User talk:Stepho-wrs/Archive/2011

Nissan Leaf GA review

Hi Stepho-wrs. I would like to request your input to help resolve an issue that is jeopardazing the Nissan Leaf Good Article review. I rather listen to your opinion before jumping into the discussion. If you are interested in contributing to the discussion please go here. See you around and thanks.-Mariordo (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for using your vacation time.  Stepho  (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you, your contribution was very helpful indeed and your recommendations tackled my main concern, that several sources (EPA as the prime example) report in imperial units. I will proceed as you recommended using the invert parameter I did not know it existed.-Mariordo (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries. disp=flip was done at my request for exactly these situations. Nice to see it finally used. Hopefully this will set a precedent.  Stepho  (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I would appreciate your contribution at the section I opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Nissan Leaf compact or mid size?. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Jan 23, 2011

Would just like to inform you the Green vehicle task force is formed under WP:Project Environment. ---North wiki (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me the sad news. I hope very much that my fears of edit warring between two, now separate, tribes doesn't come to pass :(  Stepho  (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Stepho-wrs. You have new messages at North wiki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RAV4 EV Concept

Hi Stepho. I noticed that you created a section for the RAV4 EV Concept in the Toyota concept vehicles, 2010-2019. I believe the concept car denomination is not accurate, instead I believe it is a pre-production car. As with the Prius PHEV, Toyota is calling this EV a demonstration vehicle, see the picture here of the actual description board in the exhibit at the 2011 Washington Auto Show. Also the citations you included, as well as the ones in the corresponding section of the main RAV4 EV article referred to this vehicle as a demonstration vehicle. So I think there is no base nor RS to call this vehicle a concept. For example, in the same show they have the Prius C which Toyota explicitly named as a concept car. Talking to the Toyota people they explained to me that the exhibited Prius C is just a glider, as Toyota has not decided yet of the exact powertrain they will use. On the other hand the Prius V and the RAV4 EV both have a powertrain and the exhibits are part of the development/test mules fleet. And by the way, in the 2011 WAS they wrote Prius C in capital letters (you could see it at least three of the pictures here), but the description table spelled it in small letters. For this one we will have to wait for Toyota to decide on the final spelling. In summary, I believe the section on the RAV4 EV concept should be removed, but it is your call. See around.--Mariordo (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will investigate a bit more and get back to you. Toyota has a pretty blurred line between concept car and pre-production car, so you may well be right. As for the Prius C, I was going off the Toyota press release. I've seen plenty of errors in car show placards and also in press releases, so as you you said, we'll have to wait and see which one sticks. Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I dragged my feet a bit longer than planned but it has now been removed from Toyota concept vehicles, 2010-2019.  Stepho  (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"MR2" Acronym

Stepho, the revert you just made contradicts the inline reference, which is an official Toyota UK site. Would you mind finding a new reference to correlate the "midship runabout" acronym? I honestly don't remember if there was official literature confirming that over "mid-engine rear-drive two-seater." Bdc101 (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be the first time I've seen Toyota say that officially but I will look into it tommorrow. Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Toyopet guy

Hello Stepho, User:113.159.107.99, who keeps changing Toyota to Toyopet (good faith, but still aggravating) is now on a mission to change every Nissan Sunny and Bluebird to Datsuns. I'm trying to keep up with him, but he's quite prolific and doesn't read his userpage (or so it seems). Just a heads up. (contributions)  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've see him on the Sunny page (I used to have a string of Datto 1000/1200's and a 1200 race car before I crossed to Toyota) but didn't have the time to undo him. I think I will add a sentence or two near the top of each article to say that Toyota's were often branded as Toyopets for the Asian market but as Toyotas in western markets.  Stepho  (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that I had some time to think on it, and also checking the Japanese wikipedia page, it seems that calling them Datsuns is not entirely without merit. I still feel that Toyopet is one step too far, but for the Datsun brand, where would the cutoff go? The Convar and succeeding 210 were definitely called Datsuns in all markets including Japan, and it seems that Sunnys up to the 310 were sold as Datsuns in JDM. Maybe this is worthy of some consideration, what do you think? By the way, I am now all kinds of interested in the 140 series Toyota Corona. I do have some minor questions that I myself am struggling with (was the LPG engine only for the 141? I don't know). I do know that I desperately need that Toyota VIM - is it easy to get? Also, do we use "twincam" or "DOHC" in infoboxes? Is there even a rule? And lastly, do you have some plans for the embryonic table for the Corona 140? Currently it doesn't read so well, but I didn't want to mess with it in case you had a master plan. Best,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I remember sometime in the early 1980s (possibly late 1970s) when all the Datsun cars and dealers in Australia suddenly became Nissans. Yet my first car back in 1984, an ancient old 1968 Datsun 1000 had Nissan stamped all over its components. We later learnt that the company had always been Nissan but that the cars were simply branded as Datsun - similar to Toyopet and Lexus being just brands of the Toyota company. I don't think it matters too much if the article name is Datsun Sunny or Nissan Sunny - as long as both link to the same article.

The VIM is hard to find because Toyota don't particularly want people to have any manuals at all. US law forces Toyota to sell maintenance manuals to owners (allowing owners to do their own maintenance) but here in Australia the law provides no such protection. I got lucky to have an ex-Toyota guy loan me his personal 1979 international VIM and then got lucky again to find a 1984 international VIM on Ebay. I've used it to form the basis of my website ( http://members.iinet.com.au/~stepho/ ). I may also put up a copy in my scanned books/manuals section. Doesn't cover the US or Japanese markets but I have other resources for that.

I don't have any great plan for the T140 table. It looked so awful that I just had to fix it up a bit. Feel free to change it - can't get much worse than what it was. The YT140 was the LPG taxi (1982-1998) and the CT141 was the diesel taxi (1982-1991). The RT141, AT141 and ST141 were ordinary passenger cars (1982-1987). The T141 section will need substantial work (rename as 'taxi'?) but I've been too lazy. My T140 info is at http://members.iinet.com.au/~stepho/coronprd.htm#corona8

For twincam vs DOHC, I can live with either. Toyota always says twincam but for consistency with other articles, maybe we should use DOHC in the infoboxes/tables and reserve twincam for prose.

In Toyota FJ Cruiser you removed http://www.ih8mud.com/ . For myself, I've found this forum to be extremely helpful in old Toyota history. Eg http://forum.ih8mud.com/fj25-owners-group/241941-toyota-historical-pictures-8.html  Stepho  (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Your website is great, but as you say, a lot of JDM Coronas still seem to be missing. I'll see what I can find in my brochure hoards. Would you like scans if I find something interesting? My bad on the T141, for some reason I thought that the third digit was unique to the Taxis, but it seems that no clear chassis numbers distinction can be made. Was CT141 also used for the 1C-engined taxi or only for the 2C? I see that the regular car with a 1C engine was the CT140. Is "4H" a column-mounted four-speed? By the way, did you see the nifty Toyota Twin Cam brochure I used as a reference all over the place? See Toyota FX-1 for instance. As for IH8MUD, my bad - someone else removed the site as spam from Toyota Land Cruiser, and since all I saw at a cursory glance was seeming advertisements I figured it was no good for the FJ either. Best,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, spent about an hour downloading that twincam brochure from 3sgte.com via wifi at my hotel lobby (today is my first day back at work). Fantastic brochure! I have the FX-1 brochure too if you are interested but my scanner is too small and I need to stitch the page scans back together. Here's a list of my various brochures (including T140's) http://members.iinet.com.au/~stepho/data.htm#Corona I'd loved to see any brochures that you have. If you like, I can put them on my website alongside the ones I already have there (but only with your permission).

Yes, 4H means 4 speed column manual (4HC is 4 speed auto). I've got an abbreviations page that lists all the options. From what I can tell (my sources aren't complete), the taxis only had a choice of 1.8 L LPG (2Y-PU, YT140) or 2.0 L diesel (2C-II, CT141). The 1C was only available on the ordinary CT140. Toyota's number system usually ends in 0 for the first engine, then adds 1 for each engine type. So CT140 has a 1C, never any other C series engine. Then CT141 can have the 2C, never any other C series engine. But the T140 code can be shared among many different engine families. Similarly for ST140 with 1S and ST141 with 2S. But they aren't always in numerical order (ie sometimes the smaller chassis code has the larger engine number). Confusing but you get used to it and can learn to weed out conflicts. If Toyota wanted to build a 1C taxi then it would have been a CT140 with some of the options codes at the end changed. I also made a mistake above, the CT141 with 2C started in 1986, well after both the LPG taxi and 1C ordinary version.  Stepho  (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Japanese wikipedia entry for the Corona says that the 1C-engined taxi was introduced in January 1982 with the LPG version following in September. All the other dates they list match the ones you have found, such as the 2C replacing the 1C in December 1986, so I feel that this should be correct. You have a nice brochure collection, I don't know if I have anything worth adding but will see. Thanks for the clarification on Toyota chassis codes, I hadn't quite gotten a handle on the mysterious third digit yet. Good night!  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thought you might like to see the official model list from the JDM parts catalogue. http://members.iinet.com.au/~stepho/manuals/Corona/jdm%20list.gif  Stepho  (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for sharing. I assume that N-CT140-TEMRS (1C engined Standard sedan) is actually a taxi model? The 82.01-86.12 production dates match what I have seen elsewhere. The TEMRS suffix also matches the one used for the later 2C version, but Toyota sure doesn't make this easy. I have a few interesting brochures that I will scan and mail you so that you can put them up on your site, as well as use the information. An 85.08 Corona Van (not including the 2-seater, as indicated by your scan) and a 68.09 Corona Mark II Commercial are probably the most fun ones, and perhaps the 87.03 Starlet Van too, so I'll start with the most interesting pages in those. Best,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, now I'm not so sure. The CT140 (with 1C) was available in GX (N-CT140-TEMNS) and EX (N-CT140-TEMES) passenger car trim (ie not taxi) according to a 1982 JDM brochure I have but then disappear from my 1983 and 1984 JDM brochures. According to the parts manual, there was a standard trim for both the CT140 (1C, N-CT140-TEMRS) and the CT141 (2C, Q-CT141-TEMRS) that replaced it (the R near the end means standard). Since the standard trim CT141 lasted into the 1990's, its fair to assume the taxi was based on the standard trim model. But I can't find the source that I used to explicitly label it as a taxi. Which is weird since I don't normally label something unless I have a specific reference that says so. Nor can I find a part of the model code that says either taxi or high roof. I will need to delve further into my archives. Hopefully I have a 1982 brochure for commercial vehicles somewhere in my archives that I misplaced.  Stepho  (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I would assume that the production dates is enough to be able to safely say "taxi" about those TEMRS cars? Otherwise, Toyota secretly kept building the regular roof Corona until 1998. Maybe that was your thinking when you first deciphered this table?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stepho-wrs. You have new messages at Ebikeguy's talk page.
Message added 23:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ebikeguy (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

re: WP:DASH

Thanks for the note, but your fix was incorrect. Per WP:EMDASH, em dashes—used to indicate interruption in a sentence—are not spaced. "Do not space em dashes." Cheers! Kevin Forsyth (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For power users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Toyota cars

Hey, why you revert my edit? If the Land Cruiser 70 is not in the list of Toyota vehicles, then peoples will don't know that the generation is still produced until now. Then, I see the Land Cruiser 70 Series has not any templates on it. I know that we should not put every generation in the list, but, people must know that the vehicle is still produced. Sorry for the language if it isn't good. RaymondSutanto (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Raymond. People can go to the Land Cruiser article to find all Land Cruisers made (old and new). Toyota made many different generations of many different model names. The template is already very long, so we need to show only the model name, not each variation and/or generation. Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Then, the Prado version must be deleted too. Or, you must put The 70 Series at another template. RaymondSutanto (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

YYes, you are quite right. I have just deleted Prado from the list.  Stepho  (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The Prado is different model that simply shares the "Land Cruiser" name as a prefix. This is no different to the Mitsubishi Montero (Pajero) and Mitsubishi Montero Sport (Challenger), the Holden Captiva and Holden Captiva MaXX, the Holden Barina and Holden Barina Spark, the Subaru Outback and Subaru Outback Sport, et cetera.

On the other hand the J70 series Land Cruiser is badged "Land Cruiser" and not "Land Cruiser 70" or similar. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a reasonable point. But I struggle with how long that list is. It could be argued that the LC 70 is also sufficiently different to the LC, therefore all three should be there. And if we allow that argument, then others will start arguing that their favourite variant of other Toyota vehicles should also be on the list (AE86 being the most common request). And others could argue that names used in each market should also be on the list (eg LC is know as the Merú in Venezuela, or the Platz/Vitz/Vibe/Scion x?). Where do we draw the line for what is on the list and under which name? I don't believe we can ever solve that question.

But since I also don't believe that the template provides anything more than what categories and list of Toyota vehicles already do, I actually prefer to delete this template altogether. Deleting it will also give back some meaning to the 'what links here' feature (every Toyota article is apparently linked to every other Toyota article because of that template, making it real hard to do maintenance on links in the article text).  Stepho  (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Although I stand by my above reasoning if the template is retained, I too believe deletion is a better option. It would be good to make a single global timeline from the inception of Toyota to current. This would also serve as a replacement for the current Japanese and North American templates. See Template:Holden timeline to see how this would work (note how it runs from 1948 to present). OSX (talk • contributions) 01:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Woooooow, that Holden timeline is awesome... I still believe in having a separate US one for Toyota, just to minimize arguing with the Americentric editors on here. OSX, you should join the Japanese car taskforce - not that we do anything whatsoever on the project page, but you'll get a nifty userbox.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very proud of my "awesome" timeline. Without a doubt the best timeline on Wikipedia I think. I've finished boasting now (unless I decide to boast about my membership of nothingness at the Japanese car taskforce by displaying a nifty userbox to recognise my valued contribution). But then, the juxtaposition of a 1973 Suzuki Fronte (the image in the Japanese car taskforce infobox) might be too much of a stretch next to the Lexus LS 460 in the Lexus userbox and the CL 600 in the Mercedes-Benz one. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the list, so I hope this will be solved the problem. RaymondSutanto (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed? I admire your enthusiasm but we haven't agreed on 1, 2 or 3 Land Cruiser entries?

You may want to look at {{Toyota road cars timeline, 1935-1954}}, {{Toyota road cars timeline, 1955-1984}} and {{Toyota road cars timeline, 1985-date}}. I built these based on a late model Japanese market template and never got around to filling in all the American market models. But it suffers from similar problems to {{Toyota cars}} in that multiple names are used for the same vehicle in different markets and that "What links here" becomes useless for link maintenance (ie every Toyota article appears to be linked to by every other Toyota article). I also think that massive sideways scrolling of timelines is not the easiest way for readers to see the history - better to present a 20 or 30 year chunk that can be seen in one go. I like timelines on a few key articles (eg Toyota and History of Toyota and using categories for navigating between articles (perhaps with History of Toyota linked in each models 'See also' section.  Stepho  (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Opinions?

Some more eyes, minds, and keyoard-rattlings could be helpful here and here, if you're so inclined. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Spelling out acronyms

Wikipedia:MOS#Abbreviations is clear on how to format acronyms: spell out the full term first, then put the acronym in brackets following if you're going to use it again later. If not, then you don't really need to identify the acronym. This is consistent with what other style manuals recommend. You seem to have a different approach. I'm not going to argue with you which is better, because the Wikipedia community and other style manuals have already made up their minds on the question. Is there a reason why Lexus RX (XU30) should use your unique style instead of what the Wikipedia Manual of Style and others recommend? Ground Zero | t 01:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that particular policy. I will obey it in the future, even though I think it's not the best policy to have. But for completeness, I will explain the method behind my madness.

When readers come across something like 'National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)', their thoughts go something like: 'yeah, long name that I don't care about'; followed by 'What on earth is a NHTSA? I'll just skip over that'. When they come across 'NHTSA' later on they have to skip back to where it was defined instead of having it in their memory. Whereas 'NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)' triggers thoughts like 'What on earth is NHTSA? Oh there's the description, I'll remember that'. With hyperlinks we can get even better. The readers come across the acronym, think 'what on earth is that?', follow the link, remember it because memory is nearly always better when a deliberation action was associated with it, then come back to the first article with a broader knowledge. I was taught this technique of helping memory years ago as a way to write to business and technical readers and haven't found anybody who can refute it - except by saying 'we use this rule here and that's that!' Cheers.  Stepho  talk  04:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that you have your reasons for doing it that way. I'm only pointing out that Wikipedia and the rest of the world do it another way. I can see that you're frustrated that others come around to what you see as being the better way of doing things. It must be like what Apple users feel like. Regards, Ground Zero | t 04:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean you

In response to my previous comment you said:

• I am not a "non metric person", far from it, and I am not acting on a whim.

I didn't mean you. My comment related generically to any editor of an article, not any particular person. I'm sorry if you thought I was directing the comment at you. Lightmouse (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter Horn forgot to put his signature at the end of his 'I am not a "non metric person" comment - which made my comment just afterwards appear to include his. Either way, I am not offended by our civil discussion. As for me, I grew up during the introduction of the metric system to Australia, so I think in inches for small stuff (copying the speech patterns of my parents/teachers/etc), have no idea how many inches are in a mile and think in km for larger stuff. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  00:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Everybody is in transition. I don't think any one country or any one person is 100% SI, we're all somewhere on a continuum. Even SI has legacy artifacts and is a dynamic standard. I'll contact Peter Horn. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Dollars

I noticed this. In an article on a US organization, we can assume we are talking US dollars, not the Zimbabwean kind etc. Using a template to say US$ is over-fussy, I think. --John (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in answering. I have given a reply on the Tesla Motors talk page. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  02:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Danhausen and thanks

Thanks for the info. My son and I are having fun trying to imagine what scale the cars are (Matchbox sized) and how the cars are affixed to the cans / drinks and how they come out of the vending machines! With the Minichamps/Danhausen thing I think we've got enough info. on the two websites to add to the Minichamps page (though I'm not a connosieur of Minichamps). I knew of Danhausen back in the 1970s, but didn't know the connection to Minichamps ! However, though the Langs are mentioned on the Minichamps website, I don't see the word Danhausen anywhere there. I'll work on the site some - keep an eye out and edit if something looks bad.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(Oh...it says "Minichamps GmbH" is the company name.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I made a small mistake. Danhausen and Minichamps do appear to be 2 companies. But each has an almost identical website:

• dan-hausen.de/index.php?iex=&m=1&s=de&a=6&b=&c=
• www.minichamps.de/index.php?iex=&m=1&s=de&a=7&b=0&c=0

The Japanese vending machines serve 150ml cans. The models are in little cases that clip to the top of the can. They typically range from 1:120 to 1:144. They are good for display and also for double duty on my 1:144 N-scale train set. This gives a good indication. Since these are give-away promotional items, the companies involved don't have proper catalogues on their web pages. Instead, I have to search for terms like Suntory, Boss, coffee, Wonda and 2000GT and hope for Japanese blog entries.  Stepho  talk  06:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thought you might like to see a photo of my 1:144 collection. You can see the can collection at the back. The white cars at the right and the disassembled car are typical of the 1:100 Furuta chocolate egg cars. See if you can find the 1:250 bus and taxis. http://members.iinet.net.au/~stepho/photo/IMG_9065.JPG  Stepho  talk  09:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Check out Minichamps

Stepho-wrs. Thanks for the info. and pics on the small Japanese cars. Also check out my changes to Minichamps with much new background re: Danhausen, Western Models, and AMR. I think it reads pretty well and I've backed it up with several websites and a couple of printed sources. See what you think. Please answer on my talk page. Thanks again. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

WP Automobiles in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Automobiles for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

2012 Prius PHEV

Hi Stepho-wrs. Regarding our recent edits about the Prius Plug-in, I wondered if you noticed that the new plug-in will not be produced until 2012, therefore, in this particular case the US 2012 model year coincides with the 2012 calendar year elsewhere, so I think there is no ambiguity about the 2012 model. Furthermore, I understood that when talking about the US market, it is valid to use the term model year, so it is OK to use model year in sections devoted the American market. Am I right? Cheers. --Mariordo (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I get a bit overzealous about model years vs calendar years. So I've reviewed what I did to see if I have gone overboard or not. In this particular case, the model year and calendar year are the same (as you pointed out above) but I feel that calling it a '2012 Prius Plug-in Hybrid' was not substantially better than calling it a 'Prius Plug-in Hybrid'. Near-by sentences say that it was shown in Sept 2011 and expected to start production in Jan 2012, so putting the date with the name of the car is duplicate work and not really needed.

WP:AUTOMOBILE guidelines allow us to use model years on US articles but we should be very careful using them on international articles. Even when we are within a US section of an international article, it would not be obvious to many readers that we have swapped between calendar year and model year. Which is why I prefer statements like 'In Sept 2011 (for the 2012 model year), vehicle XXX did ...' and to remove unneeded '2012' prefixes when the date is easily worked out from surrounding sentences or the section title. Using the calendar date with month/year tells the Americans that we are not using model years, then we cater to the Americans by adding an explicit mention of model years, and from then on we don't mention the year, letting the reader (both American and non-American) assume that the last date in their preferred format is still in effect. The next mention of the year should be when a new date is being discussed. Hope this clarifies my thinking and that I haven't strayed too far from the correct path.  Stepho  talk  04:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Stepho, if I were reading the article and it said for example, "the Prius Plug-in debuted in North America during January 2012", the context would probably suggest the 2013 model year (similarly, the XV40 Camry debuted in January 2006 as a 2007 model). I think it's necessary to state something along the lines of "the Prius Plug-in debuted for the 2012 model year in North America during January 2012". Yes, it's definitely cumbersome to read, but at least it removes any ambiguity. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, even the Americans can't predict this. I've seen examples (restated here with current dates) where Jan 2012 would be counted as 2012, 2012½ or 2013 model years. For the Camry, it was a new generation and they choose to go all the way into the next model year (Jan 2006 counting as model year 2007 being a perfect example of what's wrong with model years - but that's another story). For the Prius plugin, it is only an update to an existing generation, so my money would be on 2012½. 2012½ seems to be the most common choice for this type of scenario but we won't know until it actually happens. As I explained above, I'm happy to say things like 'In Jan 2012, for the 2012½ model year, the Prius ...' but to then leave out both model and calendar years after that - ie years mentioned only once in each format.  Stepho  talk  08:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Do they even still use half-years in marketing anymore? I think we need to wait and see then. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the comprehensive answer to my query. I agree it is better to wait until the plug-in is actually lunched.--Mariordo (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

regarding inclusion of difftime page in time.h

hey I created the difftime page.you included the page in time.h.may i know the reason?please do reply!divya crazy 27 07:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC) (talk)

Hi! I think you got confused a bit, I did not do anything to the difftime page and did not know it even existed until just now. However, I do agree with the changes made by user talk:RHaworth. Difftime (the function) is covered in time.h, so there is no need for a separate article just to duplicate the difftime information. Instead, the difftime article should redirect the reader to the time.h article - which is exactly what RHaworth changed. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  12:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi!hey realy sorry for the confusion.Actuly i am part of the wikipedia project under which i have to create a page on difftime function.So i created that page.Can you please suggest me that whether i should talk to RHaworth about this or should edit the page under the reader time.h!

rply soon.:)divya crazy 27 13:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divya crazy 27 (talk • contribs)

Umm, not sure what you are talking about here. Which project wants you to create a difftime page? If they really want a page with that name then a redirect to time.h should satisfy them. But by all means, have a chat with RHaworth to find out his thoughts. It might be useful if you point him to this conversion too. Cheers.

i MiEV

Hi Stepho. I would like to know your thoughts about the bold move/renaming of the Mitsubishi i-MiEV article. For the time being I will only restore key content that was trimmed and rmv the double pic in the infobox.--Mariordo (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Mitsubishi themselves can't seem to decide which it should be. http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/special/ev/ has "i Miev", which then links to http://www.ev-life.com/ which has i-Miev. Which implies that either name is suitable but also implies that no matter which name we decide to use, somebody will say "but Mitsubishi officially call it xxx according to this official Mitsubishi web page". This of course will cause edit wars. In the general case of these type of changes I don't like flip/flipping backwards and forwards between two perfectly acceptable names and am generally inclined to restore it to the original version with a suitable statement on the discussion page. But for this issue, I'm all for just laying out that both names are acceptable and that one of them will be chosen arbitrarily as the default article name. It will have to be a coin toss or simple vote because both names are equally acceptable.  Stepho  talk  04:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. I just did some edits under the new name (mainly to rescue the Japan section) and I would like to avoid another endless discussion, but... Is your call if you want to reverse the move, I will support you.--Mariordo (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Stepho about using the original name as per MOS:RETAIN. Before reverting back, I would try and see if one variant is more common than the other or if an official "spelling" actually exists and that Mitsubishi has been inconsistent.

From what I can see, Mitsubishi's global site excludes the dash, while the UK, Canadian, and Japanese websites include the dash. Australia can't seem to make up its mind using "iMiev" and "i-MiEV", and the US looks like it will be receiving the vehicle under the shortened name "Mitsubishi i". Based on this, I would be inclined to retain the new title, but I haven't spent too much time researching so reality may in fact be different. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not fussed which name we keep, as long as there is no edit war. Since it is common for people to believe that the name they know the car in their country is the one and true name for it, we will have to make it explicit in the article that it is known by slightly different names (sometimes even within the same country).  Stepho  talk  04:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Euro NCAP Templates

Hi, are they ready to be used now? Thanks Jenova20 14:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Marque/make convention

Heads up—please weigh in at the bottom of this section. Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Stay

Oh, snow worries; I seem to spend more time working on Wikipedia now than before I "retired", which is consistent with the experience of many retirees in meatspace. Please do take a look at the contributions I've made in both the upper and lower sections of the marque/make/brand discussion -- in the upper one I've proposed a convention I think is rather sorely needed, and in the lower one I've provided considerable evidence against the notion that "marque" is not an American term. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

With Thanks

		The Friendship Barnstar
		Thanks for going further than everyone else combined in Wikiproject Automobiles to create a brilliant set of Euro NCAP templates that are absolutely flawless. Hope to work with you again in future Jenova20 15:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for the barnstar.  Stepho  talk  21:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No problemo, was good to get the help =] Jenova20 08:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

New Australian EVs

Hi Stepho-wrs. I noticed that two new Australian electric cars, the Varley EVR450 and the Arcspeed have been announced recently. I keep an updated list of upcoming PEVs at List of modern production plug-in electric vehicles, so I wonder if you can check for me if these are production or concept vehicles, are they really ready to hit the market, is TechVehi a reliable source. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, Mariordo. It think it may be too soon to write about the Arcspeed on that page; there are hundreds of EVs in similar situations around the world and I think that it will remain as vaporware. The Varley EVR450, however, seems to be more likely to enter production. Varley is a well known engineering company in Australia (albeit without a Wikipedia page) that manufactrue the majority of Australian firetrucks (in the Sydney area at least) and light electric vehicles, amongst other things.--Pineapple Fez 05:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am not familiar with either company, nor their products. I don't think I can be much help this time.  Stepho  talk  08:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I will put the Arcspeed on hold, and do some google about the Varley EVR450 to see if I can gather enough material to create a new article. Thanks again and see you guys around.--Mariordo (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Toyota Camry (XV50)

I'm posting this message on your talk page because I noticed that you've recently created the new article Toyota Camry (XV50)--The image greatly improves the article.However, I noticed there are some holes that may need filling: the article currently does not have appropriate sections and headings. It would be great if you could also add references to the related article Toyota Motor North America. Jipinghe (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I split the XV50 section from the main Toyota Camry article so that it was treated in the same way as the previous generations. You are quite correct that it still needs much work but I have been leaving this work to those who normally work on the various Camry generation articles. Could you repost this notice at Talk:Toyota Camry (XV50). Note that the XV50 is sold in other markets besides N.America. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  04:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Lone Star Anchor

Hi Stepho. I noticed you put an anchor on the Lone Star Toys page. Could you explain what that does? Thanks. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Many editors link to sections on a page like so: Lone Star Toys#The Impy Series. By adding anchors to the page, we can use [[Lone Star Toys#Impy. This is much shorter. Also, the full section title often has brackets, m-dashes, ampersands, etc which make typing the link a bit difficult. And the most important reason for me: sections titles tend to change, which breaks the link. Anchors rarely get changed, so the links to them tend to break much less. Multiple anchors are allowed, so variants like spelling can be catered for as well.  Stepho  talk  03:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you on WP:Tea.

Please see Thank you on WP:Tea. There are other related other Executive Order 13514 articles that can be traced thru Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin. See View History edit summaries for more information. Note that User:Arthur Rubin has a history of deleting Talk page comments. 99.56.120.180 (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is only some of the backing evidence I've found ...

• User_talk:Geofferybard#Thank_you_Geofferybard_for_your_addition_to_Water_crisis_of_Water_resource_policy
• User_talk:Gabriel_Kielland#thank_you_for_your_contributions_to_Planetary_boundaries
• User_talk:Orangemarlin/Archives_June-July_2011#Given_the_history_.28Special:Contributions.2FArthur_Rubin.29_will_likely_attempt_Edit_warring_with_me.2C_on_Iain_Stewart_.28geologist.29.2C_anything_you_can_do.3F
• User_talk:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris#Anything_to_stop_User:Arthur_Rubin_from_deleting_other.27s_User_Talk.3F

99.56.120.180 (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Opel Corsa

Your new templates are combining the references into one for some reason. Can you take a look at the first two tables on the Corsa article and see. Thanks Jenova20 12:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You had used the same value for the reference_name parameter. Separate references need unique names (or leave out reference_name).  Stepho  talk  20:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I honestly didn't understand a word of that Stepho lol

Will have a look at what you did tomorrow and try to replicate it in future.

Thanks so much for fixing it for me!

Thanks again Jenova20 21:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The 'reference' parameter has all the visible details of the reference - you typically put them between <ref> and </ref> in other parts of the article. If you wanted to use the same reference many times (in other parts of the article) then you do <ref name=xxx>details</ref> for the first time and then <ref name=xxx/> (without details) for the other times. Wiki sees that the name is the same and then merges them into the same reference at the bottom. My template uses 'reference_name=xxx' to do the same thing. If you do not want to use the same reference details multiple times, then just leave out the 'reference_name' parameter.  Stepho  talk  23:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think i've got it now.

I have another problem though...with the name of the reference as the ones for the Vauxhall Corsa show with the name "EuroNCAP1997" and "EuroNCAP2000", whereas with the Vauxhall Tigra they show up differently and i can't get them right.

What am i doing wrong here?

Thanks Jenova20 10:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

'reference_name' is to tell wikipedia which ones can be joined together (as explained above). But 'title' is what is displayed at the bottom of the page.  Stepho  talk  14:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, i really struggle with some of this coding stuff.

couldn't have done that without you Jenova20 14:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Also shame on you for visiting 17 countries and not the UK yet.

Tut tut Jenova20 09:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, England has seceded from the UK? Spent 3 weeks working, eating and sleeping at Manchester Airport in 1999 (with quick side trips to the NRM at York and the Duxford Air Museum) and 2 weeks working at the PSDB near London in 2000. British Rail and British weather suck big time but the rest was fun.  Stepho  talk  09:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Somehow i missed the England flag on your user page.

Add Manchester to your list of English things that suck:

• Overcrowded public transport that gets more expensive and crowded every year!
• The weather, although it is impossible to have a hurricane in the UK apparently so yay!
• Manchester, except for Canal Street, which you should deffo visit in future!

So sorry about that but try visiting a decent place in the UK next time as Manchester is just where we keep our football hooligans and benefit claimants Jenova20 15:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Also stole your flags but have only been to three places.

Thanks Jenova20 16:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Correct naming of the Prius family

Hi Stepho. First, thanks for always keeping an eye and fixing my typos and grammar errors. I really appreciate your support to my edits. Second, since the Prius v roll-out in the US already took place, I would like to know your opinion before raising in the talk page the possible discussion about renaming the article as Prius Alpha (based on WP:AUTO guidelines and in lieu of the recent discussion). At the same time, since the Prius is Japanese, shall we create the new article for the baby Prius as Toyota Prius c or Toyota Prius Aqua, as per WP:AUTO it seems it should be the latter. Alternatively, my preference is leave the Prius v as it is, just to avoid the long discussion. With the smaller Prius the article does not exist, so there is choice. Thanks again and best regards.--Mariordo (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a tricky question. At the moment the 'Prius v' name is used only in N.America and the 'Prius Alpha' name is used only in Japan. This implies that 'Prius v' is better for the English WP but may change depending on what it is called in Australia, Europe and other countries (hopefully introduced in 2011 or 2012). The baby 'Prius c' looks like it might be called the Toyota Alpha (distinct from the Toyota Prius Alpha) according to http://integrityexports.com/2011/09/29/new-toyota-aqua-gets-40-kml-debuts-at-tokyo-motor-show-in-december/ . But its still hard to tell if it will really be a hybrid Vitz/Yaris (ie sharing the Vitz's XP model code), a Prius (sharing the XW model code) or something new. I'd wait and see.

Re: typos and grammar. I was afraid that you might find my picky changes annoying. But you generate a lot more information than me, so I'm happy to just correct little details here and there.

By the way, I stole the flags from your user page. You are 5 countries ahead of me - unless we count states/provinces in China, Canada, US and Australia. And just for added interest, your trip to Jamaica would have placed you as far away as possible from my house :)  Stepho  talk  04:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

As you know English is a second language for me, so more often than I would like I ended up making silly mistakes. Let's wait more then. Check here about the Aqua. Regarding the flags, I can help you adapting it for the countries you have live in and the number of countries in the image, just let me know if you want it fixed. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Just in case, I took the liberty to make a quick adaptation of my template to fit it to the countries you have live in and adjust the flags size to make them look more uniform. You can change at will any of the images of the top row. If you want the world map with the 17 I can do it with Photoshop. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This user is Citizen of the World, has set foot in 17 countries,

and has lived in Australia and Hong Kong

|

Muchas gracias mi amigo! (Gotta love Google translate :) No need for the 17+ part. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  03:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Template error

Hi, Volkswagen Touran has a safety template now but i just noticed it has a possible 5 stars for pedestrian safety even though 4 is the maximum possible in an NCAP test. Can you fix this and the template(s) for me? Thanks Jenova20 10:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've also F*&ked up the references again and don't know how to change it =[

Thanks Stepho Jenova20 10:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. |reference_name=xxx must be unique for each separate reference or the same for each use of the same reference. Basically, all references with the same name will be tied together. Also, the description would be better as the name of the vehicle rather than the type of vehicle. So, 'VW Touran' is better than 'LHD MPV'.  Stepho  talk  10:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The reason i do that is because it is obvious which car was tested on the page but the spec is not.

LHD and RHD drive cars can have different ratings occasionally and a rating for a 3-door hatchback is not applicable to a 5-door hatchback or van version.

I do that so people can see it here and compare properly without having to visit the reference each time to compare.

Do you see my point? Thanks Jenova20 11:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Toyota Hilux

Fair enough on the prices. Have moved the other vehicle body styles back to the appropriate section though as they aren't applicable to the older models as far as i'm aware, and even if they were then the references are still for 2011> Thanks Jenova20 09:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries.  Stepho  talk  09:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Managed to mix my results up.

Japan does use the Sedan name rather than saloon.

Thanks for reverting me, although i still don't agree with the Americanization of Wikipedia Jenova20 13:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I get aggravated at the Americanisation (note the spelling) of WP too. However, care must be taken to not go to the other extreme. WP is neither American or British. Japan is not a native English speaking country, so technically it doesn't use 'sedan' or 'saloon'. According to WP:ENGVAR, for non English countries we can use either British or US forms (or Australian, South African, New Zealand, Canadian, etc) but whichever form was used first in the article's history is the form that should be continued with unless there is a consensus to change. So, if the original creator of that article had used 'saloon' then 'saloon' would be the correct form to use. Without this rule we would have editors changing it to their favourite form on a daily basis.  Stepho  talk  20:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to pro-Brit the article, i actually had Sedan and Saloon translated into Japanese to do some searching but mixed the results up.

What did you mean with the spelling of WP?

Surely Americans don't spell Wikipedia differently?

Thanks Jenova20 21:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, meant the spelling of 'Americanisation'. Although there's always 'encyclopaedia' (British) vs 'encyclopedia' (US)  :)  Stepho  talk  00:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

And centre + center & Labour + Labor Jenova20 09:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Moving a page

Hi, if i move a page does the old one get deleted or do i have to list it for deletion? I created MAZDA 121 (UK) as a redirect but then moved it to Mazda 121 (UK) once i noticed MAZDA in upper case. I now have 2 pages and only need the Mazda one. Thanks Stepho Jenova20 09:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy

Hi Stepho. Somewhere recently you quoted the BBC as being sticklers for correct use of language. Sadly that hasn't been true for quite a while now. I understand it was because they chose to dispose of their 'unfortunate' élitist image. Pronunciations of some of our local names are now really startling, perhaps they think their polyglot audience is then more likely to recognize the words from sight bites? Regards Eddaido (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the discussion on 'marque' vs 'brand'. I guess even the gold standard eventually tarnishes :(  Stepho  talk  22:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Google Chrome

Thanks for reverting my revert in this article. I should have checked the article for usage of both spellings before I reverted the first spelling change, so your fix was entirely correct and justified. - Ahunt (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem - I nearly reverted the first change myself until I checked further. As an Australian, I much prefer my native spelling of 'licence', but WP:ENGVAR cuts both ways :)  Stepho  talk  14:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Being a Canadian my inclination is the same! - Ahunt (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I always get on well with Canadians - we normally talk about the common enemy :)  Stepho  talk  21:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. They are closer to us than to you! - Ahunt (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Brag brag

I planned on spotting one of these on a recent trip to Colorado and was very proud to manage seeing one - they are very rare these days. I naturally thought of you as I was photographing it. Cheers,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Great find. Never knew these existed. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, they're still rather common here in Australia. The Japanese grey import Surf is also still seen in decent numbers. A few years ago I spent a few weeks driving my father's diesel Hilux pickup of the same vintage. All I can say is that it taught me patience and gave me plenty of time to think on the way to work :) Nice clear picture though.  Stepho  talk  09:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? I've never noticed the three-door version of that generation. The five-door versions are fairly common though. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry OSX, I thought of you as well as Stepho. And for Stepho, the excitement here regards the three-door bodywork - if you could find a 3-dr Hilux Surf to photograph I would be very happy indeed.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my eavesdropping was just my way of saying I was excited as well. It's not often that I "discover" a new 1980s or 1990s vintage car (American models excepted). I'll be on the look out—hopefully for examples with original wheels. Whenever I discover these rare models I swear people suddenly start following me around because I start seeings these previously rare models all the time... until I move onto my next whim. At the moment it's extended-length first generation Kia Sportages. As soon as I realised there was a longer version a few weeks ago, I've seen several out and about (photos coming soon). OSX (talk • contributions) 09:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, cannot wait - the long-tail Sportages have always looked interesting to me.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I was thinking of the 5 door - the 3 door is much rarer. The one I love to hate is the 2WD 4Runner - considering that the 4 originally stood for 4WD :)  Stepho  talk  10:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Marketing departments are good at making products outside of the naming scope of the original. Front-wheel drive RAV4 and Holden (Commodore) Berlina wagon anyone? (Berlina is Spanish for sedan). Then there's the exhaustive collection of "sports" models that are anything but sporty. Hyundai Excel Sportz, Lexus RX Sports... Honda CR-V Sport (this one totally eschews the said adjective). OSX (talk • contributions) 11:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

A day late and a dollar short, but the Dodge Grand Caravan Sport truly takes the cake for least sporting "Sport"-badged vehicle.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is about as sporty as most caravans pulled behind the family car...  Stepho  talk  08:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Chevrolet Vega merger

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, editing other editors comments is extremely bad practice.. I did not do it lightly. I also made sure that my changes were explicitly added to the conversation - ie it was not hidden or done deviously. If you feel that I have been underhanded or have materially changed your edit then please contact an administrator and see if he/she prefers my small change or your blatant swearing. My conscious is clear on this matter.  Stepho  talk  22:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't give a rat's *** about your "conscious". Don't mess with other user's posts. Writegeist (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you did not swear on my talk page. If you feel so strong about it then you should report me.  Stepho  talk  23:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, please note that among the 7,900+ examples of the colloquialism's repetition on WP without challenge, alteration, removal, or substitution by asterisks, there are numerous instances of its use by administrators. Altering other editors' posts in discussions is almost always - as in this case - inappropriate and unacceptable. Reverting them repeatedly to your personally preferred version is WP:Edit warring, a blockable offence, which in this instance can only be aggravated by your very explicitly stated intention to edit-war in this fashion. Your claim that the colloquialism is "not allowed" is demonstrably false, and misinterprets WP policy. (Please also read WP:WL 4: Misinterpreting policy. . . to justify inappropriate actions.) The presence here of almost 8,000 unremarked and unaltered examples clearly demonstrates that the phrase is, in fact, allowed. Now that this has been explained to you I think it would be unwise to interfere with other editors' posts again. Writegeist (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

So even after I have publicly given in, you want to rub my nose it in. Would you like to burn my house down while you're at it?  Stepho  talk  13:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I've given up pyromania. Thanks to Pyromaniacs Anonymous I haven't burned any houses down for almost three years now. I did't see that you had "publicly given in" until after I'd posted - our posting times were only minutes apart. I had probably started mine while you were finishing yours. And your "giving in" should have nothing to do with what "others want" (your words at CV Talk, as if you thought you were being altruistic). Policy here is not about what "others want". It's about what makes the project workable. I'd like to think you'd want that too. We all make mistakes here. (I've made some horrendously big ones.) Recognizing them for what they are helps us get better at this. Writegeist (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, a compromise. We could argue the merits of censorship and profanity all year, probably not convincing each other and probably just make each other grumpier. I'll voluntarily drop the censorship. Will you be willing to voluntarily drop the profanity? After all, all I really want is a civil discussion - whether I win or lose.  Stepho  talk  15:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear. As I tried to explain and demonstrate, the use of that colloquialism is not in breach of any WP rules. (Different if, for example, I told you to "p*** off".) There is nothing there to argue. It's clear-cut. On the other foot, it's a blatant breach for any editor to appoint him/herself as a censor, to unilaterally proscribe colloquialisms that are in accepted use (as evidenced by instances numbering in the thousands), to alter other editors' legitimate posts to conform to totally invented proscriptive rules that are non-existent in policy - and to edit-war to impose the breach. No hard feelings. Happy editing. Writegeist (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a way for us to stop fighting while both of us can have a measure a self-dignity. I've already promised to stop my actions and have requested civility.  Stepho  talk  19:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned there is no fight (I am not your enemy and you are not mine), and in my view your dignity is fully intact. I have been civil to you. This is your talk page - you are free to delete my posts here if they offend you or you feel they threaten your dignity. As I already said, no hard feelings. I wish you well. Writegeist (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Care

Hi. Please take more care when making edits such as this. Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Strange. The two edits before were obviously delete vandalism and I did a simple 'rollback (VANDAL)' on them - just like I have done for years. I haven't got a clue where the 'spam' came from.  Stepho  talk  05:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)