Wikipedia

User talk:Typ932/Archive 8

< User talk:Typ932
Latest comment: 12 years ago by LukeWiller2 in topic Alfa Romeo trucks
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10


WPF1 Newsletter (November)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

--Midgrid(talk) 21:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (December)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

– Cs-wolves(talk) 16:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Punto Multijet

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I am sure, although I can't prove it (best I can show is this, regarding a 2009 update for the Spanish market). I keep a personal database of cars sold in Europe, North America and a few other markets, so I checked regularly Fiat's national websites, especially the European big 5 (Germany, France, UK, Italy, Spain), waiting for the 1.6 Multijet to be made available. It never did. They never updated the tech specs and you couldn't build one on the configurator. Before the arrival of the Punto Evo, the 1.9s were dropped in the Italian market, and the 1.3s were the only Diesels available on the Grande Punto. --Pc13 (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

On the 1.6 Multijet, I'll revert myself, then. There are five Brazilian engines, four of which are currently available. It was released as Punto in 2007 (no Grande on the name, and keeps the old style front, so there's no Punto Evo update. All but one engines are flexfuel, capable of running on 100% ethanol (Brazilian gasoline is actually an E20 blend, mandated by legislation). The 1.4 FIRE 8-valve (86 PS) is the base model. The 1.8 8-valve was sourced from GM (110 PS), but it was replaced in 2010 by the new Etorq engines, which are derived from the Tritec engine (1.6 16V for 117 PS, 1.8 16V for 132 PS). The 1.4 Turbojet engine, reserved for the top of the line, is similar to its European counterpart, but in Brazil it has 152 PS. BTW, I also noticed the Abarth engines are duplicated in the tables on the Grande Punto article. We should remove one, no? --Pc13 (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

BMW 7

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Is not BMW 7 an F-class, full-size luxury car? Or what was the reason for the undo at Template:Automobile classification? Magicoast (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes, that's right that we can't fit all cars, but it would be quite convinient to list the entire all-classes production line of at least one or two given automakers, so that a reader can easily imagine each car class on the example of the cars of a given automaker. Magicoast (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you didn't get me right. What I wanted to say is to keep all the diversity of the car makers throughout the list as per NPOV, but alongside that also to have one or two brands present in every category. Not only one brand on the entire list, as you might have got it. Magicoast (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Flagicon in automobile template

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello,

I was just wondering, what is wrong about having state flagicon in automobile template, that you feel need to erase it in all of my edits. (I am not complaining, I genuinly don't understand it). Thank you for explanation. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 18:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Auto Italia front cover.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Auto Italia front cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (January)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Formula One at 17:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC).

Fiat 131

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello typ932,

I just saw your edits to the Fiat 131 page. On my screen (12", 1024 x 768), there is now much more white space than before. I don't know what the norm is, nor what you use, but for me the page is decidedly less readable after your last edit. In any case, I really want what is best for the most users.  ?| Mr.choppers |?  (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Fiat in the US

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Check out http://fiatamerica.net/. Saw newscast about Fiats return to the Us market. Was having trouble getting the ref in place and was called away. Maybe you can help. thanks, Buster Seven Talk 04:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

you're right. No actual mention of Marchionne announcement. Reference was to support Fiat in America not an assumed, (by me) , announcement. I was just trying to incorporate and update but should have found a better location and created a better meld. Mea Copa. Buster Seven Talk 13:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (February)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 03:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC).

Bristol Cars

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As a previous contributor to this page, you might want to have a look at Bristol Cars. Another user, with a long history of contentious edits, has deleted nearly the entire page and replaced it with broken up sections. See Talk:Bristol_Cars#Removal_of_content for what is going on. Best,  ?| Mr.choppers |?  (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (March)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Apologies for the late delivery of this month's newsletter; the automated delivery system appears not to be working at present.--Midgrid(talk) 20:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (April)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 17:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC).

we have a significant issue

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

an encyclopedic entry on turbochargers is an article on turbochargers. it is not a article of lists for auto enthusiasts. where is the list of turbocharged ships, locomotives, trucks, tractors, pleasure aircraft, military aircraft and sport aircraft. all of these that i listed are older and far more significant historically, being the precursors to automotive TCs. then there are racing cars, tractor pulls etc. auto enthusiast and motor sports thus should have there own articles addressing the application of turbos to cars. please try to convince me that i am wrong. Mkoronowski (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

relative to the car list within turbochargers

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

do you agree that the article is about turbochargers?

are you an automobile enthusiast? i think your page says yes, so am i, in fact i wonder why the turbocharged offenhauser isn't mentioned under racing!

should the list of cars include any more? i would say yes with reservations.

why does this list of cars present a npov? i would say no!

why does the list only include american and european cars?

should the first turbocharged cars from every auto manufacturer be added just to be fair? fair is fair.

do you want to see a comparable list of all military aircraft that use(d) turbochargers? i don't think you do.

... light aircraft ...? ditto ... performance aircraft ...? ditto ... all trucks from around the world ...? ditto ... all heavy/industrial/marine diesels from around the world ...?

should the non automotive lists be in separate articles?

would the article get too long if every group includes their list? i think yes.

from my experience, encyclopedic articles are introductory summaries to a topic. as a product, what uses turbos is highly important. should equal and fair text be given to the other applications? I would say yes but possibly not in the main article. currently the turbocharger article is automobile centric, and i don't think that is neutral!

in an extreme silly analogy, my name isn't listed under tooth brush. In a few more years when conventional gasoline engines are no more and everyone is driving with fuel cell engines or electric battery hybrids, there will only be a historical interest in the current list, something like the history of automotive turbochargers. I would really enjoy a separate turbo article where car nuts can document freely without having to worry about giving fair time to other tc users and enthusiast. that is my soap box, please tell me what you think about these points i've raised. Mkoronowski (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

rather than challenge whether I read an article, which i did

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

is there a problem with discussing whether it is consistent with wiki philosophy to over load an article with special interests like your own? just as you once did, i also need to learn the shades of gray.

I am getting a sense that newbees like myself are just toys to be bludgeoned till they learn to stay out of senior editor articles. i have certainly broken many wiki rules since i've started to contribute in ernest. guess that is part of the learning curve. that doesn't mean i should be ignored when i have an honest question. i only seem to get feedback when i break the rules. even when my actions support wiki's basic tenants.Mkoronowski (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Opinions?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some more eyes, minds, and keyoard-rattlings could be helpful here and here, if you're so inclined. —Scheinwerfermann T·C23:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (May)

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

WPF1 Newsletter (June)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 19:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC).

Thank you for your help categorizing two of my photos on Commons!

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Typ932,

Thank you for your help categorizing two of my photos on Commons (pictures of an Alfa Romeo Spider "Duetto" and a Fiat X1/9 respectively). I took a handful of other photos at that same event that I likewise was only able to categorize by make (and one I was completely unable to identify), and thought that you might be able to categorize them more specifically and accurately than me. If you have any interest in having a look, or if you know any other members of WikiProject Automobiles who might have an interest, here they are with their makes as their captions:

  • MG
    MG
  • Ferrari racing car
    Ferrari racing car
  • Ferrari racing car
    Ferrari racing car
  • A completely unidentified racing car
    A completely unidentified racing car
  • Ferrari
    Ferrari
  • Cadillac
    Cadillac
  • Edsel
    Edsel
  • Chevrolet
    Chevrolet
  • Ferrari
    Ferrari
  • Lancia
    Lancia
  • Bentley
    Bentley

Thanks again for your help with the Alfa Romeo and Fiat images: I really appreciate it! Take care.

TFCforever (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

List of fastest production cars by acceleration

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Let me I explain the reason why I shortened the list, first and most straightforward, I am not going to say they are non-notable because I know what the 0-60 times of the McLaren F1 is, going back to my rationale those entries you reverted are unsourced which is why they were removed, though I have found source on a few but I will be happy to have them back in should there be any reliable third party sources for it, but in the meantime they will remain incognito.

With the trimming down the list, my reason is this; in modern times, marginally less than 4 seconds is uncommon for $150k cars when 20 years ago so can that be significant when their predecessors could manage to achieve 5 seconds and do we see any of them listed which is why I trimmed it down to 3.4 for anything before 2005, that was when the next wave of supercars (Enzo, Carrera GT, McLaren SLR) came in. Since then, a 458 is capable of achieving F40 speed. This is why I mentioned historical exceptions on my edits.

As with the Hennessy Venom that you were so keen to keep on, since when Hennessy built and designed their own cars, if we were to keep them on, are we going to include every tuner cars on the list, including the Callaway Twin-Turbos that was offered by dealers as an option.

As with the Ford RS200, the 0-60 time for the mass produced version is 6.1 seconds, the Evo version is more like a homlogated rally car for competition purposes like the of the Lancer Evo RS but as a rally car, they can be road registered, I never seen that version being listed on any car magazines at that time therefore I presume that it was offered for competition use.

What I am trying to achieve is that I am trying to keep the list exclusive like the list for the fastest production cars and lastly one issue with this list is how do you know if these times are actually timed or are manufacturer's estimates printed on the magazine. Donnie Park (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC).

Its just a list not article , there is no need to make it short. See for example drag coefficent article for comparison. If it would be a decent full article there would be need of cutting it down. I dont see any harm

to see a long list, its easier to make comparisons between cars, and it easier to undestand how fast the fastest cars really are when you compare those to different more familiar car models -->Typ932 T·C 16:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

So are we trying to achieve there, is this list supposed to be a list for the fastest accelerating production cars or a comparisons of car accelations, I think it is more like the latter. Donnie Park (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
As the name says its a list I dont see how list should be short , it should not make any harm its very easy to navigate, if that would be normal article that would be different case.-->Typ932 T·C 18:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
But then, sometimes, I feel I should have the say since I am the one who is getting dragged into this edit warring in regards to a modified Exige on that page and as a result, got it into semi-protection, but I doubt even if this block get lifted in 10 days time, it will ever stop and are you really doing something about it because you seem to let it all happen, I personally think if you care about the list, then you should lay down the law, not let this edit war flare up. Donnie Park (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
If you have list of only five cars you could convert it to article, its not a list anymore -->Typ932 T·C 13:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
..."because if it has less entries, its more like an article than a list"...So what about this list, its only three entries long and well edited in comparison to the one we're discussing and also what about this one, at least its well maintained, maybe a little bit high maintenance like all exotics that is listed on that list.
My central issue with what you object to is the removal of unsourced entries when I am trying to clean up the article there. Personally, I don't mind at least 10 upto even a 10000 entries as long as they are backed by a reliable third party sources, if you want to keep these entries, then why don't you go out and look out for reliable third party sources rather than that of car manufacturers' claim. I manage to find some to add in, I'm sure there is no shortage of Car & Driver road tests for you to source.
As I said, to me, I don't see what this list wants to be a list of the fastest accelerating production cars, more like its wants to be an indiscriminate list of acceleration times of every semi-exotics out there currently in the market. I have no choice but to bring up this issue with WP:CAR. Donnie Park (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The one example as short list is short fo reason, because there are no more to list it. We dont need to use third party sources for acceleration times, we dont have such a list of reliable third party sources, its always better to have manufacturers times and specifications on car articles and lists, otherwise we get articles/lists with very exotic results made by very different sources. This is big problem our current car articles -->Typ932 T·C 12:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
As discussed at this WikiProject one editor thinks it is best to bring this to AfD and I do have to admit to agree on this to determine its final outcome. Donnie Park (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Nokia N8

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, thx. for cleaning up the refs on the N8 page earlier. Some users complained it was "opinionated" and "not neutral". My contribution got turned back. I figure, since you've gone through the references and their links, that you've had a more indepth look, and therefore know that my contribution was actually quite neutral. I would appreciate if you could followup on what goes on at the page. I got the feeling there's quite a bit of corporate action going on there. Plus, Im really a newbie on wikipedia. Thx again. Bfaabaa (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC) bfaabaa

WPF1 Newsletter (July)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 01:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC).

Edits to Alfa Mito 1.3 Diesel Engines sections

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, sorry, I've never been a registered wikipedia member before and only rarely edit pages so I don't know all the rules and regulations, I only edited the page as I found it to be out of date, I came looking for the Mito wiki page as when I went to my local Alfa Dealer to buy the 1.3 Diesel, the model they had didn't correspond to older information I had in a brochure and so I was confused!

I added twinkle but can't see where to add a source? (It seems only to be concerned with requesting page deletion/protection)

Here is the link to the latest Alfa UK brochure for the Mito, the engine technical information is on page 32 of the brochure

http://www.alfaromeo.co.uk/uk/SiteCollectionImages/download_brochure/pdf/MiTo_Brochure.pdf

It is possible that this engine is UK market only? There are significant tax breaks for cars emitting less than 100g/km CO2 in the UK so perhaps Alfa have only changed the 1.3 diesel specification for us and not the rest of europe? (that may be why you cannot find it anywhere else) also the 1.3 diesel specification has also only changed quite recently (not sure of exact date, but since April 2011) before that we also had the 90PS and then 95PS versions.

I haven't reverted the edit to the page

Popkid75 (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi It might be UK model only, I checked Italian and Germany page and there was no such now model at all, I think it can be addedd back, but the PS has to be changed to bhp as its not metric horsepower. -->Typ932 T·C 01:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Its back now -->Typ932 T·C 02:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo Pomigliano d'Arco Plant

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion

Please do not add machine translations of foreign language articles to Wikipedia. Due to their poor quality, they are generally not useful and can be very difficult to fix. In the future, please follow the instructions laid out at Wikipedia:Translation.--Jac16888 Talk 17:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The template is there for when people don't bother to check if they should be adding machine translations and just add them so that other people have to clean up after them, just like we have templates for when people have added promotional or biased content, the fact there is a template for it doesn't make adding the content ok--Jac16888 Talk 17:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand, I'm trying to tell you that if you can't translate it properly then you shouldn't use google to do so, instead you should follow the proper procedure at WP:TRANSLATION. Instead all you've done is create a poorly written, hard to understand article which someone else will have to tidy for you since you're not capable of doing it yourself. I'm not complaining about you adding the tag, I'm talking about you creating the article in the first place.--Jac16888 Talk 17:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I still don't think you're getting me so I'll try to make this simple. The instructions for translating from other wikipedias is very clearly laid out at WP:TRANSLATION, where it very clearly states that if you cannot translate it yourself, properly rather than using google, then do not. As far as I can tell, you're telling me that you think the best way to improve the project is for people to create poor, hard to understand articles and expect other people to tidy up after you--Jac16888 Talk 20:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm well aware that wikipedia is a collective effort, but its not exactly "being a team player" to create a very poor article and leave it for someone else to tidy. The template and its documentation have nothing to do with this, the issue is, and always has been, that you created an article by running another language article through google translate, which gave a . All I was trying to tell you was that you shouldn't do that. Machine translations are very difficult to fix.--Jac16888 Talk 12:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

WP Automobiles in the Signpost

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Automobiles for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Saab 9-3 Viggen Original Cost

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Im just curious why you have eliminated historical pricing data per WP:Prices For the Saab 9-3 Viggen? I can totally understand if this were pricing for current models, but these are 10 years old now. Its not current pricing for used models, nor is it data that would benefit the original manufacturer at all. The original price of the VW Beetle is listed, so what is the difference other than 50+ years? Monza2t (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Fiat compact platform

Please can you review and correct Fiat Compact platform ?? Please... :(

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo-avtovaz.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo-avtovaz.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (September)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Thanks

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For cleaning up my mistake with LHD and LDH! Enjoy! Jenova20 13:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (October)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 20:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC).

conversion formula for grams per mile to grams per kilometer suggestion

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Typ932

I've used your conversion templates for lots of things automobile related, and as some countries are concerned about how much CO2 and NOx their cars are emitting, I thought a conversion formula might be helpful, if one doesn't already exist somewhere. According to Google 1 gram per mile = 0.621371192 grams per kilometer, and 1 gram per kilometer = 1.609344 grams per mile. Can you create a formula that converts both ways? Thanks (Regushee (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC))

Daimler Motor Company your Huh.

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I should think the bottom of this article would look like a perfect example of a "link farm". I note "(Most editors object to more than about eight or sometimes ten links, but the best number for a given article depends on the specific circumstances, and may range from zero to more than a dozen.)". I am probably more guilty of adding links than any other individual though there are some I would happily see deleted. Would you like to discuss individual cases (I mean links) here or is there some better way to handle this? Cn we start with say three or five of those you regard as the worst examples? Eddaido (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yumpin' yiminy. I have removed most of what was a mountain of inappropriate external links. No extended discussion is really needed, IMV; links to car-for-sale ads, numerous links to individual external photographs, numerous links to enthusiast forums? No, no, no, and EL NO!. —Scheinwerfermann T·C19:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Yep I noticed that, the article was very good example what should not be made, it was horrible.... -->Typ932 T·C 19:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
hi, in most cases 1-5 links is enough, in Daimler article there was around 30? There were model specific links which should be in that certain model article not in compnay page, also the article should cover so much info that external link amount could be as limited as possible, we have also google which can be used for more info if needed, wikipedia is not for links. -->Typ932 T·C 19:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi again - WoW! they've all gone now! Eddaido (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's some more to be deleted Coach (carriage). Eddaido (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Fiat 1500(?) seeks expert on Italian cars

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please, if you have five minutes, can you look at what I wrote at commons about a German picture, and tell me if you agree? And thank you much. Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Making comments on user talk pages

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

When you make a comment on user talk page, you should include the name of the article you are referring to. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(discussion moved from my talk page)

Hi you did not mention which user page you are referring -->Typ932 T·C 19:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Correct. It was a demonstration by example of how frustrating it is to see a comment with no hint as to what page is being referred to. I hope my attempt at having a little fun with you did not offend <friendly smile>.
In this case, it was at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andy_Dingley where you wrote "Before you remove added stuff, you should use citation needed tag and if you read thru the article its already stated there" with no clue as to what was removed from which article. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Citroen XM / Peugeot 605 The issue is over taking an aside in some already poor sources discussing the Type 4 cars, and how the 605 wasn't one, as WP:RS that it was something else, an XM.
Part of the problem here is what a "platform" means. It's not impossible that Peugeot and Citroen were sharing body pressings on these cars, they certainly had tie-ins for the small cars. However the XM was the last "true Citroen" and the second to last to have Citroen's suspension. The 605 certainly didn't use this. Nor can I see how a designer would use the Citroen floorpan to install the type of suspension that Peugeot typically used. In the absence of wheelbase and track figures, a description of the Peugeot suspension, or a real source that supports this claim, I'm wary of leaving the claim that 605 == XM, let alone propagating it into further articles.
It's funny that we have a couple of articles on the table today: an unreferenced car article that's being used as a source for other articles, and another article with 60+ cites that's argued for deletion... Andy Dingley (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (November)

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 20:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC).

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. In Dodge Dart (2013), you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Sedan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for your efforts in keeping the Fastest Production Cars tidy. NealeFamily (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Bentley Mk V

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Nice photo. Eddaido (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you know or have a source that might answer these questions? (a) Why was it named Mark V? (b) I have searched a number of times for a press announcement in The Times and have never found one though the 1946 announcement refers to the prewar car - clearly the Mk V (or am I wrong, see the description in "references" at the foot of here). Were the few cars built just building up some stock for an announcement cancelled by war? - within days of the declaration they announced they had dropped all current work in favour of War work. I think answers to these questions would be of interest and should be in the article. Where can we find more detailed specs? and I think the date prod began is wrong in the infobox. cheers, Eddaido (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Saab Automobile

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Typ932,
You probably know about Saab Automobile's financial problems. You are the main contributor, by edit count, to that page so I thought it would be good, if you can, for you to review recent edits to the article. Some POV and un-sourced stuff regarding the Chinese (Youngman buyout attempts has made its way in, and been removed. I (and others) have tried to clean it up, but motor vehicles are not my strong point.
Regards - 220 of Borg 05:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo trucks

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Typ932, I am an user of italian Wikipedia (excuse me for my bad English). I wrote you because I need some information about Alfa Romeo trucks. I have seen that you have written Alfa Romeo 430 and Alfa Romeo 800. I have traslated in italian these article for it.wiki, and I'd like write others article about Alfa Romeo trucks. On the web I haven't found information about this subject, with the exception of this site; the others web site linked on the articles you wrote, discuss about military truck only. To write the articles I need the year of the begin and the end of production about Alfa Romeo 450 and 455, and the year of the end of production of Alfa Romeo 500, 350, 110, 85, 80 and 50. Could you help me ? Thanks, --LukeWiller2 (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Typ932/Archive_8&oldid=1144096220"