User talk:U1Quattro

Voting evidence at the ArbCom 2017 election SPID: 21597 BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: GnuPG v1 hQEMA+Q+YdoHi0mXAQf/eBN8Ir1HP0s2Kf0VM91bu3/6PS1HeWJUEebiqY2MfK8Z qnQ+d4AfBzfOSyA/S7ykmaBITm/0ExTm5eSH8+E6a1Hvn9Oc8qc0it9pPTsrZf1A K6XfIYHAqYI8Jl3vcbEUBQ4nA37P2tQE1XdCQP/dMBfOoWcYqb6wsdDH4+JYCviS 55nEuK+tbgKNb0Ru1NH5AR7gdUOAPiQxNIhWqsiCsyVlK/DEJWHKFG88PZpv8pAX cNjujyPFpfHSnv6DLLvtbGOm9/d/w9dqqPxlGKzgwv52tITz/C9XBdlfxOxDaS1u iQFt1XnaHR+5S1W0AZsKHlbVRXrbQtF7PcyEF8cV5tLpARarGCMCWDZ9mA/bEx/o 8h+VTs6A74HisC/vOohMnHGTojET6Q4ePLHAdYd12DRSEbyeJJRd8mLZpB7gAhow S5XnB/dxmLgHw2D9EPjzCyPEMxn3gqMGn4dVKhlfhs42KKU4AQ6Uohvwx+ea55wj UXA8AjcMHFGims+IT29CjSnurqM5+8Z3Uoek2MVd2UzwFHS44qZExhB6zXaOsoyd OchCwkRVGlrznkJu7OJ+j/ZAjWGPRcMhkuJ+qRJKNYgpvFXEACHKOsk1Lm+ciYMU lKo5MQ6dxRDZgvc8tHc8rSGYXAynTioniPCdNi44PIneaM2heiFWGGVK5S/cEKdB TrbrS448l13lK1w3wYXEGa86RPu8L+MYDYSG05gDyzw6nKXXn5UzQ4zoRRdO17Jk dWT0KBctlOCTOBO08IQO28hNt1fF5kQlee3ETMuyV4XmBA+ZSCHbCNAfoFO/t7du lraM9pLwKV1E8rh/7fjzt0X9iarRa0AY8lSRmUYDElwWauBa5UWideVPP2yg7yx/ BCpIin5lyfLUw5vQqCYBlzvYsUhvCn8PoWus9qAz0lCVuMqNjakhgau1OjKMqQ5C wuWwLKQY5mQGnhb/ixG7Fa1FzJLBOoAeAIWk5FpRu2nxPlJxvEML/+Ud5baHPp7S 3U7Kv3zykTLdmhaIctbdMvbAPl9fa8eCZzPDGqnQbiU+wNyligMRGzSBssU8B/V6 BoUlH87OUfks4iI4mjM2Im4TlpCh3iJ3CqYwxyE6CpSiRVme4BW6iHRF8WBxx6dF nw5AFIAmHScwFNAPbD2jLlk4Uk8FNr+4xDzy/3WteRTZj7yULLeE3MVU4mwX155/ j/ZFM9Yvm/9to2Kuha5AzUSymhAVq9bhZNmIwYrEQW5qHkSHsCX/Y88LR5q5ipRY 5QWj5A0gJE7P9RdeVn4/eiY8ta/tr0RiAp6QeExkABU+cowuiGRYPOeOmw90OaOi LdOJCBGVNWpum+tHnnOOY0AtEtiq/15GWJqiHDf5EpCC =NxV7 END PGP MESSAGE----- Disambiguation link notification for October 13 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maserati MC12, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Targa (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. Read the FAQ • Join us 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) 11:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC) IGI 2 article Just wanted to say that my edit summary was referring to the article talkpage, not mine. I've created the entry here. Eik Corell (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with… 757 Ferrari F430 (talk) Add sources 794 Ford FE engine (talk) Add sources 844 Porsche 996 (talk) Add sources 30 National Tyres and Autocare (talk) Add sources 26 Halfords Autocentre (talk) Add sources 39 ATS Euromaster (talk) Add sources 2,909 Nissan GT-R (talk) Cleanup 2,314 Shelby Mustang (talk) Cleanup 855 Chevrolet Corvette (C5) (talk) Cleanup 18 Falen (talk) Expand 71 Unipart (talk) Expand 1,590 Audi R8 (talk) Expand 219 Porsche 962 (talk) Unencyclopaedic 667 Mercedes-AMG Project One (talk) Unencyclopaedic 127 Chevrolet 210 (talk) Unencyclopaedic 475 Ute (vehicle) (talk) Merge 398 W Motors (talk) Merge 1,527 Lykan HyperSport (talk) Merge 196 Chevrolet Deluxe (talk) Wikify 139 Mosler MT900 (talk) Wikify 569 Chevrolet Corvette (C2) (talk) Wikify 26 Timeline of North American automobiles (talk) Orphan 7 Antonio Quatraro (talk) Orphan 3 Air force command building (talk) Orphan 46 TVR T350 (talk) Stub 114 GM 8L90 transmission (talk) Stub 94 Lynk & Co (talk) Stub 24 Vertu Motors (talk) Stub 62 The Isolator (talk) Stub 4 Bentley EXP 12 Speed 6e (talk) Stub Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have. SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping. If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC) Copyright problem on Lotus Esprit GT1 Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.supercars.net/forum/threads/the-worlds-only-lotus-esprit-gt1-gt2-race-car.45933/. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC) ArbCom 2017 election voter message Hello, U1Quattro. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for December 7 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aria FXE, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HRE (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us 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) 20:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for December 18 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ferrari F40, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amalgam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us 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) 12:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for December 25 An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ferrari 348, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leonardo Fioravanti (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.) (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC) incorrect source of Ferrari production https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/threads/ferrari-road-car-models-and-production-numbers.196388/ This source is not correct, examples: 456 GT and GTA Total production: 1,936 Ferrari states 1951 made! Enzo Ferrari Total production: 500. Ferrari states 400 made! F50 Total production: 380. 349 made! Superamerica Total production: 558 559 made! Please do not use this source in the future Use my source that is based on Ferrari sourced material: http://www.bozhdynsky.com/tipos/ferrari-tipos/ Disambiguation link notification for January 21 An automated process has detected that when you recently edited McLaren F1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Stevens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for February 19 An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ford GT90, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dearborn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for February 26 An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages. BMW Nazca C2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Formula One Grand Prix Lamborghini Jalpa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Sant'Agata (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC) Koenigsegg Regera weight I started a discussion about the weight of the Koenigsegg Regera at Talk:Koenigsegg Regera that you might want to participate in. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC) XP5 Nordschleife lap time Can you join the discussion in the "XP5 Prototype hoax" section at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Nürburgring_Nordschleife_lap_times ? Drachentötbär (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC) As this is already established that the lap time was a hoax, it was removed. Unless it is proven that it wasn't a hoax, it shouldn't be added back.U1Quattro (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC) "As this is already established that the lap time was a hoax" when was it established that this lap time was a hoax? I've found the discussion on List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times talk page, but so far all I see is speculation that the lap time given by Evo, was taken from Wikipedia. Has there been some proof either way regarding this claimed lap time? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Is there actually some proof that the lap time was real and not false? Because the talk page established that it was added without any source and then the controversial Evo source was added which had the same lap time copied from that unsourced time.U1Quattro (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Yes, we have the Evo source. Evo is considered to be a reliable source. When was it established that Evo copied their time from Wikipedia? Did they make a statement or something? Reliable sources are to be trusted, that's the way Wikipedia works. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC) They didn't replied to an email sent by a user from the discussion. You obviously haven't read the conversation.U1Quattro (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Are you suggesting that in order for any source to be considered reliable, that source has to reply to e-mails from Wikipedia editors? And yes, I have read the discussion and saw nothing proving that the time or source are not to be trusted. I'm still interested in actual proof that the claimed time is inaccurate and/or that Evo took the time from the Wikipedia article, is there such proof, or is there just speculation that a highly respected automotive publication isn't a reliable source without any proof to back up that speculation? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Since you're so interested in that lap time, why don't you prove it?U1Quattro (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Mainly because I don't have to, we have reliable sources that we trust. Do I need to explain to you how and why we use sources, rather than saying "why don't you prove it?" to everyone who introduces content that we don't agree with? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Unless and until it is proven that a lap time is real and not fake, it's not being put back. Even reliable sources like Evo can be wrong sometimes.U1Quattro (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Sorry, but that just isn't how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia works by identifying reliable and verifiable sources and introducing content based on those sources. We don't come to conclusions. Statements like "Unless and until it is proven that a lap time is real and not fake, it's not being put back." don't mean a single thing on Wikipedia, and has zero effect on content being removed or kept. You might want to read about Wikipedia policy before you make similar statements again. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC) I don't think the edit was vandalism Why would an addition for a Nurg time on the M5 be vandalism? 2601:205:8080:1154:ED7C:42FA:29AD:869A (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC). Because: A) It was not sourced properly and there hasn't been an official Nurburgring time for the M5 yet. B) It was an attempt to overstate the M5's performance. U1Quattro (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for May 24 An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ferrari 488, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ferrari 308 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC) M3 galleries This seems strange, on my display the photos look to be in the proper size, what do they look like on your end? Toasted Meter (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Also what resolution is your display? Toasted Meter (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC) I like your solution in the E90 section. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Haven't taken screen shots but they look oversized on my end. Hence they were put in that format which seemed feasible.U1Quattro (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC) The gallery template looks to have some scaling problems. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC) That could be the case, the gallery should be scaled down to the right size then if it's going to be used.U1Quattro (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC) British spelling: publicly or publically In your update note to Ferrari_488, you wrote: A word doesn't need a source. However, you might add one if you feel necessary. Both variations are equally permissible with "Publically" being more commonly used. You're making a claim that "publically" is the normal British spelling. I provided you with statistical data from a British source indicating that this spelling is used only about 3% of the time. So I'm not asking you to provide a "source" for a word, I'm asking you to provide any kind of "indicative" information to support your claim that "publically" is the preferred British spelling. Based on your logic (that no evidence of any sort is required to justify using a "rare" spelling, claiming it's actually the "common" spelling), I should be able to edit any article, changing the spelling of as many words as I want to have bizarre spellings, and nobody should be able to challenge that, because I say so. How does that possibly make any sense? Fabrickator (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC) The wording has been changed to avoid any further conflicts thus ending this argument.U1Quattro (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for June 11 An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vector M12, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Stevens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Draft:Aston Martin DBS Superleggera and Aston Martin DB11 You asked for a history-merge of these files, or similar. What in detail do you want to be done with these two pages? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC) I requested a speedy deletion as this article has material copied from the Aston Martin DB11 page.U1Quattro (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Declined speedy deletion of Ferrari GG50 Hi U1Quattro, and thank you for your contributions. I'm somewhat puzzled about why you nominated this article for speedy deletion. the WP:A1 - a very short article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article criterion does not apply here. The article text starts with "The Ferrari GG50 is a concept car created by Ferrari to mark the fifty years during which Giorgetto Giugiaro had been designing cars. It was introduced at the 2005 Tokyo Motor Show..." which clearly indicates what the article is about. the WPG1 - as a page that is patent nonsense, consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history criterion does not apply. It's clearly about an automobile. As for whether the WP:A10 as a recently created article with no relevant page history that does not expand upon, detail, or improve information within the existing article(s) on the subject see I do not see any good reason why the Ferrari GG50 article should be deleted or moved getter desveiptio og thid aerticle/ Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Just to clarify: "getter desveiptio og thid aerticl/"? Looking into this, it appears that this part of the message was still in draft form when the "Publish changes" button was clicked by User:Shirt58's cat. Apologies for that. I have had the "please do not dance on my computer keyboard when I am away from my desk" conversation with her a number of times, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC) The article is based on what is already mentioned in the Ferrari 612 page. Meaning that the article is useless as there is already a detailed description of the GG50 in the 612 article. Furthermore it is poorly structured and has material copy/pasted from what is mentioned in the GG50 heading in the Ferrari 612 article. That is a reason good enough that the article should be removed.U1Quattro (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Understood. I acknowledge such accidents happen. I have had those done by my pet dog.U1Quattro (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC) September 2018 Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Koenigsegg Agera. This is known as "edit warring" and is seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. A block will result if the edit warring continues, to prevent disruption caused by edit warring. You should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount. This is actually the second time you're edit warring on this page. I looked up the edit history. The last time was ten months ago, and I don't know why you consider those edits "inacceptable" (actually spelled "unacceptable"). The anonymous user edited the page first. The IP address left you a message today explaining the reason for removal. There are other infoboxes with an edit note without links, like ones for bands ("See Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians" was the edit note). Wikipedia is a place where everyone has the right to edit. It's an encyclopedia with topics on just about every single thing in the universe. It's not a place to waste energy and time arguing about a little thing when you edited second. In order to prevent an edit war, I'm going to leave it the way the anonymous user left it. As that user said, there are other edit notes without links, and they are invisible, therefore they are unnecessary. I never see anyone who treats the removal of something unneeded like it's a big deal. It's a waste of your and their time to keep edit warring. Please accept this edit. Note that I'm a rollbacker. The IP fixed your writing a little, so I will guess your first language may not be English. Consider using a spellchecker. Thank you. Dolfinz1972 (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC) I made a typo. That isn't a big deal at all. Plus you're from the US, not from Europe. There are differences in British and American English. If you actually see the edit summaries, I mentioned that the unlinking done by the anonymous user was not a typo as they mentioned it. They should've given appropriate reasons for removal. If they had done it in the edit summary, it would've been a lot better. You're a rollbacker, not an admin. You have no right to treat me like this because of the fault of an anonymous user in that they removed the links without any reasonable explanation.U1Quattro (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC) Dodge Viper (ZB II) Reviewed. A bit of work to be done on citations. Try not to claim too much - leave that to the manufacturers. Just concentrate on demonstrable facts and you will be okay. Deb (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Manufacturer data Comment Hi, I think its general rule in auto articles that we use manufacturer data, and there is good reason for it, there is thousands of Independently tested performance data available in internet, we can never be sure they are measured in right manner, of course there is good additional data available, but 0-100 km/h or 0-60 mph and top speed values should come from manufacturer if that data is available. And if we use other than manufacuter data that should told in article, references alone dont tell that until you go and read that article. If Im not totally wrong this thing is discussed in past in WP:Automobiles -->Typ932 T·C 20:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Yes but road and track along with car and driver are reliable independent testers. In the absence of manufacturer performance data, their tested data is used commonly. Plus I think Wikipedia guidelines do not allow citations from theamufacturer to be used in the articles. U1Quattro (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Independent times can also be useful to provide a more complete picture of cars made by manufacturers who quote times significantly lower than tested times. Mentioning the source in the text is fine. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Indeed. A change of heading with the description for a source is a more suitable choice. U1Quattro (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for October 28 An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lamborghini Countach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horacio Pagani (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC) Alpina B4 I would repeat my above comments about the language in these articles. So much of it sounds like you took it straight off an advert. Try not to use words like "features", "offers" and "available": These are standard advertising jargon. Deb (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC) Any guidance regarding the above matter because I can't think of other suitable words like these about an automobile. U1Quattro (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC) A cup of coffee for you! Great article creation in Alpina B3 (E90)! Keep it up! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 10:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you so much. U1Quattro (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Alpina B3 N55/N54 I think you must have missed my comment on the talk page, "two new small turbochargers instead of the single unit" is very confusing when the car you are talking about came with the twin turbo N54 and the single turbo N55. This change needs to be mentioned and the N54 should be mentioned first. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Both of the engines were twin-turbocharged in the B3 so it's not that important because the engine codes aren't mentioned in the sentence.U1Quattro (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC) "instead of the single unit" implies that all the motors had a single turbo. The N54 is also only mentioned once on the entire page, if you look in the infobox you only see the N55. Toasted Meter (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC) It is not confirmed whether the car used the N54 or the N55, some sources say the N54, some say the N55. U1Quattro (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Ways to improve Ligier JS2 R Thanks for creating Ligier JS2 R. A New Page Patroller Willsome429 just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you: Headings need to follow sentence case - unless it is a proper noun, only the first word is capitalized. Also, citations do not belong in headings, you can just add a source line under the heading. Thank you for creating the article. The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC) November 2018 Please stop your disruptive editing. If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC) I don't know why you're removing links to Lamborghini Aventador, but the first one of those I noticed (at Millisecond) is a perfectly normal link. This is normal article, and links to it are perfectly valid. Please stop unless you can establish some sort of consensus for doing this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC) I'm going to guess that it was an accidental use of Twinkle's unlink feature. I've gone ahead and rolled them all back, but please be more careful. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Yes it was the accidental use of the unlink feature. I was attempting to create an article on the Lamborghini Veneno and during that process, this disruption happened. I sincerely apologise for the inconvenience. U1Quattro (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC) No worries then, it's all cleaned up now. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC) ArbCom 2018 election voter message Hello, U1Quattro. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Voting evidence at the ArbCom 2018 election SPID: 23713 BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- hQEMA+4bAwNwSISgAQgAqxe9xtf4S1MG0GYltgjOlCgnYptPU1POkh+ZAI4ShK20 bFeck3Vj1ULoNai8Pi06W/7z9pVHDs0IvWOO7Q5X0demqqy6qjGx0FJp/aJTN5aI rZvzAmGjSsLjZ3cb4BahOyY+18788YxzaokeGBoJ9Qfniji/LtK0yORxq+j7iNxz uobT9EaXreUXCpvU8rcLQsQKe9HLzs0ybOgn56Ws5Niu87abZ4Oi/0CLhXn1OjEL 34QmPb6eL3IoXwgG7/WLCrE/5ZijzJEpNBQjE4u7wenTJoeKCP//lGdz9aTUD0Tg S96c1MB6VEYuPj/fi4B9MTbezJrn3mIAh4TSAatinNLpASC7dxlid2sN/fKbz1MA B/gdts8h0q3DNBufHEHAUDrn3bth2AAwh/FV8wYKvh3ocUbmFHjR1Psi164klb0r S4G8w5EEfBNuJK9kk7YNnkjmEyUdtGOuQh2HQJW7snxjurImtfsq6apkcvvx7ERc LIcgb090QhJGQD4VIMdB3BdbyWmVfgIHun1dbx/w7BnwYdhjPBpA25y+Tij6t9zX rv/EsyOxn62zJzzlMZQuFUua3Ij2M3IvQgAh8yIa3BbhpISTJFGGjIs55QyTWJrD ZBqYRGei7veSiYLD1WMzE4wKGcmI8etWn4OCn74tNvJ/gai3BOhDEdVuk09wqTKb 6gWUvFak3CDiS63Jw1TYQqTfrdISbmlgveTA8p8EYxBnzqgDHpt5+v2sSX0grfLy RjbCOXtg5UVrR6PV/pM52Tph8/6fRlDxL9zFWZjdeAd4ic9s6wE2x0khP6CsnpqG 5gape68Hd0YifWX9/KGCPH0NcH6ZFO8wEBz2DmTuZVqsE8Yz5hKCtEXgKMqCr9dh qMjZsbGm1rYmmSpORIhtKpdsy26VQT85gGog2NKEs/nrTuSc3NBwf1Nu5qxYTpNA HPrbJChcJuuwag4xpcUD3FjewAJhFH4F2auHN/5hoiQ2DmswssrlLFRQ6asAGECd 4KLl+tdxCEpRgK4QhAbYYeXAYH5am3yEgueKoeKOUnZ4VKaCCpbF9+LBK0ZhZl4I hIp85kK+dO1/+Hd03h6EDlaxDKPnweUt3DnD1OAzTmsAL2EYE9+Aj/vJhHtay08O YkMO4Z4iFr39I9dgOL3qEyZnnLg37bgsfQvVA1f61sqxbR3tYPLu4IODo9u8tBSX eIfwIneVx5vrbWy35ZoHskaQ3PydjSvCGwUJ4gLgIqHSCF9UTfbpZWN3zOGsY2Rk UIFqC0FwpYKtUXPuuygQletAgqJ60eEFtES1hp2Ywf5udnxext1qbrwZFHzRHWMZ 6WrjKNHrNHaZeeNbJrQUSG9yXV9rM4yEFsj7Xl2lo+7ImLCoxYYMylujyjxmuQCe XVspKpLUETVZNtIoWEIRnzhQQA== =h25c END PGP MESSAGE----- U1Quattro (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Alpina articles: some remarks Hello, I have noticed your recent and great work on Alpina-related articles. It is really great to have more articles about this company and you have done a fantastic job. Yet, I have some remarks (please do not take it the wrong way, French people like me always criticise everything!). I have largely re-written the French article about Alpina since 2014 but I do not speak English well enough to do the same here, so my contributions on that topic have been more sparse. As you have noticed, the company is not well-known. Quality references often lack. Many journalists actually make mistakes because they do not check properly what they write. Hence, as you may have noticed, some articles say Alpina cars are based on BMW M vehicles (whereas it is never the case), others are wrong about the engine (for example, they say the current B4S uses a B58 engine whereas it is sill the N55), some were even contradictory. Etc, etc, etc. These issues were a real pain when I worked on the French article as I had to be really careful when selecting sources. Good luck. I have seen some missing information you could add to make articles complete and near-perfect: Concerning the B6 E63, you should add racing results of the GT3 racecar since it has won races and a championship (with teams, pilots, etc). Additionally, the car got a mid-life update with improvements and a new engine. Concerning the B6 F12/F13/F06, you completely missed the engine updates (sorry). While the Cabriolet was indeed first unveiled with the 507 PS engine of the B5 in September 2011, it never made it into production. It directly got the 540 PS engine, just like the Coupé (Alpina Modellhistorie ). Then there was the 600 PS (and not 600 hp) Edition 50 limited edition of the Coupé and Cabriolet). And then they all got a 600 PS engine as standard until the end of the production. Concerning the B6 F06 Gran Coupé, it is also not true to say it was exclusive to the US. This is an US bias. The Gran Coupé was available worldwide where Alpina was, plus in the United States and Canada exclusively through BMW as an "official" BMW (same for the B7 since E65, and Z8). Finally, I have also noticed you forgot the updated D3 E90. There a was at first a single-turbo D3 as said in the article, then it has been replaced by a more powerful double-turbo Bi-Turbo D3. I hope you will be able to correct this better than I could. PS: if you really drive a Lotus Carlton as said on your user page, you are really lucky! I envy you :) Kind regards, NemesisIII (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC). Hello, Thank you for your kind words. It has really motivated me to write more on this company. This is really the underdog of German perfomance cars. You're right in saying that the internet lacks reliable information and honest reviews about Alpina automobiles. I honestly didn't know that the B6 Cabriolet had a 540 PS engine from the start until you told me. The rest of the information you mentioned also couldn't be researched because of lack of sources. Could you please tell me where I will be able to find the information about the B6 GT3's full racing history? Even sources in French much would count, because researching about the B3 (E90) was a daunting task indeed since there were the absence of reviews from known automotive magazines. Only Autocar reviewed it until I got hold of the Alpina registry. Edit: I did mention about the D3 (E90) being a twin turbo car. Turbo diesel doesn't mean am engine with a single turbocharger. It can have multiple meanings. Yes, I do have a Lotus Carlton and I love that car. It's fun to drive and equally fast. But I've been so impressed by Alpina after writing these articles that I'd also buy one and use the Carlton and the new car both (I'm undecided on which one to buy for now). Cheers.U1Quattro (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC) M52/M54 Just to elaborate a bit more on the differences, this should provide enough info to identify a pre TU M52 at a glance. M52 single VANOS (note the protrusion at the front of the valve cover) M52 dual VANOS (note the smooth front of the valve cover) Toasted Meter (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC) One other note, all Alpina E46s use the M52 as well. Toasted Meter (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC) I don't think the Roadster S uses an M52 as customer cars were converted to the Roadsrer S sepcification as Alpina Register points out. Alpina used the existing M54 and enlarged it in those cars. Unless you have a reliable source pointing out it's an M52, this can't be put over there.U1Quattro (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC) I can see absolutely no reason to make a 3.4 liter M54 when you have a M52 already made in the correct displacement, I can't prove it never existed but we have no proof it did, and we know that a S52B32 block was used[1] (you can also see this here in the B3 S parts catalog [2]) and that the head is a pre TU M52/S52, simply because no M54 head looked anything like it. I looked at all the photos on Alpina Register that showed the motor and all of them definitely had a pre TU M52 head. If we have an iron S52B32 block with a single VANOS head we know that none of those parts could be from a M54. and and additionally we have no proof that any were fitted with an M54. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC) The articles say that the engine traces its roots back to the E36 M3 which had used both the S52 and the S54 so the M52 claim cannot be true. Also no one said that the engine had a single VANOS system like you put it. The engine was bored out to 3.4-litres because the M54 wasn't available in 3.4-litres, neither was the M52. The M54 also used an iron block and had proved its age. That's why it was discontinued. As I said, unless you can prove that its an M52, the M54 stays because I see no reason in downgrading to an older engine.U1Quattro (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC) We know precisely what block it used, the parts catalogue for the B3 S (which we have a cite saying "it was powered by their recently enhanced 6 cylinder 3.4 Litre engine as found in the B3s" regarding the roadster) says it has a bored S52B32 block. And we know it is single VANOS by looking at the motor and noting the single VANOS head. Also the E36 M3 never had a S54, and the M54 never had an iron block (the S54 did but it has very little in common with the M54). Not using one's eyes to make reasonable conclusions in the face of a lack of sources is puzzling, by looking at the motor we can determine many things, no ITBs so not a S50 or S54, no raw aluminum valve cover so not a M20 or M30, protrusion on the valve cover so not a M54 or M52 TU, and that leaves us with.... Toasted Meter (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC) I think "Basic engine is the S52B32 (E36 M3 US; grey cast iron crankcase)." is about as definitive as it gets. Toasted Meter (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC) I had mistook the M3 for the Z3 for which I apologise. It was the Z3 M which had used the S54 engine alongside the M3 (E46). Plus the Alpina press release states that "The engine is a well known friend from the 3 Series so it doesn't specifically points out to which engine has been used.U1Quattro (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC) That line from the press release is ambiguous in a vacuum, but by looking at the motor we can figure out they were referring to the also S52B32 based E46 B3. We have no reason to continue having the M54 on the page, we have zero proof that a M54 was ever fitted and very much reason to think it was not. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC) I'd just remove the engine codes.U1Quattro (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC) On the page already is "The engine was essentially an enlarged version of the S52 engine" and we have a cite saying it's based on the S52B32. Toasted Meter (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Then it's an S52, not an M52 like you put it.U1Quattro (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC) A cheeseburger for you! Thanks for your hard work on most Toyota articles and talkpages !!! – I hope you have a wonderful day and see you in the near future :). Merry Xmas EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Thank you so much. U1Quattro (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Okay. Please also help me to achieve better photos. I learn from other editors. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 04:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC) Some of your photos are good no doubt, but you should know the difference between a modified car and a stock car.U1Quattro (talk) 07:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC) Like quality wise mate, how can I achieve them to make them to QI. I want the best shots possible. —EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC) You should see OSX's along with M-93's shots for guidance. They take the best shots on wiki commons as far as I have observed.U1Quattro (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC) I did use OSX and M 93 as guideline back when I started out in 2017 which I then later begin doing it in my own style. I really think Nim should work in different sections, I pity him begging at users to find ways to get a upper advantage like it some game by sending random WikiLove messages. --Vauxford (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC) Vauxford. Would you mind your own business. I can work on whatever sections I wish. Its Wikipedia, not a personal website. Everyone can contribute as many images as they wish. Focus on providing your own images, and I'll focus on doing it 'by the books'. Everyone has ways to edit. Theres plenty of chances for me to showcase later on, but you still have some badly cropped images, which I know could be improved. I like to learn, so therefore U1Quattro can mentor me in providing good shots, I don't mind and also I will work on any section as I wish. If you don't like my edit, and revert it, please utilise WP:BRD as it links to WP:CONSENSUS & WP:BOLD. You should also note that I do not replace all the time, a lot of your shots are decent, however its important that everyone can contribute to an effective degree. I can ask for as much help as I need, thats what Wikipedia is there for. Also I've asked you to focus on vehicles more prominent in Europe such as Ford, BMW, Jaguar, Mercedes-Benz, Land Rover etc. whilst I focus on the Asian and other non-European example. We established a compromise on this discussion with Oshwah. I am beginning to now use consensus, as then we learn how to do it well. In fact, I recall some of the edits, you revert from me are because of the condition of the vehicle. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC) U1Quattro. No worries --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC) As you've pointed out, condition of the vehicle is also a main factor in the photos. The vehicles should be clean and tidy and as far as possible, free of rust and corrosion. You also need to stop repetitive mentions of where the photo is taken, it kind of becomes annoying. The readers can see the photo location by clicking on the photo.U1Quattro (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Also, please don't use my talk page as a warzone. You both can settle your differences at your own respective talk pages.U1Quattro (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Thankyou for your advice. Have a nice Xmas --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 08:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Dry weight in the infobox I started a discussion about dry weight in the infobox at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_automobile . You're welcome to participate. Drachentötbär (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for January 16 An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Casio AE-1000W, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Water resistance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Ferrari F12 I appreciate your latest edit on the Ferrari F12 article; the overall content of it was pretty solid. However, the edit was riddled with typos, for instance, "havig" "tot he" "ans", as well as other grammatical errors. I see you a lot on Wiki and you're a great editor but it would be appreciated if you could take a little more time and make sure that as you're improving an article, that you're not also introducing new problems for other editors. TKOIII (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC) I'm experiencing some problems with my laptop. That's why the typos have increased in number. I hope to have it fixed soon.U1Quattro (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for February 4 An automated process has detected that when you recently edited BMW M1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bosch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for February 11 An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aston Martin DBS V12, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aston Martin V8 Vantage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC) Automobile vs. car manufacturer ? The WP article Car makes no distinction between car and automobile – it presents the two terms as interchangeable synonyms. But in your recent edit of Honda S2000 you chose to make a distinction between 'car manufacturer' vs. 'automobile manufacturer'. Can you please explain to me, how you see the difference between these two terms ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC) Car manufacturer means a manufacturer which solely manufactures cars. Automobile manufacturer means a manufacturer which manufactures cars as well as other automobiles such as SUVs, pickup trucks, motorbikes etc. Honda is an automobile manufacturer by that logic.U1 quattro TALK 11:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC) Reverting of edits and claiming that it is vandalism Hi, I noticed that you reverted 4 of my edits of Koenigsegg Jesko & Koenigsegg Agera and claiming that it is vandalism when the things I did didn’t even mess up anything. Is removing unnecessary tabling parameters and placing it at the top of the table opening vandalism? Is changing Template:Convert to Template:Cvt when the parameter abbr=on is present vandalism? I would appreciate you to use your words properly the next time and I hope that you can revert my edits back. Thank you. Stingy Pingy (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC) I probably just messed up 1 or 2 of them but is there really a need to say my edits are bad faith when you could’ve just informed me about it? Stingy Pingy (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC) @Stingy Pingy: I don't see that your edits contribute to those articles in any constructive way. You just messed up the templates. Leave them as is. Abbr=on parameter is used so that the template won't display the full unit and would instead display an abbreviation because that is not needed everywhere in the article where the template is used. You have confusion in the use of the convert template.U1 quattro TALK 15:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC) Rimac and Battista You really are wrong , those 2 cars are related, there is no rule that says if electric motor is different thats not related from infobox "The related field lists similar vehicles that share considerable componentry with the subject vehicle." I think if whole powertrain is same and tehcnical components are 50% same they are related -->Typ932 T·C 15:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC) Where do you find info that electric motors are different supplier? every site says they are same. "Rimac is the battery and drivetrain supplier for Pininfarina." https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/05/pininfarinas-2-million-electric-battista-hypercar-is-faster-than-a-formula-1-race-car/ , even Pininfarina itslef says something that doesnt mean they speak truth. That Rimac and Battista even have similar power figures and similar performance -->Typ932 T·C 16:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC) Read the statement of their CEO. He said it's not like how the R8 and Huracàn are similar. It is different. Rimac won't go on and supply it's whole powertrain to another company to spark up competition. The source you stated here is already used in the article and I didn't't found the information you're claiming at.U1 quattro TALK 16:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC) So why do they have same power and same performance? Im 99% sure they have same powertrain. I think you need another independed source for you claims. And as said there isnt any rule what is marked as related, imo they are similar enough to deserve that mention in box. And of course Rimac will supply its stuff to others if they got enough money. Definition of related 1 : connected by reason of an established or discoverable relation -->Typ932 T·C 17:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC) Well, I have my sources and they have been in the article. Yours just asserts an assumption. How do you know that the powertrain is same? Pininfarina can extract the same power figures from different motors. If you read correctly, the C Two has more range (650 km Vs 450 km), is semi autonomous and has more power (8kW more to be exact) so yeah, I don't know why you think the Battista is a C Two with a different body. They have their differences.U1 quattro TALK 01:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC) Because most articles says the powertrain is same and if car has 50% same parts it is related enough to be mentioned in box -->Typ932 T·C 21:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC) It doesn't have 50% parts. You are just relaying them because you guess them to be so while the manufacturer itself states otherwise. U1 quattro TALK 02:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC) Yes it does have 50% of parts its cited also in article, those two cars clearly a related cars, same powertrain, exact performance figures also. Manufacturer of course claims they are not, thats normal , but in this case its very clear they are almost same car. You cant believe everything what some company people says. Many manufacturers are trying to hide their products origins. -->Typ932 T·C 14:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC) Actually you are wrong there. The Battista is a different car. Rimac won't share half of its car to its competitor and you have to believe the manufacturer on this rather than your analysis as it's the manufacturer who manufacturs the car.U1 quattro TALK 16:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC) Its not my analysis, all is told in internet articles, as cited also in articles -->Typ932 T·C 17:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC) The 50% thing is your claim. The articles on the web say that "The Battista sources components shared with the Rimac C2". That's it. It doesn't state any percentage.U1 quattro TALK 17:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC) Its not, its cited in article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pininfarina_Battista#cite_note-autocar.co.uk-2 -->Typ932 T·C 17:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC) In that article, the CEO confirms that the powertrain is not fully shared with the C_Two so I stand correct.U1 quattro TALK 18:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC) /* Transmission */ Added Gear ratio Youtube not allowed? It is pointing to a picture of the gearboks!? I am not sure if or is you or Wikipedia that don't want facts ? Why remove good data/facts ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsbg dk (talk • contribs) 13:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Pls dont remove my valid input to this page .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsbg dk (talk • contribs) 14:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC) I have been researching. It is mention here that it is allowed to have link to YouTube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Video_links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsbg dk (talk • contribs) 14:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC) It is not allowed, means it isn't. Your input isn't valuable because it is not sourced properly. You are basically pointing to a logo which has nothing to do with the mention of the gearbox. Also, you aren't being clear in expressing yourself.U1 quattro TALK 14:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC) 1. Why are you lying ? I have provided a link to wiki rules..... It is stated it is ok to link to youtube. Why do you say it is not ? 2. It is not an not an logo ...... It is an sign boltet to the gearbox. 3. So now you have seen the sign on the gearbox. You still not trust it before you have readed it in an printed magazine ? 4. Why do you continiue to vandalism my work here?, as is no problem with. Beside that you have not readed it in an magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsbg dk (talk • contribs) 15:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Are you going to say sorry - I was right in changing the name for the gearbox ? Or are you again going to delete my work ? I'm not going to apologise because your source isn't a reliable source. The link you have posted states that it is only okay to cite the YouTibe sources when there are no other sources available and the source does not violate a copy right which in case of your source is a copyright infringement because the video is copyright protected. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article Read about the sources here. You are just basing your edits on a logo embossed on the gearbox and are capitalising the mention of the gearbox unnecessarily which is certainly not a the way to describe it. Your gear ratios are still unsourced and you have not provided any source for them as of yet. You should leaned about Wikipedia guidelines before editing and starting edit wars. In your recent edit, you have referenced the manufacturer's website which in this case is a right source and therefore, the edit will stay.U1 quattro TALK 16:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC) I don't disagree with you when it comes to sources, but you have copyright very wrong. It is fine to link to a video that is protected by copyright if the uploader is the copyright holder or has permission from the copyright holder, in this case the video was made by the uploader, linking to it is fine. Toasted Meter (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC) As the manufacturer source is more reliable, it is more preferable than a YouTube video.U1 quattro TALK 16:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC) @Toasted Meter: the uploader was Mr. JWW, whose videos are under copyright and he does not allow free distribution of his videos without his permission so you're wrong there.U1 quattro TALK 16:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Linking to a publicly available YouTube video that is uploaded by the copyright owner is absolutely fine, one is not distributing the video when you link it. Here is a quote from WP:COPYLINK "It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material". Toasted Meter (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Any how, YouTube sources are not reliable and should not be used as such when there are other independent sources available which was the case in this edit war.U1 quattro TALK 16:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC) I am certainly not saying it should be used as a source for this claim, but using it as such would not be against the copyright policy. Toasted Meter (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Manufacturer field The manufactuer field is not meant to explain company type, just manufacturer, IF you look almost any car article they dont list manufacturer business type there is no reason to told if its Ferrari S.p.a or not. -->Typ932 T·C 21:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC) Incident Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.