User talk:MrDavr

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Car pics[edit]

I se that many of the car pics that you choose are unsuitable and get reverted by me and by other editors. You choice of image tends to be too dark, in shadow, at bad angles, too glary or otherwise doesn't show the shape of the car very well. WP:CARPIX details what we look for in a car pic. Clarity in showing the details of the car is a high priority.  Stepho  talk  11:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:2022 Toyota Land Cruiser ZX Sahara.jpg

The black image is hard to see any details. The white image is very easy to dee details. Gloss black paint in a cluttered environment just turns to glare. Why would you choose the hard to see image ?  Stepho  talk  21:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just revert them without saying anything? I don’t need negativity along with a revert. MrDavr (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not trying to be negative. Just trying to understand why you pick certain images so that we can work towards better choices. Perhaps there was some aspect of that image that I had missed - I sometimes make mistakes too.  Stepho  talk  02:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being quite rude too. I’ll try to use better images MrDavr (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that Wikipedia mostly uses more road photos, instead of grass photos. Sorry for the bad lighting in the photo I used MrDavr (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's only because road photos are easier for photographers to take. Not many of our volunteers can arrange for a professional shoot in a field. Road photos tend to have lots of clutter in the background and often have less than ideal lighting. We gladly use the best photo we can find on Wikimedia. Just as long as the photo demonstrates the important features of the car.
By the way, thanks for putting in the effort. It can be hard in the early stages when you keep getting knocked back. We all went through that at the beginning.  Stepho  talk  03:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the understanding. MrDavr (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to ask, did you took the pictures yourself? First of all, the images you uploaded does not show any EXIF info. Also it's from various countries, unless you're an avid traveler I very much doubt it's yours. Images without suitable copyright info might get deleted by the admins. Andra Febrian (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some are older photos, some are others, and some are taken by family/friends MrDavr (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something that I've noticed is that you like pics of black shiny cars in car parks. These are usually highly glary and high reflective - which makes it hard to make out any detail of the car itself. The backgrounds also tend to be very busy and the reflective nature of shiny black paint makes it even harder to see any detail or to even see which part is the car and which part is the background. I say this not to criticise but to help you learn to choose better images. WP:CARPIX has many hints to avoid these issues.  Stepho  talk  06:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it’s ok. I probably needed that anyways lol. I’ll use better photos MrDavr (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I just wish that people were nicer. I’ve only been here for like under 3 months and people are already being rude MrDavr (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve already made like 260 edits and like 253 have got reverted MrDavr (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, WP can be a harsh and brutal place. The only real advice I can say for future edits is to compare the new and old images and view them systematically and critically against every single point in WP:CARPIX. Be your own harshest critic. And remember that the focus is more on being able to use that image to identify a car in real life rather than just being pretty - information rather than aesthetics.  Stepho  talk  10:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I'll use it for future edits MrDavr (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made a page called ‘Compact crossover SUV’ I provided some references, take a look at it MrDavr (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've done a good job for Compact crossover SUV.  Stepho  talk  05:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MrDavr (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed there's alot of people that've made bad edits. I looks in recent changes and somebody put 'Palestinian Talmud' In The bentley bentayga page. Good we have people to revert bad edits. MrDavr (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This guy named Mr.choppers deleted the Compact crossover SUV page, even though it was full of referenced information. MrDavr (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holden Adventra[edit]

S MrDavr (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citroen DS Wild Rubis moved to draftspace[edit]

Thanks for creating Citroen DS Wild Rubis. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Citroen DS Wild Rubis (November 14)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Compusolus was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This submission won't be accepted until independent, reliable sources have been added.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Compusolus (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, MrDavr! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Compusolus (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These references may be useful for you:
Look at how other car articles do references and then do similar. Ask for help if you needed it.  Stepho  talk  11:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images and misinformation[edit]

Please stop messing around with lead images in articles. In nearly all cases, you replaced an adequate-quality image with an inferior one and justified it for being newer. Quoted from our image guidelines: "Vehicle production date is not a factor when determining the quality of an image and its suitability to illustrate the lead infobox."

Secondly, you've been adding a lot of misinformation, including changing referenced information. Please stop. --Sable232 (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my Ford Mustang one? I literally just try to engage people, even my good edits you guys revert. I’ve basically had nearly every single edit reverted, I’m literally new and you guys are just straight up rude. I’m just trying to add nice images, and ‘SORRY’ that they weren’t good enough for you guys liking. I’m literally new, and I expect a nice comment, telling me what I can do to improve, but yet it’s just straight up negativity. MrDavr (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first comment posted to your talk page directed you to the image guidelines, and spurred a discussion where you were given further detail on the expectations for images used on Wikipedia. You don't seem to have heeded that advice, so I don't know what more you want. Unconstructive edits are reverted; that's how it generally works.
You also uploaded several more copyright violations to Wikimedia Commons and added them to articles here even after your first batch of them were deleted. You seem to be having trouble understanding how Wikipedia works, so maybe starting at Help:Contents or other editing instruction pages would help. --Sable232 (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compact crossover SUV[edit]

If you do not provide references, the material that you add will be deleted, as per WP:VERIFY, which is WP policy. Onel5969 TT me 15:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding references right now, sorry for any inconvenience MrDavr (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just added them MrDavr (talk) 09:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the reference for this edit? TylerBurden (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone edited the whole page. Ask them MrDavr (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, i made it so it sends you to 'mid size cross-over suv-luxury vehicles' I didn't change a word. I just changed the link. It doesn't need a reference. Why does it need a reference? It says the same words MrDavr (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, it's mid-size, read the infobox 😑 MrDavr (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I did change was 'luxury SUV to 'mid-size luxury crossover SUV' why would that need a reference? MrDavr (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because otherwise it is your WP:OR. TylerBurden (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DUDE! It says in the infobox that it's a mid-size luxury crossover! Before I change it back, I want you to take a look at the infobox. You can see, even before we had this conversation it said mid-size luxury crossover. MrDavr (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need research, it's already in the infobox, even before I edited it. MrDavr (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what it says in the infobox
Name:Lamborghini Urus
Production February 2018-present
Model years:2018-present
Designer:Filipo Perini (concept)
Mitja Borken (Production)
Class: Mid-size luxury crossover SUV
You can see it clearly says mid-size luxury crossover in the Class in the infobox. I didn't need any references. It was already on the page, and like most pages for example go like 'The 'Vehicle' is a compact crossover SUV for example. All I wanted to add. I didn't need a reference. Seems like I'm the guy doing bad, making Wikipedia a worse place. MrDavr (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox is not a reliable source if it is also unsourced, you need to add a source directly supporting your classification. TylerBurden (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look I don't think you're trying to make Wikipedia worse, it's just that these things need to be properly referenced or else it's down to anyones personal interpretation. TylerBurden (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Lamborghini Urus, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You continue to ignore the citing sources policy, now this is becoming disruptive. Please do not continue making the same edit, discuss on the talk page or try to find sources to support your claim. Your WP:OR is simply not acceptable. TylerBurden (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do other pages get they’re classification? If you do this with the Urus, do it with the other ones that have no reference too

Look here too. https://www.carexpert.com.au/lamborghini/urus#:~:text=About%20the%20Lamborghini%20Urus,twin%2Dturbocharged%20eight%2Dcylinder. It says ‘Large SUV’, and we know carexpert is Australian, so it’s a mid-size crossover in North America, and Wikipedia uses classifications from North America. MrDavr (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does it say mid-size luxury crossover SUV on that car dealership site, so that wouldn't work as a reference for your edit either. The Urus is on my watchlist, I neither can nor want to have every single car model on Wikipedia on my watchlist, why don't you instead of trying to tell me what to do, actually try to abide by Wikipedia policy? If you can't reference it, then just leave it alone, the world won't implode if it doesn't say what you want it to say. TylerBurden (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to say, as on the page it says Large SUV. In the site is Australian, and Large SUVs in Australia are equal to mid-size crossovers MrDavr (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do you think other pages the car classification anyways. Many of them don't even have a reference, so if you're going to revert mine, you might as well revert all the other ones that don't have references MrDavr (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How am I even telling you what to do... MrDavr (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to revert mine please revert every other page on WP that doesn't have a reference to the car classification MrDavr (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are telling me to go around to different articles and remove the classifications on them, and then you ask me how you are telling me what to do, are you trolling? I don't care about your WP:OR, provide a reliable source per WP:CITE or simply leave it alone and move on, you repeating yourself over and over won't accomplish a thing. TylerBurden (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You might as well, if you're only going to do it on the Urus, or leave it saying what it previously did. MrDavr (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP's kinda harsh. I've been here for barely half a year, dang MrDavr (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have been pretty patient in dealing with your unsourced edits, and I tried to explain the situation politely to you, but when you continue to ignore policy (linked to you multiple times) that patience is tested. I already explained to you the urus is on my watchlist, I have no desire to go around and clean up after editors editing without sources on every car article on Wikipedia, feel free to do that yourself, it would be a better use of your time than adding WP:OR to articles. TylerBurden (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I beg you please stop fighting with me MrDavr (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it’s still related to a bunch of mid-size crossovers. Please don’t cross the line MrDavr (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in ‘fighting‘, so please stop making unsourced edits before it gets to the point you are reported. TylerBurden (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I added a reference to the crossover SUV on the Urus talk page, sorry if I were being mean, but I’ve only been here for 5 months. MrDavr (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Crossover (automobile) into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023[edit]

Warning icon Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Lamborghini Urus, you may be blocked from editing. TylerBurden (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even before I edited it, it already said ‘mid-size crossover SUV’ but sure? MrDavr (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change it though? I didn’t add mid-size, and it’s obviously a crossover MrDavr (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked countless times: stop adding your own opinions and interpretations of car classifications. Stop adding successors/predecessors based on your own hunches, as you did at Mitsubishi Pajero Sport. If you want to be useful, go find an old copy of a car magazine and mine it for useful information or try to find references for "citation needed" tags. Stop just making things up. @TylerBurden: if there is no improvement I will ask you to help me put together a notification for the admins.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you didn't read my summaries. I wrote a perfect summary, based on how the Urus is a full size cross-over, not guessing, but I used length. Sure, I admit, I guessed the predecessors and successors, but I assure you, the classifications were not guessed. The Urus is full-size based on length (mid-size cross-overs usually go from 4700mm-5100mm in length. The Urus is much larger, at 5113mm in length, making it full-size. MrDavr (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, cars aren't based on height, on length. The land Cruiser is mid-size. People might think so, but it's length shows it is a mid-size SUV (under 5100mm). MrDavr (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More examples would be for mid-size SUVs people think are full-size are
Mitsubishi Pajero
Audi Q7
They are both under 5100mm and over 4700mm in length, meaning they are mid-size. Not according to me, but according to Wikipedia themselves. MrDavr (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not guessing. Based on its length, it is a full-size crossover. Mid-size crossovers go 4,700-5,100 mm in length. The Urus is 5,113, resulting in it being full-size. Wasn't guessing I think I even put a summary in my edit, did you read the summary? MrDavr (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable third-party source uses those numbers to determine mid-size, etc.? Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per Bahooka, where did you get those numbers? There is no universally accepted definition of compact, mid-size, full-size - you just found some numbers and now you are spraying hundreds of articles with your mistaken notion. Please listen to other editors and do something useful instead. Thanks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can see them on normal Wikipedia pages, such as subcompact crossover suv, mid-size crossover and compact. I made some of them, but people completely redo them, so I just normally use them. MrDavr (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They were on Wikipedia pages MrDavr (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I literally use Wikipedia. You can check the pages (like mid-size crossover SUV), and see the sources that I got the length from MrDavr (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it says "typically." Secondly, that is one absolute garbage reference to a content mill source, and when I click the link it doesn't even say anything about those dimensions. Please stop taking everything so literally. Read WP:RS. I will absolutely report you the next time you go around and make these pointless and erroneous edits, and from what I can tell there at least ten others who are heartily sick of your edits.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HOLD ON - you just tried to claim that WP supported your notion of these dimensions; one quick look at the Mid-size crossover SUV page reveals that you are the one who wrote all that. That is beyond problematic; it reveals that you have absolutely no understanding of how WP works. Those articles shouldn't even exist to begin with, since they conflate size with type. Mid-size is mid-size, crossover is crossover, there is no need to make articles of all possible combinations of size and type.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know Stepho-wrs? MrDavr (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that on Compact crossover SUV, you do realise you completely deleted someone else’s work? Someone COMPLETELY redid the page, even though I made it, they added a lot more text, many more references, and much more actual information. You completely just deleted someone’s good work. MrDavr (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That article was completely unnecessary. We do not need articles that long for a particular intersection of size and type, and your clear inability to use references make the entire article suspect. Most of the sources contradict each other and are churned out by content farms. You clearly hadn't read the sources you quoted or you would have known that they didn't use the numbers you included in the article. You cannot pin down a type of car by randomly chosen limits like 4300mm, and your constant edits along these lines need to stop.  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you!re basically calling someone’s article unnecessary? They could’ve spent hours on that, just for somebody to come delete it? Wikipedia has many long articles too MrDavr (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Larger pages give a larger amount of information, If you do go to Crossover (automobile), you can see the bare amount of information given on the page, about each car classification. Bigger pages are better because they make Wikipedia actually hook people in, not just a short page, without much explanation. MrDavr (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of my new edits, I have added reliable references (from websites Wikipedia uses to get most of their information), yet, I predict it’s you just reverting them MrDavr (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still, absolutely crazy how people write long as articles, for people to just come and delete them. ‘Unnecessary’. You called somebody hours of work ‘unnecessary? Absolutely crazy. Rude, to just call someone’s hours of work ‘unnecessary’. MrDavr (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know what's unnecessary? Shaming other editors for editing properly. I'm not and never offended if someone deleted my work within a reason, in this case some parts of Compact crossover SUV. The story was, I wasn't even sure about making an article about it so I let the draft sit in my sandbox. You came in and created an article filled with copy-pasted content, and I wasn't going to let that happen so I threw my draft there and called it a day. Since I wasn't even sure about its notability (remember, you started the article), I would say Mr.choppers probably made the right call by reverting the article. Andra Febrian (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Lamborghini Urus. You again added back the classification without sourcing, an IP editor did the work for you and added it instead, consider this the final warning, the next time I see the same thing it will just be a report to WP:AN/I since this is starting to really look like a chronic issue with your editing. TylerBurden (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I promise I did not add that. I didn’t change it to mid-size crossover SUV. MrDavr (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I swear on my life I didn’t add that. You should probably check more on recent edits MrDavr (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I even thought it was more of a full-size crossover SUV (based on it’s length, which is above 5,100, which is the standard full-size SUV length), so yes, of course I added it to say full-size crossover SUV, but I then realised somebody else put it as ‘mid-size crossover SUV’ (you thought I did it, but it was an IP address,) and if you read the person’s summary that added it, you’d notice they said “unreliable edits, urus is based off cayenne, gle models”, so I left it because I didn’t have any sources to prove it was a full-size crossover.
So I promise you I didn’t add it as a mid-size crossover, it was an IP, I thought it was full-size. MrDavr (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lamborghini Urus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mezha. 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) 06:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holden Commodore[edit]

This revision is the second time you revert the picture which was chosen for the main infobox after a lengthy talk page discussion. Do not change it back again without other editors supporting your choice. Thank you,  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: DS Wild Rubis (January 11)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
KylieTastic (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to do any of that. MrDavr (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Executive car into Draft:Subcompact executive car. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a draft, so I'll give credits when I make the actual page MrDavr (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Length[edit]

Please stop trying to pin down some magic lengths that define subcompact, compact, medium etc. It doesn't come down to precise length; it is all very vague and blurry and there is no actual definition - which is why all your recent effort is kind of senseless. Notice that all your references give different numbers; you cannot choose one and apply that throughout. Read WP:OR.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying, on the Peugeot 5008 page, I was the one who made it mid-size, it originally said compact. If you knew you probably would've changed back MrDavr (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I saw that and I didn't change it. I'm not an idiot.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can look in recent edits and see the long summary at the 4th of January. You can see I was the one who changed it to midsize. I just changed it back to compact. I just changed it back MrDavr (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't asked you to revert, it seems ok to me to call it a mid-size.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Range Rover Evoque. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Whether your edits are right or wrong, multiple editors are reverting your edits on this page and others. If you continue in this manner it is likely you be eventually face editing restrictions so I really advise a change of tack. A good option is to discuss the changes on the talk pages and try to build up support for your changes. In this case, because you are facing opposition to similar changes in multiple articles, a better option may be to start a discussion instead somewhere like Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions Dorsetonian (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t get along with somebody who literally deleted 2 of my hard-worked pages without even reading them MrDavr (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting ridiculous. You are continuing to edit-war on this article and others rather than engaging in discussion, and it must stop. Your response above is really not helping: Wikipedia is a collaborative project and you have to learn to engage with people with whom you disagree, and you have to accept that consensus may go against you. Dorsetonian (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I reiterated all of the objections to this user's constant fiddling with size classes at Talk:Range Rover Evoque#Size classes. Thanks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (3rd request)[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Fisker Inc into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Copied Fisker Inc.#Fisker Ocean to Fisker Ocean Dorsetonian (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you are required to take action on this. Dorsetonian (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do? MrDavr (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The process is described at Wikipedia:Splitting. As there is now the need to fix things up, WP:RIA may be more pertinent. Dorsetonian (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Fisher Ocean[edit]

Draft:Fisher Ocean, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Fisher Ocean and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Fisher Ocean during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can deleted it, it is a draft MrDavr (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lexus LX and GX[edit]

You have asserted that the X means crossover. You need to supply a reference for this. Normally a crossover SUV is an SUV that has its off-roading capability significantly downgraded due to either adding creature comforts or by being based on a passenger car (usually to make them more affordable). The LX and GX are both very rugged vehicles that have not lost any of their off-road capabilities. They are also both based on very rugged body-on-frame designs. Here in Australia they have a very good reputation as off-roaders. I can see no reason to call them crossovers. This places the onus on you to provide reliable references that call them crossovers.

The LX and GX are most definitely full-size vehicles in their home country of Japan. They might be in a different class for the US but that does not override their home country's classification.

Also, comments in the article (eg <!--...--> are almost always from when some past editor insisted on changing something to suit them and the rest of us got tired of reverting the same wrong edit over and over. If you are going against a comment then you should probably ask a question on the talk page before you change the article. Changing the article and removing the comment is a bit like someone stealing your mail, then destroying your mail box as well.  Stepho  talk  05:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just asking, would that mean cars like the Mazda CX-9 would be full-size? The CX-9 is larger than the Toyota Land Cruiser and the Toyota Land Cruiser Prado MrDavr (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your example, the size classification of the Mazda CX-9 depends on what reliable sources say, not your own comparisons of the length of the vehicle to other vehicles. I recommend that you use the time while you are blocked to read the Wikipedia policy on WP:No original research. Bahooka (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, understood MrDavr (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MrDavr. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I make a make a new account, or is my only way to give a reason as to why I should be unblocked MrDavr (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. MrDavr (talk) 07:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the block should be changed to a time period, say 2 weeks. He has certainly been disruptive but it seems to be from ignorance rather than deliberate. If I may be forgiven for making a guess, he seems to be like an American teenager who is unaware that there are conventions in the wide world that are not the same as those in America (eg a European large car is often classed as only a compact in America), that our standard of proof requires reliable references and that we have guidelines to follow rather than personal feelings (eg artistic images vs useful images).  Stepho  talk  00:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really, the only reason I actually made alternative accounts was just so @Mr.choppers, @Bahooka, @Monettt and @Andra Febrian, etc would stop reverting every single edit I made. I thought they were watching every edit I made (I don’t get how,) but so I made more accounts, thinking they would stop watching me but here we are now MrDavr (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried adding sources to some edits I made, but most got reverted, so I saw no point. MrDavr (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just for your information, I'm watching over 2,200 car articles, not you in particular. Andra Febrian (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, this editor was wasting a lot of peoples time and was given numerous chances to improve, but simply kept doing the same thing regardless. WP:COMPETENCE TylerBurden (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This editor was cut a lot of slack. For me, the revelation of sockpuppetry blew away any suggestion they were here to be constructive. Dorsetonian (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also, some behaviours have been totally inaproppriate, malicious, and not just ignorant.
Such as :
Creating another account to "stand with" his main account on a talk page.
Or, creating another account to add again and again false information that have been reverted by several users several times (with explanations on why it was).
This user also added as citations some links that were clearly not great sources (such as promotional content to compare car prices that was publicated on Forbes' website), just for the sake to provide a reference to push his very personal point of view. On one article, he also used a fake reference, thinking nobody would actually read the article and realize it wasn't telling what he was claiming. Monettt (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If MrDavr shows any sign whatsoever of improving, I will be happy to welcome him back. But clearly he still believes everyone has some sort of agenda when we have patiently and repeatedly explained to him why he is being reverted, and he repeatedly ignores clear consensus and tries to figure out ways to circumvent it. If it was just up to me he would have been blocked months ago, but I do appreciate that the community as a whole is more forgiving than I.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Monettt where did I add the ‘fake’ reference? MrDavr (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just here : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SEAT_Ateca&diff=prev&oldid=1133962282 Monettt (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was a complete mistake. You could search up ‘Seat ateca subcompact’ and see the Arona, yet I mistook it for the Ateca. Someone told me anyways MrDavr (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I told you, and then you changed it again to subcompact using this time your suck puppet account.
Proof : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SEAT_Ateca&diff=prev&oldid=1137406096 Monettt (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Compact crossover SUV[edit]

Draft:Compact crossover SUV, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Compact crossover SUV and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Compact crossover SUV during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Dorsetonian (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Ultra-luxury car[edit]

Information icon Hello, MrDavr. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ultra-luxury car, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:DS Wild Rubis[edit]

Information icon Hello, MrDavr. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:DS Wild Rubis, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Subcompact executive car[edit]

Information icon Hello, MrDavr. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Subcompact executive car, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Subcompact executive car[edit]

Hello, MrDavr. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Subcompact executive car".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Mid-size crossover SUV[edit]

Information icon Hello, MrDavr. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mid-size crossover SUV, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrDavr&oldid=1177501759"