User talk:Ybsone

Welcome!

Hello, Ybsone, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Prolog (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you added some designers for italian cars, they needs to be sourced and some of them also differs whats said on the main text, you cant also add new data to old referenced info. It would be good if you could find some sources for those additions-->Typ932 ^T·C 18:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ajovalo.net/muotoilijat.htm

This is one of the sources, i'll start to cite all mine work, thanks

Is this a reliable source to identify a vehicle's designer, especially if it differs from the main text? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are few simillar or even identical sources, so i think it's quite reliable. There were some differences i agree. One more is: http://www.arcon.pl/press2006/wiadomosci/wiadomosci124.php

That ajovalo.net is finnish site (where I live) and it has other errors aswell, I would not keep it so reliable, for istance Alfa 166 is deisgned under Walter da Silva. I think we need to find better more reliable sources -->Typ932 ^T·C 18:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the wiki site of Walter de Silva AND Wolfgang Egger, both are listed as a designer of Alfa 166, probably the same as Alfa 147
"Among the cars developed by Alfa Romeo under his [Wolfgang Egger] direction were the Nuvola Concept, 156, 166, 147 and 8C Competizione.."
"The car was designed by Centro Stile Alfa Romeo under the control of Walter de'Silva, and was facelifted in 2003."

See http://archive.cardesignnews.com/news/2001/010530thisweek/index.html as Silva is the head of style centre he has the main responsibility of design. -->Typ932 ^T·C 18:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway we can list both, but I would change that ajovalo ref to others sources -->Typ932 ^T·C 18:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

de'Silva os a head designer till 2001, then Egger steps in
and the source is as good as the rest of simillar sources, just need some double checking, here and there, but mostly is ok

Found this on the 1966 Spider

09/1961–20/12/1963 Carrozzeria Pininfarina S.p.A., Grugliasco/TO (I)
(Chairman: Battista “Pinin” Farina, Director: Sergio Pininfarina; Design director: Franco Martinengo) from here
design director didn't change for 1966, so when duetto spider was designed, Franco Martinengo was the Design Director. And it does not exclude that Battista Pininfarina couldn't personally oversee the project.
also: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa_Romeo_Spider_%28Duetto%29

DAL 1952 AL 1972 CON FRANCESCO MARTINENGO,
http://www.educational.rai.it/lezionididesign/designers/PININFARINAS.htm

Yep good sources , better than that ajovalo site -->Typ932 ^T·C 05:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but they point to the same conclusion, just have to rewrite the ajovalo site, and look for bugs

from alfaromeopress.com
http://www.alfaromeopress.com/press/article/104

Come la possibilità di offrire un grande piacere di guida in ogni condizione. Complici le sospensioni anteriori a quadrilatero alto e quelle posteriori di tipo Mc Pherson a bracci asimmetrici, che garantiscono ad Alfa 156 quelle inimitabili doti di tenuta di strada e di maneggevolezza, da sempre tra le principali caratteristiche del Marchio.

?As the possibility of offering a great driving pleasure under all conditions. Complicit in the high double wishbone front suspension and rear MacPherson system with asymmetrical arms, which provide the inimitable qualities of the Alfa 156 roadholding and handling, always among the main characteristics of the brand."

http://www.webcitation.org/64W4Xq45t
rear suspension
The New Alfa 156 and Sportwagon confirm the geometry adopted on the previous model with its specific configuration of 'high' dual wishbone suspension at the front, MacPherson type rear suspension with transverse links of different lengths.

Conclusion: Alfa 156 has McPherson rear suspension, NOT multilink

Read the talk page of 156, it isnt real mcpherson , there is no explanation what is real multilink either -->Typ932 ^T·C 12:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, where did you get those numbers?, I think 3 L GTV has bigger top speed than 240? -->Typ932 ^T·C 02:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, owners manual, 240kmh for 220PS 3.0 V6, 250kmh with aerokit. Probably 218PS 3.0 V6 has the same top speed, but it was not covered by mine owners manual, as i have a car from 05/1998-08/2000. Also 0-100 tome for 2.0 V6 turbo is not 7.0s its 7.4

There was written with overboost, does the turbo have overboost function? -->Typ932 ^T·C 16:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the 2.0 V6 TB has overboost, but don't know which of them is with overboost in account

Hi, can you comment my writing in Talk:Alfa_Romeo_GTV_&_Spider#Production , what do you think it? -->Typ932 ^T·C 09:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitable class is not at all worse. It is the recommended color standard on Wikipedia. Also, there has to be used only one common color within that brand articles, so that all look similar. As for the door number, Template:Infobox automobile documentation is clear: "Body style: number of doors and car shape". BaboneCar (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Typ932 and me tink this is worse (colour changes) YBSOne (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your personal website? I see the initials are the same. A personal website is not a reliable source per the WP:SPS policy. 72Dino (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes its my personal website. I think its reliable.YBSOne (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you do think that, but your personal website does not meet the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and should not be used as a reference for articles. 72Dino (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats too bad, because for instance the Enrico Fumia's interviev does not exist enywhere else as this is my intervie with him. Ill re-do what i can, but the interview stays.YBSOne (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A personal, unpublished interview appears to be in violation of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. 72Dino (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is this unpublished? http://www.bozhdynsky.com/alfa-romeo-gtv-spider-history/interview-with-enrico-fumia/ YBSOne (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is my work no original? http://www.bozhdynsky.com/alfa-romeo-gtv-spider-history/ , please find me a better website for limited edition gtv's, You won't because there isn't oneYBSOne (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reference cannot be self-published like your blog per WP:SPS. And the work should NOT be original per WP:NOR. I like your website, but it cannot be used as a reference on Wikipedia. 72Dino (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, i understand but... there are no other souces...YBSOne (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friend, this is an Italian site dedicated to the beautiful Lancia Gamma. contains many beautiful photos. Here's the address: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.62.218.21 (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.lanciagamma.altervista.org/

Very nice, how about adding the cool prototypes based on Gamma?YBSOne (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Thomas.W. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Alfa Romeo 169, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source is an article in "Auto, Motor, Sport" MagazineYBSOne (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it would been much easier and no need for reverts if you always put citations to your edits and for model years its used only in lately, its not used like in American cars or cars that are sold in USA, I dont see any point to use those because we cant get those for all models. And model year doesnt tell anything about the car because they are not done as American car or can you tell what difference is MY 1997 and MY1998 156? "For vehicles sold in North America where the use of model years is widespread, the model_years field of the infobox may be used in addition to production" -->Typ932 ^T·C 03:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is hard to do because of the original research, secondly the use of the model year was only to indicate as with GTV when the car was available not when it was produced, and as there is no such categry i used model year category of the infobox.YBSOne (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2013 (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]

I'm awaiting an official Alfa Romeo statement to the matter of Alfa 4C to 8C Competizione relationYBSOne (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply came in from Alfa Romeo: http://www.bozhdynsky.com/4c8c-unrelated/ They are not related. Not directly, not indirectly, not spiritually. let it go already. YBSOne (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"on standarized factory data" So you really believe that that the factory data that manufactures publish for theirs cars weights are correct especially from Ferrari. I posting the lowest correct kerb weight for each car i stumble upon. AutoMagazine, Motortrend, Carandriver all weigh individual cars with the same criteria. If Ferrari reported kerb weighs are so credible why are all their cars literally weigh over 100kg then the manufacturer kerb weight. Do i need to give you examples?

What does it matter? You are only giving a single example against a whole series of cars and they are publishing the lowest common denominator for each model. Ask them why their kerb weight is different than journalist cars, then make a change. Right now You are working on an asumption not a factual information.YBSOne (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ybsone. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, Ybsone. 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]

Hello, Ybsone. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you have edited some production years, for example 156 model produced from 1996? these are probably some preproduction models? not actual production cars, Im not sure if its right to add those years. 156 1st year is 1997. Also were did you find info that 156 V6 was produced from 1996? -->Typ932 ^T·C 21:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it has VIN it is a production car, and earliest found VIN shows 1996YBSOne (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for rest of the Alfas, this (My) research was to find an earliest year of manufacture not the earliest dayYBSOne (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for 2.5 V6 24V, the year 1996 is just an assumption that the begining of manufacturing of the model is for all of the early versions, which should be true, still might be not YBSOne (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also the introduction year is not the same as start of manufacture. 1997 for 156 is the year of introduction to the market and begining of sales, not the same as begining of production, which is 1996 YBSOne (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know that introduction is 97, just tought 96 production is some sort of preprodcution cars, I think we need source for that v6 156 was produced in 1996, because Mm sure they produced just handful of cars in 96, we are not sure what engines those had-->Typ932 ^T·C 19:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both are sourced, luckily I found the early onYBSOne (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have no idea about automotive facts. 3200 GT was sold i asia. And 90th anniversary spyder in not a gransport. Those are facts.YBSOne (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The car offered on this website has a plaque that proofs this car was originally destined to this country. In my opinion this is proof enough. Also You will be reported for Your racial outburst. Here is zero rasism tolerance. YBSOne (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I, unlike You, contacted Maserati Classiche and received a list of destination countries for Assetto Corsa around the world exept for US, one of them is Japan. YBSOne (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to jump in like this, but your dispute showed up on my watchlist. Here's a couple of sources, so hopefully we can settle this:

• October 1998: the Maserati 3200 GT is introduced on the Japanese market: Mazzetti, Fernando (30 October 1998). "Maserati in Giappone sfida Jaguar e Porsche". La Stampa. p. 18. Retrieved 23 April 2019.
• March 1999: the Maserati 3200 GT is "presently being sold in Italy, France, Great Britain, Switzerland, Austria, Spain and Japan": "Maserati, la 3200 GT è anche automatica". La Stampa. 9 March 1999. p. 57. Retrieved 23 April 2019. Attualmente [la Maserati 3200 GT] viene commercializzata in Italia, Francia, Gran Bretagna, Svizzera, Austria, Spagna e Giappone.

— Cloverleaf II (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Vauxford (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read wp:OR.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources This is also interesting. What about self-published information on a personal website but confirmed by a manufacturer? As in here: http://www.bozhdynsky.com/alfa-147-156-166-gt-production-dates/ YBSOne (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See wp:sps.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Self-published_doesn't_mean_a_source_is_automatically_invalid This is what interest me YBSOne (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To use a personal website it would have to be one produced by an acknowledged expert. If the manufacture says in an official statement that a given websites information is true we would use that official statement, however if such conformation existed only as a private communication it would fall foul of wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think your website is an RS you need to get the community to agree, that means taking ti to wp:rsn.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and it is something I will work on, I didn't have to up to this point. Thank You. YBSOne (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest that until you get consensus it is an RS drop the matter and stop using it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using it... He manipulated You in thinking I'm using it constantly! YBSOne (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So why then are you banging on about it? All you had to do was say "but I am not using it".Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This converation is interesting to me and I can improve my website and future use of it. But as source material I'm not using it. Last time was probably the production dates that can be also checked at the manufacturer. Everything should be clear now. I am not using it. YBSOne (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of what I found, would that be sufficient? Honest question. It looks to me like community sees me and my website as an expert on Alfa Romeo GTV and Spider, Maserati and Ferrari.

http://www.citethisforme.com/topic-ideas/english/History%20of%20the%20Alfa%20Romeo%20GTV-19284871 My website as source and citation used to research history of the Alfa Romeo GTV

https://www.mlsclassiccars.dk/cars_sale/alfa_romeo_spider_3_v6.html Me and my website noted as an expert on the subject

http://www.squadra916.com/history/ Me and my website noted as an expert on the subject

https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/threads/4200-production-numbers.537650/ My website noted as a source and a compliment: "This is a great resource, one that slipped past my radar previously. Thanks for the link! "

https://automotiveviews.com/2015/02/10/gandinis-shamal-a-controversial-maserati/ My website noted as a source

https://www.sportsmaserati.com/index.php?threads/4200-production-numbers.24306/ My website noted as a source

http://www.carstyling.ru/en/car/1956_ferrari_250_gt_coupe_corsa/ My website noted as a source

http://www.maseratichat.nl/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2337

https://petrolicious.com/articles/the-designer-s-story-battista-pininfarina (Established 2012, over 700k subscribers on YouTube channel)

https://www.wykop.pl/wpis/39522457/gruz-dnia-lancia-thema-sw-8-32-na-sprzedaz-czerwon/

http://alfetta.pl/1994/alfa-145-146/

YBSOne (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for the similar reasons stipulated on U1Quattro's block notice. Simply put, your feud has become disruptive to the community and you both need a time out from the project. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 15:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ybsone (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

In my opinion I am being punished for defending myself against an attacker. I have proven that my edits were maliciously attacked (more than 45 times) and now I'm paying for being forced into this mess. After one of those attacks I was manipulatively reported and could not show my arguments in that bludgeoned thread. I felt I was not heard. I have never reverted others (any users) edits out of spite. I have checked my past 500+ contributions and there should be no issues with them. All are referenced, clear and informative. Subjects that I edit are not of an easy nature, because of many differing opinions and very few sources, and it is very frustrating when someone just deletes part of it through lack of understanding and don't want to own up to a mistake. I have improved greatly quality of my edits and have many more tough projects planned. I can assure You I have no issues with other editors, can cooperate with them and this disruption was one-way only. I shouldn't be punished for trying to better Wikipedia and myself inspite of constant attacks. Thank You for Your time and administration for finally seeing that I was being harassed. (My punishment should reflect my actual misdeeds and not be the same as the attacker) YBSOne (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Here are three quotes from what other editors have said about this in the ANI discussions about the two of you.

1. "Both of you, stop ... all you've managed to do is prove that you're both fighting, instead of collaborating."
2. "When I look at the histories and talk pages linked above, I see two editors being rude, two editors edit warring, two editors threatening to report the other to "the admins", and two editors arguing about the quality (or existence) of the other's sourcing."
3. "I ... am, indeed, confident that this long-running feud is 2-sided."

There is more, but those three examples will be enough to illustrate the point. Now, which is more likely, that several uninvolved outsiders have each independently come to the same wrong conclusion, or that one person who is involved in the case has seen the situation from something other than an objective perspective? JamesBWatson (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've looked at your contributions and you both clearly seem to be following one another. I see no evidence that this dispute is one-sided. I am not inclined to you having an advantage in this dispute (editing articles frequented by the other party, or both of you) by virtue of only one of the parties being blocked. As far as I'm concerned, the disruption has been 2-sided and I see no reason to reconsider the block on the basis of this unblock request. El_C 16:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My last plead. My first offence so to speak, that I in my opinion was provoked and dragged into, should be punished by 24h block as others were. YBSOne (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have some sympathy, but given the amount of time wasted at ANI over this feud I suspect I am alone. Maybe you were provoked, but over what. A triviality that non one else seemed to really care about.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note an IBAN means no interaction of any kind, leave each other alone.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The categorisation system is heirarchical. Alfa Romeo has its own category, as does Lancia. The main categorisation is applied there, and affects all the other articles associated with them. Rathfelder (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like the categories with subcategories? Sorry if I made a mistake, looked a bit defamatory at first glance. YBSOne (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your reversion. The disagreement it would appear is what is the definition of "World's Fastest Production Car" correct?

Would you not agree, in order for a car to be (fill in in the blank) in "The World" said car would need to be available in the World? It is undeniable the USA was Porsche's largest market in that era. It is also undeniable the 959 was not ever 'street legal' in this largest market. In Wikipedia's very own definition of "Production Car" - street legality is one of the main pillars that qualifies a car as such. Otherwise, you could reference any number of 'kit cars' 'tuners' 'special one offs' etc.

The claim it is the fastest car in Europe, sure. But to say it's the fastest car in the world is disingenuous.

In the spirit of good faith, I added no less then 10 citations, also added the clear qualifiers (Available worldwide, and at time of purchase) - further more the Last 959 was made before 1992, the extra 8 in 92-93 being a limited run (below FIA's definition of a production car of having at least 25 made)

Again, in the effort of harmony and consensus, happy to add this info in the entry for additional context. Always to add more data, instead of censoring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Changomo (talk • contribs) 17:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Production car speed record, also are all those 3 accounts Yours? Changomo, Marcallpurell, and JamboneJones.

If a car is available on six continents and not available in USA it is still available worldwide. YBSOne (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for repeated IBAN violations. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  GoldenRing (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Aston Martin Twenty Twenty. Since you had some involvement with the Aston Martin Twenty Twenty redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill Italdesign designed it and it is based on DB7. It redirects there as there is no info yet on Wikipedia. I'm unable to create the article due to block at the moment. YBSOne (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see, that makes more sense. However, having read through that website, I don't think it's useful to readers to have the redirect point at the article for the DB7, as that article doesn't say anything about the Twenty Twenty. Readers would have to already know about the Twenty Twenty's relationship to the DB7 in order to make any sense of the information on the page, in which case they could just look up the DB7 directly. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 was made in 2001 as a futuristic car, but not to be released in that year. YBSOne (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to take five minutes and read WP:BRD. If, after that, you would like to explain why you have decided unilaterally that a class win in a major international event is not a significant win then I would be happy to discuss it with you. Pyrope 18:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is an intersting subject. In my opinion the race winner is the overall winner as is the case of this list: List of 24 Hours of Le Mans winners. Class win is also an accomplishement but not the same rank as an overall win. Race is won by one team not by several. YBSOne (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To leave an edit that Trintignant won 1953 Le Mans would be contradictory to the 1953 overall winner Rolt/Hamilton. He didn't win Le Mans he won it's class in Le Mans. YBSOne (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've seen your work on the Dino article, and I have a question about the name of this car (see Talk:Dino (automobile)). Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Ferrari (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to RHD and LHD

Ferrari F12 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to RHD and LHD

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm not sure why you changed the cc from 2405 to 2404 citing "2404.7.." as the capacity.

2404.7 is nearer to 2405 than it is to 2404 so if 'rounding out' then upwards would seem to be more logical. I've yet to change it back though. Eagleash (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, either the capacity is 2405 or is almost 2405, and every capacity below 2405 is not 2405. It can be rounded up to the full litres ie 2.4 L but it cannot be rounded up to the full cc ie capacity of 2404.74 cannot be rounded up because it didn't achieve that mark. A person that has height of 199.5cm is roughly 2.0m high, but is not 200cm high etc. In my opinion that is logical. YBSOne (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Similar problem is with 0-100 times. Maserati 3200 GT has 5.12s to 100kmh. It cannot be rounded up to 5.1s because in tihs time the car would not achieve 100kmh.YBSOne (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider a reader that does not yet have the ability to distinguish all the different Ferrari racing models, and there are a lot of them. If he sees 2404.something on the official website that person will look for the same values on Wikipedia and may find the same car under a different more common title. If 2405 is put instead it may be confusing that a different model was found. It may be better to just cut the decimal point to the last full centimeter and not round up. YBSOne (talk) 08:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ferrari 376 S, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page De Dion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ybsone,

Thank you for creating Ferrari 290 S.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

It seems like the only cited source with significant, independent coverage of the subject is the book by Leonardo Acerbi, which I was unable to access. However, even if the coverage there is independent and significant, this still fall short of WP:GNG's requirement of multiple examples of independent and significant coverage.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Rosguill:. I have added more secondary citations to the Ferrari 290 S article, please re-evaluate. Consider that the car is a first for Ferrari, there are some distinctive differences over its predecessor and it was an important milestone in the Jano V12 lineage, that in its whole is not very long. It should have a separate article. Thanks.YBSOne (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The additional book citations should suffice, thanks! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ybsone,
I saw that you're quite active modifying the List of Ferrari road cars page. I would appreciate if you took a look at the talk page of that page Talk:List of Ferrari road cars and said what you think about what I wrote. Thank you. -- Torque Vectoring 18:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ybsone, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "Autopatrollers" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You YBSOne (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that too. "One-Off & Few-Off" category is not ideal for competition cars. Obviously a lot of competition cars are one-off. Furthermore the word "few" lacks an accurate meaning and it isn't a problem only for competition Ferraris, but for road Ferraris too. 30 cars in 1960 were a lot of cars, 30 cars today are a limited edition. People could start never-ending quarrels about what Ferrari model is a "Few-Off".
Proposition 1: changing "One-Off & Few-Off" to "Special Projects" (in this case only the P80/C is eligible to be in this category).
Proposition 2: help me find a better category (so the P80/C is still eligible and maybe cars like the 250 GT SWB Breadvan could be in this category too).
Proposition 3: changing "One-Off & Few-Off" to "Special Projects" and pretending "Special Project" is not an official Ferrari term (so old cars can be in this category too). -- Torque Vectoring (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion only prop 1 is viable. All of the early cars with unique bodywork are just that, race cars with unique bodywork. Racing Special Projects are road cars converted for track only use. YBSOne (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm leaving (temporarily) the "One-Off & Few-Off" on the road cars page. -- Torque Vectoring (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ybsone, as we both share an interest in editing articles about vintage Ferrari, I wanted to offer access to my complete collection of Cavallino magazine. I find these an invaluable historical resource and they are all completely indexed by model/subject here. Lots of material by well respected Ferrari historians. If there is a particular article you are interested in I am happy to dig up that issue and scan/email the article in question. I can't guarantee I can do it promptly, but as a lot of these back issues are super rare/expensive no access is better than some access. Prova MO (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is very kind of You, thank You. I will surely take You up on Your offer. YBSOne (talk) 10:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, if you have proof that the production already started in 1996 (to admit, I really doubt this as the model had its premiere in September 1997...) then please edit the main article on the Alfa 156 as well and state your sources - currently, the info on the Alfa Romeo page is contradictory to the info on the model page (in any language, btw...). Cheers, Purzelbier (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Production dates. The VIN was confirmed by Alfa Romeo Centro Documentazione but the source cannot be used as it was disputed as a personal website. Still correct though. You can check the VIN with ePer. YBSOne (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this info! Seems convincing to me, apparently the manufacture of the first (pre-series) samples was as early as 12/1996. I still think it would be great to have this info in the main article for the 156 (and not only in the Alfa model range overview...).Purzelbier (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. U¹ _quattro TALK 09:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for continuation of a feud and violation of interaction ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, no problem, do say it clear if You may in the main thread wheather the content modification ie removing parts of it and replacing it with other is a content interaction and therefore an IBAN violation. Just so it is clearly written and understood. As I understood the other editor would not be blocked had he not in fact violated IBAN. Thank You. YBSOne (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is in answer U1Quattro's questions, but I'll post the same thing to both users because I hope it will help.
  1. Don't go to a page the other person has created and fiddle with the wording.
  2. Actually, don't fiddle with the wording of the other person's additions at all, particularly when your edits don't significantly improve anything; it's basically baiting them.
  3. Don't over-react when the other person tweaks your wording; no real harm has been done to you.
  4. Don't revert the other person while claiming to be enforcing the interaction ban. Enforcing the interaction ban is not your job.
  5. Don't bicker at each other incessantly whenever an ANI thread is created
  6. In general, go out of your way to avoid bugging the other person, and go out of your way to avoid bugging the community by complaining about the other person.

If I had remembered that your previous mutual blocks were for 1 month, I would have likely made this longer. It really should be clear by now that everyone is tired of your constant feuding. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my talk page was left this message about production, Ill put it for you also.

Dear user, the production of Type 916 start in 1995, there are the ANFIA - Associazione Nazionale Filiera Industria Automobilistica date and many articles of Archivio Storico La Repubblica about the production start in spring 1995 in Arese Plant

https://www.anfia.it/data/studi-e-statistiche/automobili-cifre/statistiche-italia/produzione/05proditamodello.xlsx

The only GTV built in 1994 (around 30 GTV and 0 Spider) are pre production vehicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.75.229.153 (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Data about GTV are indicate as a “Alfa Romeo Coupe” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.75.229.153 (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use this document! "05proditamodello" every single data in there is incorrect! Double check every data in there with manufacturer and every will be different. See Maserati coupe/spyder/gransport. See 8C Competizione and Spider (500 each). See Lancia Kappa Coupé. YBSOne (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claim about a pre-production cars is false and unprovable. Every inconvenient car can be called as pre-production and discounted from production start. There are 4 VIN of Spiders (916) from 1993 and one of the was sold to a customer, so it is not pre-production. Also "05proditamodello" shows cars produced (in my opinion sold) from 1995 so it cannot show 1994 as is the case with Alfa 145, the document is just incomplete for cars produced earlier. YBSOne (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See GTV 1.8, Spider 1.8 and Spider 2.0 V6 TB for 1998 and 1999. "05proditamodello" does not have those numbers filled at all, which is incorrect. YBSOne (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaheel Riens, please see this article YBSOne (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-revert your recent talk page messages. You are not allowed to message a bunch of people you think might agree with you, or ask them to only participate if they feel a certain way. Doing this poisons the consensus and discussion model. See WP:CANVAS. A better approach is a neutrally-worded message to a Wikiproject page, or similar. Asking 15 people on their talk pages to support your position is not on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then block me for it. YBSOne (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? WP:CANVAS is really quite clear and unambiguous on this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Trying to force out a page that I use on most of articles that I created just to get rid of one aticle see Maserati Tipo 154 is not ok, and will lead to escalation and further revertion and replacement with junk websites see Alfa Romeo 159). I will not retract my decision to defend this website as a reliable source, which it is. Do what You must. YBSOne (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've reverted your notices. If the page is a reliable source, justify it in the discussion. Feel free to notify the appropriate Wikiproject of the discussion, but in a neutral way. i.e. "There's a discussion about whether supercars.com is a realiable source at WP:RSN. Please join the discussion there." --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I request a permanent block. YBSOne (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) By the way, if this affects you, then you can comment at the RSN discussion. Just bend over backwards to simply justify your position, and do not mention, allude, imply, or comment on what you think the other editor's motivations are. Don't bring up previous interactions. Stick just to the reliability of the source. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You but I'm very fine with my decision, and again request a permanent block for myself. YBSOne (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if this request is still here tomorrow, I'll give you a self-requested permanent block. If you change your mind, just note that here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davey I don't have an attitude, I did all I could for Wikipedia and this chapter is closed for me. And I am very glad for it. New chapters awaits. YBSOne (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, I'm more than fine with that, all the best. YBSOne (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for self-requested indef block.

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 ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, please react to the removal of content Special:Diff/901230218, Special:Diff/964457338. First ref was about the designer, second about Pininfarina. YBSOne (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A self-requested block means you're not involved anymore. Either ask me to unblock you, or don't try to get someone in trouble. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about my involvement but about editing restrictions placed by the Wikipedia community and about Your job as an Admin to see that they are upheld. If there is a violation of sanctions there should be a punishment, because the violation is against community also. There can no longer be a violation without consequences. YBSOne (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't contribute to Wikipedia for my contributions to be removed at whim by a user banned by community from doing so. It does not matter wheather I'm an active user or not. YBSOne (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another instance: Special:Diff/955286314. YBSOne (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven I would like to confirm that I wrote this insert into the ANI conversation Special:Diff/968131368. To Davey2010 as well. I have 'blocked myself' from editing because I was fed up with how inefficient this administration was and still is. My involvement in the ANI with 1292simon's case was to show that You are all impotent against U1Quattro's behaviour. His continuous violation of editing restrictions placed by the Wikipedia community is comic to me now, but more comic is Your response. Or inability to respond. 4 violations ago, 4!, GoldenRing said whoever violates IBAN next will be blocked permanently. That was 4 violations ago... And my patience ran out, I have better things to do with my time.
As for the recent news, U1Quattro would have still violated IBAN and removed my contribution no matter if I was blocked, uninvolved or active, because he still to this day do not understand what an IBAN violation is and still every page is his and his alone and noone else is allowed to edit them. And this is partly an administration fault. Peace out. YBSOne (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

U1Quattro has violated editing restrictions, they have an expiration date, not expiration conditions. YBSOne (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is for ANI to decide, but an IBAN is an IBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This post was a violation of your interaction ban, and makes your courtesy indef block look increasingly pointless. Do you want me to unblock your account, or not? If yes, post here and I'll unblock the next time I see your reply. If no, then stop posting via IP, and don't ping people on your talk page. The next time I see you've done either one, I'll undo the courtesy block. In either case, admins will start enforcing the i-ban with "real" blocks that won't be undone on request. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked you; you no longer have a self-requested courtesy block. I have also reblocked you for 2 weeks for continued violations of your interaction ban (including complaining of an interaction from months ago). Since these violations are occurring on your talk page, I am removing talk page access for the duration. I'll leave the template in a moment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for repeated viotations of an interaction ban. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's frankly not understandable (I mean without taking in count some irrational mind attitude) by this humble and weak mind (I mean MINE, to be clear!) WHY you did revert a 'duty correction' of a slightly but WRONG valiue.

1. wheather it is incorrect is up to the manufacturer to publish. Please see corresponding primary sources. No original research is allowed on Wikipedia. 2. Please sign Your messages. YBSOne (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ybsone!

I have found unused pictures of a 1962 Ferrari 250 GT SWB Pininfarina Coupe Speciale on the commons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ferrari_250_GT_(3156808447).jpg) I mistakenly added these pictures to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_250_GT_Coupé article. Thanks for catching my mistake and removing them from that article. Does this car belong more to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_250 article instead? If so, should I add a new section under GT cars?

Let me know what you think.

Pelicanactor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelicanactor (talk • contribs) 14:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Keep up the good work. Ferrari 250 GT Berlinetta article will be created someday and there it will belong, as the Speciale was based on the Berlinetta model and share its chassis sequence. For now the Ferrari 250 article is just a collection of all the 250-series of cars. Sp for now there is no space for this beautiful one-off to be showcased. YBSOne (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I understand, thanks for your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelicanactor (talk • contribs) 10:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the very same source can be found in the main article about said variant: Lineage_B.1.617#cite_note-28YBSOne (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly not MEDRS on that article but the use of the source is a little softer. Suggest discuss on article page to see what consensus is but. If WHO can be quoted saying the same thing that is more helpful. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank You. YBSOne (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ybsone, I was going to format a reference at Vignale, and I realized that it appears to be either made up or at least very wrong. It was added by you on 2 December 2020. Did you just find this reference somewhere else in the project or do you know anything else about Palmieri and this non-functional ISBN 978-987-86-6277-0? Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I found the original introduction of this "source": [1]. Added by an IP with no other edits, I am going to remove this from wp.en and wp.es as well. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, must have been carried over. Best. YBSOne (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stop doing this change. MOS:RETAIN says to retain the original variety without a good reason to make a change. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an owner of several older Mercedes models, I have made edits to pages of certain Benz platforms. I am finding YBSOne has reverted several of those edits. I would appreciate those edits being preserved or, at a very minimum, not reverting edits with merely stating something "does not enhance the article." I also realized I'd apparently logged out of Wikipedia and have logged back in so future edits will be posted under my username. Respectfully, -Norwick Norwick (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, glad that You have added content but the quality of said content was in my opinion below the standard of those articles. Those pictures contributed nothing new to those articles.YBSOne (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Below the standard of those articles, even though multiple other pics on the page were lower res or poorly cropped? Simply not true. Norwick (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Start with a Manual of style/Images. Not every version has to be pictured, this is not a requirement.YBSOne (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, it is not a requirement for you to delete models that previously had not been seen. Simply no reason to consistently revert edits. Norwick (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have added those 2 photos to the Mercedes-Benz W126 article:
Why do we need both those pictures? Cars look exactly the same from the outside and the different engines are not seen from the outside. There are tens of versions of engines, we don't need all of them pictured. YBSOne (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, what is the harm in having those images to break up the wall of text on the 126 page? What is the harm in the 210 image referring to the OM606 engine powering the car? I can accept revisions and feedback. But I'm failing to see a valid reason for the repeated removals, particularly as other variations' photos have been left alone. My view, again — respectfully, is more images that are higher-resolution and well framed helps add visual interest and an overall enhancement to text-heavy articles. Norwick (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with having pictures, but maybe an interior or engine bay picture would be more informative? On the W210 page there is a whole series of pictures that create a blank space, more pictures create more blank space. Picture of the W210 added was not of the best angle and there were much better pictures already. YBSOne (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed recently that you’ve added Mercedes-Benz supplied archival sources as references for the start of production dates for some of their cars. However, in many of these cases, you are citing the start of pre-production test models; these vary some from the final, series production models and are often hand assembled, not on a traditional assembly line. Some of the dates in question predate the actual series production by 12-18 months, a relatively major discrepancy. This isn’t to say your sources are bad (although they are sometimes off by a month or two), but you are reading the first number in the production column, which is clearly labeled as the “pre-production” data. For example, with te W220:

Production period 05.1997 / 07.1998 - 08.2002 Note on production period production start-up pre-production series / standard production - end of production

The pre-production figure (the prototypes) were first assembled in April of 1997, about a year after the design freeze, fine, that’s reasonable. What is not is claiming this date as the start of production. No final W220 cars intended for sale or anything other than internal testing were produced in 1997 or most of 1998. The actual start of production date is listed here as the much-more reasonable July of 1998 (although production actually began in August, but regardless, it’s much closer).

I appreciate you supplying OK citations, but I just wanted to let you know you are gleaning the incorrect information from them. Hope this isn’t too rude of me. 129.210.115.226 (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. I have contacted Mercedes Heritage, I urge You to do the same, and they explained that pre-production cars are not what is commonly and mistakenly assumed as test or prototype cars. They are production cars with VIN that will be sold to customers. They are trade fairs cars, they are factory specified as opposed to customer specified. They are for dealers as demonstrators. But they are cars from the particular type and signify the production start. Those cars are not prototypes. Best. YBSOne (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from Mercedes-Benz Konzernarchiv correspondence: "Preproduction vehicles are generally already customer-ready vehicles that were produced e.g. for trade fairs and dealers for the presentation of the new vehicle model series. Also to prepare production on the line for the main series, i.e. if more quantities have to be produced.". So again the pre-series production is about the quantity and who specified the car, street-legal, homologated, VIN-assigned and customer-ready car of particular type. If said car is from 1997 and series production of customer-specified cars started from 1998, therefore production of that whole model series started in 1997. YBSOne (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is incredibly interesting, I did not know they were referring to road-ready production vehicles simply produced that far in advance. What still puzzles me is the documentation; Mercedes-Benz does not appear to include those in their total production count, and despite searching everywhere, I cannot seem to find anyone who currently owns one of these pre-production cars, nor have I found any surviving examples outside Mercedes-Benz’s ownership. Was the total output low enough as to facilitate this? These cars must be exceedingly rare. 129.210.115.226 (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-production chassis numbers are in a different register than the production cars. So the totals may not include those. Most interesting is CLK 430 Cabrio as it was manufactured even before the 430 coupé but was in turn not available as pre-facelift.YBSOne (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User, If you visit NYC Droidcon > Sponsers > Media Partners section, You can see official logo of Global Tech Gadgets media site. So at least please check the sites before marking it randomly spam. AkiraAnastasia12345 (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, please use the reference to reference a particular section, not to add it to the references section. What particular text do You want to reference with this link? What does this link contain in reference to the article? YBSOne (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for guiding. Added to the reference to reference - a particular section. Thank You. AkiraAnastasia12345 (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi users, as you said previously, I was adding one site only. As a Newbie on Wiki, I wanted to know it is compulsory to add multiple sites? As I am not robot, I read few blogs only. So how adding a unique content is Spam according to you. I would also like to know what things make sites spam and which content makes it not spam? for example, a informational / news content about Samsung S24 Ultra can be similar on TechRadar, The Verge, TechCrunch? But they all can be cited on Wiki. How does it work? Thanks for your guidance. AkiraAnastasia12345 (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about one site it's about how persistent You were in addind this particular site for unknown purpose, like I mentioned, outside of any section. That was a red flag. YBSOne (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown purpose? I am not Robot to read thousands of blog at a time and then add them on WIki. So you thought its Spam? Did you even check that article on that site? I can understand if there's any problem in content, but i don't think that's problem here. So how do you think its Spam without reading article? If there's no problem with TechRadar, Verge, TechCrunch press releases citation on WIki, almost same, then why you are against 'particular' site with rich, unique content? Just trying to understanding Wiki culture. AkiraAnastasia12345 (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it was a spam because of where You put it. Links are meant to reference a particular sentence or paragraph or a section. In Your history of contributions I found that You were mostly interested in inserting this particular link. That was a red flag. YBSOne (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please guide me more about "Where To Put It". How to give references to unique, rich articles? Wikipedia is for worldwide people right? About "particular site", if someone puts multiple links to their own Media sites, Like Forbes and their affiliates, then you won't find any problem because they are adding Multiple sites there (All are own by same media company)? And I am not Robot or huge media team and browse unique blogs so adding one single site makes me Red Flag? AkiraAnastasia12345 (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples [2] (Added Droidcon NYC official Media sponsor- Global Tech Gadgets™ to reference section) [3] (Added reference for rich content, users can see multiple images, interiors of Bugatti Chiron "Edition Noire Sportive" on source) and this sounds very promotional of the link [4] (Added reference of latest big laptop brands in 2024). You were clearly promoting this website. YBSOne (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me You are not interested to add content and reference it but to add a promotional link and get away with it, to camouflage it as a regular reference. YBSOne (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give example of what references can we add in such paragraphs? Where I am wrong? Would like to know. For example; If I added Bugatti Chiron Noire Sportive related reference, what was wrong in that content? What reference can be added?

About blog, Why you are assuming I am promoting? I am adding value. You don't talk about value or if there's any problem in content, you are ASSUMING just because I added ONE blog. As said before, i am NOT A Robot to read 1000 blogs. Neither Forbes or big media affiliate to add multiple links at a time! So can you confirm your problem is you are ASSUMING I'm promoting site, but not problem with content of site right?? AkiraAnastasia12345 (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to add it. It does not have to be here. There is no compulsion to edit. Just let it go. YBSOne (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) coincidence? YBSOne (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not?? Wikipedia is not for Big media houses only? Or you are affiliated with them so don't want to add any rich content which can result in loss of your affiliated sites?

About Coincidence? So someone can't use Pinterest blog? And you are Doxxing users? Great culture of Wikipedia! I am not Robot or a media team to add like Forbes or big media affiliate to add multiple links at a time! Please share more doxxing proofs so we can share it on Reddit and other blogs. AkiraAnastasia12345 (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is Your affiliation with Global Tech Gadgets? YBSOne (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read that blog, world should ask you first to read or Pin anything?

what's your affiliation with Forbes? or big media sites? That you are so desperate to doxx because you can't argue with article quality? have problem with me adding a blog, not problem with content of the source.

If someone puts multiple links to their own Media sites, Like Forbes and their affiliates, then you won't find any problem because they are adding Multiple sites there (All are own by same media company)? And I am not Robot or huge media team and browse unique blogs so adding one single site makes me Red Flag? So if I add multiple sites you won't have any problem? AkiraAnastasia12345 (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that a thread has been started (not in the right place, but such is life) at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard § DOXXING USERS, Social Media regarding this issue. Primefac (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saw it, thank You. YBSOne (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Left Together: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Rahio1234 07:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Mellk (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, you have not edited this article before and made the revert after responding to a dispute with JDiala. Please bear in mind the policy on WP:FOLLOWING. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have issues with this user's POV edits. This user is in my opinion clearly pushing pro-Russian, anti-Ukrainian, anti-NATO and anti-US propaganda. I'm curious what new fallacies will be used each day. YBSOne (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that the edits are violating the policies and that this is a persistent issue despite telling the editor, please submit a report on WP:AE or WP:ANI with diffs to support such statements. Mellk (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My unrequested 2¢: from what I see, Mellk is off base here. YBSOne's use of this editor's contrib history is entirely consistent with P&G. It is not necessary (or advisable) to pursue sanctions on a noticeboard simply because one notices a pattern of tendentious editing. Generalrelative (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They should not be using the article talk pages to repeatedly make accusations of violating policies and being WP:NOTHERE.[5][6] If said editor is indeed violating policies every day and clearly should not be allowed to edit, as they so often claim, they should go to the relevant noticeboard instead of repeatedly making accusations about conduct, as they have been doing for weeks. This kind of environment is what pushes editors away from taking part, especially in a CT area. Mellk (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate your thoughtful comments at Talk:Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist). Just FYI I use they/them pronouns. No stress at all, I understand that most generals are dudes :) Generalrelative (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thank You. YBSOne (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JDiala (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just reverted a bunch more edits by the IP vandal; sorry if any of your edits got swept up (feel free to restore as you see fit). I don't even disagree with this person on all points, but they need to be civil and collaborate.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. YBSOne (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 223.29.234.202 (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have stated in the Ridley Scott article South Shields is within County Durham. Please note neither the County Durham or the South Shield articles suggest this to be acurate. The Countyh Durham map comtained is clearly further South than South Shields. South Shields is served by the South Tyneside council and is within the South Tyneside boarders, South Tyneside is a Metropolitan borough within Tyne and Wear. 87.114.71.165 (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon since "Tipo Tre" is a proper name, it is correct to write Tipo Tre first. Not gonna argue about it, but sleep on it. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I alse preffer tipos but still English should be used. YBSOne (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ybsone,

After reviewing your request, I have added your account to the rollback group. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Users should be informed (or warned) after their edits have been reverted. If warnings repeatedly don't help, WP:ANI is the default place to go. In cases of very clear ongoing intentional damage to the encyclopedia, WP:AIV can be used.
• Reverting someone's edits may confuse or upset them. Whenever other users message you on your talk page, please take the time to respond to their concerns; accountability is important. For most users who message you, the tone and quality of your answer will permanently influence their opinion about Wikipedia in general.
• Because the plain default rollback link does not provide any explanatory edit summary, it must not be used to revert good faith contributions, even if these contributions are disruptive. Take the time to write a proper summary whenever you're dealing with a lack of neutrality or verifiability; a short explanation like "[[WP:NPOV|not neutral]]" or "[[WP:INTREF|Please provide a citation]]" is helpful.
• Rollback may never be used to edit war, which you'll notice to be surprisingly tempting in genuine content disputes. Please especially keep the three-revert rule in mind. If you see others edit warring, please file a report at WP:ANEW. The most helpful essay I've ever seen is WP:DISCFAIL; it is especially important for those who review content regularly.
• If you encounter private information or threats of physical harm during your patrols, please quickly use Special:EmailUser/Oversight or Special:EmailUser/Emergency; ideally bookmark these pages now. See WP:OS and WP:EMERGENCY for details. If you're regularly patrolling recent changes, you will need both contacts sooner or later, and you'll be happy about the bookmarks.

To try rollback for the first time, you may like to make an edit to WP:Sandbox, and another one, and another one, and then revert the row with one click. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about rollback. Thank you for your time and work in cleaning up Wikipedia. Happy editing!

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. YBSOne (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your thinking that all images in the Peter Barrett Davis article must be of what actually came out of his drawing pen: I'm afraid you're missing the bigger picture. This article is about the person and all of his career, which includes working at GM, being head of Fiat and Lancia design, lecturing in universities, etc. He was the one in charge of the Multipla project, getting the briefings from the top level management, taking responsibility for the result of his department's work, etc. etc. If we follow your train of thought, a page about Pininfarina or Bertone would only show the models from their hand, not the ones made by their designers that have also built a name themselves at some point in time. I have here a copy of a Dutch magazine from 1998 in which Davis and Nevio di Giusto (Fiat head of chassis) are called spiritual fathers of the Multipla. I kindly ask you to undo the image change and put the Multipla exterior back in its place. Erremm (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"spiritual fathers of the Multipla" then write that and add a picture of a Multipla, the car designed by Roberto Giolito, with interior designed by Peter Davis. Giolito, the "father" of the Multipla Architect of the Multipla. Article should showcase his career of course, but you want to show the car as a whole, when he only designed the interior. Just add in text that he oversaw as a Director. YBSOne (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]