Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
I am not sure why you had Isuzu Giga deleted, it needed very little work to be better than nothing. Could you please provide a list of other deletion requests you have made in a similar fashion? Thanks. Mr.choppers | ✎ 11:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Wiki can do better without stub class articles having no sources. The Giga article needs a lot of work to be considered as acceptable. With little to no third party reliable sources covering it, this can be a hindrance for the article to stay. If one is writing an article, one should follow proper guidelines.U quattroTALK14:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Before you nominate stubs for deletion I suggest reaching out to editors who may be interested, i.e. those who may have edited them. A stub is better than nothing, and deleting the silly list portions isn't complicated. Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
If you were interested, why didn't you improve the article before hand? Why did you have to call me out after I nominated it? I'm not wasting my time on stubs over which no sources can be found and which are too poor to even stay on wiki. When I'm seeing stubs like that, I'm nominating them. That's they the option is there at the first place.U quattroTALK03:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Because there are lots of articles that need attention, and I cannot fix them all. Just nominating everything for deletion is of no use to anyone. Mr.choppers | ✎ 03:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Improving is better than deleting entries. Again, engage other editors and please start being civil. I am not asking you to be funny, I am just asking you to be minimally collegial and to consider people beside yourself. Mr.choppers | ✎ 03:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
They can engage themselves just as they are engaging themselves right now on the two truck articles I nominated for deletion. No one is stopping them. Beforehand, no one bothered with those anyway. Seeing how things are dealt around here, I doubt anyone would take the task to improve those and find sources unless the article is nominated. Deleting is not all about me. Wiki can do better with poor quality articles that serve no benefit towards the readers. Your justification that just because something is "long running" and "notable" are not enough reasons for poor articles to stay. They ought to be properly sourced which is not what is happening at all at those two articles. The Giga article now has two manufacturer sources rather than third party sources and has the same poor structure as before. The Forward article still lacks sources. There has been no significant improvement over these two articles.U quattroTALK03:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
No, you need to engage. If you had contacted concerned editors then the article would have been improved. Your rudeness and lack of concern for others is deeply troubling, it is only the fact that you are really careful to not cross any WP lines that have kept you from being censored thus far. Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
The article is still not improved. I'm not wasting my time over something which cannot be fixed. Sure, if you think that you can avoid me. I'm not changing for anyone.U quattroTALK04:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not taking permissions from anyone before I nominate an article. When I see that it does not meet WP:GNG, I'm nominating it. If someone then improves it, kudos to them.U quattroTALK04:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Hino Ranger
I am not sure what is the matter with you, but you have committed several errors at Hino Ranger. First of all, you removed several assembly locations without stating a reason (Philippines, Taiwan). Secondly you changed a section that stated "engine type A was replaced by engine type B" to saying "engine A was upgraded and complemented by engine B". It was not, according to any sources I have seen. If you know better you should add a source, not just change things around without explanation. Mr.choppers | ✎ 21:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
The reason for removing those locations was lack of sourcing. Sure if you have sources pointing out that your statement is correct, you can use them.U quattroTALK03:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Clearly that is not the case. You kept several production sites that were equally uncited. Add {{cn}} tags if there is anything controversial that you think ought to be cited (don't just apply them to be a nuisance), don't just delete randomly.
As for the engine section that you messed up, it was always cited, from the Japanese Motor Vehicles Guide Book 1978/1979. Your error here is not a simple spelling mistake or anything, this is you actively introducing errors into WP. And now you are trying to make it out as if you do not understand what I am telling you, rather than apologizing and changing your behavior. You are very much skating on thin ice. Mr.choppers | ✎ 03:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not apologising for anything. Controversial things are not dealt with effectively over here so no need to add tags when one encounters this behaviour. I didn't say that my error was a spelling mistake. It is your assumption. If you have imrpoved it then it is fine by me.U quattroTALK03:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Excuse me, it's not controversial and you claim that you "removed a location" beacause of "lack of sourcing". This is nothing like what you did: you changed content and made it incorrect. The reason I mentioned spelling is because those kinds of things are minor, but this is not minor. Fine, everyone makes mistakes - and then they say "oops, I am sorry" and then everyone moves on. Your inability to recognize this and your absolute refusal to own your error is problematic. You either need to apologize or stay away for a few days if it is indeed impossible for you to type those words.
You also committed a further error on the same article here, when you broke a link and messed up the spelling of "Massy". You then compounded the error here and here. So instead of a link we now have no link and a misspelled name. Please slow down and look at your edits before and after. Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Have you improved the article? No? I haven't seen that. I don't know why you keep highlighting it then. You have made mistakes like these on TVR Cerbera where you have reverted edits there even when cited sources say otherwise. If I have been at fault, the same goes for you. I will not apologise over what happened neither you can make me.U quattroTALK04:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Just wanted to apologise for the edit summary today, Given I've spent 3-4 days on the article I didn't appreciate you coming along and wiping all of the work I put in, Still I shouldn't of said what I did and I sincerely and unreservedly apologise for it, I wish you all the best, Take care, –Davey201021:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at