Urbanowatcher

Hello Urbanowatcher. Welcome to the English Wikipedia
Thank you for registering! We hope that you find collaborative editing enjoyable. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that started in 2001, is free for all to use and edit within the guidelines and principles users have established and adhere to. Many of these principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information. REMEMBER - each policy and/or guideline page has a discussion you can join to ask questions, add input and contribute your voice towards any current policy or guideline change underway! Join the discussion by going to the talkpage of the article. Sometimes new editors become frustrated quickly and find their experience on Wikipedia less than enjoyable. This need not be. If you are having a difficult time for any reason, please feel free to ask me for assistance!
	Policies, guidelines and peer assistance		Help and Tutorials
	The five pillars of Wikipedia. The fundamental principles of the project.		Tutorial. Step-by-step guide on how to edit.
	Main policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines.		How to start a page. If you want to create a new article
	Style Guide. The complete guide to how articles should look.		Help. The complete help guide
	Copyright. Addressing copyright concerns.		Quick reference. A handy quick reference guide for editing Wiki.
	Help Desk. Here you can ask other editors for assistance		Your user pages and your sandbox. Editing in your own "personal" space
	Adoption program. Request an experienced guide for your first steps of editing.		Frequently asked questions. Some common questions and their answers.

This is being posted on your Talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss issues and respond to questions. At the end of each message you will see a signature left by the editor posting. This is done by signing with four ~~~~ or by pressing or in the editing interface tool box, located just above the editing window (when editing). Do not sign edits that you make in the articles themselves as those messages will be deleted, but only when using the article talkpage, yours or another editor's talkpage. Another valuable page that may provide information and assistance is User:Persian Poet Gal/"How-To" Guide to Wikipedia. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance and contact information.

Again, welcome! Buster Seven Talk 13:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Hi. Per Wikipedia guidelines re: verifiability, do you intend to add links to reliable sources per WP:RELIABLE? Otherwise, the numerous and substantial edits you're making are vulnerable to scrutiny and removal. Thanks, 108.69.136.80 (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this edit summary [1], you don't appear to understand yet how Wikipedia works. Please also be aware of WP:3RR. These guidelines are intended to prevent editors from altering and adding information without supplying reliable sources, as you appear to be doing. Given the circumstances, it would be wise not to accuse others of vandalism for applying Wiki's policies. 108.69.136.80 (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

(As I see by similar contibution, it's again my opponent :) If you has doubts, you may put Source template at first. But in these cases it's no need even because all data from OICA, * Cars of year, etc verifiable and presents just in same Auto.Ind.UK article below or/and in appropriate List of countries by motor vehicle production and other revealed linked articles.Urbanowatcher (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Please understand that I'm nobody's 'opponent', and have never encountered your edits, nor communicated with you, prior to this exchange. 108.69.136.80 (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop edit warring now. Biker Biker (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

OBJECTION Dear wikiuser. As I sees, you was one of friendly called by my opponent and now hide your talk page [2]. Edit war was non-argumented (with subjective estimation only) started not by me, but you warned one (my) side of EW only. And you entered the EW without search of consensus, by subjective estimates and complaints on English only ("bad changes", "badly written" remarks), with total reverts including of wikification, last figures, illustrations even, without deal arguments also.

Before to contribute info in Wiki start of discussion no need but according to rules all deletions must be argumented and/or discussed that exact you no adheres this. But, for consensus, exact me was forced already to start the discussion on opponent's talk page [3].

All data from OICA, * Cars of year, etc verifiable and presents just in same Auto.Ind.UK article below or/and in appropriate List of countries by motor vehicle production and other revealed linked articles.

I would very glad if you change impulsive uncompromising reverting skill to constructive one and correct English in texts after my updating and adding contributions, if this so strong need as seems to you (or other users). Urbanowatcher (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Range Rover Evoque. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Biker Biker (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please, be accurate. "Car Design", not "Design Car" in World Car of the Year. And, if you have doubt in International Car of the Year award the discussion started on Range Rover Evoque and Aston Martin Rapide talk pages. Urbanowatcher (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

Hello Watcher - your edits are all substantial and legit, but unless you provide sources they are all likely to be reverted. I would also recommend more communication before you make any new large changes to articles. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

(to Urbanowatcher) I just wanted to add - I do welcome your enthusiasm for the topics on which you have been editing. I also don't question that you are genuine in your desire to improve the content of WP.

The "Automotive industry in" articles have been badly neglected, with a couple of exceptions, and do need updating, expansion and development (an exception to this is the Automotive industry in the United Kingdom article, which, while by no means perfect, is in pretty good shape overall, well cited, and has a decent (and stable) lead. Your changes to the lead there were not in my view necessary).

However you must recognise that, although it is fine to add small amounts of factual content without citations, adding large amounts of info, particularly info such as production data, without any cites is arguably a detriment as it is providing information to readers which is unreliable and could undermines the credibility of the articles and of WP as a whole.

The quality of English is an issue too. Although others will be happy to tidy up small amounts of work, they cannot be expected to have to spend significant amounts of time making basic corrections to large text additions.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

In order to view what seeming doubtful info wishing be confirmed, no info's hiding total reverts, but Source template uses. But in these cases it's no need because all data from OICA, * Cars of year, etc verifiable and presents just in same Auto.Ind.UK article below or/and in appropriate List of countries by motor vehicle production and other revealed linked articles. More reply there [4].

Firstly, please stop trying to force changes through edit warring. Despite having already been warned, and despite your edits to various articles having been reverted by multiple editors, you are still trying to force changes. What are you expecting to achieve from this course of action? It is good that you have now engaged with the article talk page at Automotive industry in the United Kingdom. In the meantime STOP TRYING TO FORCE CHANGES THROUGH DISRUPTIVE EDIT WARRING.

Secondly, I am assuming that English is not your first language. This does not preclude you from editing here but you must be aware that the quality of your written English is far below the standard required by articles in this project. The best approach is therefore for you to engage article talk pages very actively, as has been suggested above, and exercise caution when editing in mainspace.

Thirdly, making large changes in a single edit makes it far more likely that your edits will be reverted.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'm no started edit wars. You and some other wikiusers sometimes common made a reverts without detailed agruments when I opened the discussion and places citing even. I'm satisfied when you and other editors corrected some info contributed by me. And if I will make a tiny edits with one figure/fact each absurdely, you will no able the partial revert all the same because additions placed in one section. But your and other's some former total reverts disruptively any way when restore the dewikification, typos and doubtless contributions in other sections even.Urbanowatcher (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You just don't get it do you? Please add sources. It is not good enough to say "look at the sources in the other articles" --Biker Biker (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Particularly when it is by no means clear what those sources in other articles are. If they exist, then links to them should be provided so that others can verify them. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I revealed the inline citing in last edits of articles. I'm very happy that you, after total revert, at last, agreed with importance and accepted in US AutoInd article some data proposed by me. Urbanowatcher (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me agree with the others. I applaud the intent, & I'm especially appreciative of info for Eastern Europe. The quality of your English is way below the minimum standard for inclusion. Can I suggest creating a sandbox page, writing it up, & inviting comment there? Or merely adding sources for numbers (on talk pages, if not the article pages)? Or, if you want, practise on Simple English WP til you get better. As it stands, you're only creating trouble, & asking for trouble for yourself. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm very glad for your postedit instead of total revert or common discussion able taking more time in one article where I really put some typos etc with sleeping eyes :( I will extremely happy if you have a time to similar corrections in other articles ;) Urbanowatcher (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

(For all) OK, I put the inline citing in last edits if these links presents in article some below of above even. And I think it will be useful for deal of Wiki (and provided in wikirules and wikipractice) to put Source template before the total reverts if more sourcing need. As it may see, I'm not writing vast texts simply so. I contribute sometimes couple of figures and facts endeed and just their text environment by few phrases only that meet in other articles and no difficult to correct in a time less that need to discuss. Urbanowatcher (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It should not be up to others to correct bad English and badly-sourced content. I would respectfully suggest that you stick to editing Wikipedia in your own language until such time that you are able to contribute with a level of fluency that does not mean others have to correct your work. As for verifiable content, please read the rules on properly sourcing content, which have been given to you numerous times. If there is anything that you are unclear about please ask. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Help

(posted elsewhere as well) Dear Urbanowatcher, when compared to an uncited and illegible article, I prefer the outdated one. You cannot expect me (or any other editor) to source and translate your edits, which are largely meaningless to an English speaker. To provide you with an example I (Mr.choppers) have thus far 53 edits in Japanese WP, all in a language I do not speak. AFAIK (as far as I know) none of them have been reverted, simply because I have stuck to the simple business of removing errata, adding pictures, or adding plain sales numbers (with references). No one expects you to magically become a proficient writer of English, but we do expect you to treat us in a mannerly fashion. No one here will spend hours trying do decipher your intent, translate it, find sources to support your findings, and incorporate all of this into the articles. We will simply look at the mess you caused and revert it all.

My suggestion to you (Urbanowatcher) is to provide links to sources which contain the needed info on the relevant talkpages. Eventually it will then be incorporated into the articles by well-willing, English-speaking editors as ourselves. Sometimes we may need a nudge and a reminder, but we are after all unpaid volunteers. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank for your thoughts. I revealed the sources in last edits of articles, but some impulsive reverters sometimes considered that I just restored my first edits. I admit that some data added by me need to talk and more citing. But for these cases Source template exists in order to know what seeming doubtful info wishing be confirmed. At total reverts all proposed things loses. In postedits of some wikiusers in some articles I see that proposed by me and interest for deal of Wiki themes were accepted. Urbanowatcher (talk) 10:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Flags

Please do not add flag icons to articles. See MOS:FLAG. For automobile related articles they are misleading as a model may be made in multiple countries at the same time. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

As you can verify, I was not first in some of these articles. Certainly, a car may be made in other countries, but have one origin. So, for example and I seem you agree, famous VW Beetle is German car although produced in Mexico more than in motherland. And brands has "nationality" the more so Urbanowatcher (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Autoindustry of NZ - Random table

Hi Urbanowatcher. What is the meaning of the table you have added to Automotive industry in New Zealand. It does not seem to make any sense. NealeFamily (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Meaning (and I put Stub for section) is to induce the wikiautocommunity to find output figures about this very interesting theme, as I seems you agree. Besides of placed of 1990 from internet, I have some more data from official sources but they are incomplete by key decades and in Russian, so I suppose will no accepted by some pedants. Urbanowatcher (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Tables

Why do you insist on using the bars in your tables, as you did on Automotive industry in Mexico and many other articles? It is not a helpful way to display data. If you want to produce a graph, then please do that offline and upload an image to Wikimedia Commons, or use some other method, but tables are not appropriate for this sort of data. For now I have reverted your addition, but obviously if you want to upload the table and sources, minus the graph, then please go ahead. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope you will be non-disruptive to keep very important for Wiki figures like in US autoind article if you subjectively hate graphs even. Wiki is not pretty album but deal encyclopedia. I think it is visual vivid to observe the dynamics. And I was not the first "inventor of bicycle". As you see, UK, Italian autoind and many other stable articles in other themes had such graphs already. And it was great meaning to use exact tabled graphs. As against of pictured graphs, the tabled graphs more open for wikieditors and may be changed in Wiki directly when update, adding or corrections often need. For wide discussion and system solution continued there Urbanowatcher (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That reply perfectly illustrates my previous point about sticking to editing Wikipedia in your own language. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Reference errors on 17 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of countries by motor vehicle production page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)