User talk:Typ932/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Nurburgring Lap TImes

Good day. I noticed you have done work within the Nurburgring Lap Times page, and also that you are an accomplished editor on Wikipedia. Both you and I appear to focus mostly on automotive pages, something I really enjoy. I would appreciate your input on an issue with that page that could result in an edit war with another user.

I noticed one vehicle manufacturer included on the page under "street legal production cars" that was confusing to me. That manufacturer is "Radical". My reason for this confusion was in part to an automotive program on television where the manufacturer of the Radical stated that the car would be produced in low volume numbers (does not meet production standards), and that the vehicle does not meet the standard for being "street legal".

Upon researching the sources the user provided for adding both Radical vehicles to the "street legal production car" table, I found there was very little that supported the two models being "street legal", nor was there any support for them meeting the standard for labeling as "production vehicles". As such I went to the "Talk" portion of the page and added in my concerns, and asked that if anyone had objections to the removal of the information, that they provide them. There has never been a need for "consensus" to remove information that is improperly sourced, or simply does not meet the standard for inclusion in a page. On that same page, both vehicles are included in the overall lap times, for ALL vehicles. This appears to be where they belong.

I also emailed the manufacturer. I realize that personal research is generally frowned upon, but in this situation, regarding the lack of information about the vehicles in general, I would ask that some leeway be provided. The sales manager for Radical vehicles answered my email, and confirmed that the vehicle is neither street legal, and also (with a limited number of 10 produced) does not meet the standard of "production vehicle". I provided this information as well within the talk page. Normally I would absolutely agree that personal research be discouraged, however when there is no information that contradicts what is provided by said research, and that research confirms what many have suspected about information on a page, this lays the groundwork that corrections be made.

I asked within the talk page and in my reason for the edit that, should there be any user who disagrees, to provide the reason why, and also documentation supporting inclusion of the vehicles in question. A couple of months later, a user came along and reversed my edit, stating I needed "consensus" from other users. As I understand Wikipedia policy, this is not the case if an editor is removing information that was improperly added in the first place. This particular user seems to get in a lot of "edit wars" and I'd like to avoid having that happen.

I did not notice this reversal until today. As such I have added more to the Talk page, added a comment on the user's talk page, and also removed both vehicles from the table, as the burden of proof for removal has been met. Please look into this, let me know your thoughts. Thank you.RTShadow (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, if you've been here long enough you'll know that in years past there were major edit wars related to what defines a "production car". I've noticed one user going all over and changing the pages, even the Production Car page itself, to match his own idea of what a production car is. I'm not sure how to address this. THIS type of thing appears to need a consensus, and there isn't one.RTShadow (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Autozine

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 WP:RSSELF Autozine looks very clearly to be a self-published personal blog, could you explain why you disagree with this assessment? Toasted Meter (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

All sites are selfpublished, it doesnt make if 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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Alfa_Romeo_Giulia_TZ&type=revision&diff=846186544&oldid=845574347, so pls stop that -->Typ932 ^T·C 21:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop bad-mouthing others behind their back with wrong accusations (the independent source going back to a 1965 article which says 240 km/h top speed is no less credible than yours from 50 years later saying 245) and focus on facts. Not on all websites the author and the publisher are the same.Drachentötbär (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Drachentötbär: So in ur opinion official fca site has wrong info? and some random site has right info , lol. I hope you stop posting this kind of messages, which has no creditability at all, thsee posts are not made behing anybody, you should follow whats happening after your editings, I already commented this in edit info, so its not any suprise for you that you made mistake -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why you deleted my questions for clarity instead of answering them. I asked them since you didn't give a precise answer to Toasted Meter's question. From what you've written it looks that your opinion is that according to WP:RSSELF Autozine is unreliable but WP:RSSELF is wrong and Autozine is reliable nevertheless, not worse than other sites. Is it how it looks ?Drachentötbär (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Drachentötbär: Because I have already answered to you earlier, all has explained to you. stop posting anymore to me, I dont asnwer to you, because seems you dont understand , ps autozine is reliable its not blog, it has more right info than references you used (or not used any refs, just deleted or messed old ones) -->Typ932 ^T·C 06:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

You have failed to explain why Autozine is not a blog and how it is not self published. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Toasted Meter: You and your friend Drachentötbär have failed in editing wikipedia by adding unreliable references or deleteting reliable references, I dont need to proof you anything, so you still dont know whats a blog ? or whats a reliable soucre and whats not? stop posting here and educate yourself more. If you continue by deleting autozine references in the future pls find more reliable references if possbile, not worse ones or leaving totally uncited as you have done earlier -->Typ932 ^T·C 07:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

There's a topic on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles talk page, don't ignore it. Drachentötbär (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about keeping or removing information about the Radical SR8

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:List_of_N%C3%BCrburgring_Nordschleife_lap_times Drachentötbär (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The above comment is of course canvassing. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Its not street legal so easy answer -->Typ932 ^T·C 17:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

How is it registered with number plates, if it isn't street legal? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

But thank you for your contribution Type932 - this helps me to confirm that Drachentötbär has been canvassing. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420: "How is it registered with number plates" only 1 vehicle in certain one country doesnt make it street legal, that car never would pass eu crash regulations -->Typ932 ^T·C 19:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Street legal means that it is legal to drive it on the roads. So, yes - only 1 vehicle in one country DOES make it street legal. You might want to check your terminology a little. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The UK does have some "interesting" rules as to what you can drive on the roads, a self propelled sofa was issued with number plates. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Haha, yeah. If you can have a sofa with number plates, then of course a Radical is street legal. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

We dont count one only coutry as streel legal in wikipedia, if some small island have their own rules and says one car made from cardbox is streetlegal, doesnt mean its street legal in eu or usa or anywhere else. IF we have such rules I think we must reconsider those rules, because it ridiculous to have cars like that in list -->Typ932 ^T·C 08:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Street-legal vehicle

[1] "For the purpose of this list, a car is “street legal” if it can be registered in at least one EU country for road use, even if it can't pass German TÜV." Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420: yes but UK isnt EU soon, I think that rule should be changed its ridiculous. -->Typ932 ^T·C 20:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

If we are talking personal opinions, mine are that any car that is available in a street legal form, or with factory fitted options is street legal should be acceptable. It shouldn't need 3rd party modifications. It should come with a VIN. I love the older race cars, that could be driven to the track and raced. 250 GTO is so much a race car, but it was also road legal and I think that's awesome. I think Radicals are the same concept, they are designed for track work - but also just about qualify as road legal. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Opel/Holden Insignia response

Hi, the line I removed is misleading because it suggested that the car was first launched in Australia as a Holden in 2015, but then the following paragraph suggested that the car was actually first launched in Australia as an Opel in 2012 (which was the case; https://www.carsales.com.au/cars/opel/insignia/?area=Stock&vertical=car&WT.z_srchsrcx=makemodel) - making things rather confusing. I have decided to merge the line that I removed with the following paragraph, and the whole thing is much more easy to understand. Thanks. Doctorkaufman (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Mr Bratland, to be fair you told the user to "fuck off" - so maybe you're not in the position to complain quite so much. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree on that. Do not edit my talk page again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Say "please" and I might care, Mr. Bratland. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Mr Dennis started it so this is totally wrong blaim , if you continue this you will be blocked, next time be more carefull with ur personal attacks -->Typ932 ^T·C 19:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

[)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Typ932. 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.

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)

Happy holidays

Alcohol free?

I'm not so politically correct I'll censor myself, I just don't know (or care ;p ) what flavor you celebrate. So, greetings of the season, & may they bring you joy. Kris Kringle ^{ho ho ho} 19:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Rod action?

Yeah, it's been awhile. ;p I'm hoping you've got back issues of Hot Rod and/or National Dragster for around November 1967 (or can find them at your local library), to help establish coverage for Doug Thorley. If you don't (can't), no worries; thx for any help you can give. 6 White Boomers ^{I come from a land up over} 19:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Automobile conventions

Hi Typ932. I'm sorry if I've changed things that were determined by concensus. Could you please show me where the discussions are about article names for similar models, xDrive vs XDrive etc and tense of the opening sentence? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Typ932. As above, could you please send me a link to the discussions where these issues were decided? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Fiat Mirafiori

Hi, can you read and correct (grammar error) the article Fiat Mirafiori please? Thank you! And add please other lenguage like italian espanol ecc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.99.111 (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok Ill do what i can -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Error in Fiat Tipo (2015) and image in Fiat Tempra

Thank you for Fiat Mirafiori, I have another question:

In Fiat Tipo (2015) there are many sources (websites) about sales that weigh down the voice, very repeated and useless, can You fix it? 23 website for the only sales in Mexico!!!

in addition, in Fiat Tempra a user continues to put an image in the template of a non-original Tuning model! I proceeded to modify it but the modification cancels it out for me.

This is the not original model with fake wheels and bad resolution

fake wheels

And this is a better photo on Commons

original

Or this

original

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.99.111 (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank You so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.99.111 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Im not sure what you mean with sales numbers? you can edit it yourself also, I think only sales for Europe is needes, not individual countries? -->Typ932 ^T·C 21:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring at Alfa Romeo 166

• Typ932 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Miguel Malfabon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello User:Typ932. As you know, a complaint about your edits has been filed at WP:AN3. (You have already removed the notice from your page). The dispute is about the formatting of a table. If you prefer one table format rather than another, you are expected to work toward a consensus with other editors on the talk page. Try to persuade the others that your format is better. If you simply continue to revert the article, without waiting for agreement, you are risking a block for edit warring. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you are now reverting across a whole range of car articles, changing 'was' to 'is', without a talk page discussion and without even leaving an edit summary. Please consider undoing these changes. Otherwise you are risking a block for edit warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

There really have been barrels full of discussion about this matter over the years. I happen to think it is pretty unimportant either way. But all that Typ932 is doing is implementing an endlessly argued but now agreed policy which is summarised here. The statement given, in case the link doesn't work, is:

• "In the article lead, use present tense whether the vehicle is in production or not (e.g. "The Ford Scorpio is an executive car..." not "The Ford Scorpio was an executive car..."), as the cars themselves still exist. The exception to this would be for a one-of-a-kind vehicle that no longer exists, or one with very low production numbers where all examples are believed to have been destroyed."

If people feel strongly enough to argue about it, then I guess the place to do that is here or possibly here. My personal view is that we already have too many rules (aka guidelines- but that's not how people always like to use them) on wikipedia, and lazy people simply use them to shut down their common sense, while officious or frustrated people use them as a reason for picking fights. But since we have a rule on this, I don't think you can fault Typ932 for trying to apply it. And PLEASE may we be spared the same fifteen year old argument on EVERY individual talk page when he does it. PLEASE .... Regards Charles01 (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

this is totally unnecessary comment from Ed , I left clear message to that users talk page before I made chances agreed by WP:Automobiles, this is way better way to inform editor whois making mass edits, than leaving short edit comment -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The guidelines at WP:Automobiles apply only to the common intro structure; the intro at Eagle Vista does not follow that pattern, so your edit introduced a grammar error that needed to be corrected. —C.Fred (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

By contrast, this edit at Dodge Colt is in keeping with both the project guidance and English grammar. —C.Fred (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow So we have to use only is if the exact words are same as in guidelines? I think then we need to rewite those guides to allow present tense to be used all lead sentences , if that bothers to you -->Typ932 ^T·C 15:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

No. There are some sentences where present tense clearly does not follow. The guideline is meant to apply to situations like cars—and also TV shows—where the subject is not currently being made but continues to exist. Note the bolded verbs in this sentence: "Friends is an American television sitcom, created by David Crane and Marta Kauffman, which aired on NBC from September 22, 1994, to May 6, 2004…" Creation of the show is a singular act, so "created" is past tense. The show no longer airs, so "aired" is past tense. However, the show exists as a work of art, so "is" is present tense: the show continues to exist.

The Eagle Vista intro is the same. The cars continue to exist; however, the badge is no longer being used in production, and the brand is not being used at this time. Hence, "The Eagle Vista name has been used on two subcompact cars sold from 1988 to 1992 in Canada." Nobody is currently using the name: past tense is called for here. If the intro were reworded to say "The Eagle Vista is one of two subcompact cars that were sold from 1998 to 1992 in Canada," then that would comply with the WikiProject guidance for using present tense to describe the cars—but it would also be a much more difficult sentence to read. —C.Fred (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Im not english native , but that sou8nds right if we want lead to be present tense, anyway I reverted 18 articles and one or 2 is wrong im not sure if that justifies to you come here to complain about my edits so strongly. Especially when we are talking different thing, about that I didint inform what I was doing. You could just revert or fix them and leave comment in article edit. - -->Typ932 ^T·C 15:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Two points.

1. I did fix the one change I mentioned at Eagle Vista, but given other concerns raised at your talk page, I wanted to say something here.
2. With all due respect, with your level of English proficiency, it may be best if you not make changes that go into matters of English grammar like tense. Focus on matters of facts and sourcing, which do not require skill with English grammar.

I did not look at all 18(!) articles that you changed, but in the two I looked at, your results were 50-50. —C.Fred (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The main problem was that I didint read I just converted all was to is, because was so hurry to fix around 20 articles. I can english good enough to so see the difference -->Typ932 ^T·C 15:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems the same editor is reverting them back, so if you are admin maybe you should do then something? because Im not allowed to do it anymore , and hanging here and supporting Edd raises even more concerns of the admins competence in wikipedia. -->Typ932 ^T·C 16:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

For your reference: [2]. —C.Fred (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Since edits by Miguel Malfabon (talk · contribs) have been mentioned, I'm leaving him a notice. Mass changes of article leads by either party are not wise, without a proper discussion somewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)