User talk:O-star1

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, O-star1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! roguegeek (talk·cont) 16:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GT-R[edit]

This is dealing with your revert here. Please read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Let me know if you have any questions. roguegeek (talk·cont) 16:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiarrangementeditor[edit]

Are you them? roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Nissan GT-R has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert rather than delete...[edit]

Howdy, and thank you for your hard work on Wikipedia. In the future, when you find vandalism, as you correctly did here, please search back through the previous versions and try to find what content should have been there. It is difficult enough to get valid content into Wikipedia - once it is there, we should make an effort not to lose it. Thanks, and keep up the hard work! —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 19:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lap Times vs Fasted Lap Times[edit]

Hi,

I try to add the Trabant to the list and you repeatedly remove the entry arguing that "The table is to list the fastest lap times, not every lap time ever recorded".
a) Looking at the content of the current page, the title states "Lap times" instead of "Fastest Lap Times".
b) The table holds only entries from 1997 until present. I believe that this is too short a history. The track existed before and was used for many kinds of races, among them also rallyes. This history should also be presented in this table.
c) The article stating the time mentioned by me also mentions that in 1960 the 20bhp Trabant was for the first time faster than the 21bhp Fiat 600, unfortunately it didn't give the Fiat time. I do find it interesting within the scope of Wikipedia to show not only the top but also the bottom of the table. And a 20bhp car is pretty much the bottom of the table.
d) Regarding your statement "not every lap time ever recorded": I prefer to have one line for the Trabant from 1960, and within time perhaps more such historic values, than having multiple lines on, for example, the Nissan GT-R from 2009.

Have a nice day
Johannes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.239.138 (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GT-R Reverts[edit]

You need to read up more on Nismo's choice for the RWD format and V8 engine. Nismo has said numerous times they were aware of the unreliability of the use of the GT-R stock gearbox and the possibility for more to go wrong with the turboed VQ engines for endurance racing, and opted for something reliable with the Xtrac sequential shift gearboxes they had used in 350z/GT500 which are used with Nismo sourced gears and assembled by Xtrac in the UK. The launch controls issue is directly related to the reliability of the GTRs stock gearbox and now you see thats WHY they went with the a more RELIABLE setup, I source motorsports journals with technical data not fanbased car magazines.--70.116.78.36 (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sonsofthepatriots & 70.116.78.36 claim (without citing any source!) that Nissan did not select the twinturbo V6 VR38DETT & DCT transmission because of reliability issues, even citing the class-action lawsuit that resulted from inappropriately used road cars. This is pure conjecture and NOT based on facts. The SuperGT class in which the GT500 race version of the GTR competes does not require the production of homologation versions of the competing cars and the vehicles that take part are far removed from any production version (to keep costs down that are associated with homologation) and adhere to the competion's class regulations. Indeed, the 2010 GT500 category winner, the Honda HSV-010 GT, does not even exist as a roadcar. Could one therefore conclude that any road-going Honda's engine & transmission is unreliable? Unsurprisingly, the Honda HSV-010 GT sports a 3.4 litre V8 engine with a sequential transmission just as most other competitors (amongst them the latest 3.4 liter V8 version of the GT500's GTR) in that category as is dictated by regulations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_HSV-010_GT

The DCT transmission's reliability was the bone of contention of the class-action lawsuit and used by the aforementioned to argue that this was the reason for Nissan selecting a sequential gearbox. Again, nothing could be further from the truth as it was used as weight saving measure. Moreover, most manufacturers that offer DCT transmissions on their road cars do not use these for their race-versions. A good example would be Porsche's 911 and it's racing going versions which all use sequential gearboxes.

Seriously read more info. You asked WHY I gave you two reasons one completely related to the other, you just can't accept it. Not my problem.70.116.78.36 (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

70.116.78.36, I'd strongly suggest you provide evidence rather than an opinion. Interestingly you have NOT provided any further facts underlining the fact that your's was just an opinion.--O-star1 (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--O-star1 (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, O-star1. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]