This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mr.choppers.
Mr.choppers' talk page
Hullo. Please Click Here to leave me a new message. Please see my user page for more information about me.
To messages left on my talk page, i respond on my talk page. If you are responding to a conversation I started on your talkpage, please respond there - rest assured I have bookmarked your page and won't miss your responses.
You can write to me in any of the languages mentioned on my userpage. Usually I'll answer in English, unless you write in Swedish, then I'll use Swedish myself.
My current time is 11:53 — please have that in mind if leaving time-sensitive comments.
All messages on my talk page are archived once the page gets uncomfortably large.
Please do not remove/revert things here, as I like to archive everything.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Foreign exchange controls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.
You say that PS was a relevant unit in the 1980s in Germany and Europe – I am here to disagree with you ;-) It's true that people used it back then, (and it is still very common today), but seen from a legal perspective, things are quite different: The SI System had been introduced in 1972 (in West Germany), and in 1978, the Technical Unit System was officially discontinued. BMW switched from the Technical Unit System to the SI system in 1972; there are some E12s that were still sold with TUS figures, but by the mid-1970s, everything was already advertised in SI (with some additional TUS here and there). From 1978, BMW (like every other manufacturer) was mandated by law to use the SI system for all of their cars. This is why SI figures are just fine, and there is no need for using TUS figures for any post-E12 BMWs. It doesn't hurt to put TUS figures, but technically they don't need to be there ;-) I'd say it's more important to state the standard that was used to determine the figures, since different standards lead to different figures for the same quantities. Best regards and a happy new year to you, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 02:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johannes Maximilian: I disagree. When BMW claimed power outputs of 115, 150, 170 PS in the 1980s it was because PS was relevant in terms of marketing and customer understanding. Most European markets used PS/cv/hk/pk/etc for decades after SI was made official. For instance, are you stating that the Veyron's claimed 1001 PS is an accident? Piëch went for the bragging rights of >1000PS and >400km/h precisely because those units still had relevance in 2005.
Also, since hp and PS are so similar we get a constant stream of editors mixing up the units and getting the numbers wrong. Including PS for another couple of decades is historically correct, respects period sources, and eliminates confusion. We can surely lead with kW after the 1970s, but PS is very much relevant into the early 2000s. You will also notice that German WP includes PS even for current cars, as it is still a popularly used and understood unit. Thanks. Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You probably misunderstood what I was trying to say – BMW have not been claiming any PS power outputs since 1978, because they have legally not been allowed to do so. They must claim an SI power output, which they may then convert into anything they like (PS for instance), and this can then be used for marketing and customer understanding. But technically, it would not be necessary to do this conversion for BMW and ultimately Wikipedia (which is what I'm trying to say). I'm not saying you shouldn't be adding it :-) The idea is that, (West) German vehicles from the pre-SI era typically had their power outputs claimed in TUS figures, and I believe that it's necessary to have them in Wikipedia, but for anything post-1972, TUS figures can be omitted (but it's okay if you add them).
The Bugatti Veyron has a claimed power figure of 736 kW, which converts into 1000.7 PS, which was then rounded to 1001 PS. If they had rated the engine at 735 kW, this would have only been 999.3 PS, which would have been rounded down to 999 PS. This is why the Veyron doesn't have an 1000 PS engine – power outputs are given in natural numbers, and there is no claimable natural number SI power figure that would convert into exactly 1000 PS. They could have rated the engine at 736 kW and then advertised it as 1000 PS, but 1001 PS is even more than 1000, so they decided to use that instead. This is also the problem with engines that were rated 240 PS; it doesn't convert into an SI figure with a proper natural number.
I agree that adding PS to hp eliminates confusion, but regarding historical accuracy and sources, I disagree; all post-1978 German language sources state something that ultimately goes back to an SI figure. So if a German-language source from the era states a 120 PS figure, it means that the author or editor has taken the Zulassungsbescheinigung Teil I and converted 88 kW into 120 PS (which means that using any such sources doesn't make things more accurate).
Thanks, I think. However, what about the many '80s/'90s BMWs with 115PS? Is that 84 kW (114 PS) or 85 kW (116 PS)? Here is BMW's answer. By the mid-1990s BMW changed to claiming 116 PS, which seems to signify a change towards a more complete SI adoption. On a side note, BMW most certainly claimed non-SI power outputs in European countries other than Germany for decades after 1978. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 03:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 115 PS engines are all 85 kW, at least that's what the owner's manuals of the BMW E28, E30 and E12 say. I guess the M21(!) engines were advertised as 115 PS because that's a nice figure? Maybe you're right about other European countries, but in BMW's domestic market Germany, SI was mandatory from 1978. I have seen many editions of BMW owner's manuals, and a lot of them contain rounding errors, typos, or completely false figures. That is one of the reasons why I tend to stick to the "original" figures. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 05:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Manual of Style, lead units.
@Mr.choppers, you appear to be following me around Wikipedia? I see that despite the eloquent analysis by @Stepho on Talk:Nissan S30 (which I hope you read) on why the Wikipedia Manual of Style chooses SI as a preference unless a country has strong ties to a unit. Those countries listed are the United States and United Kingdom, not France which is metric. The article you reverted is a French Truck made in France, per the manual of style this should lead with the SI unit. As Stepho pointed out, Many English readers outside the US and UK are not familiar with historical units. You are imposing your preferences and not following the manual of style.
Please do not revert article that follow the Manual of Style instead of your preferred unit, or future articles without discussion.Avi8tor (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Avi8tor: PS is simply horsepower. France was most certainly not using kilowatts in the 1950s. They were built and designed and the power stated using metric hp, and absolutely no one who discusses these trucks would use "441kW" to describe the 600cv Berliet. For god's sakes, the truck has a giant metal logo in the grille which reads "600 ch.". Mr.choppers | ✎ 14:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the deal is with the back and forth on the external link forum stuff other than a guy apparently on the sytyforum who has a bone against someone on the sytyregistry. Both are separate communities.
This is an active link/page with news and information that keeps getting removed from the IP offender:
Can we establish that this stays active? Over it. Trying to add legitimate content to the page since no one else seems to be putting any good relevant information on it lately.
You sound not crazy, so probably. I recommend starting a conversation at the Syclone talk page - this would help you make your case and make sure that other editors support your endeavors. I also recommend checking WP:OR and WP:CITE and WP:CRUFT for some pointers on editing methods and etiquette (don't read it all, but be aware that they exist, they are useful resources). Another tip is to find a good looking article or a Featured one and see how things were done there. Take care, please write me again if you need anything else. Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Far from crazy, just a passionate owner who has been helping do historical preservation and data collection on the trucks for more than 22 years. Im just trying to clean up the wiki page (finally) and get actual good content on it that has been certified as factual from both GM and PAS documentation that both I and other enthusiasts own. Will take note on how to properly add more content with links and cites - never been interested in the wiki platform but I can see now its useful, so still learning to navigate and use it properly. Thank you! SyTySoGT (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SyTySoGT: I see that. I will be happy to help you out with technical concerns if you ever need it. The benefit of doing things the right way, following WP:NPOV and other guidelines, is that your work will gain longevity. The better your edits, the more likely that they will remain ten years from now. Take care, Mr.choppers | ✎ 16:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do actually need help. I cant seem to figure out the proper copyright syntax to use on the PPG Syclone image (got a notice from a bot that its incomplete). Its a GM press release pic, but I dont have documentation saying or showing its an open source free to use picture made for the media and public use. Any help to properly correct that would be appreciated. Thanks for your patience with me! SyTySoGT (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SyTySoGT: Uploading pictures taken by others is very very complicated business, unless you are a copyright lawyer or if the picture has a very clear copyright release. I do not think that any of the pictures I see on your page meet the requirements. I would strongly suggest self nominating them for deletion before GM sues Wikipedia over their use. Sorry I do not have a better answer for that dilemma.
I recommend waiting until there are some car meets and bringing a camera or a smartphone, uploading your own photos is always safer and easier. I will try to upload the ppg picture here, it might pass the en.wp guidelines for commercial free use. Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.choppers:So, even on public press release images that were meant for distribution and sharing will cause an issue? I see a handful of images that have been uploaded by other users that have incorrect copyright information that I know for fact are GM press release images. Id like to stay within the boundaries of wiki and copyright law of course, but this just makes things much harder unfortunately because the best interpretations of the trucks are the press release pictures done by GM that were intended for public sharing. :(
@SyTySoGT: Yes, that is sadly how it is. Those other pictures should be taken down as they are probably copyright infringements (I think old pictures are available, but again, it's complicated and every country has its own rules). Side note: ping is not required on a user's talk page, I get a headsup whenever someone posts here. It can be a great to draw a user's attention at other talkpages, though. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 18:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Arrrgghh, ok...time to open up the time capsule and sort through my photography. They'll be some hardcore edits on the page that will be happening. The GMC Typhoon page is the next goal along with creating a proper GMC Sonoma GT page as well. Once again, appreciate your patience and help! SyTySoGT (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Your photos will be more interesting anyhow, as the standard photos have been seen thousands of times. Again, I strongly recommend nominating your uploads for deletion yourself, it looks a lot better than having someone else delete them. I would not recommend creating a separate page for the Sonoma GT; it does not meet the requirements for a standalone article. It will be better served by fleshing out its section at the S-10 entry. I have uploaded a small version of the PPG photo, I think it meets the free rationale requirements.
One more detail: your sources do not have to be available online. Period print sources are totally okay to use as a reference, and may actually be preferrable to enthusiast forums. See WP:RS for more. You have to be somewhat prepared to provide scans or something of the source in question if someone doubts the veracity of a claim, but it has never happened to me in 12 years of editing. Mr.choppers | ✎ 18:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Curious, why wouldnt the GMC Sonoma GT meet requirements for its own page? It was a stand-alone truck that was made and marketed and is separate platform from the Syclone and Sonoma production. I think its still relevant to include it on the S10 pages (even though its not the S10 platform, its a Sonoma platform...similar but different) as well include it on Syclone page, but it truly needs to have its own page as the SyTySoGT community sees it as its own truck, not meshed into other platforms. While it doesnt have the glorious history as the Syclone, the Sonoma GT still existed as part of the PAS Sportmachine production.
Bonus - I have one of my sources looking into finding the paperwork from GM that states that their images are allowed to be used and distributed for public use. Hopefully that can be utilized for the copyright information and the press release images can eventually be used and with properly tagged copyright syntax. SyTySoGT (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Sonoma GT simply does not have enough differences to qualify as more than a version. The GMC Sonoma itself is merely a rebadged S10, which is why it has never had its own page (as with just about every GMC product). Good luck with the photo release... Mr.choppers | ✎ 20:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kia Optima edit
Hi Mr. Choppers, just a question, why did you change the power units to KW and nm on the Kia Optima page when the car is Korean and the original power rating which comes from the factory is using Korean units (PS, kg.m)? Alawadhi3000 (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alawadhi3000: Well, there is an ongoing debate at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Pferdstarke_(PS)_units - the WP standard prefers SI units, with some allowances for customary ones. While a few editors want to always lead with kW for all cars (excepting US and UK ones), I believe that there should be some space for using the units preferred by the manufacturer/country. However, I do believe that for newer vehicles (after 2000 or so) kW ought to come first in WP. I did keep PS in the output as it is a popularly used unit worldwide. Kgm is rather archaic at this point, I rarely see it used outside of Korea and on older Japanese cars. I welcome you to weigh in at the linked debate.
Good afternoon, I think you did a good job on explaining the 1973-1987 (1991) Chevrolet C/K series pick up trucks, also known as one of the best performing and looking trucks Chevrolet has made, I can go on and on about "square body" Chevrolet trucks. One of my favorite trucks and vehicles, I love all vehicles, u.s or foreign. Big or small. SUV or compact car, does not matter to me! Thanks
ich bin faul und schreibe auf Deutsch, ich hoffe das ist ok. You may answer in english, if that's more convinient for you. Danke Dir für die ganzen Rücksetzungen in den Artikeln zu russischen Fahrzeugen. Im Moment ist da ziemlich der Wurm drin. Die IP bzw. der Benutzer hat das Buch von Thompson - das es tatsächlich gibt - definitiv nie in der Hand gehabt. Ich hab es hier liegen und es stimmt eigentlich nichts, was er schreibt. Auch die ganzen Rev's sind mit gefälschten Seitenzahlen. Siehe auch [1] als Vergleich. Alle diese Anmerkungen "Wird bis heute produziert, für Export" etc. sind Blödsinn. Hast Du ja schon gesehen.
Ich versuche einen Blick drauf zu haben, ich bin aber auf en.WP nur mittelmäßig aktiv. Ich freue mich sehr, wenn Du auch ein Auge darauf hast. In diesem Fall lieber mehr zurücksetzen als weniger.
Hallo Druschba 4. Ja, der ist eine langzeitige Vandal, siehe bitte hier. Er wird bald blockiert aber dann fängt er wieder an, auch von eine mänge IP Adressen. Ich habe auch das Thompson Buch, eines gutes Werk. Es gibt auch andere Augen, wie Sable232. Danke, alles bestes, Mr.choppers | ✎ 15:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry can you correct the article Haval H6? it's really badly written and full of repetition. And can you merge items Aeolus AX7 and Dongfeng Fengdu MX5
Thank you! :)
I'm writing a blog on my experience with the Buick Reatta. I was wondering if I may have permission to use one of your pics of the Red Reatta for my blog. It is on a commercial page. www.1057kokz.com
I believe an injustice has been done here regarding the credits for the design of the Tamora. Lee Hodgets, Darren Hobbs and Peter Wheeler styled this car.
I was the head of design from 1994 to 2003, when I left the company. I frequently offered my guidance and opinion regarding certain aspects of the design but was
overruled by Peter Wheeler, which was indeed his right as owner of the business.
You may be right, and you may even be Damian MacTaggart (hard to prove on the internet, I myself am the Safavid General Nader Shah Afshar), but Wikipedia operates based on verifiable sources. CAR Magazine is a reputable source and they credit you. Find a WP:SOURCE which states otherwise and we will have a discussion. If you send me a link or something I can help you format it for inclusion; if it's a paper source you can scan it and send it to me through the mail function. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 12:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where i can find the engine number of my car ? ( lancer tredia 1986 )
Honestly, no clue. The internet says that "the 4G6x Sirius series (1800/2000) have it on the block under the exhaust manifold close to the dipstick hole in the block, the 4G1x Orion (1400) and 4G3x Saturn series (1600/1800) has the number stamped on a tab coming off the block on the exhaust side, by number 1 cylinder where the head meets the block." Which engine does it have? What's the chassis number? Best of luck, Mr.choppers | ✎ 12:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Categories
Hey, I see you reverted a couple of my category removals. Basically, I'm trying to remove some categories, like Category:GME vehicles and Category:Passport vehicles, which only have 1 or 2 pages (and for vehicles, they're all redirects) and will never have more. If there were a PROD template for categories, I'd use that. But I'd have to do a CFD instead, and I felt there would be no objection, since these categories haven't been touched in a long time, so I took the route of removing pages/sub-categories from categories and letting speedy empty category delete trigger after a week. Do you think I should just put them on CFD instead? --Vossanovao<13:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vossanova - I don't really see the need for categories to exist at all, only because I myself do not use them. But if we do have categories, I don't see why these two should be deleted merely because there are not going to be any more pages added in the future. If so, Category:Paintings by Leonardo da Vinci should be deleted. If there is a minimum number of entries required to have a category then I agree that these should be removed, but I can't find such a rule. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 13:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the number of pages, it's also the fact that they're all redirects. There's no rule but there is WP:SMALLCAT (I wasn't saying that no more pages was delete criteria by itself). I think the categories for these short-lived rebrand categories (GME, Passport, Asuna) just add clutter to the Category:General Motors vehicles page, making it harder to find more significant brands (e.g. "GME vehicles" appears right after "GMC vehicles"). Anyway, I can create a CFD for the above brands' vehicles pages. --Vossanovao<13:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your revert reason was incorrect. [2], the RSQ8 images were never added by me, I was still in sanctioned when the photos taken by me was added by Ghostofakina back last August, same with this one. On my revert reason, I meant to say "What do you mean by plugging my own photos?". I reverted them since I personally disagreed with them. This revert you did here was confusing, who was the other editor other than you? The photo was taken by Alexander-93 himself. --Vauxford (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander is an editor other than myself. In these two articles, his pictures are clearly better than the ones you uploaded. Please stop. Mr.choppers | ✎ 21:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He self-inserted his OWN photo. It currently only you who think it better, that like me saying two editors prefer this image taken by me because you and I said so. It doesn't work like that. --Vauxford (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. What does "better before" mean in your edit summary here? And can you clarify what you mean by "plenty editorializing here already"? I hope your reaction will allow me to understand why you reverted my edit. Thanks. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 07:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is written from the viewpoint that IPs should be allowed to edit without creating a profile. It already made its case without you trying to add emphasis. Mr.choppers | ✎ 10:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start with making a request. Can you re-read both the current lead section and the lead section of the old revision as it was after my rewrite. While re-reading both, given your stance on IP editors, it might be useful if you pretend the current lead was written by IP editors, and my rewrite by an administrator. And then give me thorough feedback on why the current lead section is better than my rewrite. So far, all you've given me is that the rewrite would be overemphasizing something. Also keep in mind that the article is an essay that attempts to convince its readers. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you do not accuse me of discounting your writing just because you haven't created an account. I reverted your edits because they lowered the quality of the essay. I believe that you not having an account lowers your ability to meaningfully contribute to WP, and I find the only believable reason not to create an account is because someone wants the ability to melt away and vanish if things don't go their way - to edit without having to worry about any consequences. Creating a username is a (very minor) investment which grows and becomes more valuable the longer one edits, which in turn makes editors think twice before being rude or doing stupid things. You have invested nothing - although your location is clear for all to see, so maybe you have.
As for your edits, compare the following:
Occasionally, edits by unregistered users are unjustifiably reverted and their contributions to talk pages discounted, because of misconceptions.
Because of these misconceptions, edits by unregistered users are mistakenly reverted and their contributions to talk pages discounted.
Yours is longer and does not read better IMHO. Your edits made the intro about fifty percent longer and harder to read, while adding nothing. Mr.choppers | ✎ 12:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, my version of the lead is more accurate and more detailed, and thus better conveys the essence. It's not harder to read. The increased length is irrelevant. In your response, I see nothing that will allow us to engage in substantive discussion. Your general stance towards IP editors, of which I am one, is hostile. I will request dispute resolution at WP:DRN. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
