Hello, U1Quattro. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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.
As this is already established that the lap time was a hoax, it was removed. Unless it is proven that it wasn't a hoax, it shouldn't be added back.U1Quattro (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"As this is already established that the lap time was a hoax" when was it established that this lap time was a hoax? I've found the discussion on List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times talk page, but so far all I see is speculation that the lap time given by Evo, was taken from Wikipedia. Has there been some proof either way regarding this claimed lap time? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there actually some proof that the lap time was real and not false? Because the talk page established that it was added without any source and then the controversial Evo source was added which had the same lap time copied from that unsourced time.U1Quattro (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have the Evo source. Evo is considered to be a reliable source. When was it established that Evo copied their time from Wikipedia? Did they make a statement or something? Reliable sources are to be trusted, that's the way Wikipedia works. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that in order for any source to be considered reliable, that source has to reply to e-mails from Wikipedia editors? And yes, I have read the discussion and saw nothing proving that the time or source are not to be trusted. I'm still interested in actual proof that the claimed time is inaccurate and/or that Evo took the time from the Wikipedia article, is there such proof, or is there just speculation that a highly respected automotive publication isn't a reliable source without any proof to back up that speculation? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly because I don't have to, we have reliable sources that we trust. Do I need to explain to you how and why we use sources, rather than saying "why don't you prove it?" to everyone who introduces content that we don't agree with? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unless and until it is proven that a lap time is real and not fake, it's not being put back. Even reliable sources like Evo can be wrong sometimes.U1Quattro (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that just isn't how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia works by identifying reliable and verifiable sources and introducing content based on those sources. We don't come to conclusions. Statements like "Unless and until it is proven that a lap time is real and not fake, it's not being put back." don't mean a single thing on Wikipedia, and has zero effect on content being removed or kept. You might want to read about Wikipedia policy before you make similar statements again. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A word doesn't need a source. However, you might add one if you feel necessary. Both variations are equally permissible with "Publically" being more commonly used.
You're making a claim that "publically" is the normal British spelling. I provided you with statistical data from a British source indicating that this spelling is used only about 3% of the time.
So I'm not asking you to provide a "source" for a word, I'm asking you to provide any kind of "indicative" information to support your claim that "publically" is the preferred British spelling.
Based on your logic (that no evidence of any sort is required to justify using a "rare" spelling, claiming it's actually the "common" spelling), I should be able to edit any article, changing the spelling of as many words as I want to have bizarre spellings, and nobody should be able to challenge that, because I say so.
Looking into this, it appears that this part of the message was still in draft form when the "Publish changes" button was clicked by User:Shirt58's cat.
Apologies for that. I have had the "please do not dance on my computer keyboard when I am away from my desk" conversation with her a number of times, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is based on what is already mentioned in the Ferrari 612 page. Meaning that the article is useless as there is already a detailed description of the GG50 in the 612 article. Furthermore it is poorly structured and has material copy/pasted from what is mentioned in the GG50 heading in the Ferrari 612 article. That is a reason good enough that the article should be removed.U1Quattro (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A block will result if the edit warring continues, to prevent disruption caused by edit warring. You should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount.
This is actually the second time you're edit warring on this page. I looked up the edit history. The last time was ten months ago, and I don't know why you consider those edits "inacceptable" (actually spelled "unacceptable"). The anonymous user edited the page first. The IP address left you a message today explaining the reason for removal.
There are other infoboxes with an edit note without links, like ones for bands ("See Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians" was the edit note).
Wikipedia is a place where everyone has the right to edit. It's an encyclopedia with topics on just about every single thing in the universe. It's not a place to waste energy and time arguing about a little thing when you edited second.
In order to prevent an edit war, I'm going to leave it the way the anonymous user left it. As that user said, there are other edit notes without links, and they are invisible, therefore they are unnecessary. I never see anyone who treats the removal of something unneeded like it's a big deal. It's a waste of your and their time to keep edit warring. Please accept this edit. Note that I'm a rollbacker.
The IP fixed your writing a little, so I will guess your first language may not be English. Consider using a spellchecker.
I made a typo. That isn't a big deal at all. Plus you're from the US, not from Europe. There are differences in British and American English. If you actually see the edit summaries, I mentioned that the unlinking done by the anonymous user was not a typo as they mentioned it. They should've given appropriate reasons for removal. If they had done it in the edit summary, it would've been a lot better. You're a rollbacker, not an admin. You have no right to treat me like this because of the fault of an anonymous user in that they removed the links without any reasonable explanation.U1Quattro (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dodge Viper (ZB II)
Reviewed. A bit of work to be done on citations. Try not to claim too much - leave that to the manufacturers. Just concentrate on demonstrable facts and you will be okay. Deb (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Manufacturer data Comment
Hi, I think its general rule in auto articles that we use manufacturer data, and there is good reason for it, there is thousands of Independently tested performance data available in internet, we can never be sure they are measured in right manner, of course there is good additional data available, but 0-100 km/h or 0-60 mph and top speed values should come from manufacturer if that data is available. And if we use other than manufacuter data that should told in article, references alone dont tell that until you go and read that article. If Im not totally wrong this thing is discussed in past in WP:Automobiles -->Typ932T·C20:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but road and track along with car and driver are reliable independent testers. In the absence of manufacturer performance data, their tested data is used commonly. Plus I think Wikipedia guidelines do not allow citations from the manufacturer to be used in the articles. U1Quattro (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Independent times can also be useful to provide a more complete picture of cars made by manufacturers who quote times significantly lower than tested times. Mentioning the source in the text is fine. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would repeat my above comments about the language in these articles. So much of it sounds like you took it straight off an advert. Try not to use words like "features", "offers" and "available": These are standard advertising jargon. Deb (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you must have missed my comment on the talk page, "two new small turbochargers instead of the single unit" is very confusing when the car you are talking about came with the twin turbo N54 and the single turbo N55. This change needs to be mentioned and the N54 should be mentioned first. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the engines were twin-turbocharged in the B3 so it's not that important because the engine codes aren't mentioned in the sentence.U1Quattro (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"instead of the single unit" implies that all the motors had a single turbo. The N54 is also only mentioned once on the entire page, if you look in the infobox you only see the N55. Toasted Meter (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Headings need to follow sentence case - unless it is a proper noun, only the first word is capitalized. Also, citations do not belong in headings, you can just add a source line under the heading. Thank you for creating the article.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and pingme. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Yes it was the accidental use of the unlink feature. I was attempting to create an article on the Lamborghini Veneno and during that process, this disruption happened. I sincerely apologise for the inconvenience. U1Quattro (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, U1Quattro. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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.
I have noticed your recent and great work on Alpina-related articles. It is really great to have more articles about this company and you have done a fantastic job. Yet, I have some remarks (please do not take it the wrong way, French people like me always criticise everything!). I have largely re-written the French article about Alpina since 2014 but I do not speak English well enough to do the same here, so my contributions on that topic have been more sparse.
As you have noticed, the company is not well-known. Quality references often lack. Many journalists actually make mistakes because they do not check properly what they write. Hence, as you may have noticed, some articles say Alpina cars are based on BMW M vehicles (whereas it is never the case), others are wrong about the engine (for example, they say the current B4S uses a B58 engine whereas it is sill the N55), some were even contradictory. Etc, etc, etc. These issues were a real pain when I worked on the French article as I had to be really careful when selecting sources. Good luck.
I have seen some missing information you could add to make articles complete and near-perfect:
Concerning the B6 E63, you should add racing results of the GT3 racecar since it has won races and a championship (with teams, pilots, etc). Additionally, the car got a mid-life update with improvements and a new engine.
Concerning the B6 F12/F13/F06, you completely missed the engine updates (sorry). While the Cabriolet was indeed first unveiled with the 507 PS engine of the B5 in September 2011, it never made it into production. It directly got the 540 PS engine, just like the Coupé (Alpina Modellhistorie ). Then there was the 600 PS (and not 600 hp) Edition 50 limited edition of the Coupé and Cabriolet). And then they all got a 600 PS engine as standard until the end of the production.
Concerning the B6 F06 Gran Coupé, it is also not true to say it was exclusive to the US. This is an US bias. The Gran Coupé was available worldwide where Alpina was, plus in the United States and Canada exclusively through BMW as an "official" BMW (same for the B7 since E65, and Z8).
Finally, I have also noticed you forgot the updated D3 E90. There a was at first a single-turbo D3 as said in the article, then it has been replaced by a more powerful double-turbo Bi-Turbo D3.
I hope you will be able to correct this better than I could.
PS: if you really drive a Lotus Carlton as said on your user page, you are really lucky! I envy you :)
Thank you for your kind words. It has really motivated me to write more on this company. This is really the underdog of German perfomance cars. You're right in saying that the internet lacks reliable information and honest reviews about Alpina automobiles. I honestly didn't know that the B6 Cabriolet had a 540 PS engine from the start until you told me. The rest of the information you mentioned also couldn't be researched because of lack of sources. Could you please tell me where I will be able to find the information about the B6 GT3's full racing history? Even sources in French much would count, because researching about the B3 (E90) was a daunting task indeed since there were the absence of reviews from known automotive magazines. Only Autocar reviewed it until I got hold of the Alpina registry.
Edit: I did mention about the D3 (E90) being a twin turbo car. Turbo diesel doesn't mean am engine with a single turbocharger. It can have multiple meanings.
Yes, I do have a Lotus Carlton and I love that car. It's fun to drive and equally fast. But I've been so impressed by Alpina after writing these articles that I'd also buy one and use the Carlton and the new car both (I'm undecided on which one to buy for now). Cheers.U1Quattro (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
M52/M54
Just to elaborate a bit more on the differences, this should provide enough info to identify a pre TU M52 at a glance.
M52 single VANOS (note the protrusion at the front of the valve cover)
M52 dual VANOS (note the smooth front of the valve cover)
I don't think the Roadster S uses an M52 as customer cars were converted to the Roadsrer S sepcification as Alpina Register points out. Alpina used the existing M54 and enlarged it in those cars. Unless you have a reliable source pointing out it's an M52, this can't be put over there.U1Quattro (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can see absolutely no reason to make a 3.4 liter M54 when you have a M52 already made in the correct displacement, I can't prove it never existed but we have no proof it did, and we know that a S52B32 block was used[1] (you can also see this here in the B3 S parts catalog [2]) and that the head is a pre TU M52/S52, simply because no M54 head looked anything like it. I looked at all the photos on Alpina Register that showed the motor and all of them definitely had a pre TU M52 head. If we have an iron S52B32 block with a single VANOS head we know that none of those parts could be from a M54. and and additionally we have no proof that any were fitted with an M54. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The articles say that the engine traces its roots back to the E36 M3 which had used both the S52 and the S54 so the M52 claim cannot be true. Also no one said that the engine had a single VANOS system like you put it. The engine was bored out to 3.4-litres because the M54 wasn't available in 3.4-litres, neither was the M52. The M54 also used an iron block and had proved its age. That's why it was discontinued. As I said, unless you can prove that its an M52, the M54 stays because I see no reason in downgrading to an older engine.U1Quattro (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We know precisely what block it used, the parts catalogue for the B3 S (which we have a cite saying "it was powered by their recently enhanced 6 cylinder 3.4 Litre engine as found in the B3s" regarding the roadster) says it has a bored S52B32 block. And we know it is single VANOS by looking at the motor and noting the single VANOS head. Also the E36 M3 never had a S54, and the M54 never had an iron block (the S54 did but it has very little in common with the M54). Not using one's eyes to make reasonable conclusions in the face of a lack of sources is puzzling, by looking at the motor we can determine many things, no ITBs so not a S50 or S54, no raw aluminum valve cover so not a M20 or M30, protrusion on the valve cover so not a M54 or M52 TU, and that leaves us with.... Toasted Meter (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had mistook the M3 for the Z3 for which I apologise. It was the Z3 M which had used the S54 engine alongside the M3 (E46). Plus the Alpina press release states that "The engine is a well known friend from the 3 Series so it doesn't specifically points out to which engine has been used.U1Quattro (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That line from the press release is ambiguous in a vacuum, but by looking at the motor we can figure out they were referring to the also S52B32 based E46 B3. We have no reason to continue having the M54 on the page, we have zero proof that a M54 was ever fitted and very much reason to think it was not. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did use OSX and M 93 as guideline back when I started out in 2017 which I then later begin doing it in my own style. I really think Nim should work in different sections, I pity him begging at users to find ways to get a upper advantage like it some game by sending random WikiLove messages. --Vauxford (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vauxford. Would you mind your own business. I can work on whatever sections I wish. Its Wikipedia, not a personal website. Everyone can contribute as many images as they wish. Focus on providing your own images, and I'll focus on doing it 'by the books'. Everyone has ways to edit. Theres plenty of chances for me to showcase later on, but you still have some badly cropped images, which I know could be improved. I like to learn, so therefore U1Quattro can mentor me in providing good shots, I don't mind and also I will work on any section as I wish. If you don't like my edit, and revert it, please utilise WP:BRD as it links to WP:CONSENSUS & WP:BOLD. You should also note that I do not replace all the time, a lot of your shots are decent, however its important that everyone can contribute to an effective degree. I can ask for as much help as I need, thats what Wikipedia is there for. Also I've asked you to focus on vehicles more prominent in Europe such as Ford, BMW, Jaguar, Mercedes-Benz, Land Rover etc. whilst I focus on the Asian and other non-European example. We established a compromise on this discussion with Oshwah. I am beginning to now use consensus, as then we learn how to do it well. In fact, I recall some of the edits, you revert from me are because of the condition of the vehicle. --EurovisionNim(talk to me)(see my edits)03:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you've pointed out, condition of the vehicle is also a main factor in the photos. The vehicles should be clean and tidy and as far as possible, free of rust and corrosion. You also need to stop repetitive mentions of where the photo is taken, it kind of becomes annoying. The readers can see the photo location by clicking on the photo.U1Quattro (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your latest edit on the Ferrari F12 article; the overall content of it was pretty solid. However, the edit was riddled with typos, for instance, "havig" "tot he" "ans", as well as other grammatical errors. I see you a lot on Wiki and you're a great editor but it would be appreciated if you could take a little more time and make sure that as you're improving an article, that you're not also introducing new problems for other editors. TKOIII (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The WP article Car makes no distinction between car and automobile – it presents the two terms as interchangeable synonyms.
But in your recent edit of Honda S2000 you chose to make a distinction between 'car manufacturer' vs. 'automobile manufacturer'.
Can you please explain to me, how you see the difference between these two terms ?
--GeeTeeBee (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Car manufacturer means a manufacturer which solely manufactures cars. Automobile manufacturer means a manufacturer which manufactures cars as well as other automobiles such as SUVs, pickup trucks, motorbikes etc. Honda is an automobile manufacturer by that logic.U1quattroTALK11:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting of edits and claiming that it is vandalism
Hi, I noticed that you reverted 4 of my edits of Koenigsegg Jesko & Koenigsegg Agera and claiming that it is vandalism when the things I did didn’t even mess up anything. Is removing unnecessary tabling parameters and placing it at the top of the table opening vandalism? Is changing Template:Convert to Template:Cvt when the parameter abbr=on is present vandalism? I would appreciate you to use your words properly the next time and I hope that you can revert my edits back. Thank you. Stingy Pingy (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I probably just messed up 1 or 2 of them but is there really a need to say my edits are bad faith when you could’ve just informed me about it? Stingy Pingy (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Stingy Pingy: I don't see that your edits contribute to those articles in any constructive way. You just messed up the templates. Leave them as is. Abbr=on parameter is used so that the template won't display the full unit and would instead display an abbreviation because that is not needed everywhere in the article where the template is used. You have confusion in the use of the convert template.U1quattroTALK15:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
/* Transmission */ Added Gear ratio
Youtube not allowed? It is pointing to a picture of the gearboks!?
I am not sure if or is you or Wikipedia that don't want facts ?
It is not allowed, means it isn't. Your input isn't valuable because it is not sourced properly. You are basically pointing to a logo which has nothing to do with the mention of the gearbox. Also, you aren't being clear in expressing yourself.U1quattroTALK14:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. Why are you lying ? I have provided a link to wiki rules..... It is stated it is ok to link to youtube. Why do you say it is not ?
2. It is not an not an logo ...... It is an sign boltet to the gearbox.
3. So now you have seen the sign on the gearbox. You still not trust it before you have readed it in an printed magazine ?
4. Why do you continiue to vandalism my work here?, as is no problem with. Beside that you have not readed it in an magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsbg dk (talk • contribs) 15:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you going to say sorry - I was right in changing the name for the gearbox ? Or are you again going to delete my work ?[reply]
I'm not going to apologise because your source isn't a reliable source. The link you have posted states that it is only okay to cite the YouTibe sources when there are no other sources available and the source does not violate a copy right which in case of your source is a copyright infringement because the video is copyright protected.
Read about the sources here. You are just basing your edits on a logo embossed on the gearbox and are capitalising the mention of the gearbox unnecessarily which is certainly not a the way to describe it. Your gear ratios are still unsourced and you have not provided any source for them as of yet. You should leaned about Wikipedia guidelines before editing and starting edit wars. In your recent edit, you have referenced the manufacturer's website which in this case is a right source and therefore, the edit will stay.U1quattroTALK16:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with you when it comes to sources, but you have copyright very wrong. It is fine to link to a video that is protected by copyright if the uploader is the copyright holder or has permission from the copyright holder, in this case the video was made by the uploader, linking to it is fine. Toasted Meter (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to a publicly available YouTube video that is uploaded by the copyright owner is absolutely fine, one is not distributing the video when you link it. Here is a quote from WP:COPYLINK "It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material". Toasted Meter (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any how, YouTube sources are not reliable and should not be used as such when there are other independent sources available which was the case in this edit war.U1quattroTALK16:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The manufactuer field is not meant to explain company type, just manufacturer, IF you look almost any car article they dont list manufacturer business type there is no reason to told if its Ferrari S.p.a or not. -->Typ932T·C21:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
E32 brakes
You can also see it mentioned on page 24 of this [3].
The example in the documentation is not some kind of best practices guide, it was added by some IP in 2013[5] and has remained mostly unchanged, it is not some kind of grand consensus. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Jaguar XK (X150) into Jaguar XK. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all I have seen that a user who goes by the name of Vauxford has been grouping other users with the same unstable behaviour as him and using that grouping to oust me. I have recently posted an incident I'm having with another user named Ybsone. Now he comes over there and begins to claim that he is some kind of journalist who is always right. This is enough to make someone lose interest and feel disappointed and fed up to contribute here.U1quattroTALK03:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sad to see you go, U1- you were helpful in showing me how to properly edit some auto articles. Hopefully we'll see you around in the future. Aab254 (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aab254 I have semi-retired as I have yet to consider whether to stay here or not. It's always nice to know I have been helpful to someone over here. Hopefully, I will stay here given that the some users over here stop being full of themselves.U1quattroTALK13:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.choppers yes I am. Users don't need to know where the photograph was taken as the photo is there for illustration only. Commons is a better place to specify the country.U1quattroTALK06:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't. The galleries are there to illustrate the cars and therefore it is useful to know the market the car was sold in. If you want to keep changing this longstanding practice, you need to have a discussion with other interested editors first. Mr.choppers | ✎ 04:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the now retired Eurovision Nim started this trend to its not longstanding. Plus majority of the sports cars sold in markets are very similar. If they are different, I mention the area for clarity.U1quattroTALK07:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fairly longstanding practice (much much longer than EurovisionNim's tenure), but obviously it is mainly of use when cars differ visibly in various markets. The Audi R8, for instance, does not need such mention. Mr.choppers | ✎ 05:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the Audi R8 need such mention, nor the Hilux or the Land Cruiser need it, if you are refferring to me removing that on those respective pages.U1quattroTALK15:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AN/I outcome
U1Quattro, the recent AN/I discussion has been closed, with a two-way interaction ban implemented between you and Vauxford. That means no posting on his talk page, no directly replying to him in article or project talk space, no referring to him - directly or otherwise - in comments or edit summaries, and the other restrictions noted in that link.
Furthermore, consider this a warning in regards to your tendentious editing - your tendency to bludgeon discussions, hold grudges, and hound other editors is disruptive and incivil. Judging by comments from other editors in that AN/I discussion, there isn't going to be any tolerance for more of that behavior on your part. Your article edits seem to be productive; you would do well to not let incivility impede that. --Sable232 (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vauxford sorry to say, but thats the truth. That is why you're adding your pictures to every aarticle you can find. That is why you are reverting edits for no reason.U1quattroTALK13:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not the truth at all and I made a lengthy incident report to show that Charles01 has been harassing me for a long time. He even made a hate page accusing me of stuff I never done which thankfully got deleted. If you want to sit in your own ignorance then that's fine with me. The fact is, I don't edit here solely to be "famous". --Vauxford (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He did this out of frustration about what you do which you continue to do on the Jaguar XK (X100) page. The current image has a good angle and quality yet your replaced it with your own image without any justification. Anyone viewing the page would draw the same conclusion from your actions which I did. U1quattroTALK13:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
His frustration doesn't sum up the fact he created the hate page and the many false accusation he had against me. It typical respond to someone complaining about being hounded by them. I find it fruitless trying to reason with you when your this stubborn. --Vauxford (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to say much about the hate page thing but I see the reason why he did this. You don't have any reason why you made those edits either which is why you continue to ponder about Charles01 rather than seeing your mistake.U1quattroTALK13:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're also equally stubborn Vauxford. That's why you aren't realising your mistake or providing me the reason why you added those images on the articles I mentioned when there was nothing wrong with the current images.U1quattroTALK13:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't fret about the images, I looked back on them again and I think they look fine, the only one I question is the infobox on the Jaguar XJ page, since I know others might not agree with it. --Vauxford (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other might also not agree with the black XJ you posted there. Why shouldn't I fret about them? It is about the images.13:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited McLaren F1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Harris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violating IBAN. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
I did not violate the IBAN as I did not know who added the chassis codes and the website. The claims made by Ybsone are false. Other users have also stated that it wasn't an IBAN violation as the edit made by Ybsone on those pages are too old and I didn't had the time to look at the edit history. Ybsone has been deliberately following me around even after the IBAN in place. This block is unfair. I complied with the IBAN and stayed away from Ybsone. He violated the IBAN by posting on my talk page.U1quattroTALK15:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notes:
In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I did not violate the IBAN as I did not know who added the chassis codes and the website. The claims made by Ybsone are false. Other users have also stated that it wasn't an IBAN violation as the edit made by Ybsone on those pages are too old and I didn't had the time to look at the edit history. Ybsone has been deliberately following me around even after the IBAN in place. This block is unfair. I complied with the IBAN and stayed away from Ybsone. He violated the IBAN by posting on my talk page.[[User:U1Quattro|<span style="color:darkgreen;font-family:Verdana;text-shadow:2px 2px 2px #a6a6a6">''U<sup>1</sup> <sub>q</sub>uattro</span>]] [[User talk:U1Quattro|<span style="color:green;text-shadow:2px 2px 2px #"><small>''TALK''</small></span>]] 15:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I did not violate the IBAN as I did not know who added the chassis codes and the website. The claims made by Ybsone are false. Other users have also stated that it wasn't an IBAN violation as the edit made by Ybsone on those pages are too old and I didn't had the time to look at the edit history. Ybsone has been deliberately following me around even after the IBAN in place. This block is unfair. I complied with the IBAN and stayed away from Ybsone. He violated the IBAN by posting on my talk page.[[User:U1Quattro|<span style="color:darkgreen;font-family:Verdana;text-shadow:2px 2px 2px #a6a6a6">''U<sup>1</sup> <sub>q</sub>uattro</span>]] [[User talk:U1Quattro|<span style="color:green;text-shadow:2px 2px 2px #"><small>''TALK''</small></span>]] 15:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I did not violate the IBAN as I did not know who added the chassis codes and the website. The claims made by Ybsone are false. Other users have also stated that it wasn't an IBAN violation as the edit made by Ybsone on those pages are too old and I didn't had the time to look at the edit history. Ybsone has been deliberately following me around even after the IBAN in place. This block is unfair. I complied with the IBAN and stayed away from Ybsone. He violated the IBAN by posting on my talk page.[[User:U1Quattro|<span style="color:darkgreen;font-family:Verdana;text-shadow:2px 2px 2px #a6a6a6">''U<sup>1</sup> <sub>q</sub>uattro</span>]] [[User talk:U1Quattro|<span style="color:green;text-shadow:2px 2px 2px #"><small>''TALK''</small></span>]] 15:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Slatersteven true but don't you think that user should be penalized for following me around and using foul language for me on the notice board? Also I wasn't aware that you have to know about how added the content before editing a page. He is making an issue for no reason.U1quattroTALK16:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IBANS are serious, and yes you should make an effort to ensure you do not breach them. As to the rest, if they are stalking you talk to an admin about it. But be warned you will need evidence. My advice is to drop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dlohcierekim then that would be a serious waste of time. This whole thing is ridiculous. Am I not allowed to edit or delete the content at my own discretion on a page? I have the right to do so as an editor here. I did not know that he has added those things. I have said it multiple times already.U1quattroTALK16:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven yes they are but I won't drop it when I'm being blocked for something I didn't know about. I complied with the IBAN and stayed away from that user. He violated it by posting on my talk page.U1quattroTALK16:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not bothering to check because it is too much work is not an excuse, any more then not being aware of the speed limit justifies speeding. But have it your way, but if you continue with this it will not only be a week long block.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speed limits don't require one to dig up into the history. This is an irrelevant example. I would Ofcourse check edit history next time I edit an Italian car page so I don't run into this situation again.U1quattroTALK16:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NOw you know why the block has been put in place, it will prevent you form making the same mistake again. This is my last comment hereSlatersteven (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dlohcierekim this is all before the IBAN went into effect. I didn't interact with that user after the IBAN until now when he took the matters to ANI and was falsely accusing me of things I didn't do.U1quattroTALK16:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies someone else could also add that website. Also the website says on the main page about who it belongs to. I don't have to claim anything over that. I came to know that he has added this when he mentioned about it on the ANI.U1quattroTALK19:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
