User talk:Mr.choppers

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Wbar purple.jpg
Crystal kmail.png Mr.choppers' talk page

Hullo. Please Click Here to leave me a new message. Please see my user page for more information about me.

  • To messages left on my talk page, i respond on my talk page. If you are responding to a conversation I started on your talkpage, please respond there - rest assured I have bookmarked your page and won't miss your responses.
  • You can write to me in any of the languages mentioned on my userpage. Usually I'll answer in English, unless you write in Swedish, then I'll use Swedish myself.
  • All messages on my talk page are archived once the page gets uncomfortably large.
  • Please do not remove/revert things here, as I like to archive everything.






Babel:

  *sv, en-5, de-2, es-2, no-2, da-2, fr-1, ja-0

Wbar blue.jpg
Crystal xfmail.png Messages
Don't forget to watch this page, as I will respond here.

Bugatti T57 Stelvio[edit]

Dear Mr.choppers, thank you for creating this category. I wonder if you are aware that Stelvio production, although a "factory" body style, and and a Jean Bugatti design, was "outsourced" almost completely to Gangloff coachbuilders, at Colmar. Very few bodies were built by other than Gangloff's, and, to my knowledge, none at all was built at Carrosseries Bugatti. I ask this because you obviously found a picture (ore more?) of a very rare Letourneur & Marchand Stelvio. Do you agree that this category should be categorized under Gangloff rather than L & M?
I already "cleaned up" the Gangloff category, as I'm re-working presently the Bugatti T57 article in German WP as well as preparing a new one about Gangloff in each German and English WP.--Chief tin cloud (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm in your hands. I believe I simply based my grouping on this photo, which was not uploaded by me. As long as that single photo also appears in the L & M category, I think everything's fine. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 16:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
As it's possible that more L &M Stelvios appear, I'll change this category to Gangloff (Colmar, add a short explation, and add this photo to the L & M category. As Jean Bugatti liberally gave away his sketches (but not blueprints), there might show up Stelvios by other coachbuilders as well. I hope you agree with this procedure?--Chief tin cloud (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Fully agree. Thanks for your consideration. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 23:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

2003 Infiniti M45 rear left side.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2003 Infiniti M45 rear left side.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

File:Shuguang DG 1021 pickup, Lhasa.jpg[edit]

Hello Mr.choppers ! I asked Erik from Chinese Car about your picture. He wrote me this : "I think it is right. Before that Huanghai bought Dandong Shuguang Axle Joint Stock Co; Ltd., vehicles from Shuguang were called Shuguang DG1020, etc ... In my archives, I didn't find the name "Smoothing", but I found a 2003 model year pick-up, which is called Tiaozhanzhe DG1020A / DG1020B which is same." If you have any questions about old Chinese vehicles; don't hesitate to contact Erik on his website : http://www.chinesecars.net/ Erik is THE bible for Chinese vehicles ! Navigator84 - talk 11:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC+1)

Erik is indeed the bible, I used to see his photos in German magazines when I was a kid. I send him a mail every so often and also own a few of his books - goldmines of information. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 15:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

About 1960 Beijing luxury sedan[edit]


Hello, Mr.choppers.

I think that the "Beijing" sedan's style is more likely copied from 1957 Chrysler New Yorker, as you can see in these pictures.

P.S.There's a picture of the Beijing sedan's rear view(link). I didn't upload it here because it's not clear--the car's boot is so close to the wall that I can't get a complete and distinct picture. ChengH (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was quoting from Erik Van Ingen Schenau's book "CARS and 4 x 4s from BEIJING and TIANJIN". I feel that aside from the prominent grille, the shape of the car's body does indeed look a lot like the 1956 Buick. In any case, I just wanted you to know I didn't just make it up myself! It's particularly noticable in the side view, with the greenhouse being very true to the Buick. The truth is obviously that the car is a bit of an amalgam of several period US designs, and since they themselves also look very similar it's all a bit of a crapshoot. Thanks for the great photos btw! mr.choppers (talk)-en- 14:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Hongqi CA774. Right of it is Beijing CB4
You're right, it is based on a Buick. But this car has only two rows of seat, not three, as you can see in the picture and here.
I'd appreciate it if you can share more information about this car--since it's very rare and not built in Changchun, I can get little info here, in JLU. Plus, do you think it worthy to create a page in Wikipedia about this car, or add it to en:Beijing Automotive Group (or en:Automotive industry in the People's Republic of China, if you think BAIC is no longer what it was back to the 1960s)? ChengH (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Great, I would like to but even Erik doesn't have much info beyond what I already added to your photo. The limos were handbuilt and didn't lead anywhere, so there is not much to say about them. If you add content to en:Beijing Automotive Group I will be happy to add on a source or two. The CA774 is a very intriguing design to me, I should really add more info to the Hongqi article but am currently busy with other affairs. I look forward to some amount of collaboration in EN:WP. See you around, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 23:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Datsun 620 622.JPG and "modified" template[edit]

Hi there,

It looks like you did a fantastic job removing the rust on File:Datsun 620 622.JPG. Given the amount of changes, it's impressive that the new version *doesn't* look obviously retouched- nice one!

In cases like these where the original has been significantly retouched or modified- however well- it's definitely a good idea to note this by including the following template in the description:-

{{modified|NOTE CHANGES HERE}}

I've already added it to this image ( {{modified|Significant photoshopping to remove bad rust.}} ), but I thought you'd find this useful.

Once again, thanks for your great photoshopping job. All the best, CarbonCaribou (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I will make sure to use said template in the future. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 19:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Editor @ ar.wiki[edit]

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot - I am not particularly active over there but it's good to know that I can be trusted! Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 14:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Model Wiesmann[edit]

Hello! You asked for the model of the Wiesmann Roadster shown in Wiesmann Roadster. I really didn't know this. The photo is taken April 10th, 2005 at the old location of the Sportwagenmanufaktur Wiesmann. It's the car of a visitor. I suspect, however, that it is a MF30.--XRay talk 07:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

That's what I believe, too, but it's hard to tell with these small series manufacturers. I'll have to do some research and see if there are any distinguishing characteristics. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 18:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

1990 GMC Vandura school bus NYS.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 1990 GMC Vandura school bus NYS.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

2009 Spyker C8 Spyder rL.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2009 Spyker C8 Spyder rL.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

User problems report[edit]

Hi. Please pay attention to a new report: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Liamdavies and trams in Prague. --ŠJů (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Editing note[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your work improving identification and categories on automobiles! Please note not to remove license info, as you did I presume by accident in this edit. Thanks for your attention. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Oops! I'm glad it was noticed before there was any mischief. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 23:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Your new photos[edit]

Hi Mr.choppers,

Just dropping by to say hi ! I like your new DSLR car photos very much. The quality is simply impeccable ! Please do keep up the excellent work. :]

Best regards,
Aero777 (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Seconded! Great work, really appreciated. Your photos are easily the best these days. OSX (talkcontributions) 06:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks guys, all due to the Canon EOS 6D. However, it will mostly be used for baby pictures for the next few years, so don't expect too much for a little while. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 13:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png I've now solved the redlink issue with the new vehicle-by-year navigation templates. You can have a look at Category:1973 Imperial vehicles to see for yourself. Hopefully this resolves your concerns. Now, we can use the standardized navigational templates for all makes of cars and selectively use the "displayredlinks=no" code to make sure that redlinks to nonexistent categories for model years that never did (and never will) exist are not displayed. Please forgive me for any stress, anger, and/or aggravation that I have caused you. Thanks, and take care! Michael Barera (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Mazda6[edit]

Are you sure this is a hatchback [1]? I'm almost certain that US models were sedan-only, and this looks very much like a sedan to me (e.g. no rear wiper, etc). OSX (talkcontributions) 05:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right - changed it back. The rear of the Mazda6 is very amorphous... mr.choppers (talk)-en- 03:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Photographer Barnstar.png The Photographer's Barnstar
Thank you so much for the large number of excellent photographs that you have uploaded over the years, especially those you have taken of automobiles. Please accept this barnstar as a small token of my appreciation. Photographers like you are a big reason why Wikimedia Commons is such a great resource. Thanks again for all your hard work and great photos, and take care! Michael Barera (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Much obliged, thank you! Now, if people could only stop driving around in really booooring cars. Would make my photography more fun! mr.choppers (talk)-en- 03:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wolseley automobiles[edit]

Hi MrC. (I know I'm) At the risk of seeming unbelievable rude yet again but do you truly believe that Morio's system of categorising old cars is right? See his changes here and the correspondence here

If you do think Morio is correct in his changes I am strongly inclined to toss any files I find back once again in yet another mindless heap - it does seem I'm the only one that actually (used to?) cares but then it would seem like that wouldn't it.

Such squirrels plant nuts apparently intending them to be lost. I refer to my sock drawer comment to you when you wrote to me on a similar matter.

Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't quite tell what is going on, all I know is that Wolseley pictures are currently in a state of flux. Reading you guys' conversation also doesn't help elucidate what the problem is. Happy to lend an eye once I know more, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 05:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I see there is a later message about categories on this page, I don't know about that / those matters.
"Wolseley pictures are in a state of flux". Yes I suppose that is fair comment, To simplify things, please would you point me to an example of the correct way of organising these things. I can only show how Wolseley used to be (i.e. as arranged by me) by reverting Morio's edits which even at more than six months delay seems unnecessarily offensive. So please, an example, an ideal for the main page.
In order to be confident and before I wrote the last phrase, I just had a look at Wolseley's here Instead of as usual diving for what I want I also went and flicked below that main page and found things much much fluxier than I knew! Oh dear! and like that since November . . .
Sock drawer. If the sock drawer has but one layer and it holds 120 socks say in 12 columns each of 10 rows, one may see at a glance or faster just what's available. Cars are a very visual item to categorise, too often their pictures have almost no, or no, clue to their identity. Find a picture of a partly identical car and you can get started on the i.d.
proposal
If the sock drawer is arranged to hold ten layers of 4 columns and 3 rows no-one is going to bother to scrabble about hunting for remote possible solutions 10 layers down. Well, are they! For old slightly mysterious cars keep the categories as shallow as possible or (generous) photographers will continue to dump in new subcategories they've specially made in a moment for the purpose. Shouldn't this be off your talk page? Please shut me down by sending me off to look at the current ideal so I can try to learn to love it or at least (it seems) not smash it. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I feel that I largely agree with your notions of making pictures findable rather than hiding them away in subcategories. Having once been embroiled in a six-month argument with an off-his-rocker Polish dude over his completely insane categorizations, I attempted to make a map of what I envisioned, so as to make him comprehend why I was arguing with him. Since categories are time consuming to change around and it is hard to compare them since only one model is available at a given time, I recommend that you make a similar drawing. Sometimes, making a sketch actually helps clarifying ones own thoughts. Perhaps Morio (I've dealt with him in the past w/o any troubles) and you can then come up with a collaborative effort which will make everyone happier still. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 21:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm working on it. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Car classification[edit]

Hi, may I have some explanation concerning your massive deletion about car classification categories. Is it possible to discuss?

These classification categories are mentioned in Wikipedia infoboxes. This information is relayed by Wikidata and used for data structuration. What's the problem concerning Commons? A1AA1A (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Your categories are senseless and arbitrary. I think that your additions are negative, as they only add confusing categories which do not help in the least. "Standard City Car" is not a recognized anything and your grouping is arbitrary, which then opens the gates for tons of arguing whether the New Mini is this or that, etcetera etcetera. Feel free to bring up your feelings where it can be further discussed, just make sure to notify me if you do. Thanks, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 21:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Mr.choppers, « Mysenseless and arbitrary » categories are defined by European authorities as the following:
  • A: mini cars aka city cars
  • B: small cars aka supermini, subcompact or polyvalent city cars
  • C: medium cars aka compact cars or small family cars
  • D: large cars or large family cars
  • E: executive cars
  • F: luxury cars
  • S: sport coupés
  • M: multipurpose cars
  • J: sport utility vehicles (including off-road vehicles) (cf. en:Euro Car Segment)

You have the right to consider purely subjective the differences between these categories or between blue and red cars, nevertheless these categories are commonly used and very useful to describe the market or characterize different models of manufacturers. They are used here or there, there again and even there. When manufacturers propose a 108, a 208 and a 308, corresponding to a i10, a i20 and a i30, they clearly refer to the three first categories, giving them all their sense. I observe these categories are well documented and useful to identify a model and its challengers, and consider there was no reason for your authoritarian deletions. Don't hesitate to improve these categories or their denomination but don't be negative. A1AA1A (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

And in the US the categories have different names, as do they in Japan and in other markets. They are not set, they are often arbitrary, and many cars straddle categories. Having seen the ongoing mess of car classifications in English language WP, I don't want to expand it to the Commons where we also have an even wider range of editors. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 16:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)