Urbanoc

Dear User:Urbanoc the English in this article is Good. But I must mention that the external links are not in English and must be translated right away if you want this Article to become a Good Article. For now I have put This article on Hold. If you want to ask for Help go to the Teahouse.
—Martian-2008 (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

You have gotten it all wrong. I have never mentioned that the NV200 and the Kangoo were the same vehicle; I knew they were different. I actually meant that the NV200 replaced the Nissan KUBISTAR (the rebadge), and not the Kangoo. Not only you have failed to mentioned the Kubistar, but you also have misinterpreted of what I said. That wasn't a "disruptive edit," it was also said in the article as well. Please understand the article before you changes, and please don't bring up points I have never said. Thank you. -- 2602:306:831D:CB10:F1DB:1A80:21DF:4C46 (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

But the infobox you first changed is an overview to the KANGOO (the two generations), my friend :). And modifying things without an explanation or edit summary is really disruptive, I hope you'll take note the next time. Otherwise, I don't have a strong opposition to your (final) version with explanations added, even if isn't usual mentioning alternative name "successors" in the infobox. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I answered to this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Automobile_Dacia Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.56.241.24 (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I answered once again. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.56.241.24 (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Renault Captur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (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) 11:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please don't create straw man arguments or jump to conclusions. The Renault Z.E. *is* a range and more Z.E. vehicles are in development right now as we speak. This is hardly speculation or wishful thinking nor an attempt to create a new reality or distort the future: to suggest so is ridiculous. The FR Wikipedia reflects the fact that the Z.E. vehicles are a range in their own Renault template, so the EN wikipedia community should learn from that. Also, I could just as easily accuse you of not having a logical argument in your attempt to remove this change.

Thanks for your answer, I appreciate you are open to discussion.

First, I don't think the inclussion of that type of cars on the French Wikipedia template automatically means it must be included here. The French Wikipedia articles rely largely on primary sources (in the French Renault article they even take the "revisionist" official version of the company that erases Louis Renault as a founder to justify the expropriation). Besides, the French Wikipedia can be an indicator, but each Wiki determines its own consensus.

Second, my concerns are wider than those you mention, but I'll respond that. I don't say the ZE cars aren't real, I say their inclussion in the template within a separate group give them undue weight here and now. In many cases, and I uphold my opinion because is a fact even the ZE cars articles accept, they only are derivatives of conventional cars (Fluence "ZE", Kangoo "ZE"). The sales are insignificant. They are no specially innovatives or capables as, for example, the Nissan LEAF is (by the way, that is the only electric car of the Renault-Nissan Alliance with a moderated success, if you can include the category electric cars in the Nissan template, that will give more credibility to your position). The only really noteworthy electric cars of Renault (the Zoe and the Twizy) are included anyway in my version of the template. The others can be accessed through the conventional cars' articles, if someone is interested in that type of vehicles.

To avoid this discussion becames stale and we edit-warring each other ad infinitum, I'll bring uninvolved editors to it. They can give a fresh look to it. Not something for my own benefit, because I don't know what they think, but they can help to establish a consensus.

Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

There's far too much talk and stagnation on Wikipedia — I've seen discussions go on for two years without a change being made — but I'll go so far as to say that Z.E. is much more than a range of cars by Renault as they are not ICE vehicles at all. They are EVs, a completely different class of vehicle. Renault is making an dedicated commitment to develop these EVs and bring them to market and the fact that two of the four current Z.E. vehicles are based on existing ICE vehicle bodies doesn't alter that fact. We'll see what Renault will announce next for Z.E. but according to Renault this class/range/whatever will only grow. reinthal (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, my view is the company's efforts to campaign for the electric vehicle are irrelevant, because they didn't meet expectations and not generated a sound effect in third-party coverage (except for blogs and company-paid articles). I think the future of the electric cars from "mid-size" carmakers as Renault will depend of two key factors:

1) Europe don't fall anymore: if the European car market (one of the more open to electric mobility because the use of non-fossil energies as nuclear) continue its falling, Renault will never be able to reduce prizes based on volume, and the EVs never will be rivals for the economy cars (like Renault's Dacias), which are the fastest selling because of its affordability and easy-to-fix features.

2) China really bets on EVs: Many of the expectatives of Renault-Nissan are in that market, because it can bring the much needed sales volume and make the EV projects a source of profit and not only a way to through out money. If the EVs are not profitable, I don't see them a long future.

Anyway, its all speculation. The thing is today the Renault's EVs are not relevant. For me, the fact two or them don't be more that variants of conventional cars is really significant, because it reduce its distinctiveness. And, at the end, the electric cars are cars, because apart from its engine, they share a similar configuration to its internal combustion equivalents. If some day are successful, they won't need its own template's group because they will be industry's standards. At present, they are more a curiossity and give them its own group seems "green" propaganda.

Changing the subject, I propose to you eliminate the Twizy and the Zoe from current cars' list to avoid repeating them. It didn't mean any other change, the current template's layout (with the electric car's group) would be preserved, at least until a consensus arises.

Regards.--Urbanoc (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hope you don't mind, but I've added all the articles that you've created to your user page Seqqis (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

No problem :-) Regards. Urbanoc (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Logo Faiveley Transport.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

The clear template is not necessary simply because it lets too much empty space between the last paragraph and the references section. It has a definitely better layout without it as it looks more compact. I can understand the use of the clear template when it's really necessary, such as when you want to separate the first generation article from the lead section, with the table of contents and the infobox, in an automobile article. But here it is quite obviously not necessary. The references sections is acceptable to be right after the text. You may also check the guidelines regarding blank lines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. However, I appreciate your interest into the subject of the article and I hope we can get to an understanding on this issue. Thank you. Regards, BaboneCar (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, I didn't see that way, thanks for your explanation, I appreciate it :).I thought it improved the design of the article, but thinking about what you say you're right, it is not necessary that extra space. Anyway, I want to make it clear I didn't put into question all your edits, it was a problem with that in particular because at first sight I considered it detrimental. I think you are a constructive editor, there is no many in vehicles' articles. Despite we don't always agree I think you do an excellent job with car articles and you really improved the carmaker's templates. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Renault Trucks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer (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) 10:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. There is a debate at Template:Infobox automobile whether to change the title style from how it has been so far, from outside the infobox to the inside. If you consider that it should remain outside the infobox (as in Template:Infobox company for example), please express your opinion at Template talk:Infobox automobile. Thank you. Regards, BaboneCar (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for telling me. I indeed prefer the title outside, but it seems there is an overwhelming consensus to put the title inside. Basically, the desicion is to make a copycat of the French infobox. I don't think French Wiki can be considered an example, but my opinion is clearly a minority. Regards. Urbanoc (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gordini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Division (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) 09:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

There's no doubt that it's the same championship - but it was orginally called the World Drivers' Championship, and it introduces fewer anomalies to call it that, especially in the early years. None of the Formula One races in 1952 or 1953 counted for the championship, for one thing. Ian Dalziel (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I guess it could accurately be called a Formula One world championship from the year the Indianapolis 500 no longer counted - the 500 has never been run for F1 cars. There's only the one championship, which has been held since 1950 - the name and the rules have changed along the way, though. For that matter, it continued from the pre-war European Drivers' Championship. Ian Dalziel (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I don't understand why did you revert the whole of my recent edits in the article, as they adhere to the point supported by you in the discussion on the talk page, which in my opinion is definitely correct. Sales figures on the Automobile Dacia page should only count the sales under the Dacia brand, which is what I emphasized in my edits (in fact keeping the note that was already present there). You also reverted some edits where I added information about the history of the company, which do not have anything in common with the discussion on the talk page.

I see that the discussion on the article's talk page has got to a standing point and I think that it should not prevent from adding further useful information. The reference you provided as an example is very clear in this regard: the sales statistics document on the Renault website counts the Renault and the Dacia sales separately (including those of the common models, such as the Logan, Sandero, Duster, Lodgy or Dokker). To conclude, the edits I did in the Sales section are in line with the point in your edit summary, therefore I think they should not be reverted. I added a reply with my opinion on the talk page of the article and will add the information back if you have nothing against it. Regards, BaboneCar (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'll reverted myself and return to your last version. I wasn't happy with some of the prose, but after I read your explanation in the article talk I saw my concerns were incorrect. Regards. Urbanoc (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Renault Samsung QM3 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• engine range is limited to a single dCi 90 four-cylinder diesel and dual-clutch transmission.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.renaultsamsungm.com/vehicles/qm3/main.jsp |title=Renault Samsung Motors |

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Renault Captur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Top Gear (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) 09:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the advice about the Nissan logo! Now only i realized what i've done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuvarshanw (talk • contribs) 22:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maubeuge Construction Automobile, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daimler (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) 08:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your contribution. As you said the name of the public company is Altarea SCA, but only used for financial purposes; the name of the company as officially referred to for business purposes and the general public is Altarea Cogedim. We will change the infobox then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AltareaCogedim (talk • contribs) 17:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

No, you misunderstood me. The legal name, except in the case of articles covering divisions or brands from larger businesses, always is the one used in the infobox, it is a Wikipedia convention. Altarea Cogedim is a mere trading name, regardless of the importance the company gives it. You can search through similar articles if you don't believe me. By the way, be careful of not being over-promotional, as the article seems to be moving on that direction. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hope you don't mind again. But I've made a few changes to your user page. Seqqis (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

No problem, Seqqis. I have neglected my user page anyways. Thanks for your interest in my work. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Do you think this Renault business has reached the threshold for an ANI case? I for one am tired of being called names and accused of stuff I haven't done; and there are those threats of sock/meat puppetry and bad press, etc... against Wikipedia. Not having been involved in an ANI incident before it's new territory for me.... Vrac (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Vrac, I wasn't in an ANI either, but I do think the IP's behaviour is borderline to say the least. He always demands "good faith" criteria for his edits but considers all the editors opposing him "dishonest." He's very uncivil, makes baseless acussations and never wants to find a compromise. In brief, maybe a case at ANI would be the only course of action to confront this situation. Urbanoc (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

The IP is a fool, but I also think that you guys are overreacting a bit at times. I don't have the time to read everything (full-time job + 8-month baby) but why was the text about the reason for privatization removed? And the Laguna was the first car to get five EuroNCAP stars, which might just be enough for an inclusion at Renault - or not, but I don't see it as an immediate revert. I feel like a bit of politeness and also diversion onto other pages will calm this guy down considerably. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mr.choppers. I suppose you are refering to my last edits. I didn't delete the reasons for privatisation, I removed a added word on that, the text saying "Renault was eventually decided that the company's state-owned status was detrimental to its growt...", I left it as "It was eventually decided that the company's state-owned status was detrimental to its growt...", which was the original text. While I agree the Laguna's bit was essentially true, all the extra promotional wording on Renault innovations that included highlighting the word milestone made the text difficult to save. If important, that can be re-added in a more neutral tone (in fact, the first 5-star bit is still present).

My problem with the IP's edits in the French car manufacturers' articles is he thinks Wikipedia must be a weapon in their "war" against VW, so any means of promotion are valid. The VW article isn't following NPOV and has a very low level, which is almost unbeliable considering it is the most sold (and known) European generalist in USA by far, but I don't think that's a reason to make the French Big 3 even worser. I do think he'll introduce his agenda into the article eventually (persistence is a powerful thing...), but I'm not so sure more politness from our part would change that, the only thing he'll accept is a complete acceptance of his views, even if they contradict Wikipedia principles and guidelines.

I hope you can still find some time to edit despite the baby-caring , good luck with both! Urbanoc (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

NOTE: I used IP's EuroNCAP source to validate the Laguna bit in the current version, as it was unsourced, but was more neutral. Urbanoc (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Cool. And yes, ip guy is obviously not balanced.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the article Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Sfan00 IMG!Urbanoc (talk)

I have never written to you before. But you harassed me with you messages. You once again accused me to be uncivil whereas I am never. You once again accused me to do a promotion, whereas I never do that. I only added some neutral facts that are allowed in the articles of the same domain. You already attacked me with an ANI, so this time I ask that some administrators intervene. I don't particularly expect that any fair answer could come, but let's see.   There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Unequal_treatment_of_some_brands_articles_and_harassment 83.157.24.224 (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for telling me about the ANI. I already say my piece there in the past; I don't see the point if no one wants to intervene. As for your claims, I think you are doing all the things you accuse other editors. You misrepresented my words and my edits in various opportunities with the purpose of portraying me under an unfavourable light. You never took time to read Wiki guidelines, considering all the edits that changed yours as a personal insult and "harassment." You make use of a very confrontational tone.

I think you are "honest" in your love for France and French cars but, as I say to you before, the Wiki is about trying to collect info in the most objective way. We need try to avoid nationalistic, promotional and biased overtones. I don't really like VW as you claimed, and I don't have any problem with French marques. I think we must avoid bias in all articles Urbanoc (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Renault, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rolls-Royce. 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) 09:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

	Renault Super Goélette
	Thank you Charles01 (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that Charles! :) If you think you can improve it or if I made a mistake, feel free to modify it. Regards--Urbanoc (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Sorry that you block the whole Renault for the Louis Schweitzer input, because he is pointed out as a precious example of key management, like in this MIT source for example, so I am happy to teach you that. You're welcome ! http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/building-ambidexterity-into-an-organization/ Renault, the French automobile company, went through a radical transformation during the 1990s. When Louis Schweitzer became CEO in 1992, the state-owned company was languishing. Schweitzer cut costs through a number of well-publicized plant closures, but he also invested in new-product development (leading to such models as the Espace and Megane) and began the search for a strategic partner to take Renault into the top tier of the industry. After an abortive merger with Volvo in 1993, Renault gained control of a struggling Nissan in 1998 and, to the surprise of many observers, quickly turned around its performance. By 2001, the Renault-Nissan Alliance had joined the ranks of industry leaders and was one of the most profitable auto companies in the world. How did the transformation take place? Schweitzer developed a simple and consistent strategy built around what he called the “seven strategic goals.” The strategic planning and budgeting processes, and the bonuses and stock option plans, were all aligned with these goals. The communication of the message was, in the words of one executive, “doggedly consistent.” At the same time, the company developed what one executive called a “deep desire to adapt.” The seven strategic goals were updated every two or three years, the organization had an informal style of management in which expressing alternative views was encouraged and managers developed a self-critical approach, always looking to improve. The result was an organization that became proficient at continually making small adaptations to its strategy without losing alignment. Renault’s transformation during the 1990s involved a shift from the country-club to the high-performance context. Until 1990, employees had viewed the company as a comfortable and secure place to work, with an informal atmosphere. Over the following 10 years, a number of changes were brought about, primarily through top-down initiatives revolving around cost reduction and quality and through greater focus on, and commitment to, KEY STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES. One executive commented that his business unit was run as a “commando-type organization — appraisal and evaluation interviews are run in a pyramidal form and compensation is [now] geared toward short-term objectives.” Most of these changes were instituted through a new executive team that gave people more structure, which led to a focus on new products and new opportunities as a means of delivering on the more ambitious goals. Stated slightly differently, the emphasis during the transition was placed on performance management but building on the social support that had existed in the early 1990s. Indeed, two of Schweitzer’s seven goals were concerned with the internal organizational context (develop a coherent and open group; work more effectively together). Renault achieved it by building a performance context around its existing social support.

=> It would be useful that you then change your mind and stop blocking the article. You could have found several sources that mention his key role yourself, but I am happy to have helped you to clarify your mind. Do you still deny Schweitzer's key role ? Actually, more text in the article is needed about Schweitzer too, in addition to the "key people" line, as you can notice. Anyway, my previous reliable source from Oxford University press is already clear also about his actions : "Renault's long-standing chairman and chief executive, Louis Schweitzer transformed Renault into a successful company". Georges Douin also had a significant role to convince Nissan and to buy Dacia and Samsung Motors. Thank you. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, you aren't convincing me, and we already spoke a lot about this. As I said before, you need to open a RfC or seek support to your position in related WikiProjects, as you have a fair chance of convincing a majority of editors to establish a consensus. My concerns can be resumed in two questions: Was Schweitzer relevant? Yes. Was the more relevant CEO in Renault history? I don't think so, and I don't believe there's a source supporting directly that. For me, there's at least three other people as relevant as Schweitzer in Renault history: Louis Renault, Pierre Lefaucheux and Georges Besse. Renault is already mentioned in the infobox, although not as "key people". In his short tenure during the critical period following World War II, Lefaucheux defined most of the company for the following years. He opposed the Pons Plan at a time when the French State was particularly strong, keeping Renault in the small car market and as a volume manufacturer. He also, against all opposition, introduced the Renault 4CV, a car that was the firt Renault assembled outside Europe and influential in a lot of manufacturers. As for Besse, he started the rationalisation of Renault. He reduced the workforce and sold money-lossing assets for financing and making more stable the company operations. Basically, the things Schweitzer and Ghosn kept on doing until the 2000s... However, if you can establish a consensus, I will accept it as I think you maybe have a point.

As for the article, I think Schweitzer is your only addition that met support from other editors, so he isn't blocking things at the moment. In fact, all agree that he's at least worth of a discussion. The problem is the rest of the things you want in it. --Urbanoc (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I saw the mention that the Saviem 3.6 liter engine was MAN-based. I can't find any information regarding this collaboration and I am very curious. It is probably due to the problems of Googling "MAN" - one doesn't get very good results. If only the Germans had considered googlability in 1908 and placed Nürnberg before Augsburg as "MNA" would have been much easier to find. Do you know anything about which MAN engine it was based on?  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, they could have been more careful with that. "MAN" gives a lot of disturbing results :).

I followed an "Automotive News" article which said the 720 engines were an introduction to the Saviem range of MAN-based engines. Oddly enough, it said they were assembled by Alfa Romeo (?) and that were later replaced by Sofim engines. The article didn't say more, though, as it was more focussed in Saviem merger with Berliet. I made a quick "Saviem 720" google search and I found it mentioned as the Saviem (MAN) 720, but nothing clear was mentioned of which MAN engine was the base for the 720. They mentioned the 720 was used as a base for marine engines, which is pretty curious. It seems more like a Saviem-developed thing using a lot of MAN technology. However, in various personal pages and forums (especially in French) is made clear that it was related to the engine called by the Saviem company Saviem or MAN 712, a 3.3L straight-four unit. Of course, that can't be considered something of WP:RS, but well... The 712 was used at least since 1959, in the JL, R-series and S ranges. But Saviem didn't use MAN engines until the end of 1963 and later 712s are mentioned as "MAN-based". I think they modified existing units and added them new MAN technology. So, my opinion is that some of the engines classified as MAN-based were actually MAN, but others were Saviem-developed engines with MAN components. Sorry I can't give you more precise info. :(

In general, the trucks info isn't nearly as abundant as the cars info. And, for a small and not-so-popular French manufacturer defunct long time ago as Saviem, it's nearly non-existent. Nevertheless, those somewhat obscure companies are interesting. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is actually a 2nd generation Renault Talisman. So the first generation should be included in the article with

link on 2nd generation Renault Samsung SM7. I would also recommend creating a new article: Renault Talisman (concept), for more clearness.

Sorry for the late response, I was pretty busy and I wasn't able to edit or participate in Wikipedia these days. I see your point, but I don't think the other car called "Renault Talisman" can be considered a first generation model, at least with the info currently available. The first car called Talisman (a rebadged SM7 for the Chinese market) is pretty unrelated to this design: the SM7 is almost an E-segment car with European standards and the European Talisman is a clear D-segment vehicle aimed at the Passat niche, the SM7 is a vehicle engineered for the Asian tastes and the new Talisman a clearly European one, the SM7 was never (and won't be) sold in Europe and will still be sold in China as Talisman in the foreseeable future, while the European Talisman will only be sold in European and Europe-related markets. Renault seems to have chosen the name because of the backlash of the ill-fated Laguna and its intention of selling similar cars with identical names worldwide. The European Talisman would be in fact a fourth-generation Laguna. Almost none of the reliable sources available called the European Talisman a "second-generation" car, they only state the previous use of the name and that it will replace the Laguna and the Latitude (in European markets). --Urbanoc (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry but honestly, what does the Audi image say about the innovation of Germany's auto industry? How it illustrates it? And I don't think the inventiveness is necessarily related to Germany's performance of exportation. ^{In dialogue with} Biomedicinal 17:03, 13 August 2015‎

I completely removed that image for the reason of "advertisement" and the irrelevance between exportation and innovation. People can keep changing it to their favorite models so it'll be better without it. ^{In dialogue with} Biomedicinal 17:26, 13 August 2015‎

My opinion is that a car picture can really exemplify the auto industry. Logos are abstract per se, they require a previous knowledge on the company and what it represents, and in many cases are displayed under the restrictions of a fair use claim. We need to keep non-free media at a minimum. However, I agree with you that car pictures can lead to an edit war between fans of the German "Big Three." I have no personal bias of what image should be used to illustrate German industry. If you think the image of a certain car will attract fanboyism, I have no objection to remove it from the article. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to disturb again. You can put your opinions on the talk page there if you like. I started a new section as another user still disagreed with my removal of it. ^{In dialogue with} Biomedicinal 07:29, 15 August 2015

 

Thanks for uploading File:Manufacturer Mersen original logo.svg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

You are right, I got a little carried away by the fact that it might be the same car, due to the name similarity. I found a reference that describes the differences from the Spanish-built model and adjusted the article so that it makes clear that it is a different car. (This source mentions the fact that is is built in the same platform.) I think we can cover both models in the same article, considering naming, visual and technical similarities. Thank you for notifying me about the difference between the two models. BaboneCar (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

No problem, BaboneCar. Thanks for addressing my concerns. Keep the hard work! --Urbanoc (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your edits - I didn't realise the article Vilvoorde Renault Factory existed. As for the article - the law is of course the most notable part, possibly that would be the better title. The article is intended to cover both the law and the media term.83.100.174.82 (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The article Renault Samsung Motors you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Renault Samsung Motors for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

The article Renault Agriculture you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Renault Agriculture for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Saviem you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

The article Saviem you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Saviem for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

The current Lexus LS isn't popular, it's a fact. The sales number can hardly make it preventive as a luxury vehicle, even though the first generation is pretty good. From the same source, Lexus LS wasn't regarded in a similar status as the competitors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexus_LS#Sales_and_production — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.177.139 (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Nissan Maxima wasn't engineered to be a full size sedan, instead it was intended to be an upscale alternative to Altima. It doesn't represent a larger sedan in the US. Toyota Avalon was more engineered to be a larger sedan slightly smaller than the traditional full size sedan ( Chevrolet Impala as example )

Lincoln Town Car is presenting another form of grand saloon and it was under presented. And it's still dominating the usage for the full size luxury sedan in the US/Canada, and if you live in the Europe it may be hard to understand. Lexus LS is over presented on the other hand, as only the first generation of LS was truly popular.

Also, presenting an older vehicle in the examples is still proper, as in the case of MG Magnette ( or Rover 75 ) when no successor is manufactured.

And Ford Explorer isn't that big, it's slotted as a smaller SUV than Expedition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.177.139 (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'll respond in order all that nonsense.

To be clear, it isn't relevant if the article didn't regard the LS at the same level that its competitors. The fact is it did was one of the top-selling luxury vehicles in 2004, which was the thing the sentence said before you changed it. The commentaries about the car looks are more POV from the author.

Your commentaries about the Maxima are really POV and miss the point.

The Town Car must be less represented that more modern models, as its design and styling are completely outdated. As you mentioned Europe, it would be like I used the Citroën H Van as an example of light commercial vehicle. As for your assertion that it is the most common model in its class in the US and Canada, that's really debatable, and besides, we need to keep a global perspective here in Wikpedia. I won't revert you in that particular point anymore as it's useless, and in my opinion the fact you insist so much on that and not in adding meaningful content says a lot about your interest in Wikipedia. As a sidenote, please start adding edit summaries, as you don't make minor changes but rather disruptive ones. Frankly, I don't like any luxury maker, but your comments here confirm me you are in a personal campaign against the LS. --Urbanoc (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

You need to stay in the automotive business more or less to refine your knowledge, because you are missing too many points. For the size of Nissan Maxima, look at the EPA

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/36288.shtml

I won't repeat many other nonsense you mentioned earlier or correct for you, learn first please.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.177.139 (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply 

Thanks for enlighten me, maybe I need to learn more, I'm not that perfect, but likewise you can take the time to learn basic Wikipedia policies before you continue editing. That link is not relevant to the discussion here, sorry. It's still debatable in a worldwide perspective, and that's the only thing you could find some kind of proof to rebuke me, so I'm assuming you aren't opossing my other comments. In any case, I'm not that sure either it's the best example, so I personally don't mind if you remove it (or change for a better contemporary example), but please add an edit summary explaining your changes and do not enter into edit warring if other editor reverts you.

The following words of yours raises concerns for me: "you need to stay in the automotive business more or less to refine your knowledge". If you are implying you are working/worked in the industry, does that means you're working or worked before at one of the companies producing the cars you keep adding? If you have a conflict of interests, you need to make that public in Wikipedia. --Urbanoc (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your jokes are not ammusing. Groupe Renault logo IS NOT a diamond, see the Groupe Renault international website (group.renault.com), not country-specific sites aimed only at selling cars of a certain marque. Even other British sites for corporate uses (see for example press.renault.co.uk) uses the text logo. And the Groupe Renault logo indeed include the three brand from the 2015 Annual General Meeting onwards. Because, you know, Groupe Renault is made of three marques, although Renault is the most famous. And by the way, stop adding false cars and false awards to articles. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was not aware of the consensus, I've been trying to figure out how to move the page for a while now because it is in the wrong place. The name has changed for every place where it is sold. Someone also changed previous pages with old names that aren't used. I don't know why they're doing that though if they are not going to create new pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AquilaXIII (talk • contribs) 18:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Each comment you have made to me about the Renault–Nissan Alliance category has been in bad faith and poor manners on my talk page. Knowing that, I tabled the discussion since it will lead nowhere and gave you the proper fair and neutral mechanism to offer your rationale for deletion through a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Now, you're trying to bait me Wikipedia:Don't take the bait and you need to stop.--Guiletheme (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Discussion is part of Wikipedia, if you don't agree with that, it's not my problem. You are free to remove my comments from your talk page or ignoring them if you are pleased to do so, but you have no right to template me for commenting in good faith. In any case, I already said my piece and explained clearly my reasoning, and your only arguments have been multiple personal attacks, even if you deny it. So please, do not template me without reason again and stop "warning" me. If you said I'm "in the wrong", please prove it through the various channels for stoping disruptive behaviour that Wikipedia has. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

We're not having a discussion, you came on my page basically berating me I shouldn't have created that category and started acting more childish and uncivil when I tried to open a dialogue with you. I can see English is not your first language, and while I know you'll cry foul on it, that's blatantly obvious but does not excuse your lack of manners. From that point on, I told you to get external comment to determine who was in the right and get support for deletion if you felt that way, but you'd have none of it because it didn't give you the opportunity to start the pointless fight that you are obviously itching for. You came in with extremely bad faith, acting as if you were the owner of anything Renault-related on Wikipedia, and quite frankly, I don't care enough about the subject to fight you over it. When you continued, I told you to leave and you continued to come back. Speaking of personal attacks, you're welcome to report me, but I know you won't because your behavior is textbook baiting. From Wikipedia:Don't take the bait: "In content disputes, a common baiting strategy involves badgering the opposition—while carefully remaining superficially civil—until someone lashes out. They then complain to an administrator. Time-pressed administrators may look only at specific edits without delving into the background that led up to the incident, resulting in a warning or block for the targeted editor. Most discouraging of all, this tactic is nearly risk-free. There rarely are negative consequences for those who use it, in part because a pattern of ongoing provocation can't easily be explained following the usual "diffs please" request. Sometimes these are after one particular individual and sometimes they're just after anyone who will take the bait." --Guiletheme (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Of course, English is not my first language (I never said it was, by the way), but I don't remember using that as an excuse. I haven't been "rude" with you until now, I never acted "in bad faith" (that's not true and you know it), but I'm really starting to feel tired of your constant attacks and aggresive, uncivil tone. The discussion with you never came to fruition because you kept on discussing me and not my arguments, but again, that's not my fault. You don't have to feel friendliness towards me (this isn't kindergarten, after all) or agree with the things I said, but I do expect a minimum of respect, and templating me because you don't like me is not the way forward. And if you continue with your aggressiveness, be assured, I won't be tolerating it anymore.

Your analysis is pointless and inaccurate, is obvious you don't know me at all. I'm not the "owner" of all Renault-related things in Wikipedia. And you are pretty defensive of your categorisation skills anyway, as you take their criticism at a very personal level, but I'm not accussing of defending the category so aggresively because you are "owning" it. If you think my caveats against your category is an ownership problem, you have tools to stop me. Most of the Renault articles are bad even for my level. It's true I'm a major contributor on various Renault-related articles (I'm not trying to keep it on hiding anyway), but is more of a "nobody cares about this little company" thing, and that's probably the reason I stayed in Wikipedia. I made variuos edits in the Renault article, but I discussed major changes, and the bulk of the content and the focus of the article weren't decided by me (I made many corrections on my edits, so my input isn't as great as it seems). Most of the changes I opposed in the Renault article were plainly disruptive, irrelevant data or fancruft (If you don't agree, please, reopen the discussions for introducing them) and I don't agree with most of the things that stayed in the article, but I had to suck it because consensus was against me. If it were truly my article, I would revamp it completely, removing at least half of it, as it's pretty mediocre anyway. I'm pretty proud of the Renault-related articles on which I really made a key, significative contribution and decided how they would be. They will never be perfect as I'm not a super talented editor, but they more or less respect Wikipedia policies and guidelines (neutrality, verifiability, style). If you don't agree with that, please, made the changes to put them in line with policy.

I didn't remove your category except in the cases that policies and guidelines indicate that it should be done (where more specific categories are already present, for example), and I explained that to you, but you ignored it because you were focusing on me. I do try to convince you that the category is pointless, but I have the right to do it as you have the right to ignore my arguments (although the personal attacks were an uneeded bonus). I won't try to convince you anymore, and frankly I'm so happy with our exchanges as you. My next step will be nominating it four discussion in 2017 (categories listed in there are rarely removed, but so be it), and I hope you will show more polite manners on that place, as you insisted on using that to resolve our differences. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Motrio.svg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

What brought you out of nowhere to the Quat'chevaux article? Andy Dingley, maybe?

Anyway, kindly self-revert your removal of the respelling. When it works, as here, it is both useful and appropriate.

Or are you another of those smart alecs over-confident in a smattering of French who have already wasted so much of my time because in their ignorance they think 4CV is pronounced cat-ruh-shuh-VOH?

Signing - forgot. Awien (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

First, calm down a little, I didn't mean my comments as a personal attack against you. Second, while I'm not interested specifically in the 4CV, I do keep an eye in the article and I did various minor edits there. I don't think that's a crime. Third, please read the respell help page, it expressly said its use is mainly for English words and that the far superior IPA system should be preferred. I'm not pretending to be an expert in French, although I did live in a French-speaking country. Fourth, I won't self-revert, as I made clear why I reverted you. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

If you think CAT-shuh-VOH yields an incorrect pronunciation you're wrong, your French is not up to interfering here, and you should indeed replace the correct and helpful respelling. Or if you're standing on "principle", removing useful information in the name of some pettifogging supposed rule is unhelpful and you should indeed replace the correct and helpful respelling. Awien (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your abuse of other editors does nothing to further your case. How do you expect that approach to work?

No-one seems to be opposing your addition because its pronunciation is incorrect. But neither have you shown that the IPA is either. The point (certainly mine, Urbanoc's seems to be similar) is that we're against this as a pointless duplication. I'm no expert in French pronunciation, but I've owned a few Renaults myself, and also lived in Paris for a year. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Meat-puppetry makes me angry. Contemptible bully-boy tactic. And have either of you read the discussion on the talk page? Time and again I've shown with reference to French grammarians, poets and dictionaries how to pronounce 4CV so that we finally got the IPA version correct. Now explain to me (which you can't) how conveying the information in an accessible form as well is harmful. Awien (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your accusations of meat-puppetry already passed the line. I never edited with the intention of helping Andy Dingley point of view. I haven't got too much interaction with him, but I think we had some discussion being at opposite sides in the past. I do generally agree with him in this particular case. I believe you understand that. Honestly, if you think the "rules" (more like advices) for respelling inclusion are that pointless, maybe you need to convince the people that wrote them, not me. Of course, Wikipedia is not monolitic and all guidelines, policies and so on can be ignored if a consensus is reached. I don't see that here.

I'm not saying your respelling is incorrect, I'm saying IPA is better. Of course, if you are taking a French course respell is probably more useful than IPA, but Wikipedia isn't a handbook.

Finally, if you continue to write here with your tone and implying bad faith from my part, don't bother in waiting for an answer. I'm not a believer in "talk page is a personal space" thing, except for templateing regular editors. My view is that is a Wikipedia space with less rules, so you can write more here but, as I said, I'm not obliged to answer you. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

The "rules" expressly permit the use of respelling, explanation such as "rhymes with" etc. alongside IPA. You two have no valid ground to stand on in preventing the use of respelling in the 4CV article. Awien (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

The "rules" don't "expressly permit the use of respelling" for foreign languages, in fact, they discourage it. The only recommended system at the moment for foreing languages is IPA. The Manual of Style for pronunciation says:

"For English pronunciations, broad transcriptions should be used; these are intended to provide a correct interpretation regardless of the reader's accent. The system for doing this is outlined at Help:IPA for English, and the first instance should include a link to that page; for example: England /ˈɪŋɡlənd/. This should be done using the template //. The Wikipedia respelling system, using the template, can be used in addition to the IPA.

"Phonetic transcriptions are not always the best way to render pronunciation. For brand names which are intended to be respellings of an existing word, it is better to provide that word than a phonetic transcription. Similarly, initialisms are better spelled out than transcribed. In both situations this will generally be unambiguous, and accessible to more of our readers".

For foreign-language pronunciations, a phonetic transcription is normally used, with a link to Help:IPA or to various language-specific IPA keys. If phonemic transcriptions are used, these require a link to a description of the phonology of the language in question, as otherwise the symbols used may be ambiguous".(...)

(...)For English words, transcriptions based on English spelling ("pronunciation respellings") such as prə-NUN-see-AY-shən (using ) may be used, but only in addition to the IPA (//). Any transcription, whatever system is used, should link to an explanation of the symbols, which are not universally understood".

"For other languages, only the IPA is normally used. Respelling foreign pronunciations into English is inadequate and misleading. If an English respelling is given for a Welsh or Māori name, not only would it be bad Welsh or Māori but the implication would that it's the English pronunciation. Nonetheless, ad-hoc descriptions in the other language (see below) are occasionally found. An example is Renault 4CV. This is called the Quatre chevaux in French, but the re is elided, so the French pronunciation can be clarified with "pronounced quat'chevaux" (this appearing with the French IPA transcription, assuming the editor finds that worth including)".

So the normal here is including IPA, except a consensus for the contrary (curiosly the 4CV is the example for some bending!). If you include a trancription as the one you pretend, you need to do it using the original language and linking to its phonology. Most articles including foreign words only use IPA, except in the case of the ones that aren't written using the Latin alphabet which also use some types of "official" or academic transcriptions. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

That reference to the 4CV is retroactive, added after I finally succeeded in proving to the cowboys that [kat.ʃəvo] is the actual, real, correct French pronunciation, not an ignorant mispronunciation. Now, re "For foreign-language pronunciations, a phonetic transcription is normally used": respelling IS a phonetic transcription, more useful to the vast majority of Anglophones (here on the English WP) than either IPA or a slightly modified but still not phonetic French spelling. So keep 'em all, all gain, no loss, and everybody's served. Simple.

(And to repeat for the record in case neither of you has read the talk page, I'm a fully bilingual retired French professor who owned a 4CV when I was a graduate student and the car was not much past its heyday. My interest is in making the pronunciation information accessible to those who need it). Awien (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I already saw you were the one that changed the IPA to a correct form and removed the only excuse for a clarification, that's one of the reasons I don't understand your interest on making the article some special thing. The respelling is a phonetic transcription, but one that has English as a model (not considering some unusual pronunciations of the language). As I said before, I don't think Wikipedia has to be a handbook. I can see you are not an impostor as some "PhDs" I found around here, but if you think all of this is wrong you need to gain consensus to make the respelling a standard practice by police, guidelines, and so on. At the moment, it isn't. --Urbanoc (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

"The Wikipedia respelling system, using the template, can be used in addition to the IPA." QED. Awien (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand your point. Of course it can, but all the guidelines, policies and so on I found say it isn't recommended for foreign languages. In fact, at the moment very few articles about non-English subjects use the respelling. Which I think is the point of contention: Do we really need to make the 4CV an unusual article? --Urbanoc (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Also because ~99.99% of Anglophones don't know the IPA, and at least the majority can't read French. Also, LOTS of articles use respelling. Awien (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

All gain, no loss. Why so opposed? Awien (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's my point. I don't think it's all gain. I personally don't see the necessity for making the article different from the vast majority covering foreign topics, considering the guidelines doesn't recommend that, and both the respell and the IPA need some basic skills for interpreting them (arguably less for respelling, but that's the reason why we have IPA keys). So, I think it should be proposed as a general change in practice, not a particular one for the 4CV article. --Urbanoc (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

In other words, you're not amenable to reason. Blocking a correct, useful, perfectly acceptable edit is NOT the way to improve the encyclopedia. Awien (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, we can agree to disagree then, not that much to add. I will repeat myself again, I made clear why there's no really a need for clarifying 4CV's pronunciation. It's not like I'm not "amenable to reason", it's just I don't agree with you. Sorry if you don't like it, but that's what it is. I don't think the correct pronunciation of the 4CV is something so important that needs a lot of non-standard, special clarifications (for me IPA is the better option for the few out there interested on that) and at the end of the day it's a car and people can pronounce cars' names as they please, I don't think the French or Renault will be that offended or, even more, that really there's a "right" or "wrong" pronunciation for this kind of things. All of this is borderline content for a general encyclopedia like the one we're editing, as it's a topic with interest for linguists and lexicographers. I think you need to convince other people and bring a clear consensus to your side on the relevance of a respell not only for the 4CV article, but for similar articles. And that's it from my part. --Urbanoc (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Such specious, spurious claptrap - condemned out of your own mouth. Awien (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

"ome cosmetic changes for the exterior), produced under licence by Alfa Romeo. The only big difference was even less assembly quality in the Italian version" what bu.ith is this?? french assembly quality is never been better than Italy, Alfa had much better engines than those bad french ones >Typ932 ^T·C 15:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Says who? I won't defend the French industry, but the British magazine Commercial Motor said they were lesser vehicles, and most other sources said the Avia-assembled were the best. There wasn't any real improvements on chassis or bodywork and the "improved" engine was also used by Frdnch models. In any case, and letting subjectivities aside, they were still copycats. If you think they were better than the original "because Alfa" I won't fight to change your thoughts (even if credible sources say otherwise), but the fact is both were basically the same bad vehicle, the Italians simply copy-pasted a foreign design. Urbanoc (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

So who says italian truks were worse? better educate urself a bit , if u dont know differencies between these vehicles , I dont trust a bit for british car magazines and 50 years old stories and better stop using those childish edit comments without any real knowledge, I dont mind if they are in AKA field, but those childish edit comments should stop >Typ932 ^T·C 16:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC).Reply

I already said who. And, I also told you, I won't enter in fanboyish discussions on who have superior craftmanship, the fact is they were copies. If you think they were better than the original, you can believe that. The fact is they were licenced copies. Urbanoc (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I dont know how old you are but those edit comments looks really like some fanboy editing. You can believe what you want and read your british magazines >Typ932 ^T·C 16:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC).Reply

In most cases, I'd agree with you. But the fact Alfa Romeo simply took the licence for a less-than-good French design and assembled it already speaks volumes and makes me believe the negative voicen on the copy. In any case, as I said, the Alfa Romeos were licenced versions of the Goélette/Galion, there's nothing either negative or positive in that statement. Urbanoc (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Licensed versions are not always same, like Alfa aircraft engines, they are licensed but modificated and engineered so much they are not straight "aka" , but this article is close enough to be aka. -->Typ932 ^T·C 16:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Most of the sources I have don't say they were that different. However, if you have some reliable sources saying they in fact were very different, please revert me, I'm not the official defender of French industry and won't be offended. Better sources than discussions I guess. Urbanoc (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

As you seem to have with you newer sources stating the vehicles were different, I reverted myself. As I said, I'm not a fan of either the Saviem or the Alfa and, as my sources are old and published outside Italy, they can't be somewhat biased or have incomplete data, I concede you that. Urbanoc (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Mentioning foreign ownership is common practice in a plethora of other articles. E.g. see Jaguar Cars ..owned by the Indian company Tata Motors since 2008.[2]... " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiddo (talk • contribs) 12:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of French real estate development company Nexity.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:KB Home logo.svg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, a little background: I have no affiliation with Mahindra/SsangYong nor am I any Mahindra/SsangYong fan. I am undergraduate business student who has been told to write a report about SsangYong. While I was doing my research, I came across the wiki page and felt that the Mahindra section was very incomplete. So, I added my research to it. I do not understand what is wrong with it, can you please elaborate?

The "takeover by Daewoo and SAIC section" describes how the company went into bankruptcy. As of now, the company is posting profits and continued growth. Therefore, why shouldn't the article also describe the steps that led to the revival of the company?

As far as I understand, describing positive change is not promotion. The information is factual and cited.

Kindly describe what you mean by 'shamelessly promotional', 'overcited' and 'uses primary sources' (Aren't the sources secondary?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.166.152 (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Let me be quite frank with you. Your edits were promotional, although I will assume good faith and believe it wasn't your intention. A bunch of IPs from the India, Canada and some other places seemingly coordinating their efforts for "talking up" Mahindra made no clear at all you were an uninvolved party.

Most of the bits I deleted were based primarly on content taken from mahindra.com, which is primary source (a non -independent one, to make things worse), and even kept the PR department style. For example: you opened a para with the sentence "After its takeover by Mahindra Automotive, SsangYong established a new vision and long-term growth strategy(...)". What "vision" means?, that's vague marketing wording (and it's too close to the original wording on the press release you used as a source, you should use your own words, not copying the ones used in sources, that's a copyright violation). In general, except for some bits here and here, most of the things I deleted were based on Mahindra press releases. Primary sources like that must be used cautiously, only to back uncontroversial claims about the company and its operations, and how Mahindra allegedly rescued SsangYong isn't one of those claims. A topic must be linked just once in the body of the article (see WP:OVERLINK and MOS:REPEATLINK), you can repeat it just once in the lede, infoboxes, notes and tables, but that's it. You linked Mahindra in every paragraph, almost in every sentence. That's used to highlight things, and in the context was clearly promotional, even if it wasn't the intention.

You can add the things you feel are missing, but you must a) Stick to what secondary sources say (republished press releases doesn't count as such), b) Keep a dry, business-like tone, something neither a hater nor a lover of Mahindra would be happy with and d) Try to use your own words, not the ones of the source. Regards. Urbanoc (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Tarkett logo.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled reviewer rights on your account. This gives you the ability to:

• Accept or reject changes on pages undergoing pending changes. (See Special:PendingChanges for a list of edits awaiting review.)
• Have your changes automatically accepted on pending changes protected pages.

Please remember that this user right:

• Can be revoked at any time for misuse.
• Does not grant you any special status above other editors.

For guidelines on how to use this tool, see Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes. You should probably also read through the pending changes section of the protection policy. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions! Happy editing! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:CFAO company logo.svg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Toyota Auto Body, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Zanhe (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Zanhe, thanks! That was quick. I was expecting a near-two-month waiting time. --Urbanoc (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Well written drafts such as yours are much easier to review and usually do not take that long. Thanks again for your contributions! -Zanhe (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks but page writing help me Cptviraj9 (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Cptviraj9, I don't understand what you mean, but if you ask how to create articles, I recommend you to read this. If you plan to expand the article I tagged, you can contest the speedy by clicking the blue box marked for such purpose. If it's deleted before you can do that, you can recreate it. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:JMCG, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

An article that you have been involved with (Jinbei (marque) ) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article ( Huasong (brand) ). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Talk:Jinbei (marque). Thank you. Eni vak (speak) 22:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I notify you because you are an experienced editor and you have edited the article, it's creator seems retired. I await your opinion on it's talk page, Eni vak (speak) 22:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

File:Jiangxi Automotive Manufacturing Plant first mass-produced trucks.jpg does not exist - it has been deleted for the reason "(F7: Violates non-free use policy". Adding back the link does not magically un-delete it. KylieTastic (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I only respond because you took the time to leave a message instead of a generic policy violation claim, so to spell things out seems the only polite thing to do. As you probably know, I understood you the first time but I don't plan to stop re-adding the link. It's not against you, but you may need to intervene by contacting the usual channels. You should report me. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Hey Urbanoc, you sound as fed up and frustrated, a state that is easy to get in around here and image related issues are also some of the most frustrating. However, I doubt those that have caused you frustration by tagging/deleting images in ways you disagree will notice or care about you adding the link back. Personally, I only care about the content for the sake of the readers, and looking at your past work in creating articles and getting several to GA status you appear to care about the content as well, and adding back duff links only degrades it. It's great that you like so many contribute time to the project but it's not worth it if it's causing ongoing negativity (I just took two months off myself as I had just had enough). So in response to your edit summary here I would I say I care, and so do others, be proud that of the good work you've done and take a break or walk away for good. Be proud that you've created many articles, and 3 GA... it may not have changed the world but it worth more than the online contribution of most (posting crap on social media). So go enjoy some Strauss, Berlioz or whatever and be happy and don't let this place (or whatever) get you down. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Traton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP (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) 09:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Alpine.svg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's too bad we can't keep Fiat's 1968 logo, it looks a thousand times better... Thanks for the vandalwatch, best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Yeah, it looked better. More elaborated, "tridimensional" designs aren't always better. I remember I liked the way it contrasted against the red on the Ferrari F1 cars... --Urbanoc (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Changed and Updated as per the Website. Cesar.mondrus (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ehmm... What do you mean? --Urbanoc (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see, you were updating the positions. Fair enough, but don't try to add a protection templae, only administrators and some WMF people can protect pages. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

That was another Aniketdey2116 sock. They all have the same pattern of adding the username wherever they feel like. Claiming that the changes are per an update in the reference. See for example sockmaster's behaviour 1 2, and that of another already blocked sock 3. There's also a fair amount of IP socking occurring 4 5 6 but given the only repeated usage is of the mobile range 2405:204:3000:0:0:0:0:0/37 I have not yet requested a block of any of them. One page is already semi-protected, and I may file a request for the above page if there is an additional revert or two. Some of these pages could still use a bit of extra watching as it's likely only a matter of time before they realize how to get their socks autoconfirmed. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads-up, Spectrum, I wasn't aware of all that. I added the pages you mention to my watchlist. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm apologizing for wreaking havoc a couple of months ago, as I was deeply annoyed by the change you made at the time, and thought the change would also be made on the division page as well. –Piranha249 18:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry, disagreements are common in collaborative projects. To be honest, I already had forgotten all that. --Urbanoc (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Come to think about it, what I did then was kind of stupid, since my thought process was that subsidiaries and divisions were alike except for one crucial difference, and I would've likely added this info to the division page as well, but instead I went quiet and never returned to make my point. If it wasn't already removed (I haven't visited the page to know), then it might as well should be. This is the last point I'm making regarding this topic. –Piranha249 20:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Toyota Auto Body you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Martian-2008 -- Martian-2008 (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

The article Toyota Auto Body you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Toyota Auto Body for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Martian-2008 -- Martian-2008 (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Ssangyong logo.svg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

The article Toyota Auto Body you nominated as a good article has failed  ; see Talk:Toyota Auto Body for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Truflip99 -- Truflip99 (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, Urbanoc. TFESS here. I've noted (and you also seem to notice) that there are multiple IP addresses that are coming from the same country when I GeoLocate them. I've also noted that some IP addresses simply edit for a brief time and move onto another IP address. Do you think that this is disruptive in a way? If this is not supposed to be here, remove it. T^{fess up?}_{or down?} 15:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi TFESS. It's indeed mildly disruptive editing, but I didn't report it because administrators rarely take actions against IP editors on these cases (they only action on either highly disruptive or blatantly vandal editors), they can even be annoyed if one insist on punishments. I tend to ignore IPs like these and just revert them, as, eventually, they may ask for advice or move on to more constructive editing. If not, I may report them, depending on how much disruptive they happen to be. Anyway, thanks for your concern. Happy editing! --Urbanoc (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Alrighty then. Thank you for the response! T^{fess up?}_{or down?} 17:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:2015 Dacia logo.svg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Alpine.svg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

ru:Лада Запад Тольятти Зуфар Шакур (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The English Wikipedia article covers the JV, not Lada West. I don't really care what you do over there in the Russian Wikipedia. --Urbanoc (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

[1] Зуфар Шакур (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

not anymore GM-AvtoVAZ Зуфар Шакур (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I know all that, but... What part of "the English Wikipedia article covers the JV, not Lada West" you don't understand? If Lada West is notable by itself, it should have its own article. --Urbanoc (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The company exists, but received a different name Зуфар Шакур (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The JV not, even if the legal entity may be the same... --Urbanoc (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Urbanoc! I just saw your revert to Nyoni. Ha, beat me to it. I should let you know that the user’s contribution wasn’t entirely incorrect. Nyoni does refer to an area in South Africa. It has its own WP page: Nyoni, KwaZulu-Natal— but I understand if it sounded odd for a minute, since the article is a stub. I’m going to add this South African location to the list. HelenDegenerate (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@HelenDegenerate: thanks for pointing that out. I was just checking through recent changes and that looked a bit off to me. But, as you clearly have more knowledge on the topic than I, I'll let you handle it :). Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I’m sorry for that edit to Formula One. I was being clumsy editing on iPad and hit the rollback button by mistake. I would have fixed it but thanks for getting there first. I’m sorry you had to Mark83 (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Mark83: Ok,no problems, I supposed it was something like that. In any case, someone already fixed it. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Leahead logo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Groupe Saft logo 2019.svg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello Urbanoc or other Administrator

As Employee of General Motors do Brasil, from 1995 to 1998, during Opel derivatives, time and when GMB did 70 years old in Brasil, it is the oldest car manufacturer there, received the History GMB Book, and a Watch as Present. Still have both until today at Home. Knowing well the Automobile Industry more than 50 years, because also worked for Volkswagen do Brasil, BMW in Munich and Audi in Ingolstadt among others smaller companies and suppliers, feel myself accordant to improve the page. Please review if ok to you. GMB full official Register name is General Motors do Brasil Ltda. because is private and not in local Stock Exchanges in country. The Register of smaller companies, also producing in Brasil, were wrongly removed in Automotive Industry in Brazil and also its Template. Now there is a Mess but will not roll back again the worse theme. Regards. Up to You Wikipedians --188.109.177.148 (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@188.109.177.148: Hi. Unfortunately, I can't approve your changes as I'm not a pending changes reviewer (I was in the past, but I renounced it). In any case, I personally don't think they can be approved, as they aren't sourced by inline references. What we aim here is to describe things reliable sources say, not just our personal knowledge. I recommend you to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. Also, as you say you have a potential conflict of interest because you worked for the article subject, I also suggest you to follow the instructions for COI editors. If you want to contact with an administrator, you can easily do that. My recents interactions with Ponyo were good and she was helpful, but you can chose any other, there are a lot of them. Some are more focused on technical stuff, but they still can indicate you where to get help. --Urbanoc (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

sorry, thought ... you would be a reliable administrator, because most are not. Anyway thanks- Sources are most of times reporters repeating what we from industry says... So, reporters and supposed magazines which wiki follows are doubtle, but 'that's the way' in Mandalorian speach. --188.109.177.148 (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just spotted 94.240.201.242. If you come across IP vandals who have continued after a recent(ish) block, feel free to report them straight to WP:AIV. And if I've blocked them before, you're welcome to let me know directly. We try to keep IP blocks short to start with in case the IP is dynamic, but if it's reasonably static we can keep increasing the duration. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tip HJ Mitchell. I'll do that next time. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Be careful of 3RR. I've warned the IP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:GAC FCA logo.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Renault Pars logo.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Don't accuse me of "not being neutral" without any proof to back it up, do you seriously feel the need to escalate things to assumptions of bad faith and making uncivil comments because someone disagrees with you over links? Incredibly petty. TylerBurden (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

TylerBurden I do feel the need, and my opinion is that you're not being neutral, as you deleted mentions of the parent company being Chinese and are set on adding a clearly not neccessary link to Sweden. If you think that's "pety" and "uncivil", fair enough, but I just don't care. If I'm wrong and I'm indeed making too many incorrect, baseless assumptions, and you just think that keeping the link to a well-known country is something worth two reverts, then I prefer not to edit any article where you also edit, as our reading of the guidelines is so different than a consensus between us is impossible. So, I'll just move away from editing Sweden-related topics altogether, so you can avoid my ugly pettiness... --Urbanoc (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Then that's you violating both WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, assuming that I am on some dubious mission for removing random nationality mentions of a company when other companies do not have theirs mentioned, and making the argument that a country smaller than several US states is not an overlink (because it's not, not matter how well you personally know Sweden, others may not). If that is your threshold for a bad faith editor, well then that is an interesting attitude to have having been on Wikipedia for over 10 years. You're dead wrong by the way, you don't see me removing the Netherlands link on the same article do you? Because that is also not a major example of a country. It's following the manual of style, not a nationalist effort. Do whatever you want, as long as you learn to follow policy and treat people with basic respect instead of attacking them when they don't roll over for your personal preferences on how articles should be. Adios. TylerBurden (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

TylerBurden Hmmm, I understand your position up to a point, but the truth is we can't interact. I don't agree with almost anything you say above, even if it's in good faith. But I promise I'll try to avoid you because, as I said, we're completely apart on basic things and don't like each other, and we'll never be able to find common ground, so better if we don't interact anymore if we can. If it matters, I think you're a net positive for Wikipedia, even if not for me. Bye... --Urbanoc (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well thank you for being civil in this response, I recognize your username and have seen you around before, you seem like a very competent editor with over a decade of experience and before you left that message on my talk page I had nothing but respect for you. For example, just from cleaning up Volvo related talk pages I can see that you have opposed POV editing related to Volvo being Chinese, etc, which is probably what those weird nationality specifications I removed were remnants of. I do think it's a shame you feel like you need to avoid me, based on just this one little dispute that really shouldn't have escalated to the point it did. Because I do not believe we have ever had problems before? At the end of the day it is a manual of style disagreement, I don't think that is something so serious that we need to avoid each other, if a civil discussion would have been had it's more than possible a consensus could have been found, and if not uninvolved parties could have been brought in.

And to clarify, in my edit summary when I said "let's not edit war" I meant the both of us not just you, perhaps that is what angered you, perhaps not, but I was only trying to politely ask you to follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Obviously I now see you different than before, but I don't dislike you. I don't think you need to stay away from Sweden, Norway, Finland, football, history, Formula One, car, etc related articles which are some common areas of mine because of this one instance where things got heated. It doesn't seem to be common behaviour for you, we all have bad days and perhaps you were pissed off about something and took it out on me, I don't know but I would like you to know that I'd be more than willing to put this behind us and move on and hopefully collaborate more in the future. We may have some differences, and it seems sometimes whilst not on purpose I rub people the wrong way, but don't feel unwelcome if you see my presence because I appreciate the vast majority of your contributions. Whatever you choose to do, I'm sure you'll continue being a net positive yourself. TylerBurden (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

TylerBurden Well, I thought things through, and I came to the conclusion I was the one mostly in the wrong in this case, and I assumed too much on your intentions, which isn't something this project recommends. In any case, the POV pushers I interacted with never tried to ammend things, they tried to say they had a PhD or went running to the administrators, so clearly you don't try to protect any bias. The edit summary did bother me and I have some problems IRL, but that's not excuse to be dominated by my bad temper and I apologise. I still think the link shouldn't be there but, as you say, is just a guideline and not a core policy, so I completely overreacted. I'll take at least a couple of days off-Wiki and only return when things are better and I'm not just a drag to the project. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Apology accepted, it takes good self reflection to realize when you were wrong. On my end, I also apologize for the edit summary which certainly could have been better worded so as to not come across as I was just accusing you of edit warring. Sorry to hear that you have been having some problems IRL, I hope your situation improves and you come back in a few days with a clear mind. I'm glad we could sort out the intentions, because I am strongly against biased editing and POV pushing, I just have a less strict opinion on the definition of MOS:OVERLINK than many other editors. You can see another recent discussion about that on my talk page, which was a similar situation but played out more how it should with a polite discussion about the different views. Like I said though, more than willing to put this behind us, because I can certainly sympathize with being in a bad mood and it affecting my conduct and there is no reason to hold that against you when you have apologized for it. Take care man. TylerBurden (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey man how are you doing? I haven't seen you around in a while, but I wanted to let you know that when it comes to the links it's no big deal, I would much rather have your valuable presence on the Volvo articles than links to Sweden, so if you want to remove them I won't oppose it. Just wanted to check in and let you know that. TylerBurden (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I will keep on editing the articles if you think is a good thing, whithout any demands, but there are more important/prolific/better editors than me, especially on the Volvo Cars side, I don't want to overplay my role. I'm more interested on the heavy vehicle side of the business, and I started editing the Volvo article because I thought it was too incomplete, mostly on the history side (and it's one of the top manufactures worldwide of HV, by any metric, so that was a serious omission by the project). But I don't think my loss at this point would be that big of a deal. I hope a better editor than me can move it to GA class someday, that would be nice. In any case, I think on some edits down the line, especially on the manufacturing side (if nothing more disturbes me IRL). Urbanoc (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Nice to hear from you. Of course, what you choose to do is up to you, but I don't want you to feel like you need to stay away from certain pages just because of my presence, that really was the last of my intentions. You have been active on Volvo related articles for far longer than me, so me coming in and making you feel like you would need to stay away is not right at all nor was it my intention. You probably have more knowledge about Volvo than I do, and not only have you maintained neutral wording over the years but also expanded the articles, so when it comes to Volvo on the English Wikipedia you are one of if not the most valuable contributor. It would be great to see the article at GA one day, but consider just keeping them on your watchlist if anything to continue your good work when it comes to at least keeping the articles in decent shape. TylerBurden (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I forgot to add, I hope your IRL problems have improved, genuinely, life is far from easy. And if they have not, eventually the page moves to the next one, so hang in there. TylerBurden (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of RKM.svg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

You reverted my edits on Luhansk Oblast, and I was trying edit war with you, so I would put this on your talk page. The reason I added "Ukraine and its Western Allies" is because the rest of the world stands neutral on the situation except the UN. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Muhafiz-e-Pakistan ″Except the UN″ so most of the world? TylerBurden (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@TylerBurden look, secretary general António Guterres condemned it, but not any country. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Raise the issue on the talk page of the article then, frankly I think you are editing strictly from a pro-Russia POV, just like your edit on Azov Regiment a while back. To concerning degrees apparently ignoring references and consensus. TylerBurden (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Urbanoc. Thank you for creating KG Group. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

The slogan section was very hard to work on. Look at the Citroen's page, Opel's page, Chevrolet's page, all have slogans. Why did you remove these? I used reference from real ads. 78.174.182.186 (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

WP:OTHERCONTENT isn't really an argument for either inclusion or deletion but, if you ask my opinion, those slogans should also be removed. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Volvo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Middletown, Pennsylvania.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Dorcen logo.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:ESI Group logo.svg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:RCI Banque logo.svg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

[2] :) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Jéské Couriano: well, yeah. And maybe I should have left the request up. But I decided my strategy was wrong, and it was better to just let things calm down. That redirect wasn't a concern for the administrators as they had to prioritise actual articles. To be clear, I don't think they were wrong in taking their time for dealing with a veeery low traffic redirect. The IPs didn't seem to be completely clueless, and I assume they were able to see my edit history. So, I figured out in this case was better to stop "feeding the troll" and let another (not involved) editor fix things after the IPs eventually loose interest. If the IPs had messed up with an article, I'd have left the request in place. --Urbanoc (talk) 07:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Urbanoc. Thank you for your work on Latil H14 and H16 A1. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hey there! Hope you're having a great day. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia with your article. I'm happy to inform you that your article has adhered to Wikipedia's policies, so I've marked it as reviewed. Have a fantastic day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Hope you enjoy the remaining weekend. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Urbanoc. Thank you for your work on Latil H14 TL10. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 18:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Altarea SCA.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:KG Group logo.svg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of api.svg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Urbanoc,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Horse Powertain for deletion, because it's a redirect that seems implausible or is an unlikely search term.

If you don't want Horse Powertain to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply