Audi 100 info editing

Hi,I'm new in Wikidepia editing community. I'm the guy who edited audi 100 "Production in Chinese market"a few hours ago. I encountered a problem that is what I wrote doesn't change line automatically in the infobox. What should I do to let the letters stay in the right place.And if I put the new info in the wrong place then where should I list all those codes or should I list them? Bravolute (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

All of those different model codes are excessively detailed for the infobox (in my opinion; I am not the final arbiter) while simultaneously providing very little information (as in what differentiates them all). Typing <br> is the easiest way to force a line break, but there are better ways. Everything I learned was by finding something laid out to my liking and using it as a template.

@Bravolute: I think that the best way to present this data would be through a table, including code number, generation (C3, C4, etc), engine, wheelbase, and a notes section describing any other differences. See Help:Table for how to start. Below please find a simple template table; don't be shy about asking questions if/when you run into trouble. Someone made a plug-in that can turn an excel file into a functioning wikitable, but I can't remember where it might be.

Template Table	Stuff		Things
	template	output	template	output
Europe, Japan, etc.	{{cvt|100|PS|kW hp|0}}	100 PS (74 kW; 99 hp)	{{cvt|18.4|kgm|Nm lbft|0|order=out}}	180 N⋅m (133 lb⋅ft)
	{{cvt|74|kW|PS hp|0}}	74 kW (101 PS; 99 hp)	{{cvt|180|Nm|lbft|0}}	180 N⋅m (133 lb⋅ft)
United States	{{cvt|100|hp|kW|0}}	100 hp (75 kW)	{{cvt|133|lbft|Nm|0}}	133 lb⋅ft (180 N⋅m)
Great Britain	{{cvt|100|bhp|kW|0}}	100 bhp (75 kW)	{{cvt|133|lbft|Nm|0}}	133 lb⋅ft (180 N⋅m)

Best regards,  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

W123 reversion

Good day. Why did you revert my edit to the W123 article regarding the US models? The material is primarily sourced from Automobile-catalog.com (I know I did not reference with footnotes, but I was more concerned with factually detailing the information) and the M@RS website. That it could use more work - perhaps, but a full reversion is a bit harsh, considering that the material can easily be checked. For example you will not find post 1983 US-spec 240Ds (check the classifieds if in doubt). 91.135.146.234 (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Because much of it was not readable; it read like a machine translation from Russian or as if an AI wrote it. A sentence like "if the 280/280E models in Europe were additionally punctuated by elegant chrome bumper sides and square headlights, then North American could not enjoy this" is not possible. Your edit was a mix of good and bad, but it was badly written and not referenced. You are correct about the 240D ending US sales in 1983, I added a reference and mention of this. What about Japan and Canada, though? They received largely the same specifications and the table includes US and Japan.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, well in that case, may I please revert the article and attempt to re-write the text. The message goes in the rather pursuant nature that the US-spec cars were... plain ugly. That is of course a POV, wrd to WP:MOS, but then again, this is a statement that will be universally said in just about any literature. The point of this particular sentence was to first of all, punctuate that the pre 1981 Euro cars had two different headlight arrangements wrt to their hierarchy, and that only the 280 series got the square lights, whereas the US models were mandated to keep the round sealed beam look. The other is that 280 series had the chrome wrap around pieces, and these they retained all the way up until 1985. But in the States all W123s had the same 5mph eyesores. Reverting the whole edit because of one rather mushed up sentence is a bit harsh??

TBH I am no expert on JP-spec, but from the available images, their cars lacked the rudiments of North America, so it is a big assumption that their available models were fully in tune to the American product line, and had the same estranged performance specs. Systematically MB started exporting to Japan in 1986 after setting up a local subsidiary. 91.135.146.234 (talk) 08:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

That was not the only badly written part, merely an example, but of course you are free to add edits as long as they are cited and so on.  Mr.choppers | ✎  10:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I decided to get an account and began to tackle the W124. That will need a LOT of work! Carfan87 (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on Automotive industry in Indonesia

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Automotive industry in Indonesia, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Plymouth Valiant

What great contributions you've added to this page since it was getting a little stale! Explaining the story behind the Swedish police Valiant was a definite plus; keep up the good work! Dyno Tested (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Dyno Tested: It's all thanks to 110.21.145.66 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS); I just expanded some of the info based on the references provided by them. But thanks!  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Ford small block engines

Did you miss the discussion on the small block talk page 3 years ago? The small block as a whole has no name. Never has, far as I can tell. The only 'Windsor' as far as Ford Motor Company is concerned is the 351W. A 289 is not a Windsor. A 302/5.0 is is not a Windsor. That's why the name of the page was changed. Page 175 of the 5.0 Mustang reference handbook clearly says that that engine family isn't called Windsor as a whole, so I'm not seeing the problem. I've edited multiple other Wiki pages to reflect this and no one has had a problem with this until now. Carguy1701 (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Carguy1701: - I did miss that discussion. Perhaps my notion of the common name has been affected by Wikipedia, as I cannot say whether I knew this engine as a Windsor before the advent of WP. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  10:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers:To be 100% fair, Ford Racing kind of encourages this by calling them Windsors on some of their product pages. However, if you look at the Ford service info (especially from back in the day), the engines are referred to by displacement and displacement ONLY. The only time Windsor is used in any Ford service materials is to refer to the 351 cubic inch V8 that was unique to that plant. If there was a name for the engine family as a whole, it has been lost to time (I've seen the Challenger name used but I'm still investigating that). Carguy1701 (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Tantalum implants

I think you missed the point in your edits to Tantalum in Surgery. The value of tantalum for implants also makes it hazardous in the workplace when not handled with care. Tantalum is only used as a "coating" on tools because of its hardness. It's never used as a "coating" in surgery. When used as an implant material, its value is that it bonds with bone. Your edits imply that it's otherwise. Are you able to fix your edits? Or would you mind if we fixed it for you? Henrilebec (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that you changed a sentence, implying that your new wording was supported by the Matsuno et al reference. Please read WP:CITE. You also deleted another sentence and added a new one, not sure if you have references for those statements. Also, who are "we"?  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Let's start with your statement that tantalum is used as a "coating" in surgery. Can we fix that? ("We" is you and I working together). Then we can focus on other details that need fixing. Keeping in mind that it's REALLY difficult to fix things that have been deleted without discussion. Henrilebec (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I have made no such statement. Someone else with an interest in tantalum quoted Matsuno et al, you cannot override that unless you have another reference. All you need is a reliable source, please read WP:CITE and WP:RS.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Toyota Corolla E110 4WD mention removal

On 23/12/2022 you removed a "Misleading section on chassis numbers", however in doing so you've removed the only mention of what specific models were fitting with 4WD/AWD, I lack the knowledge and references to restore such information, however I believe you do given you've worked on the E110 article for over a decade, I ask if you could add the information specified in this post back to the article, in asking I do understand you do this without pay nor often recognition, however I would appreciate it if this article could be updated. (Also as you can tell from this post my grammar is non-existent) Chromatic Schnitzel (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@Chromatic Schnitzel: I don't fully remember what I did around Christmas three years ago, but you are probably right. Let me look and I will add/clarify/fix whatever is needed. Best regards,  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, that section was fully erroneous. I added a table here: Toyota Corolla (E110)#Model codes.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Friday, 6, June 2025 About the truck vandal

I know what I have done in Wikipedia is not great and was made in an age of inmaturity and pureness. Anyway, long story short, when I had the Zerolandteam385 I was just a stupid little kid, who didn't know anything about the old trucks he was writing. Now over 6 years have passed, I'am older, I know shit. I have been trying to fix my mistakes by creating different accounts that aim to correct the mistakes made by Zerolandteam385 but these end up getting blocked as sock puppets again and again, it's vicious cycle. What I'am supposed to do? I want to Wikipedia to now be an informative and well-sourced website without my old mistakes but I can't do that because you are always blocking because you do not know the true intention of my edits. I have a very bad reputation here because of my past mistakes, but I don't want that. I want to offer and provide create ideas in this Wikipedia, not to be the unwanted in it. So please, if you like, give a chance to prove this to you. And for once, let me remove the HC series version of the Chevrolet Advance Design article. It feels very bad in the eyes, you know. I made when I was a kid, knew nothing about these trucks, and it's kept there without reason. That is also the same for the Bedford TA and Opel Blitz pages. I have been trying to correct my mistakes, the moderators caught me as a sockpuppet and I have been blocked again. All I want is to fix my old mistakes and improve these pages, not vandalize them. I want to fix my mistakes. I like to share and provide information to people, I don't want to get blocked. See my edits with a critical eye and judge accordingly, that all I wanted to say, I believe you will do the best Thenightoftrucksnn (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't really know how to go about it, but you can definitely go to your Zerolandteam385 page and request that the block be lifted, you're all grown up, etcetera. You will have to prove that you can work well with others and so on, but it sounds like you understand what is required now.  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Saturday, 7, June 2025 Another message

I'm the guy that used to have Zerolandteam385 all those years ago. Unfortunately, my older account Thenightoftrucksnn got blocked again so I can't use it. Anyway, sorry for wasting your time if that is the case, but I wonder if you can fix some of my old mistakes in Wikipedia since I cannot do that now, however I have appealed for a block removal but no one has seen it as of now.

I will some notes on what you can remove and improve on my articles there:

On the Bedford TJ: The lightest versions (J0) shared the same 2.6 liter petrol engine as the Vauxhall Cresta, which offered relatively good performance, and had a payload of 500 kg. After 1960, the J0 was also available with the six-cyliner 3.3 liter petrol engine, also from the Cresta. It sold in relatively good numbers in Britain and export markets throughout the 1960s and 1970s, before being replaced by the Bedford KB in 1973. Heavier variants used larger petrol and diesel engines with a displacement from 3.5 to 5.5 liters. In export markets, specifically in countries such as India, Pakistan, Africa and other developing nations, the TJ sold in great numbers due to its reliability and relatively low price compared to the competition. In 1975, the TJ was withdrawn from the UK market and superseded by the Bedford CF.

In Pakistan, the J5/6 is very popular and dominated commercial vehicular traffic. It has a cult status among drivers and is known for its power, reliability, and durability. Over half of the trucks in Pakistan are Bedford vehicles. There, the truck was locally built by National Motors Limited until 1998.

Bedford TJ trucks were also produced in Malaysia from knock-down kits until the early 1980s. Towards the end of this period, after Bedford vehicles had lost their market lead, the TJ shared the assembly line with competing trucks from Toyota. As the design aged, Bedford's reputation shrank, the British pound went up, while Britain itself lost much of its standing in Malaysia. GM instead chose to focus more on promoting trucks from corporate stablemate Isuzu in that market.

I re wrote this enterece sentence and added some new additions, so you can copy and paste it there. The J0 actually had a payload of 500 kg, not 900 kg as I previously stated. I found a period brochure of the J0 and that is indeed the case. Also, I found in a Flickr comment that someone mentioned that after 1960 some J0s were available with the larger 3.3 liter engine from the Cresta, so I decided to also add that there, although I'm not sure if it qualifies as a reliable refrence since I couldn't find anything else about this engine used in the J0. I also added that the larger variants used engines with a displacement of 3.5 to 5.5 liters as stated in the article itself where it states the engines. It never mentions the Cresta engine there, so assume the engines mentioned there are for the J1 and heavier variants. Also, I removed the section where it says that the Isuzu TX replaced the Bedford TJ in Malaysia. It never did. The Japanese article states that the TX was sold in export markets until the 1980s, after which all TX production ended. The TJ was actually built until 1998 so I don't think that the Isuzu TX replaced it. In addition, I'm pretty sure the Bedford CF 350 should be added as the successor to the Bedford J1, as it was stated in the refrences I put in the Vauxpedia Bedford 97000 - CF & CF2 and (Very) Brief History of the Bedford CF sites essentially state the CF was intended to replace the TJ. I'm not sure on what exactly TJ variants the CF replaced, but I'm pretty sure the CF 350 and J1 are what were intended to be replaced. They were both light trucks of similair size and payload. In Pakistan, the TJ was built by National Motors Limited, as seen by the refrence "Bedford truck – A true automotive icon", so I also added that there.

Now on the Opel Blitz article, it should probably be reverted all the way back to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opel_Blitz&oldid=991078827, which was before I did all these past mistakes. The successor to the Opel Blitz is the Bedford Blitz, not the Opel Arena, which however replaced the Bedford CF. The statement that the 1952 Opel Blitz uses the same cabin as the Advance Design should remain, it's in there in the current state of the article, but everything else should be reverted.

On the Isuzu Fargo article, the pick up version of the Isuzu Fargo was never replaced by the 1988 Isuzu Faster, both overlapped in many years of production and there were different types of vehicles. The Vauxhall Movano also cannot be a successor to the LWB versions of the Bedford Midi, since it was a larger and heavier vehicle, but it can be seen as a successor to the Bedford CF 350.

On the Chevrolet Advance Design page, it should be reverted back to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chevrolet_Advance_Design&oldid=1294187876, the HC series section should be removed as it is poorly written, poorly refrenced and has many mistakes I cannot say there, but it is not good to keep it there.

Again all these past mistakes were made when I was in the first classes of high school and earlier. I didn't know anything about these trucks, and I just added whatever came to my mind. However, I want that to be removed and the articles fixed. I don't want to waste your time but I would like you fix these articles. I would have done that myself but I'm still blocked. Have a nice day. Goodbye. 2A02:587:7A0F:5BB:10C:FF61:1CF5:F041 (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Most of what you are writing is uncited and WP:OR, and frequently contradicts reliable sources. No, Flickr comments are not reliable references. The TJ having been replaced by the TX in Malaysia is fully cited from Commercial Motor. I don't think you are quite able to comprehend what's happening here, but you are making a lot of speculations and assumptions. If you want the HC section removed, you would bring it up on the talk page and try to convince others to agree with you. See WP:BRD.

But your first step to do anything would be to get unblocked. This rambling demand is full of speculation and guesswork and sort of shows why you got blocked in the first place.  Mr.choppers | ✎  10:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The World Destubathon

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for articles which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Shooting Brake page edit

On the Shooting Brake page, I edited this quote:

"a very interesting profile. It makes use of the road space it covers a little better than a normal coupé, and also helps the rear person with headroom. ... The occasional use of the rear seat means you can do one of these cars, even if such a wagon lacks the everyday practicality of four doors."

To this:

"a very interesting profile. It makes use of the road space it covers a little better than a normal coupé, and also helps the rear person with headroom. ... The occasional use of the rear seat means you can [include] one of these cars [in your family fleet], even if such a wagon lacks the everyday practicality of four doors."

With this explantion in the History tab:

I wasn't quite sure what the original "you can do one of these cars", meant, so I followed the link to the quoted article. It was still a little fuzzy, but the author seems to mean that if "every member of the family has their own car" then a shooting brake can be justified as one of them. It's a curious opinion, but I think my edit is faithful to the author's meaning while clarifying it.

You reverted my edit, saying:

please do not alter direct quotes

But the Wikipedia:Quotations page allows doing exactly that. It says, "Any alterations to quoted material must be clearly marked. Use square brackets [like this] for elided text or for added emphasis.":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations#:~:text=Any%20alterations%20to%20quoted%20material,text%20or%20for%20added%20emphasis. And let's remember that the qoute you reverted to has its own alteration in the form of the ellipsis.

Please undo your reversion as it was contrary to clear Wikipedia policy. If not I'll add this to the Shooting Brake talk page. Greg Lovern (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Your changes are very close to WP:OR; clarification is completely unnecessary.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

No, my edit is not original research according to WP:OR. It does not contain any "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists". And it does not include any "analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources". Rather, it is drawn from the original full quote:

“It makes use of the road space it covers a little better than a normal coupe, and also helps the rear person with headroom,” Mr. Horbury added. “Especially in America, every member of the family has their own car. The occasional use of the rear seat means you can do one of these cars,” even if such a wagon lacks the everyday practicality of four doors.

Beginning with "The occasional use..." the context is a family where every member of the family has their own car. Removing that context renders the later "do" in "you can do one of these cars" ambiguous. My edit eliminates that ambiguity by bringing back in the minimally required element of the original speaker's thought.

Also, WP:OR was not the reason you gave for reverting my edit. The reason you gave was "please do not alter direct quotes". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greglovern (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I just now read the actual article and I agree that the quote is weird. I removed it altogether - as it seems to have been expressly included to muddy the waters - and replaced it with a straight quote from the same article which doesn't unnecessarily complicate matters. The quote right after it (from the same article) was even worse: it contained text from 6th paragraph ... text from 7th paragraph ... text from 6th paragraph, which is surely a misuse of the ellipsis, which is meant to indicate an omission and not a chopping up and rearranging of an article. Anyhow, my full response is at the Teahouse and please see what you think of the edits to shooting brake.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

AIV reporting

When you're reporting this many IP addresses, please report the ranges to WP:SPI instead (i.e., reporting non-trivial sockpuppetry cases that aren't obvious vandalism or spam, especially to administrators unfamiliar with the topic area). You can also suggest IP ranges at the same time. I went ahead and handled these this time since I've looked at this case before, but just a heads-up that these kinds of reports tend to be declined or skipped at AIV, including by me. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. I was once told that WP:SPI is not set up for quick blocks. In the future you should request assistance at any of WP:AIV/WP:RFPP/WP:ANI to ensure someone looks at your request in a timely fashion. I am fine either way. I also do not know how to determine an ip range and "block all IPs in Turkey" is probably excessive.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

It's fine if you continue to report individual IPs. mw:Help:Range blocks has more information if you want to learn more, though. I think the main takeaway from the earlier feedback is about quick blocks. If you need fast action, then yes, use WP:ANI (or WP:AIV if it's obvious vandalism or obvious spam). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Just a heads-up: something on this page (maybe the header or your signature) seems to be breaking reply links, even with ?safemode=1 added to the URL. Also, the colors are a bit hard to read (and very bright!) in dark mode. Thought it might be worth mentioning. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - I have the old setup, so I don't use the reply function. I might have to change it to fix it; the layout was stolen from someone else in the cold, distant past.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz W116

Why did you revert the editing for Mercedes-Benz W116 without considering some new information as well as whether your preference for technical data chart would work on smartphones and tablets, especially the mobile version?

The technical chart with models on the left column is the most commonly used for many of automobile-related pages in English and many languages.

From reading above talks, I see you have vandalised some of the pages without respecting the community's contributions to the editing and such. If you continue to vandalise Mercedes-Benz W116, I will report you to the administration. 2003:CA:A729:F600:7C6A:C93E:A01E:1AD1 (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

May I join the discussion?

First of all, thank you for your contributions to the Mercedes-Benz articles, but please consider registering an account, because I myself am having difficulty replying to you.

Secondly, what is this fascination with adding spaces in the indexes, and capitalising TURBODIESEL? Wikipedia's Manual of Style clearly dictates to use the most common secondary source as an indicator. Just have a look at the print to see for yourself that most journalists and publishers do NOT 1 follow 2 the official designation. Furthermore, the example of the W116 300SD is very good, where the official name is simply 300SD. TURBO DIESEL is just a badge, much like AUTOMATIC was on the W112 or V12 on the W140, the W126 did introduce the label officially, but even Mercedes-Benz does not capitalise it.

Thirdly, you use lot's of amateur terminology - like calling substituting gearbox for transmission. A gearbox is part of a manual transmission, the actual shafts and gears inside the case. On the W108/W109 article you use OR-based terminology like referring to the M100 as the Big-Block V8 and the M116/117 as the small block. Carfan87 (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

You're wrong. Right there, it says Turbo Diesel: http://www.meinbenz.de/preislisten/w123_preisliste0880.htm Mercedes-Benz put the space between numbers and letters. I only type what Mercedes-Benz show in print, not what you want to be so anal retentive about following Dubray Books. Gearbox is British term for transmission: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/gearbox There's no rule that everything in English HAS to be American English! I didn't write the whole W108/W109 myself, just corrected or cleaned up the stupid mess left by others.

Additionally, you should stop insisting on your own chart form as "easier to read". Many people HATE to scroll to the left to see the whole chart, especially on the smartphones and tablets. Look at the aforementioned price list in Mercedes-Benz, you see the model name is listed on the left side.

You do not own the Wikipedia articles, and you do not like it when people contribute the same method and forms as found in other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CA:A729:F600:3507:ACE2:DE01:8CF6 (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Again, WP:BRD - and not at my talk page, but at the article talk page. Scrolling left or right is 100% an individual preference.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Panhard 24 article - power rating conversions

Hello  Mr.choppers | ✎ 

I have been working on the Panhard 24 article, and I notice that you've stopped by there as well. One of the changes I made was to replace the text-based power conversions in "Chronology" with converisons, but even with your most recent changes, the numbers aren't matching the original text. Since you are my go-to guy in these matters, I thought I'd ask you. The original text read:

"The C had a relatively basic interior and an advertised engine output of 42 bhp (DIN) equating to 50 bhp (SAE). Relatively few were sold and this version was dropped after a year. The CT was more luxuriously equipped and boasted an engine output of 50 bhp (DIN) equating to 60 bhp (SAE)."

I am not seeing that 60 bhp (SAE) value returned by the second conversion, and with the conversions and your addition, I think it is looking too cluttered. Is there a way to simplify the conversions, and match the original numbers? Or do you think restoring the original text here is the best option?

Thanks Kumboloi (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, "bhp" is misleading since Panhard only used metric horsepower. I think it is useful to include both DIN and SAE ratings as otherwise one can easily get confused when looking at period references, especially since two of the ratings are 50hp. If we don't include PS as well as non-metric hp, someone else will be confused. I will look at it, but yes, I agree that things easily get cluttered when we have twelve different values floating around...  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

August 2025

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Alawadhi3000 (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Karen Nelson Moore. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in red at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Honda NSX

Hello. I added two citations to the NSX page. But this is the first time I added a citation, so it may be a little off. Can you please help me fix it? Thanks. MrSlowly1 (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Honda NSX

Hello again. I have fixed my incorrect citation. I no longer need your assistance. Thanks. MrSlowly1 (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Edits on UK cars

Hello there.

As a user who usually edit on car articles, I would like to ask your advice about a issue involving some edits with other editor (I rarely use talkpages, but I really want a advice)

In articles about the Aston Martin DB5 and the AEC buses (AEC Routemaster, AEC Regent III RT), per example, I added "United Kingdom" in the description since it was relevant to specify the country clearly. However, another editor (User:Murgatroyd49) reverted it, alleging "convention is to use the country, not the state", and placing "{name of the city}, England" (but in almost all articles about British cars the name United Kingdom is used since it's the official country name - just like it's used Soviet Union on Soviet car articles, just for comparison) and linking to MOS:GEO. I don't want cause a edit war, so I'd like know your advice as a experienced editor: in cases like this, what is the usual consensus or guideline? It's redundant to mention "United Kingdom" (ex. "United Kingdom: Newport Pagnell, England") or is this kind of revert valid (ex. "Newport Pagnell, England")?

Thank you SoshingekiGoji (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@SoshingekiGoji: I have seen edits going back and forth about this for decades now. I have tried to stay out of it but my instinct always wants to remove clutter from infoboxes; it also feels like ugly nationalism to me when editors add "England" every chance they get (on the other hand, writing Topeka, Kansas is quite normal and I think it's worth pointing out that the Davrian is Welsh, so maybe my gut feeling is wrong). Perhaps bring it to the Help Desk or the Teahouse if there isn't already a ruling in this matter somewhere in the Automobile Project.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello again. Thank you for your answer and for suggesting me the Teahouse (it helped me with that issue, and I asked there). I asked you first because I appreciate your automobile contributions, and I saw that the user I had that issue (User:Murgatroyd49) was the only who was reverting "United Kingdom" (just like you said about nationalism on your message, which I guess that could be a possible reason), meanwhile other experienced editors even older and with more edits than him doesn't revert for this reason (mostly for vandalism or unsourced informations).

Update: the Teabox topic recieved a positive answer about using United Kingdom. I will try to edit, but I fear a revert by him, since it's a autopatrolled user, so if he wanted he could block for disagreement, specially toward smaller editors (which is a odd reason, honestly). I can link to the Teahouse discussion if I edit back, to avoid a immediate revert? (and it can refute his "convention is to use the country, not the state" message, I guess)

Anyways, thank you for your advice. Best regards, 創新劇ゴジ

Thanks for the appreciation, and likewise. I would definitely refer to the Teahouse conversation; also invite them to the talk page, and mention WP:BRD. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Update: He created a discussion about this topic on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. Best, 創新劇ゴジ

September 2025

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Shreya Ghoshal. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in red at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I see the error but I cannot find the instance...  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Sterilization law in the United States. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:00, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to North Country (New York). When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:11, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Please let me keep my article

This is the only article I have ever made. If you gave me tips, I might make articles that follow the guidelines. 2A02:C7C:592C:4200:DBED:21A0:73D2:1BFA (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, there is no need for an article on the Vauxhall Vectra, since everything on that one is covered at Opel Vectra. I am afraid that all of the low hanging fruit was covered back in 2007 or so. I am currently getting ready to make an entry for the Steyr R 140, that's the level of obscurity one has to go after to make new articles in 2025. Create an account and I'll be happy to stay in communication.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

photo of jeepster

Hullo! I am writing in reference to the photo of the red Willys Overland Jeepster that has a "Montauk Fire Commissioner" plaque above the front license plate. Any info you could give me about who currently owns it would be appreciated. In 2006 I sold that vehicle on ebay to a gentleman who owns a wine shop in Montauk. I had the Jeepster for 47 years, since I was 15 years old. (Lots of sentimental memories!). I have been trying to track it down recently with thoughts of purchasing it, if it was for sale. By the way, I live in the Toledo Ohio area where the vehicle was manufactured. Any correspondence would be appreciated, even if it is not on the market. thanks in advance. Pipesmell (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pipesmell: It was parked at a mechanic in Water Mill, NY, which currently goes by the name of Rêver Motors. The shop has changed hands several times and recently got rid of close to a hundred old cars. I've never seen the car before or since. Also, don't post your personal info here, this is a public page! Best of luck,  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:38, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Deprod of Jonathan S. Abrametz

Hi, Mr.choppers, I have removed the PROD tag from Jonathan S. Abrametz because the PROD was contested on the article but not properly causing an error with the PROD tag. The actual contesting was done by Daniyalagha191097, I cleaned up the way it was contested after noticing it in Category:Proposed deletions needing attention. If you still think this article should be deleted, feel free to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. As an aside, I really like the kei car in your edit notice. Have a great day. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 12:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Casablanca Rock: - Thanks; love kei cars - sadly, your rock is not showing on my screen; just a wee box with a question mark in it. Maybe that's what it is meant to do? Meanwhile, I created an AfD for it if you are interested.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh no! It's an emoji so it would probably only render if emoji font are installed, but I didn't think about that. It's probably worth changing my signature to account for that issue. Thank you for letting me know! Casablanca 🪨^(T) 02:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I do not understand your logic on a fundamental level

I need you to understand that from my perspective it comes across as if you have reverted my edits and dismissed all of my explanations for why I made said edits based on completely nonsensical logic. I am doing my best to not be combative. I have offered a compromise. I have avoided saying things like "I find your arguments completely incredulous" and "you seem to be making up a fictitious version of the manual of style that doesn't exist for the sake of trying to start an edit war". But fundamentally it is an immense test of patience to retain civility in the face of having someone make an edit which simultaneously restores a "use British English" hatnote and reverts the word "petrol" to "gasoline". And I don't care if the article says "petrol" or "gasoline", I just care that there isn't a "use British English" tag at the top of an article that uses words like "gasoline" (outside of quotes). To me, if you're not prepared to actually edit the article to actually use British English, it frankly just comes across as if you were reverting my edits for the sake of having a hatnote that lies. If for some reason you want the article to use an inconsistent variety of English throughout, then you should remove "use British English" hatnote. Sorry. I promise you that I am trying my absolute hardest to assume good faith and remain WP:CIVIL. But I feel really tested right now, because I feel like I am being gaslit and ignored whilst having had my edits reverted on the grounds of what appears to be nonsense logic. I don't want to get involved in a lengthy dispute here. I just want to be able to communicate why I have done what I have done to others without having everything I say repeatedly brushed aside. And I want the article to not have a hatnote that lies at the top of it. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Tags are not important; you are worrying about the wrong things. The important thing is having a legible article which conveys information, this is not some sort of weird game. The best thing is for this article not to have a tag at all, it never had one clear style and has no particular bonds to any variety of English - but clearly editors with nothing useful to do cannot leave anything untagged so I guess that's not an option.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Then remove the tag. All I care is that we don't have an article tagged "use British English" that obviously isn't using British English. I just want the article to not have an outright lie plonked at the top of it. The article using the term "sedan" incessantly clearly establishes the article as being in any variety of English other than British English. The current situation is a complete absurdity and an insult. The notion that "sedan" has more "commonality" than "saloon car" just reads to me like American-centric chauvinism and is something I thoroughly reject. Neither term has commonality, and the lack of commonality can be resolved by leaving a footnote after whichever term the article uses explaining that it means roughly the same thing as the other term. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

If we remove it, some other busybody will add a tag, and then we will have the same nonsense again. People whose entire mission here is to shower every article with tags apparently abhor a vacuum. Gawaon already updated the article and also very patiently explained to you what is going on and how things work. I suggest you reread their replies over at the MOS talk page.  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I have nothing more to say on the matter. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

şahin discussion

i've moved it to its talkpage. fyi. 1337.d4nd135 (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

November 2025

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Tofaş Şahin when you modified the page, you introduced conversion errors. The {{convert}} template can be complex and I encourage you to read it's documentation but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you always use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Re Hyundai i20. You edit articles and pay no attention to the fact the units do not comply with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions. When I edit subsequently you revert the edit, it would be more productive if you corrected the article prior to me reading it and noticing it has errors. You, I and all editors are supposed to follow the Wikipedia conventions for vehicles after 1980. I'll have a look next time and see what is involved in your approach with order=out. Regards, Avi8tor (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

It is not my job to fix your mistakes. I have shown you dozens of times why you should not use disp=flip when you have three units. Since you either do not pay attention, do not care, or disagree (but you have never said that you disagreed, so I expect it is one of the other two reasons) I chose to revert you instead, in an effort to make you take notice. Use {{cvt|90|PS|kW PS hp|0|order=out}} to get the desired result.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Anniversary Mr.choppers 🎉

Hey @Mr.choppers. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 17 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. 🙂 -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 19:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Primary Unit

Mr.choppers, I find your editing disruptive to improving articles in Wikipedia. I know you have a preference for Horsepower (HP & PS) because we discussed it at length in [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_247 /Peugeot 505]] . You edited article Maserati GranTurismo on 6 March 2025, it had errors in the presentation of engine power that did not comply with WikiProject Automobiles, you left it as is, with 405 PS (298 kW; 399 hp) which gives PS primary and kW secondary, this does not comply with the agreed dispute resolution of June 2024 where we both agreed to use [Automobiles/Conventions] which gives examples of the convert template. Italian vehicle should have 298 kW (405 PS), which gives kW primary and PS secondary, it also states use either HP or PS, both are not required, the difference between the two is insignificant.

When I edited the above article, which requires [[SI] primary, you continually revert the edit, which is disruptive. If you had fixed this in March 2025 per the agreed Arbitration it would not require further editing. Reverting edits that comply with the MOS and Automobile Template even if they don’t comply with your personal likes or dislikes is disruptive. We are all here to improve Wikipedia for a worldwide readership. Avi8tor (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

You keep introducing errors. It is not my responsibility to put in the additional time to fix your repeat mistakes; I have already told you several dozen times how to use the conversion template when there are three units present. I and many others also disagree in your notion that the difference between metric hp and customary is insignificant. When Porsche made a car with 300 PS (221 kW; 296 hp), it's because it's a very impressive number - 296hp doesn't have the same impact.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Your talk page shows an error message on "reply." https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:DiscussionTools/Why_can't_I_reply_to_this_comment?#The_"reply"_link_cannot_be_used_to_reply_to_this_comment

Where is the error? I edited the article again exactly as the Wikipedia conventions state. Your preferences have no place in the matter, it's about following the manual of style or in this case the published Wikipedia Automobile conventions. I would rather work with you than against you. Avi8tor (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure what edit you are disputing right now; I disagree with removing hp because then Americans (and some Brits) will go around changing PS to hp and getting the numbers wrong, but I haven't reverted you again. Using disp=flip with three units does not work; I have shown you the proper code several times (below find my response from last time, perhaps you will eventually read it):

"I have shown you dozens of times why you should not use disp=flip when you have three units. Since you either do not pay attention, do not care, or disagree (but you have never said that you disagreed, so I expect it is one of the other two reasons) I chose to revert you instead, in an effort to make you take notice. Use {{cvt|90|PS|kW PS hp|0|order=out}} to get the desired result."  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not disputing any edit of yours. If I find mistakes I will correct them to what is required in the Wikipedia Automobile conventions with the data available. Avi8tor (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Formula One#Primary_unit

HelloMr.choppers I've filed a dispute resolution request for further input on the matter discussed. Please comment at [] Avi8tor (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not a dispute, it is just you trying to avoid consensus. Four or five other editors all agree on bar.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

December 2025

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Opel Corsa when you modified the page, you introduced conversion errors. The {{convert}} template can be complex and I encourage you to read it's documentation but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it and when conversion errors are present they will show up in red. It is strongly recommended that you always use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:02, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Renault Duster Oroch. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:36, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

reversions

I've noticed when you have reverted my edits recently you only have issues with some elements of the edit, please do partial reverts when you do. Not stuart60 (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Double check what you're reverting, you're adding back much wordier text, and unsourced info. Most of my overhaul edits add sources to every claim, word them better, fix minor MOS errors, and remove un-needed or uncited text. Not stuart60 (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Your removals are excessive, we can afford to spell things out. Our mission is to make things readable and understandable. Not every single sentence needs to be cited, see WP:OVERCITE. Please exercise restraint; there is no need to remove descriptive text and you also make other minor mistakes like removing capitalization from "Tourer".  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Notability query

Hello, I noticed you removed the recent notability tag from Alex Mecum: I'm curious why. I 'm new to reveiwing new pages and was about to add a notability tag when I realized you'd just removed one. Any advice you can offer would be appreciated. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@ArthurTheGardener: I did not, it was removed by Czarking0. I agree that the page is unlikely to meet WP:N.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I'm so sorry: I thought it was you. In that case, do you think that there would be any objection if I replaced it? ArthurTheGardener (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

There is a conversation on the talk page, I think that's the best place to start. I am at work so I'd rather not be checking gay porn actor references. Hah.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I understand. 🙂 I'll check out the Talk page, thank you. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

For future reference I removed notability tag because I believe WP:GNG was well established after looking at several of the sources. However the page was deleted under WP:G5 regardless. Czarking0 (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for explaining. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Apologies

I apologize for a poor quality edit I made on the Honda Accord page, specific to the 6th generation US version of the sedan. Whoops! Brokenalarmclock 6:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Brokenalarmclock: I apologize that I made you feel the need to apologize, that was not my intent. Please keep taking photos and help improving articles, I don't know how long you've been around here, but if there is anything I can help you with (some wikiformatting is rather than Byzantine) please feel free to ask.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:57, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Brokenalarmclock (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year Mr.choppers!

Happy New Year!

Mr.choppers,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

(Zakk😎) 17:33, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Toyota Mark X article

Good day to you Mr.choppers. I hope you are doing well. My reason for messaging you is to ask you why you reverted my edits on the Toyota Mark X article. I did i delete something important or misspell something? Please let me know. Thanks!

AnonymusEditor558 (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I felt that the deletions were unnecessary. The GR engine was newly developed, for instance. You also changed "boot" to "trunk", please see WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN. The article is marked "please use British English" in a hatnote.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I see what you mean in changing a word from one type of english to another because of preference; but, the "unnecessary comments" I had removed were comments such as "creating a 'mood' lighting system", "is very noticeably distinct" & "entry-level variant" because these are somewhat subjective statements unless stated in a source. AnonymusEditor558 (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

"Entry-level variant" is useful and objective, I don't see why you would delete it. "Mood" lighting describes the intended purpose of those lights. I reworded "very noticeably distinct"; but it was there to signify that a particular model looked quite different from the base version. Citations are typically necessary for "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged"; i.e. things that are contentious or of dubious veracity. These are neither. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I see what your saying. My problem with the sentence "Entry-level variant" is that it sounds too laxed, as if to say "the version you don't wanna buy" or "the beginner version" and is also simply a unnecessary comment about the vehicle (see WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC). My problem with saying "distinctly different" is that being "distinct" is for the reader to decide. Lastly "mood lighting" should be stated definitively, so the quotation marks should be removed. AnonymusEditor558 (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

You seem to be having problems with commonly used terms and expressions. Not sure what "laxed" means. Quotation marks may be used to indicate a word specifically used in a reference (but I already reworded it since you seem to have such an inexplicably strong reaction to the word "mood"). "Distinct" adds a bit of emphasis, as the model shows significant difference. None of these expressions are contentious in the least; I recommend starting a discussion with other users if you persist.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I have no problem with the word "mood", if it is the proper term, it should be used; as for commonly used terms please see the link in my previous reply. Please understand I'm not trying to pick an argument, i'm trying to avoid starting an edit war. If I undo your edits, you're likely to change them back, starting a war. AnonymusEditor558 (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Proper term? "Mood" is simply one way to describe the intended effect of the LED lighting setup. Are you from space? "Entry-level variant" is in no way unnecessary nor is it unencyclopaedic. Please point me to the specific sentence in WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC which suggests those words are somehow problematic.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The parts of the article that comes under ENCYCLOPEDIC are "Entry-level variant", the other parts have been reworded sufficiently. AnonymusEditor558 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Go ahead and quote the actual text from WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC which suggests that "entry-level" is somehow problematic in your mind.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

"Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful." AnonymusEditor558 (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

That means that text which may be true or useful still cannot be included if it falls afoul of any of the subsequent sections. If being true or useful was by itself means for exclusion, there wouldn't be much WP left.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

That's quite true, but it also mean not ever last bit of detail need to be included. AnonymusEditor558 (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

No, we don't want to include every detail. Things like exhaustive lists of equipment, torque values of fasteners, different color availability, or every single time a car of any type appeared in a movie fall under trivia and cruft. Stating that one version is the base model does not come anywhere within a hundred miles of the vicinity of falling afoul of that. Now stop and leave me alone as per WP:DEADHORSE.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

As you wish. Good day. AnonymusEditor558 (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

VB Commodore

What issues do you want addressed in my edits. Not stuart60 (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

You are deleting things that don't need deleting. Please read WP:BRD and discuss at the VB talk page, not here.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Your edit:

Thanks, can you remove the wikilink from the second source? According to MOS:OVERLINK, only one wikilink is needed. ~2026-29309-8 (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Why Did You Revert my Image Quality? 1995 Ford Courier seems better. ~2026-13975 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

IMO, it is better to have pictures from several different years when possible, as long as they are all of good quality.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:19, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I disagree, it would be better to have the two pictures of the same car for an example or four for showing the differences. Different cars at different angles to me seems is the worse option to show differences. Not stuart60 (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

There are competing goals - show every iteration front and rear, show a representative sample, or show front and rear only of one version. There is also WP:NOTGALLERY which militates against using every picture there is.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Stephen Scherr, edit request

Hello Mr.choppers, pleasure to meet you. I noticed your prolific editing and participation in Project Cars. Might you be interested in assisting me with some changes to the article of Stephen Scherr, former CEO of Hertz Rental Company? The modifications are outlined in an edit request on the article Talk page. I would be grateful for your review. If these tweaks seem OK to you, I can make them directly in the article with your approval. Looking forward to collaborating with you, B for Pretium (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

That sounds fantastically boring, so no thanks. But nice of you to think of me.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Lombardi Grand Prix

Dear Mr.Choppers: I am newly signed up as a Wikipedia editor, and I am interested in making some edits to the page on the Lombardi Grand Prix. I have owned a Grand Prix for a few years, during which time I have gathered a large amount of historical material on the model (auto journals, books, etc.). Noting that you originally created this page and have been the main editor since then, I would like to start a dialogue about why I believe some edits would improve the page. Of course, if this is not the way things should be done, please let me know; I'm a complete Wikipedia newbie at this point. Spicycle (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Spicycle: Read WP:BOLD and edit away - but thanks for the heads up! Happy to help you out, too, formatting is rather byzantine at times. I only started the article because I came across the yellow example at a Cars & Coffee and there was no article for me to drop my photos into. Keep me posted and happy editing. I recommend checking out WP:NPOV and WP:RS as well.

Side note: thinking of buying a ten-year old Fiat 500 (n/a, automatic) as a runabout - do you know anything I should look out for or is your knowledge limited to older ones?  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll start taking a crack at it (baby steps of course).

I'm afraid my knowledge of the 500 is limited to the old rear-engined version. I previously owned an Autobianchi 500 and a Moretti 500. I have a friend who has a newer Fiat 500 Abarth and he loves it. My runabout is an electric smart fortwo - the current 500 is just so huge! Spicycle (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

You have owned three of my dreams! The Moretti in particular is just staggeringly cool. There are only two photos available in the Commons; if you feel generous a rear view and anything else you have would be a welcome addition. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I've uploaded a few photos of the Moretti. I messed up the captions at first (forgot the word Coupe), but I figured out how to request they be changed (or "moved" I guess). Anyway, they show up when I search on the word Moretti, so check them out when you have a moment. Regards, Spicycle. Spicycle (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Stunning! I fixed the titles for you, added categories to help others find them, and added the photos to Fiat 500 Moretti Coupe. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Much better! Thanks. Spicycle (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I made a couple of small edits to dip my toe in the water. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Using the citation editor was "fun", but the reference I added seems to look OK. Let me know if there are any standards for citations that I'm not following. Spicycle (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You need no help, no notes. Full steam ahead.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I made a couple more edits. Regarding the anecdote I removed, there is a little more back story than seemed appropriate for the edit notes. It is possible that the author of the reference misstated the Autobianchi involved as the A112, when it should have been the A111 (Primula). Fiat did create a mid-engined prototype based on A111 underpinnings, which came to be known as the Autobianchi G31. It was designed by Pio Manzu, and it bore a passing resemblance to the Grand Prix. This version of the story appears in various internet sources. However, the timing still does not work, since the G31 was first shown at the Turin show in November 1968, six months after the Grand Prix debuted. Spicycle (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, the G31 was finished in 1967, it just wasn't shown until later. But the Lawrence "A112" statement is definitely muddled at best. I mean, it looks similar, but so did a lot of sporting designs of the era, starting with the Mangusta. Nice short writeup on the G31 here, one I didn't know much about. Hemmings says: The G 31 wouldn't reach production in this form, but it was the germ of the concept behind the transverse mid-engine Fiat X1/9 of 1974. — Also making its debut at this time was a surprisingly similar sports car based on Fiat mechanicals: the Francis Lombardi S.a.s.-built Lombardi Grand Prix. Long story short, yeah, let's keep that out.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:13, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I owned a couple of X1/9s back in the UK. Absolutely loved them - amazing handling, very poor rust protection! Spicycle (talk) 07:29, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Montego Bay article.

Good day. Sorry to message you again, but I'm messaging you to ask why you reverted every single edit I made to the Montego bay article? AnonymusEditor558 (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

"Anglophone" is not a not a word most people will know, I changed it to "english speaking" for ease of reading. And, "now discussed" is not relevant to the article. If you had a problem with those edits, you could have edited those specifically. Reverting the whole article was not necessary. AnonymusEditor558 (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I didn't see any real purpose to the other edits, aside from one or two WLs. It would take a lot of time to sort out the few worthwhile items and that is not necessarily my responsibility. As for "anglophone", it is not an obscure or big word. I do not comprehend your weird hangups around words. Perhaps you could establish an article at Simple English Wikipedia: Here is a link to simple:Jamaica, there is no entry for Montego Bay so that would actually be useful.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Apart from changing the word anglophone to "english speaking", I also removed unnecessary comments and added links; It is quite irresponsible to revert a whole article because of 2 words. Would you like me to redo it and leave anglophone? Also about a contribution to simplewiki, thats a good idea, I will think about it. AnonymusEditor558 (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree with your definition of unnecessary comments, so more than merely two words.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

What is your definition of unnecessary comments? AnonymusEditor558 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Let me define what I mean by "unnecessary comments". In relation to Wikipedia, when I say unnecessary comments, I'm speaking about comments or remarks that are not relevant to the specific article. AnonymusEditor558 (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I think we all mean that. I don't always agree with how you classify something as not relevant.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I see. Can you give an example? AnonymusEditor558 (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Whenever I give you an example it leads to a discussion, after a while you say "ok" and then you will say "what about my other edits." You removed The building was formerly a ballroom and courthouse during the height of the country's colonial period. which is inexplicable to me.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

You are correct in saying I will ask about my other edits. Discussion is a part of WP:BRD, it doesn't need to be elongated though and I apologise stretching out the Mark X article discussion. So yes, I may have been wrong about removing "The building was formerly a ballroom and courthouse during the height of the country's colonial period." but apart from the "unnecessary comments", I also added links and fixed some grammar, and added a notable person. What about those? AnonymusEditor558 (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

From above: I didn't see any real purpose to the other edits, aside from one or two WLs. I am sure adding a notable person makes sense, too.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:25, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Alright, so I'm going to make another editing attempt. AnonymusEditor558 (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

You restored pretty much the full edit. Don't mask WLs if the redirect already works. Don't delete   (non-breaking spaces). How about you start at the other end, with edits that are actually helpful?  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean be masking WLs? Also I fixed what you seem to have a problem with; "The building was formerly a ballroom and courthouse during the height of the country's colonial period." Was re-added and the word anglophone Is now being used. AnonymusEditor558 (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

WL = wikilink. Please read MOS:LINK and then come back. You are also overlinking (United States does not need linking). And no, most of your edits were either pointless or faintly negative. Some of the Wikilinks were useful, that's about it as far as I can see.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I see what you mean by overlinking. However though, just because you don't think my edits are useful doesn't mean they aren't. It doesn't give the right to revert everything. AnonymusEditor558 (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I see what you mean by overlinking. However though, just because you don't think my edits aren't useful doesn't mean they aren't. It doesn't give the right to revert everything. (error in the first comment) AnonymusEditor558 (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Edit of OTAS/Giannini Section of Lombardi Grand Prix

Dear Mr.Choppers, I'm starting a new thread on this one because I made a fairly big edit. My goals were: 1) to clear up some apparent misunderstanding about Giannini's engines. They made a 982 cc single cam (based on the Fiat 100G), and a 994 cc twin cam (their own design - completely different architecture). They marketed the twin cam as "Bialbero" (same as Abarth - literally Italian for twin cam), not as "Tigre". I cite several auto magazine pieces to support this.

Then 2), the whole story of how the OTAS 820 came about was missing some important (and I think quite interesting) parts - particularly the role of Franco's company OGT and the fuel injected OGT 1000. I realize this is a big piece of new information to add, but there are three separate and independent sources for it (L'Automobile, Quattroruote and Sports Car World), which are all cited. Franco Giannini's autobiography is a useful source about OGT and OTAS, as is Sannia's book on Fiat 850 customs. I have both, but I chose to cite from Sannia as I think he does a good job of summarizing Giannini's (somewhat rambling) text.

As always, happy to discuss further, answer questions, make further changes, etc. Spicycle (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I have absolutely no qualms about your editing ability, knowledge, or the depth of the Italian shelves in your library. I may look at the page on occasion, but it is not my property and you absolutely do not need pre-clearance or having to explain yourself. Feel free to chat about these cars and others, though! So yours is a Lombardi? Which engine? Photos anywhere?  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the thumbs up. I'll keep moving ahead. My own Grand Prix is a Series I model with steel doors. It's titled as a 1970, but based on the chassis number I think it is probably a 1969. I purchased it from Germany and imported it to the US. It was nicely restored some years ago and is in generally very good shape. Things like the panel fit, shut lines and ride height are spot on, which are items to look for when buying. At some point the original engine was replaced with the 903 cc motor out of a Sport Coupe (which seems to be a common upgrade). It has a (very noisy) Abarth exhaust and is covered in Abarth badges (which also seems to be common). I'll post some pictures on Wiki Commons soon. Spicycle (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I've uploaded a couple of photos under the category Francis Lombardi Grand Prix. Spicycle (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Beautiful - I agree with you that it doesn't need the Abarth badging. I feel like I see this kind of thing more frequently in Germany than anywhere else; not sure why they love stolen valor so much.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Camargue edits

Hello

I see that you basically undid all my new material on the Camargue, which was scholarly and balanced, and so an unwarranted act by you. You speak of 'bias' but you had four negative assessments about the car's appearance to just one partly positive one (May's). I left two negatives and so created more balance. (Your citation from Crap Cars was inaccurate, by the way, so I fixed that for you.) I then added new material that indeed has a positive emphasis as all the new books and articles on the Camargue show - have you read them? I have. The negative view of the Camargue is anachronistic. I am sure that you would want to keep all of your many other car pages up to date, and yet you had not touched the Camargue page for 6 years before today.

All of this new material was deleted by you. If you hate the car, then leave its page alone. If I redo this material, please do not delete - if you find anything WRONG in its scholarship, get in touch with me first. Bergsonn (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I most certainly did not add the Crap Cars reference; but you have to recognize that the Camargue is generally considered an expensive flop. Don't get me wrong, I adore them. You do have to be less biased, though, and you absolutely cannot remove {{cn}} tags unless you have a reference to back them up.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:54, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Attitudes to the Camargue have fundamentally changed in the last decade (no less than to the Ferrari 400, for example, another of Porter's 'crap cars'), as I cited in new works by Buckley, King, Butt, Kilbertus, Camissa, Harris, and others. This article originally cites 4 negative and 1positive view. That is bias. The expensive flop narrative is simply incorrect - it was a halo car, and a revenue creator. Did you even read my quote from King, who wrote the definite account of the car in 2019? I am not biased at all but simply reading the evidence.

So, going forward: I will not alter tags without reference eg, changing salon to coupe as saloons are normally deemed 4 door - but are you going to delete my new material again on account of an outdated prejudice? How to we adjudicate this (I know that this page was not created by you, so neither of us 'own' it)? Bergsonn (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Just pull back a little. Be aware of your POV and try your damnedest to be neutral. The fact that the Camargue did not inspire a successor in any way tells me that RR themselves considered it a failure - compare what happened when the Continental R was introduced - it changed Bentley permanently and was kept alive for ages, undergoing constant revisions and additions to the range. And again: I love the Camargue. That does not make me feel any need to make it out to have been a great success or a worthwhile expenditure of Rolls-Royce's limited funds at the time. I love misfits in general. I already delete the Crap Cars reference; it feels like there is consensus to drop it (one of those books a well-meaning aunt buys you: "I know you like cars, so here you go").

As for editing, we have all the time in the world. It doesn't have to be perfect tomorrow, other editors will weigh in. User:Erremm already took care of the missing references. I have some old non-English language road tests as well (typically of a "polite but confused" tone), but WP articles should avoid being long lists of reviews.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay - I may have another stab at it tomorrow and try to 'pull back'. No disrespect, but all the new material emerging on the Camargue points in a more positive direction, however. Try this essay by Buckley in Classic and Sports Car. https://www.classicandsportscar.com/features/rolls-royce-camargue-latin-makeover

Nobody is saying the car was an unalloyed success in terms of numbers sold or longevity. But it was a great revenue generator and a good halo car (I cite both King and Buckley there). And it did influence the look of future RRs (Kilbertus, Butt). Aesthetically, it is still a love-hate thing, but I would say there is more 'love' than hate in contemporary commentary (especially in its 50th anniversary year last year). Bergsonn (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Choppers--hur mar du? I'm kind of pissed because I was about to order a Camargue. I guess I should hold on to the Prius. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Drmies: Get the Roller; just make sure to keep the original wheels on it - I hate it when people put modern alloys on Camargues. The money you save in not constantly having your Prius' catalytic converters stolen should cover at least the additional gas expenditures.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Knock on wood: not a single time yet, Mr.chopper. Hey I remember being in Sweden in small towns on a Friday evening and watching the classic cars cruise through town. That was fun. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

That's great - raggare is a hilarious subculture, not to mention EPA- and A-tractors. My village was well known amongst local police for having the highest prevalence of illegally tuned mopeds in southern Sweden, but aside from one guy with a Caterham there weren't many special cars around.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Image for the Ford Mustang Infobox

Dear Mr.Choppers, Yes I have already read the WP:CARPIX prior to that edit and I know about that passage, but the 6th generation of the Mustang is almost 11 years old now and I think it's best if the newer 7th generation of the Mustang is the lead image for the Infobox, if you have any problems and/or disagree with the statements I've made then I'm happy to revert the image back to the to the original 6th generation Mustang From, The Number 8th The number 8th (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

It can be sixty years old, it is of no importance. As long as it is a high quality photo of a representative model; that's what matters, not how new the car is.  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:45, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Need some help

Hi, hope you are keeping well. I have a feeling the user User:GaryJAllen might be User:Democfest. I have a feeling, I was going through some past edits in the contributions and I think they seem to be the same person. I believe User:Democfest had similar behaviour as noted in this. I'm not sure how to approach this, but it seems to be a huge mess nowadays. Please advise what you recommend. Thank you -- ~2026-12024-51 (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I am a bit weary of all of the current accounts who just spend all of their time swapping photos back and forth. I am sure everyone has good intentions, but it's filling my watchlist with largely meaningless edits. Also, I generally do not enjoy having conversations with anonymous folks; hard to know who you are talking to when everyone's temporary usernames look the same and it will change in a few weeks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:19, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Qualitative Research + Documentary for Wikimedia

Hello, Mr.choppers. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hey Mr. choppers, just sent a note, let me know if you got it. Thanks! Jonah Ginsburg (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Very kind of you (judging by whom else you contacted I'm in an illustrious group), but I am currently extremely short on time. I will reach out if I am going to be in BK any time in the near future.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:23, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Mr.choppers, we are now conducting the whole thing remotely to make things easier for participants. If still interested / when you have a moment, shoot me an email and I'll send over a consent/privacy form with more info! Jonah Ginsburg (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Ford Transit

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ford Transit, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Aston Martin V8 Vantage edit

Hey there! I really didn't knew that the Aston Martin V8 Vantage was classified as a "Saloon" when I did that edit you reverted. It was strange for me at first, since it's commonly saw as a coupé (like other Aston Martin models), so thank you for your edit

           ~ 創新劇ゴジ. SoshingekiGoji (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks; yes, they always did prefer that term to foreign-sounding words like coupé. They sort of accepted it later, when they named the later V8 Coupe, but they nonetheless eschewed the accent mark.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

LWB Santana Samurai

Good morning from Indonesia, Mr.choppers. So here's the French market LWB Santana Samurai truck and convertible (not badged as Suzuki) brochure I was talking about. Santana-built Jimny/Samurai had VIN started with VS = Spain, instead of J = Japan. Any input for improvement is welcome, thank you. Haysnawri10 (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Haysnawri10: Sorry, I didn't see that link anywhere, but yeah, that is very clear. Do we know the date for this? As per Quattroruote, Santana was only building SWBs in 1992, at least. Perhaps there is a source for the introduction of LWB Santanas. Anyhow, as per WP:BRD, if you get reverted you do not just revert back - discuss first.

Please stop changing {{cvt to {{convert. Also, when converting a power output like 80 PS, you have to add a "0" to make sure that it is not rounded incorrectly. Other issues are that you conflated some text, not sure if it was deliberate or not (original text first):

In the autumn of 1983 a covered long-wheelbase version was added for export markets... The Samurai was also produced in a long wheel base (LWB) edition for certain markets, either as a pickup truck or a two-door convertible. The LWB convertible edition still had only two rear seats (if fitted at all) for two rear passengers, and the rear passenger leg room was the same as in the standard SWB edition. The extended vehicle length only affected the boot/bed space, which was significantly larger in the LWB edition.

In the autumn of 1983, a LWB convertible version was added for export markets. This LWB convertible edition still had only two rear seats (if fitted at all) for two rear passengers, and the rear passenger leg room was the same as in the standard SWB edition. The extended vehicle length only affected the boot space, which was significantly larger in the LWB edition.

The covered LWB is the style shown in the Santana brochure, but it and the pickup are now omitted entirely and the autumn 1983 date is applied to the softtop LWB. Uncited, not sure if any of this is intentional? Lastly, I am still not quite sure what a convertible is in this context - is it what the Italians call a Torpedo, like the bodystyle of a Citroën Méhari?  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the Santana-branded Jimny was only available in SWB until 1992. I actually found a pre-1992 LWB Suzuki Samurai with a Spanish VIN, but then I also found an article about a LWB Santana Samurai in a 1992 French 4x4 magazine. It's so confusing.

I’ll make sure to keep the formatting right. And yeah, I combined those LWB sections on purpose to avoid being repetitive. The LWB truck model was still sold outside Europe (such as in Canada (pre-Samurai) and Australia) after 1983.

In my opinion, just call this open-top style as "convertible" like the Jeep Wrangler. Haysnawri10 (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

AfD

Nomination of GMC Sprint for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GMC Sprint is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GMC Sprint until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 12:33, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@Jacksonvil: thank you for the notification, appreciate it.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:27, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Proposed restrictions on adding own images to articles

As per User talk:Sable232#Vehicle image replacements and disruptive editing, I am thinking about starting an RfC on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions that prohibits editors adding their own images to automobile articles. As long as car pictures have been on Wikipedia, this has been an issue. Thoughts? Or is this too heavy-handed? I haven't checked all the ANI threads on car disruption, but on WP Automobiles talk page it was noted that someone suggested general sanctions the last time something made its way to that board. I know that Sable232 suggested that would be "using a log splitter where a butter knife is needed" but it has just gone on for so long at this point IMO there should be at least something in place. At least the image restriction would be a useful first step, as that has been one of the many points of disruption on articles. Thanks, Cutlass^Ciera 16:09, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Cutlass: thanks for the notice. I think what is proposed is a bit draconian - there are definitely many beneficial instances of images being added by the person who took them. I think a better option is to have a reversion rule for one's own photos - if you add or change to one of your own photos and a registered user then removes it, you cannot add it back without prior discussion (excepting cases of blatant vandalism and so on).

I mentioned registered user to avoid having other photographers using anonymous accounts to restore their own photos. Additionally, new users are often unfamiliar with WP:CARPIX and put up photos of their own car no matter the quality. If the reversion is for the other user's own photo (as in M-93 swapping out one of TTTNIS' pictures for one of his own photos and me replacing that with one of my own photos), then M-93 would have the right to restore the TTTNIS photo and only then discuss it on the talk page.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:48, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think your adjustment makes perfect sense. I'm sure you understand where I was coming from in the initial proposal, however. Any thoughts before I take this to that page? I'm waiting on secondary input from Sable232 before I do so. Thanks, Cutlass^Ciera 17:18, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

No additional comments and I totally understand your reasoning. Might be hard to get this accepted by the community, though.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:18, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I just heard back from Sable232, and it seems like there's no way it can be held enforceable without a CT. Additionally, he said that the guidelines themselves might not survive in the future. What I'll do is wait until this becomes an issue again and float the idea of making it a CT. There's not much else to say. Disruption is almost constant, and nobody outside of a dozen or so editors know how bad it actually is. Cutlass^Ciera 20:29, 2 May 2026 (UTC)