User talk:Drachentötbär

Talk:List of fastest production cars‎

Hi Drachentotbar - I think you might be interested in a discussion about the rules for this list at Talk:List of fastest production cars‎#Options - how should we treat them NealeFamily (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mclaren F1 217mph discussion

Sir,I undid your recent edit in F1 article because the 217mph you added in the article was done by US federalised F1 not standard one it is already included in the article in the Ameritech section.Here are the scans and it clearly says it was US Fedralised http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4519895

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5569750 The difference include increase in weight.And 231mph was done by XP3 Prototype by Jonathan Palmer and not an estimate,see this documentary video fully https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEKlZ0-8ZU0 And this article to understand https://issuu.com/themagazineshop/docs/mclaren_f1 Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.57.83.83 (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

231 mph was the unofficial top speed calculated from the data-recording system in the XP3 prototype at Nardo, it's not the exact top speed customer cars have. At Ehra-Lessien 240.1 mph is the official speed reached (independent measured two-way average), even McLaren says so: http://cars.mclaren.com/featured-articles/road-racer-the-f1-lm.html, a McLaren driver saying numbers while looking at a speed display from inside the car is not. Mario Andrettis comment was torn out of the context and misleading, remove the comment, not the context I added. He didn't say the car could go faster after the 240.1 run without rev limiter, he said it after hitting the rev limiter at 217.7 mph in another test. Neither was the top speed reached at 8,300 or 7,800 rpm, and that both applies at the same time like claimed in the state you reverted into is obviously impossible.Drachentötbär (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of fastest production cars

Hi Drachentötbär - I was looking at your recent edit and wondered if this list of does not qualify because should simply be a paragraph. The alternative is a secondary list of cars by stealth - the full list is on the talk page and includes the Dauer you added.

Also, if you have time can you take a look at the rule change discussion on the talk page. I would be interested in your thoughts. Thanks. NealeFamily (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. NealeFamily (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autozine

Autozine is fully acceptable source, all sites are somehow User-generated content, pls stop removing citations -->Typ932 ^T·C 17:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

autozine.org is by no means an acceptable source. Just read the "About Autozine" sections on the webpage. The site looks professional but it's just a personal hobby blog by one single person who has "never studied or worked in automotive field". He doesn't test anything himself, just picks stuff from magazines he reads and adds his knowledge and opinion. There is no official fact checking, no neutrality, no journalistic integrity. If you look deeper (and check articles now available on the web he's referring to) you can see instances where he's omitted or bent facts or even written untrue things. Drachentötbär (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is as acceptable than any other automotive site, it doesnt mean anything if its professional or not, "professional " sites can have as much wrong or right info than other sites,there isnt such thing as journalsit anymore, most sites are made by nonprofessionals like for example autoblog, you cant trust no more for example british car sites like autocar or evo as they are biased. And how you can tell which editor is professional or not, when all are kinda freelancers today , many makin own sites. Many of autosites have journalist who dont know anything about cars they just copy manyfactures news and add their own opinions between lines without any knowledge. Next time you make such big changes you should inform and duscuss it BEFORE for example WikiProject Automobiles, and if you remove something you should replace removed cite with another, you just delete hard work done by someone else. -->Typ932 ^T·C 08:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. While Autocar and Evo are not bias-free, they are still far more credible sources than biased personal hobby blogs of amateurs who don't care for exact facts like autozine.org . What use are clearly unacceptable sources which don't add any credibility ? Fake sources reduce legibility and discourage authors from adding real sources, removing them was work on improving Wikipedia. Your reverts made the sites worse, you should undo them. Drachentötbär (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing references, or if you remove archived sources add replacment ref which is also archived, and if you find wrong data pls add reference to that new info like you didnt do in Alfa Romeo 33 Stradale -->Typ932 ^T·C 17:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted in my edit comment that the reliable source was already there, covering the section. A site like autozine which cites 0-60 mph times as European magazine test results although those times were never measured by them isn't a source to get reliable 0-60 mph times for Italian cars. Your fanaticism for this personal website goes so far that you even replaced reliable sources like The Daily Telegraph with it. Think about it.

Hi - just to add to the discussion - a couple off comments from earlier discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_21#DSG trannies Autozine does little more than rewrite press materials and journalist reviews to suit the webmaster's point of view and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_27#Possible Wiki hoax on Bentley 4½ Litre which implies the site is unreliable In 2009 the claim appears at Autozine.org. I see it on a few other blogs but nothing reliable.. I actually like the sites contents and comments but as it draws from more reliable sources, it would be better to use them. The Autozine author refers to

The reports I wrote were based on the findings from different magazines, plus my own technical analysis, background information and opinion. I regularly read 10 or more magazines a month, so integrating them usually result in a more comprehensive view than just an individual magazine.

Hope this is useful. NealeFamily (talk) 06:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pls stop posting bullshit postings to others pages, I have already explained to you that you have made mistakes , by removing reliable sources and adding references which has wrong info. pls stop it -->Typ932 ^T·C 20:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a query on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles talk page. Hopefully this will bring a resolution to the debate. NealeFamily (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of fastest production cars‎

Hi - just letting you know that I am seeking advice on the issue with the Rimac. I believe that there are sufficient reliable sources to reinstate it but wish to avoid a resumption of the edit war from those who disagree. I'll let you know the outcome. NealeWellington (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting the dispute process on the talk page by first making sure I have identified the issue. Take a look and let me have your comments if any on my summary NealeWellington (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:DRN regarding Rimac Nevera. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "List of fastest production cars by acceleration".The discussion is about the topic inclusion of the Rimac Nevera.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

NealeWellington (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

N-Attack Package

I am unclear about your true intentions. I do not oppose adding this information to the article, but I do object to placing it under the "Performance" subtitle. This section is exclusively focused on the car's performance-related aspects. However, it would be appropriate to include it in the "N-Attack" section, which is designated for all information pertaining to that performance package. The article explicitly states, "the N-Attack Package, which included all the performance upgrades used to set the lap record," indicating that it encompasses the A-kit, B-kit, and optional parts. If you believe further clarification is necessary, you are welcome to provide it, but ensure it is within the context of the N-Attack section.

Regarding the sources you provided, the Car Throttle source was published when it operated as a car enthusiast online news platform, which was not considered reliable. In contrast to the other GT-R-Registry sources cited in the article, the source you provided is not an original work; it is essentially a copy of the official Nissan press release. If you intend to include sources, please ensure they are reliable and original, akin to the press release, and format them using the correct template.

The article is not the appropriate platform for debates; you can share your thoughts on this talk page and avoid edit conflicts. Autoadrenaline (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Performance" section does benefit from a six words clarification about the car modifications. It's more relevant than the names of the four drivers and who drove how long at which time. From the upper section it's not clear.

The Car Throttle source is of better quality than half of the sources used in this article (far better than those on the acceleration table for example), even an author name is given and there was more than one person involved. Gt-R Registry is considered reliable on the website, so it's acceptable both as primary and secondary source. The information is relevant, so replace it with the two press releases it's based on if you want, but don't hide it. English speaking readers should be able to verify and maybe even improve the article based on it. Drachentötbär (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]