfa doesnt have that red in any car, Vauxfoord camera or hes editing has made wrong red for it. plus the car rear looks totally wrong because those horrible reflections. -->Typ932 ^T·C 06:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't love it, but you are trying to replace it with worse. If you hate it so much it might be time to take a camera to the nearest Alfa dealer and do better. And Typ932, Vauxford could you please have this argument on article talk? Toasted Meter (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking nonsense Typ932, and what you heading towards is becoming more vandalism and disruptive editing then actually being civil and take part in the talk page discussion. --Vauxford (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do this on article talk, so other editors will see it, and so you stop sending me notifications every 30 seconds? Toasted Meter (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no I cant take because this was pointed to Toast meter. You are talking nonsense if you dont see whats wrong in that picture, IT IS HORRIBLE, it makes that car looking for another model, because that rear end reflection, and the color is also wrong. -->Typ932 ^T·C 07:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute, and there are multiple other editors involved, it's not a user talk kind of thing. Come on, you were just arguing with Vauxford about colours, nothing to do with me as an editor, keep this off my talk page. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes it user specific , because Toasted meter didnt read hes messages before editing. so hew kinda started edit warring before talkings. -->Typ932 ^T·C 07:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you wanted to talk about my edits, why did you open with a complaint about Vauxford's photo, then you had an argument with Vauxford. Now if you have something to say about my editing, go for it. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

because your edit concerns Vauxfords pictures, I had to specify what Im alking about, I cant discuss without subject. You have to know what thing/edits we are discussing. No need to say more about your edits, I already said that you didnt read talkings before you start edit warring. -->Typ932 ^T·C 07:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section title "Alfa Romeo Giulia (952)" would be adequate for informing me of what your comment is regarding. And I read the article talk page, your first post on my talk page was one minute after my last edit on the page, so I don't see what you are talking about there. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.There is no hurry to revert articles, better watch duscussions 1st . -->Typ932 ^T·C 07:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Typ932 Nobody is reverting anything and if you are going to continue reverting the article just because your trivial point-of-view and ignoring the talk page discussion then I have no other choice but take it to ANI for disruptive editing, I done enough of those as it is and at this rate, folks on their just think I'm just crying wolf but any sane Wikipedia user/admin seeing someone doing what your doing would deem it beyond unacceptable. --Vauxford (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, so nobody reverted my edits? ok, Ill stop this discussion right now. -->Typ932 ^T·C 08:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Toasted Meter, Thanks for correcting my error on the E39 article. (I saw the M57D30 code and was too hasty in assuming that it was a 3.0 L engine!) Cheers,

Those small changes can be so easy to miss. Toasted Meter (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I add some text and footnote to Saleen but a user delete my contribution, can you help me? Saleen is Chinese, and the only vehicle manufacturer in California is the S7. The Saleen S1 is made in Jiangsu by chinese Saleen owner and is based on the old Artega Gt. Thanks. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.97.154 (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A car being made by a company other than the one that owns the nameplate does not necessarily prove that that nameplate is owned by the manufacturer, I have seen some sources saying that they were acquired, however recent SEC filings do not show them as having any ownership interest [4]. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.97.154 (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sorry, can you revised the artiche ARO? I remove the non encyclopedic site... thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.253.10.64 (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

91.253.10.64 The rest of the page looks good. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Toasted Master, When you have some spare time could you kindly go to Talk:Honda_Civic#Honda_Civic_infobox and clarify your !vote as I have no idea whet the original image was and neither will whoever will close that discussion,
I'm just trying to make life easier for the poor soul that'll have to close it! :),
Many thanks, –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 17:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - noting that there is going to be a run of people trying to add the Chiron to the list. Should we put a hat note at the top of the article for a while to try and deter this?

I think a hat note might be a bit much, some hidden text at the top of the production table should hopefully stop most of this, or auto confirmed protection? Toasted Meter (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, lets see how it goes

talk) 11:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, There's currently an RFC at Talk:BMW_3_Series_(E36)#Infobox_image_RFC over the infobox image,
Just letting you know as you participated in the discussion above that, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Toasty, the production years in the section header are for year of introduction until when the car is replaced in its home/main market. They aren't scientific, but including every secondary licence production is best done in the body text and the infobox. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything about this on the conventions page, and Volkswagen Beetle for instance, lists the end date as 2003, despite it being replaced by four successive generations of Golf in Europe. Am I missing some consensus? Toasted Meter (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I might be thinking of some earlier, unspoken consensus. Might be worth a discussion. In any case, including every single market becomes completely meaningless when it looks like this (Nissan Navara):

• First generation D22 series (1997–present)
• Second generation D40 series (2004–present)
• Third generation D23 series (2014–present)

Additionally, at what point is a car no longer the same? The original Renault 5 continued to be produced in Iran until 2013, sort of, although it only retains the body panels (with modifications), having had its underpinnings replaced by those of the Kia Pride. Is that the same? What about the Chinese versions of various Japanese pickups that have a new name and different engines and altered appearance?

Anyhow, I will raise this at the Automobile Project talk page, I think it would be worthwhile to have some more input and see what is the best thing to do. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it can look a bit off, I am not quite sure how it should be defined, but some discussion on this would be great. Toasted Meter (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please can you help me: - All the text in

Thank you so much! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.97.49 (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what I can do about the Suzuki, the copyvio will get removed and they someone can start adding more info. I can definitely have a look at the Tata Sumo page. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To characterize a non-consensus as a consensus is highly inappropriate. It merely detracts from your credibility and does nothing to persuade anyone of the merits of your position. If you want to publish speculation and rumor, you are working on the wrong website. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a lot coming from you at the edit summary of BMW M4 talk page when you have a history of adding PS because it as a "metric" measurement. Also, I didn't add that as a first unit. I just reverted an edit which made the article worse and it got added back. U¹ _quattro TALK 05:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with PS, I don't think it's mandatory, and I certainly don't think it's an SI unit. Don't revert edits when doing so would restore a violation of the MOS, the edit button is there for a reason. Toasted Meter (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edit because it was a violation of WP:ROWN. Your thinking isn't superior to a consensus. What you claim isn't true. MOS hasn't disallowed the usage of PS and that's why it's still there in majority of the articles. U¹ _quattro TALK 15:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEASUREMENT however does say that by default the primary units should be SI units, using PS is fine by me, just don't make it the first unit. Also, reverting because of a "violation" of WP:ROWN would suggest that you have never read it. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I have read that and according to that, changes made by 1292simon made the article worse instead of improving it. Also, your changes took away the consistency of the article. As I said, I didn't make that the first unit. It was the first unit before 1292simon made changes.U¹ _quattro TALK 12:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please check Wikipedia's own page about DriveTribe. There are other sources as well that confirm the GT2 usage and other info in that section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BMW_M3#E36_M3_Imola_Individual_(GT2) PVarjak (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PVarjak (talk • contribs)

Hi,

Since you were the last person to edit this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VANOS?wprov=sfti1

I want to run this by you...what do you feel the description ought to be changed to ?

Page is miscategorized as a ‘Pharmaceutical product’ ?

At the beginning of the page it says that VANOS is a ‘Pharmaceutical product’...can someone who’s intimate with editing this page, please edit the article and rename the category or subtitle ?

Best Regards, Dave - gto3deuces [email protected] GTO3DEUCES (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC) GTO3DEUCES (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya,

I edited the description of the ‘VANOS’ page and replaced the description of ‘Pharmaceutical product’ with ‘ BMW Nomenclature | Variable Valve Timing System’

I hope that’s OK...

Best Regards, Dave - GTO3DEUCES

[email protected] GTO3DEUCES (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds Good. Toasted Meter (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear user: in Fiat Tipo a user add a multiple of link of Sales... i believe the data of single european country are added in a single voice (Europe). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.227.176.215 (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @ToastedMeter for the unsupported GTO MR quote I put in the other day. I've been dealing with a ton of personal issues and depression and had no right to put that in there and waste your time having to delete it.

• I try my best to always have proof to back up claims, but I didn't have one and knew it*

I want to thank you for not going off on me (you definitely could have for that BS). And also wanted to thank you for working hard on this page and accepting my input when I have proof. The page has never looked cleaner and more precise and that's due to you. Thank you. I will refrain from letting my personal life affect my Wikipedia usage.

-Andrew / "VR-4 Enthusiast" VR-4 Enthusiast (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I hope you are doing better now. Toasted Meter (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sir, May I know why my edits are not approved on auto detailing wiki page. As I am new to the Wikipedia, so I want to know for my knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megha Parmarr (talk • contribs) 08:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The external link you added looked like spam, the paint protection film bit seemed out of the scope of the article (I am not sure if applying a plastic film to a car should be placed in the same category as wax), and was poorly written. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey toasted meter, I am the police and you should respect the years of the cars and if a car comes right now then you should put the right year of the car you are so selfish and you have to respect and stop blocking someone from editing and you are all banned for the entire year for being so mean and all of the administrators should leave Wikipedia or otherwise I will come and arrest you and go to hell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.46.61.9 (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was dumb as shit. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you? I am coming to arrest you now and yes I am the police and don’t say no because it’s true what I say and I’m coming in a min and you are under arrest and you are expelled from working and no one ever edits or defends him forget about him (other guys) and you stop it toasted meter and sign out of your account and delete it and this is not a joke I am going to come right now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.46.61.9 (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page is protected, bye. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! I'm here to invite you participate for discussion. Please stop personally ignoring, blaming, arguing. Let's talk respectfully and decently about previous edits at that page. Please leave a massage about what you're thinking about that performance figure. Thank you! Muffyogsan (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please rejoin the Nismo discussion and explain your viewpoint. Drachentötbär (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please DO NOT change/undo vital informations on Toyota Ipsum site with no good reasoning. Dealership of Toyota Ipsum in Canada are still related good information. It does not go off topic, there is no advertisements in any way. Just information which is all that's needed

It is not a new car, Wikipedia does not cover where you can buy particular used cars. Toasted Meter (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a policy/guideline?

WP:NOTCATALOGUE "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention." you have no independent source and as any car made 15+ years ago is legal to import to Canada there is no justified reason, it's no different than any other JDM car made before 2005, they can all be sold by Canadian dealers, because this is so unexceptional reliable sources don't cover it. Toasted Meter (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Apology accepted, good luck with any constructive edits you make in future. Toasted Meter (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I appreciate the edits made for the Materazzi, Edonis, EB110 and F40 articles. I was wondering if there was a particular guideline in Wikipedia that prevents the photo of the person. For example this page of an F1 designer has his photo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Barnard These are other examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paolo_Stanzani; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Chapman

The photos I inserted for Materazzi were photographs that I took over time during my engineering career. So I had a photo of him after a public speech, I had a photo of the magazine where the Edonis reached top speed. I also took photographs of the F40 engine and many other items so that they could be inserted in the articles. I have worked in engineering since 2005 and met a number of engineers who have designed the cars I edit the articles for. However these images were removed without me understanding the exact reasons.

I would like to understand if copyright laws allow a photograph of a publication to be used in Wikipedia. So for example if I own a magazine dating from 2002 and I photograph the front cover to cite as a reference, does this violate copyright law when I paid to buy the publication? I believe it can be a complex issue but it would be useful to know since there is some difference between "stealing a photo from the web", which is common and frowned upon, and owning something like a book. To give an example, technically I doubt that anybody can put a photo of Titanic that they own, unless a member of family were at the Belfast docks or aboard another ship and happened to take a photo of it.

As an example, I placed an image of drawings from the Edonis. Again I took photographs of drawings at the time when somebody showed them to me. So, I do not know if anyone can argue against that since 99% of sources from the web will photograph the same drawing but with a slighly different level of zoom and lighting. My photo will look similar to that of other web sources for obvious reasons. We are getting into the details here but as an engineer, I have to ask these things because otherwise the results differ quite substantially. In most cases I find 50% of my documentation vanishes from later edits, so if that is the case it means I will cease to contribute to the site because a page about engineering machines or people without detailed photography becomes incredibly dull to read and defies the point of having a web encyclopaedia where there is no limit on printed paper pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leknightclub (talk • contribs) 17:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Leknightclub: If you created a photograph of a person or (most) objects you can release it under a license which meets the standards for use on commons. Photos of drawings or magazines are not transformative so are not allowed. Citations do not need to be accessible on the internet as long as they are published in a reliable source you can cite them as "Issue X of magazine X".

Go here [5] and make a note of which photos you personally took, and post that list there with a note that you did create them. Toasted Meter (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if all photos are now better after my comments, I would appreciate if you re-instated the sections that I had carefully created. Same goes for the Edonis article and any others that I wrote. If anything still looks poor, then let me know. i'm in the middle of writing the book for Lee Noble so I don't exactly have that much time to log into Wikipedia daily, but I would appreciate it if the content I add is taken seriously. I don't contribute to anything of historic battle, politics, music etc so I mainly focus on automotive and occasionally motorsport. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leknightclub (talk • contribs) 19:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[File:Information orange.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Please do not add or change content without citing a

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Luc Donckerwolke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Skoda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]