User talk:Stepho-wrs/Archive/2016

Holden Commodore

Hello, just added a bit of information on the 2018 fifth-generation Commodore, hoping that (1) it will stop people claiming the Commodore badge ends in 2017; (2) people won't revert it as being speculation. Once this replacement is launched, I don't see why this information and/or original claims could not be part of the replacement's background info, much like the VT article correctly states that it was intended to be (ironically) a Buick. People are failing to distinguish between end of local production (if it happens) and end of Commodore. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Aussie production will probably stop in 2017 but 'probably' isn't good enough for an encyclopaedia. And as you said, the commodore nameplate will continue anyway. Hopefully your scheme will work.  Stepho  talk  14:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

WWIII

Yeah, with this thing starting with Iran and Saudi Arabia, I thought I'd just go ahead and label it WWIII.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Official websites

Template:Official websites has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Codename Lisa (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Justify

You will need to justify, on the talkpage, why you're going against the advice of two other editors in insisting on mixed date formats. If you do not provide satisfactory reasoning, I will again harmonise the dates. Tony (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:BRD says that we need to discuss on the talk page before change it yet again and that it should remain in its prior state until the discussion says to change it (or not). I'm happy to talk at talk:Toyota Corolla (E170) but please don't change it yet again.  Stepho  talk  03:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Lada Riva

I've opened a move discussion for the Riva, as using this UK-only name for the 2105/04/07 seems ill-advised. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Lexus LF-CC

Is there a reason why you added this statement, "Design concepts from the LF-CC were used on the production Lexus IS sedan and the Lexus RC coupe." in this edit? Were you trying to say instead that, all 3 vehicles shared cues with each other and that the LF-CC cues later were produced for public consumption (purchasing) via the XE30 (IS) and XC10 (RC)?

If not (or similarly), that would be misleading since both cars (XE30 and XC10) designs were signed off before that concept was unveiled in September 2012. The LF-CC could not have directly influenced them, being that the LF-CC was an adaptation of the XE30 concept in 2-door form and a subsequent design development. The RC fascia has some similarities, being that the XC10 design was definitive (nearly final, not yet frozen) by the time work began on the LF-CC.

A concept debuting before future production models, doesn't always entail that the "concept" developmentally influenced product planning. The LF-LC might be a unique example in this case, but most often this does not happen. The LF-Ch Concept of 2009 was shown parallel to design patents being filed on the ZWA10 CT's design in September 2009, being designed in definitive form in 2008. Much of the "LF" concepts do not directly influence models, but rather borrow from existing future production developments, prior to their respective design freezes or subsequent to them.

In many respects, the amount of lead time between a concept's showcasing and Job #1 can give this away very easily. Less than 18-24 months, is often the case where a concept was instead developed off of a production (design) model in the pipeline than vice-versa. More than 2 years lead time, is a perfect example of what LF-LC = LC500 is. A design study turned into a production model, with plenty of internal development time to start from scratch or adapt from existing platforms (i.e. 2002 Hummer via GMT800 = quick development).

I really want to work at it and help all of us maintain consistency with that. A good neutral (unbiased) timeline/timetable on models, along with the necessary information in the articles. Information on models from their roots/inception in development stages, brief summaries of gradual updates, and conclusion of life-cycles, with at least 99% accurate info present. My reason for that, is to help establish background information in the history of model's life-cycle for the owners and prospective secondhand or etc. buyers.---Carmaker1 (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That was over a year ago and I can't remember my thoughts from that time. Probably I copied the idea from both the IS and RC articles, both of say the same thing. The CC had a gestation period of its own, so it's possible that the design cues for all 3 were made about the same time (as you suggested). The IS and RC were to be production vehicles, so it would be hard to make a test mule that was feature complete. But the CC concept car could be knocked up quickly to test the waters. If the public responded badly to it then the IS and RC plans would be changed before they had a lemon on their hands. we could reword it slightly to be "Design concepts used on the LF-CC were also used on the production Lexus IS sedan and the Lexus RC coupe."  Stepho  talk  05:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Quarto_Group

@Stepho-wrs: Hi, I saw that you had recently flagged up my edit for the Quarto Group, I was wondering whether you could go over what I have written here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Abmd942/Quarto_Group and tell me what you think about it? It would be great to have your opinion! Tell me your thoughts, and thanks for any help you can give! Abmd942 (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Abmd942: That looks reasonable to me. It's not an over-the-top advert, it's clear and factual and it has references to back it up. There are a few small mechanical issues (I already fixed one date to make it consistent with the format of the other references) such as references should go after the terminating period of a sentence but this type of thing can be fixed up easily enough.  Stepho  talk  02:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Extreme Misunderstanding

On the article, Pontiac, you thought I had typed in "assport" but that is wrong. If you look carefully, you will see that the P in Passport was mistakenly behind the word (mercury). I did not realize that that had happened and when I reviewed what i had done, I thought i would be blocked right away. Thanks for your understanding. FixCop (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting that mistake. FixCop (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I figured it was just a typo - done similar myself.  Stepho  talk  00:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	You know boss when you see it. Yourself. FixCop (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.  Stepho  talk  04:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Renaming a page

Hi Stepho-wrs,

I recently suggested that the Proton Arena page be renamed Proton Jumbuck. Please feel free to share your thoughts on the matter. Even a simple 'Support' or 'Oppose' would be much appreciated ! Many thanks, Aero777 (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at the NPOV noticeboard regarding an issue in which you have been involved. Although I did not mention you in the discussion opening, you have contributed to the issue in question, and so you may wish to comment on the new discussion. Thank you. Jeh (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Lamborghini Centario

For the page, i saw the proposal. I was thinking of having the page be deleted an d merged into the article. It is similar to what corporate Lamborghini ahd done to the Reventon. Its unique but its part of the Mercielago line. Winterysteppe (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Centenario.

I don't think that the Centenario should be featured as it's own subject on the Aventador Wiki page as it is a completely different model... It's like featuring a McLaren P1 on the MP4-12C page and it not having a page of it's own.

If anything there should only be a small paragraph about the Centenario on the Aventador's page with a redirect link to the full Centenario page.

Blvk (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It is better to leave comments at Talk:Lamborghini Aventador#Merge Centenario so that everybody can see them. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  10:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Cite template.

Thanks again for fixing the dates om the GM streetcar page. Why does the citation template put them in "wrong" by default, do you know? Anmccaff (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi! The template itself doesn't actually have a default. But the tool you use to fill in the fields might have a default. Many tools use only dd mm yyyy or mm dd, yyyy because that is all the tool creator was used to. You would have to ask the guy that created the tool. I do mine by hand, so the template always uses whatever I type.  Stepho  talk  09:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Stepho. I sometimes let added refs be bare and not filled. I have thought about how to improve this, not just for me, but for everyone. I sometimes use User:Zhaofeng_Li/CiteGen and reFill in FireFox, reducing the manual work. I have started TabToReference, but it needs someone else than me to lead and/or contribute. You and others are welcome to contribute anyway you can, as I cannot. TGCP (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Mitsu Outlander PHEV

Hi Stepho. I would like your opinion about the Mitsubishi Outlander P-HEV section. I think that the plug-in variant has gain enough notability (top selling PEV in Europe and several countries, world's top selling PHEV in 2014 and 2015, ...) to deserve its own stand alone artile. Also, today I finish expanding the car's specs and PHEV features, and by now, the section about the plug-in hybrid outweights the third generation section, and indeed any of the sections of the main article. So I think there is merit for splitting the PHEV from the main article. What do you think? I also consulted OSX about this proposal. If you agree, should I open a discussion or do a bold split? Thanks for your time. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Utility Vehicle

The topic is being discussed at the page you have referenced several times. Either you are not checking for some inexplicable reason before making unsubstantiated claims that it is being ignored or you are being disingenuous. Is there an mitigating circumstance or should I assume hostile intent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.196.5.67 (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, I saw your message on the talk page a couple of minutes after I made that comment. I will reply properly on that talk page later today.  Stepho  talk  23:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Tool for improving automated ref creation

Hi Stepho. What do you think about this proposal: TabToReference. Would you support it? Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: The U.S. Response

So implied geographical bias is more important than trying to make the domestic response to a scandal instigated by its own government more legible?

The gigantic paragraph was just unreadable. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Give me a few minutes to rearrange it. Please also read WP:BRD to prevent edit wars. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  22:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Farther vs. Further

Actually this is a good example of farther being used correctly: "Also, the P-51 could fly even farther - from Iwo Jima to Tokyo and back.". However, I'm leaving further in place, because I suspect that in modern usage farther is dying fast.

No problem. Further sounded right to my ears but I'm no grammarian, so I won't make a fuss about it. Thanks for the polite response - so rare nowadays.  Stepho  talk  07:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead image

Hello,

Thank you for letting me know, but most people would assume the car is the newest generation if the main picture is an older generation and the new model looks different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyl1G (talk • contribs) 01:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from but I disagree with the must-have-the-latest thought that advertising companies shove down our throat. But everybody is entitled to an opinion, entitled to express that opinion and entitle to have that opinion be taken into account to form policy - even when the opinion differs from mine. Please feel free to express your opinion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Lead_Image - but have a good read first.  Stepho  talk  01:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

toyota and your website

Just wanted you to know that your website contains malware... My computer was able to stop me in time so no harm no foul but maybe something you would want to look into. I'm curious as to why you only like toyota's pre-1985? I am a toyota fanatic myself and am currently attending school to become a toyota dealership technician. All hail William Edwards Deming!!! 199.19.248.20 (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the malware - I will clean it up over the weekend.  Stepho  talk  02:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I like pre-1985 Toyota's mostly because they are simpler to work on and modify, I like the styling better (don't like the jelly bean look of most modern cars) and people recognise my car instantly instead of being just one of the crowd. And of course asymmetric FWD totally sucks when driving at 9 tenths. My day job is writing software for ECU's for CNG powered vehicles and the electrical interface to the rest of the vehicle is where we get most of our angst from. Not a problem with older, pre OBD-II vehicles. Good luck on your studies.  Stepho  talk  02:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I used several online tools to scan my website and they all say clean. I also downloaded it and compared it to the original files to see if any had been added or changed. No changes. Can you give any more info about the suspected malware? Thanks.  Stepho  talk  00:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes browsers like Google Chrome flag websites as dangerous even though they are not. Sometimes obviously legitimate websites get caught up in this. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Might be because my website is hand coded (ie doesn't use standard packages) and Google Chrome thinks my fancy stuff is some type of HTML injection.  Stepho  talk  01:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tesla Motors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kostomłoty. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed Disambiguated to Kostomłoty, Lower Silesian Voivodeship.  Stepho  talk  23:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Subaru pronunciation

I noticed that you reverted my edit and directed me to a discussion on the talk page. I've read that discussion and reintroduced my edit, this time with an alternative for the "Australian" pronunciation (which I'm also familiar with in New Zealand). Essentially the IPA I introduced reflects the same pronunciations that you had proposed, soo-BAH-roo and SOO-bah-roo, except that I've altered the transcription based on what I know about IPA and reversed the order of the alternatives. I've put my reasoning on the talk page. Ben Arnold (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem.  Stepho  talk  05:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Pickup truck

Stepho-wrs, let me clear that I checked for a {{Use British English}} tag before instituting that edit, and found none. In addition, as the topic is predominantly American in origin (as the article text makes clear), I can easily argue that under WP:TIES, the article should actually be tagged as {{Use American English}}. Regardless of that, as MOS:U.S. is pretty clear on this topic, I would ask you to self-revert, as there is zero reason to retain "US" over "U.S." (Failing that, the appropriate solution would simply be to go through the article and spell out "United States", a change I made in the first case which you also reverted). Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

"Pretty clear", "zero reason" ? Obviously not or I would not have done it. The pickup culture is also pretty strong here in Australia and in some other countries like New Zealand and South Africa, so I don't think the article topic is predominantly American - even though the article is written using many American examples. Probably best to put it to a vote on the pickup discussion page. Please feel free to raise it there.  Stepho  talk  22:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Would you be willing to compromise with simply spelling out "United States" in all instances in the article? I think that's a perfectly acceptable option, certainly one that I'd be happy with. What do you think? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Spelling it out fully for the first instance is perfectly fine but it gets unwieldy when done all the time. But I do appreciate that you are looking for a compromise instead of a bitter fight (been in a few too many of those). Better if you start a discussion on the pickup talk page. You make your case, I'll make my case and hopefully other people will add their views. I'm happy to go with whatever the majority decide.  Stepho  talk  04:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Toyota SG

First of all, let me apologize for the breach of protocol. When I went to your talk page last time, there was something saying that I couldn't edit it. That, coupled with the rather generic description in your revert, led me to believe that you were some sort of bot.

I thought that you had simply reversed my edit. Because I was still under the assumption that you were a bot, or an admin that didn't see the whole picture, I didn't think that you had actually addressed the problem that I was attempting to solve. I'm not trying to cause trouble.

-TBustah 05:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Please comment on the talk page and we'll have a discussion. One or both of us will learn something :) Cheers.  Stepho  talk  05:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

My apologies

I had made the incorrect assumption that you simply reverted my edit completely (your edit summary contained the word 'revert') to Plug-in hybrid.

(ie: from mi(km) & mi(km) back to mi(km) & km(mi))

I should have looked more closely!--98.122.20.56 (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

We're both trying to improve the article, so no problem.  Stepho  talk  02:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Spinner (wheel)

Stepho wrote: (Revert good faith edit. the original was more accurate and didn't give too much emphasis to a passing fad. The original spinner is just as safe as separate lug nets and a lot faster for changing in mid-race.)

Your statements are not accurate. Your first inaccurate statement is, i.e. (The original spinner is just as safe as separate lug nets) The fact is NO they are not! This is why the majority of wheel and tire shops will not accept liability for knock-off installations and many simply and completely refuse to dismount or mount wheels with knock-off wheel hubs.

Your second inaccurate statement is (and a lot faster for changing in mid-race.) Well they are faster to change so that is factual, but you describe them being misleading giving the impression that they are the leading racing mounting method which is completely inaccurate, when in fact they are only used in TWO of seventeen forms of auto racing, thus leaving readers to believe all other fifteen forms of auto racing also use knock-offs when that is completely false and inaccurate! This is why NASCAR, NHRA Dragsters, Sprint Cup Series, Nationwide Series, World Truck Series, Grand National Series, Winston Cup Series, Nextel Cup Series, Busch Series, Super Truck Series, Craftsman Truck Series, CASCAR Super Series, ARCA, World of Outlaw Series, SCCA Series ALL use LUG NUTS.

Those that do not use lug nuts and use (what you call a "spinner" are actually "Knock-Offs) knock-offs are ONLY used in 2 types of auto racing and those are Indy Car Series and Formula 1.

Regardless whether the speak is coming from Australia or the United States the topic of "lug nuts" are spelled exactly as I just spelled it, not "lug nets" as you keep referring to them as. Also, the free-spinning spinners are not just a fad as they are still selling at around $4,000.oo USD. True, they did use to sell many more when they first debuted.

I see that you are very experienced in Toyota etc. but there seems to be much about the complete history of how the knock-offs were used as a component of the automobiles complete suspension system, never being mentioned by you, therefore misleading the reader with disinformation by omission. There also seems to be a great deal of information not acknowledged by you in the field of auto racing, open and closed wheel racing, lug nuts and knock-offs. I am not meaning to be rude or condescending but when you did not have the knowledge that only two forms of seventeen plus forms of auto racing, it really seems you are more concerned with having the 'last word' rather than giving the reader complete exposure to all the information, not just your opinion. The facts speak for themselves and you seem to be intellectual enough to care about this as this is one of the major problems plaguing Wikipedia and that is disinformation.

I have read the history and this topic, well not the knock-offs vs lug nuts conversation we are having, but with the other sections below our section and there seems to be a blatant battle of the ego's and emotion that is more important than accurate information. Just because it is the wheel contributors seems to think there is not all that much to it, but the wheels, balance, off-sets and camber has come a long way. Just the section about lug nuts themselves on Wikipedia has more information than this section about the wheel that uses them. On a side note, what and why in the world is there more information about music in this section than actual information about the mechanicals? I would also like to inform the public about lug nut "adapters" pro and cons, but I really hate to waste all my time and reseach just to have it deleted because others are uninformed when the informed ones are those using them already and more importantly wondering if they should use them and if they are safe to use them. I am the new kid on the block so-to-speak so any knowledge and suggestions would be highly appreciated. Best Regards, ~~JustHelping614~~

JustHelping614 (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)JustHelping614JustHelping614 (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the long delay. I'm not ignoring you but I've been too busy to enter the long reply that is in my head. I will be busy for the next couple of days but will respond about mid-week.  Stepho  talk  10:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh please take your time. I understand this is all voluntary work by all of you, and I have much to learn so I am reading a lot, plus I didn’t realize how much I wrote and inquired from you until once I posted it. Thanks again, ~~JustHelping614~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustHelping614 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I Understand that you are busy, but isn't that what Wikipedia is about and that to utilize all peoples time and knowledge about subjects and not for just one person to work on an entire page and subject? I am not understanding this page and edits at all. Are you the "exclusive editor" of this page and only what you are aware of is allowed, regardless of its lack of accuracy or are “other” people allowed to edit this Spinner (wheel) page? ~~justhelping614~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BDDB:35F0:59E3:7B5C:7AF7:33E0 (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for being slow to answer. I've been extremely busy with work and reading you message is a bit like getting a cup of water from a fire hose. Anyway, here we go:

1. You claim lug nuts are safer than spinners with the support being that wheel and tyre shops (note, I use Australian/British spelling in my replies on my own talk page) refuse to support them. I offer an alternative explanation for why they refuse them. How about that spinners are extremely rare for modern road going vehicles. So most shops have no experience in them. They also don't have a power tool to torque up the spinner (nobody does anything by hand any more). In this world of litigation, the shop is afraid that it will be sued if the spinner is not torqued up high enough but they don't know what the correct torque value is. Or if they torque it too much then they might break it. Better to refuse it then to risk being sued.
2. "a lot faster for changing in mid-race" does not imply that they are the leading method of mounting wheels. It only says that if you use spinners then it can be changed faster. There are many other reasons why they are not used in motor sport any more - the biggest one being that most motor sports require cars to use parts based on production vehicles - either an explicit rule or just the economics of using production based parts. Modern production vehicles use lugs, so therefore racing cars follow. I also notice that you list 17 forms of motor sport worded such that these cover the entire sport. But they are all US based events. If you want to get picky and say that spinners are in "TWO of seventeen forms of auto racing" then I can also get picky and say you need to look outside of the US. But I never claimed they were the most common, so your argument is moot.
3. Spinner and Knock-offs are synonyms. Both terms are valid. You can't say my term is invalid just because you favour the other term. You also repeated the mistake of thinking that US auto sports somehow cover the entire world - see my point #2 above.
4. "Lug nets" was a one-off typo on my part. How does a single typo get referred to as "continuously"?
5. Fad. The price isn't what determines a fad (note, don't put $ and USD together because it reads as four thousand dollars US dollars). Your own reply "they did use to sell many more" helps prove my point. I have visited many countries in the last 25 years. I have seen spinners on cars outside the US in exact none of them. Note that I have been an automobile enthusiast for over 30 years and currently work in the auto industry, so this is the type of thing I look for.
6. You claim that I have left out information (implying that I am intentionally misleading the readers?). Well, since I didn't write the article (I just tweaked it here and there), you can hardly claim that it was I who was misleading. But putting that aside, what part did the article leave out? If you have suggestions for more details then please raise them on the talk page. You again repeated your assertion that your 17 listed forms of US motor sports somehow shows my ignorance of world-wide motor sports. You probably shouldn't throw stones in a glass house.
7. Music. I agree with you on this one. I'd like to see this section reduced to a single 'See also' line at the top of the article.
8. Ownership. You are quite right right that I don't own the article. But neither do you. Look at the article's history and also look at my history of contributions to see how I work with other editors. I believe my record shows that I generally work well with others. If you feel unhappy about how I reverted your changes then you have a number of legitimate actions you can take:
   1. Raise it on my talk page and we can discuss it like gentlemen. You have done this.
   2. Raise it on the article talk page and ask for the wider community to comment.
   3. Raise it Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles and ask for the even wider community to comment.
   4. Further ideas are at wp:Dispute resolution  Stepho  talk  06:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

My reply will be in parentheses and large caps within a copy of your reply below. I am ‘not’ yelling, they are in large caps to be able to help distinguish them.

1. You claim lug nuts are safer

(THEY ARE) than spinners with the support being that wheel and tyre shops (note, I use Australian/British spelling in my replies on my own talk page) refuse to support them. (UNDERSTOOD) I offer an alternative explanation for why they refuse them. How about that spinners are extremely rare for modern road going vehicles (HOW ABOUT? DON'T YOU KNOW? THE WIRE WHEELS AND KNOCK-OFF SPINNERS ARE STILL QUITE POPULAR ESPECIALLY WITH THE LOW-RIDER COMMUNITY AND WITH MANUFACTURING WORLDWIDE. YOU ARE HIGHLY MISTAKEN HERE. NO, THEY ARE NOT BIG SELLERS IN 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES). So most shops have no experience in them. They also don't have a power tool to torque up the spinner (nobody does anything by hand any more) (WRONG, THEY ARE ONE-WAY OFF AND ON. THEY DO NOT HAVE SPECIFIC TORQUE SPECS AND EVERY TIRE SHOP HAS A BRASS DEAD-BLOW HAMMER AND IT DOESN'T TAKE A CERTTIFIED MECHANIC TO PERFORM IT. YOU ARE TAKING GUESS'S IN A FEILD YOU ARE NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH AS YOU WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE AND I HAVE BEEN). In this world of litigation, the shop is afraid that it will be sued if the spinner is not torqued up high enough but they don't know what the correct torque value is. Or if they torque it too much then they might break it (THIS CANNOT BE DONE BY A HUMAN. AGAIN YOU DO NOT UNDERTSAND STEEL STRENGTHS). Better to refuse it then to risk being sued (THIS IS WHAT I THOUGHT I SAID).

1. "a lot faster for changing in mid-race" does not imply that they are the leading method of mounting wheels

(YES, YES YOU DID IMPLY THAT, TO MY ITERPRETATION THAT IS.) It only says that if you use spinners then it can be changed faster. There are many other reasons why they are not used in motor sport any more - the biggest one being that most motor sports require cars to use parts based on production vehicles - either an explicit rule or just the economics of using production based parts. Modern production vehicles use lugs, so therefore racing cars follow (IN A VERY MINIMUM FEW RACE SERIES DOES THAT APPLY AND YOU CANNOT EVEN NAME THEM AND I CANNOT FIND THEM!). I also notice that you list 17 forms of motor sport worded such that these cover the entire sport. But they are all US based events. If you want to get picky and say that spinners are in "TWO of seventeen forms of auto racing" then I can also get picky and say you need to look outside of the US (THAT 17 DOES INCLUDE RACING WORLDWIDE, PLEASE NAME THE ONES I HAVE OVER-LOOKED). But I never claimed they were the most common, so your argument is moot (ONLY MOOT TO YOU, NOT TO THOSE THAT NEED THE KNOWLEDGE).

1. Spinner and Knock-offs are synonyms. Both terms are valid. You can't say my term is invalid just because you favour the other term

(IT IS NOT ABOUT BEING FAVORED, IT IS ABOUT BEING SPECIFIC AND PRECISE). You also repeated the mistake of thinking that US auto sports somehow cover the entire world - see my point #2 above (AGAIN, PLEASE NAME A RACE SERIES THAT I HAVE OVER-LOOKED, REGADLESS OF COUNTRY).

1. "Lug nets" was a one-off typo on my part. How does a single typo get referred to as "continuously"?

(UNDERSTOOD)

1. Fad. The price isn't what determines a fad (note, don't put $ and USD together because it reads as four thousand dollars US dollars). Your own reply "they did use to sell many more" helps prove my point

(SO IN YOUR LINE OF THOUGHT, BECAUSE NEW CARS COME WITH OEM SOLID ALUMINUM WHEELS, THAT HUB CAPS WERE A ALSO A FAD? THAT IS EXACTLY IN-LINE WITH YOUR VIEW POINT, SO YOU ACTUALLY PROVED MINE ABOUT MY OPINION OF YOU). I have visited many countries in the last 25 years. I have seen spinners on cars outside the US in exact none of them. Note that I have been an automobile enthusiast for over 30 years and currently work in the auto industry, so this is the type of thing I look for (30 YEARS? AND YOU CANNOT NAME #18 / #19 / #20 / #21 ETC. OF THE CAR RACE SERIES YOU STATE I DON'T HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF? YOU BELIEVE SHOPS NO LONGER USE HAND TOOLS AND ARE ALL USING PNEUMATIC ONES! YOU MAY HAVE BEEN AN ENTHUSIAST OF 30 YEARS BUT APPEARENTLY YOU HAVEN'T BEEN "IN" A SHOP. ON A SIDE NOTE, MY FAMILY HAS OWNED THREE, THE FIRST ESTABLISHED IN 1956 TO SAY NOTHING ABOUT INDUSTRY ASSOCOIATES WITH NATIONWIDE FRANCHISES. I WILL HAVE TO TAKE THE VIEW OF THE EXPERTS RATHER THAN AN ENTHUSIAST, I AM SURE YOU UNDERSTAND. I AM WONDERING IF OUT OF THOSE 25 COUNTRIES YOU HAVE BEEN TO, IS THE UNITED STATES ONE OF THEM? HAVE TO EVER ATTENDED THE SEMA SHOW EVERY FALL IN LAS VEGAS, NV. UNITED STATES? THAT IS WHERE THE EXPERTS ARE).

1. You claim that I have left out information (implying that I am intentionally misleading the readers?). Well, since I didn't write the article (I just tweaked it here and there), you can hardly claim that it was I who was misleading

(MISLEADING BY OMMISSION ...YES!). But putting that aside, what part did the article leave out? If you have suggestions for more details then please raise them on the talk page. You again repeated your assertion that your 17 listed forms of US motor sports somehow shows my ignorance of world-wide motor sports (YOU ONLY CONTINUALLY MENTION ALL MY 17 MOTOR SPORT SERIES I MENTION, YET YOU CANNOT, WILL NOT MENTION EVEN ONE THAT I HAVE OVER-LOOKED, AGAIN SUPPORTING MY KNOWLEDGE OF 17). You probably shouldn't throw stones in a glass house (YOU HAVE FAILED TO ADDRESS THE PORTION ABOUT WHEEL ADAPTERS, HOW THEY ARE USED, THE PROS AND CONS OF THEM, AGAIN IT SEEMS YOU WISH TO PICK AND CHOSE WHAT KNOWLEDGE READERS CAN AND CANNOT HAVE).

(FOUR QUESTIONS. SO YOU ARE BUSY AND I AM BUSY SO LET'S MAKE THIS EASY.) (#1 WHAT AUTOMOTIVE RACE SERIES OR RACE CAR TYPE DID I OVER-LOOK? YOU REFER TO MY 17 TYPES AS ONLY BEING IN THE USA AND MANY ARE WORLDWIDE, AND THIS IS WHAT GIVES MY DOUBTS ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF YOUR DATA.) (#2 SO ACCORDING TO YOU DUE TO OEM, HUB CAPS TOO ARE A "FAD" JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T SELL AS MANY AS THEY USE TO?) (#3 AS FOR THE ADAPTERS. CAN YOU PLEASE ADD THIS KNOWLEDGE TO THE ARTICLE FOR CHANGING KNOCK-OFF SPINNERS TO THE LUGNUT METHEOD AND CHANGING THE LUGNUT METHOD OVER TO THE KNOCK-OFF METHOD USING THESE ADAPTERS AND FOR BEING ABLE TO ALLOW WHEEL SIZE CHANGES AND BRANDS, I.E. PLACING CHEVY WHEEL ON A FORD, THEN THE PROS AND CONS INCLUDING THE SAFETY FACTORS OF DOING SO.) (#4 UNDER SPINNER WHEEL MODERN CONCEPT, WHY HAVE YOU NOT EXPLAINED THE DANGERS THAT THE ILLEGALLY PIRATED MODERN SPINNERS FROM CHINA HAVE CAUSED BY USING AN INFERIOR BEARINGS THAT HAVE ACTUALLY SEPARATED AND CAME OFF THE AUTOMOBILE WHEEL WHILE IN MOTION?) ~~JustHelping614~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustHelping614 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I was hoping to learn from you as you are so exceptionally well versed on Wikipedia, but have only learned that those with the most knowledge of ‘how’ Wikipedia works has the final say so, not those with the actual facts, much like politics. I now see why there are so many negative complaints and Wikipedia is not allowed to be used for “fact checking” on its own in some academia.

You say you are not misleading people, but it is you that will not allow others to add “facts” and feel you must proof read others and wish to only suggest it, talk about it, discuss it, but you are so busy you again have not replied to these four questions. I have gone back and read the last few years of changes to this article and can see why you have such an emotional tie to it as it seems you have removed other completely legitimate and accurate statements of facts and I can visually see where your emotions got involved as you felt insulted. That is not an insult as we all have egos, but after reading all that you have removed you need to lighten up or just stick to the Toyota’s and manuals and “tweaks” as you call them as you mentally rape the Spinner Wheel Modern Concept article down to ‘two’ sentences consisting of only ‘four’ lines that are actually about the Modern Concept and it was the largest advancement to one of the world’s oldest inventions and this even happened in the New Millennium. That is a pretty big deal. I also noted you seem to rely closely to only one source that may be a friend of yours that is also into cars for your research queries.

I’m not sure about all these 25 countries you brag about going to, but it sure seems like the United States has not been one of them as they are still selling here and are ‘not’ illegal or outlawed and are still on the streets here in the states. So they were not just a fad, the sales have simply dropped after being maxed out as it was considered phenomena in the aftermarket custom car world. Well excuse me that was incorrect as “factory” Rolls Royce also used the devise and not only aftermarket custom autos. Even though you live in Perth, Australia you still have access to eBay and it can easily been witnessed that they are indeed still selling. So you've sort of made my point for me as you cannot, or will not, answer these four easy questions and will only allow facts that ‘you’ have knowledge of. On side note, this was also one of the most egregious cases of illegal pirating in U.S. legal history, but who needs to read something like that when they can read how many “rappers” etc. wrote songs about them, right? Thank god I live in the United States where speech is 'not' restricted and freedom of it is paramount and respected. JustHelping614 (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustHelping614 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Stepho I find you to be very mentally lazy and are not much more than an intellectual chew toy. Enjoy your power trip on Wikipedia and stick with your Toyoto manuals there in Perth world. You won’t get over your head that way as you have done here. JustHelping614 (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

WARNING / CAUTION DO NOT USE Stepho's Toyota Site! The site CONTAINS MALWARE Attackers currently will attempt to install dangerous programs on your computer that steal or delete your information (for example, photos, passwords, messages, and credit cards). Screen shots taken and will be posted in the near future. JustHelping614 advises.

Legal End-Notes (1) "A privileged occasion is an occasion where the person who makes a communication has an interest or a duty, legal, social or moral, to make it to the person to whom it is made and the person to whom it is made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it. This reciprocity is essential" [Adam v. Ward (1917) A. C. 309].

(2) A person who has information materially affecting the interests of another is entitled to tell that other person what he knows with the honest purpose of protecting his interests, and if he does so with that honest purpose and in the full belief that his information is true, such communication, though volunteered and made to a complete stranger, is privileged [Stuart v. Bell (1891) 2 Q. B. 341]. JustHelping614 (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Seriously CTFD! OSX (talk • contributions) 22:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

JH614, I have not replied for so long because (a) I have been quite busy on more productive tasks (Wikipedia, work and personal) and (b) you are an unpleasant person to deal with.

Re: "mentally lazy" - click on my "User contributions" on the left side of this page to prove you have told an outright lie.

Re: "Intellectual chew toy" - I design ECU software for Volvo CNG cars as my day job. But that's nowhere near as intellectually demanding as making cosmetic bling.

Re: Malware - could you provide more detail. I take such accusations seriously. Some web based scanners erroneously say my page has malware but further investigations have shown that they merely didn't understand my handwritten HTML (I don't use third party HTML authoring tools and this sometimes confuses the scanners, even though it is perfectly valid HTML).I have just downloaded my website back to my PC and compared it with my original, intended files. I found no changes to what I intended and no sign of real viruses. Here is a typical false alarm https://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/members.iinet.net.au/~stepho/ that merely shows the scanner is not very smart (lack of an index file on my server defaults to showing a directory listing of files - which is what I wanted on those few pages).

Re: "Legal End-Notes" - does this have any relevance or purpose beyond a failed attempt to intimidate me?

To answer your four questions:

1. Which race car series did you leave out? Hill climbs (more common in Britain), Formula 1 and Appendix J (historic cars, Australian) for a short list. But irrelevant because I only said that spinners allow faster wheels changes where they are allowed. I never said they are more popular, therefore the list proves nothing either way.
2. A fad lasts only for a few years. Hubcaps dominated for something like 50-80 years (depending on where you define the cutoff point). Spinners may still be sold but in tiny numbers, and even those small numbers are mostly restricted to the US. I've never seen one on the road in my entire life in Australia. I recently spent a month in Europe (Sweden, Germany, Italy) and never noticed them there either.
3. Adaptors for using lug nut wheels on spinner hubs. Fair enough. Chevy wheels on Fords (presumably both wheels and cars use lug nuts) - why on Earth would a spinner article include that?
4. Dangers of Chinese pirate spinners. Not explained for the same reason that the brake, steering, airbag and suspension articles don't - cheap ripoffs are inherently of lower quality and everybody knows this. Besides, hubcaps have been coming off cars ever since they were invented and are not treated as a life-threatening danger and generally do not cause a car to crash (ie not like a wheel bearing failure or brake failure).

FYI, I have been to the US - I was providing technical assistance at the FAA Technical Center in Atlantic City in the wake of 9/11. Sadly, I didn't get the opportunity to visit any race courses or SEMA. A glance at my user page would have shown you the US flag among the countries I have visited.  Stepho  talk  15:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

1) Stepho, You are that busy but you could still make time to write all this, much about yourself, suggesting what I should have read about you and your travels in the USA doing FAATC work around 911 and that you couldn't make it to a SEMA race, as this would have somehow furthered your knowledge, is nothing more than bloviating about yourself. I asked 4 (FOUR) simple questions that a man with such intellect and experience you claim to have should have been able to answer in five minutes, and now after all this great writing of Stepho about Stepho you still have not informed me of the other forms of racing using single knock-offs rather than lug-nuts. Why you cannot tell me another form of racing that still uses single knock-offs that you claimed to be used so much in racing because they were quicker to change is because there isn't one! So I can tell when I am getting the run around and that you are just too smart and too big of a man to admit you simply misspoke.

2) As for the dangers of cheap illegally pirated spinners coming off and hurting someone you seem to consider moot, yet you go into speaking about possible "State Laws" being proposed to make them illegal. So which is really more important here, life or law? Rhetorical question please, but can you not see what perplexes me? You are a Volvo software man that does seem to be an important job, yet this "cosmetic bling" you call it seems to have really crawled up your arse because you sure have something stuck up there bothering you. It seems you are use to just running over people mentally with your technical talk, but something this simple is so far beneath you that your ego won't listen to third generation wheel and tire professionals. But I get it as you’re a Toyota Manual man.

3) As for your website I could personally care less and it looks as if a 3rd grader built it, but once I possess and have knowledge of something that could be harmful and/or dangerous to others, I am simply legally and morally obligated to give notice and I did and will, the same as I was TRYING to do here by alerting people to the dangers of wheel adapters and illegally pirated Chinese Spinner wheel copies, in fact, that is exactly what you have pictured as the “Modern Concept” Spinner (wheel). Now that I have knowledge of Wikipedia not allowing me or others to alert consumers of the inherit dangers about this product on Wikipedia that too needs to be addressed, nothing personal. I will simply alert Wikipedia Legal Department and I will then feel I have done all that I can do to warn others, again nothing personal. If you really knew what you were talking about when it comes to these Spinner wheels you probably wouldn’t be using an illegal product as an exhibit without telling the reader/public. Once again I did note that you seem to use the same sources for all things automotive and I have seen old car guys set in their ways for years and they get left on the side of the road.

4) I too have better things to do than continue a war of egos or intellect or whatever is going on here as my ego just isn’t that big and I am tiring off taking this long just to add a few simple warning sentences to a section of an article that drastically needs it, but if I hear of any new rap songs about "spinners" I'll propose it to you for an official proof reading and Stepho certification before posting.

5) On a personal level, I find it extremely cheap and cheesy that you use Wikipedia to direct traffic to your personal website, car club or whatever you Toyota guys do. I wished I could say it has been a pleasure but it hasn’t. Good luck to you sir. JustHelping614 (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Ummm... he just listed appendix J and hill climbs - and, again, you listed 17 US auto sports to challenge a point which had never been made. He was suggesting you were suffering from americentrism. Additionally, touring cars usually use knock-offs as do many many other motor sports. The decorative blobs placed on cars by the mentally deficient are of very slight relevance, although certainly worth mentioning. Anyhow, I am glad it's not just me attracting lunatics any more.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

JH, Your replies shoot off in so many random directions that I feel like I'm in a chess match against a guy with a weed wacker. Could you choose one point to discuss at a time? We can then progress through them one at a time in an intelligent manner. I will let you choose the first point.  Stepho  talk  23:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Congestion pricing

Hi Stepho. I would like your opinion about the use of the template GBP here. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. The '£' symbol is only used inside the London section, so context makes it clear. There is a single 'GB£' halfway through the section which probably should be changed to '£'. Possibly the first use could be 'GB£' but I don't see it as a big deal in this article.  Stepho  talk  05:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Vauxhall Viva page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed.  Stepho  talk  00:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Undo of Philippines Automotive History

Hi,

I am Larry Tunison. The edit I made is 100% accurate. I was there. I wrote the PCMP and implemented it. I see you have a passion for Toyota. Have you heard of the military mini-cruiser? For many years I drove a Toyota President. I did not see it on your list. Have you heard of it? What is your interest in the Philippines? The information that you undid is not accurate. History in the Philippines is distorted. It was continually rewritten. Of course, with deep research with international resources you may get accurate information. I try, as much as possible, to stay away from Philippine items but the PCMP was my baby.

What parts did you feel were inaccurate?

Best, Larry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltunison (talk • contribs) 04:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Larry. I'm always willing to learn something new - can you point to any information on the Toyota President. I've heard of the Toyota Mega Cruiser, Land Cruiser and FJ Cruiser but not the Mini Cruiser. Can you point to any information on the Mini Cruiser. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  05:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Larry: is the Delta Mini Cruiser what you meant by the Toyota Mini Cruiser? It's built by a company that assembled Toyotas and uses many Toyota parts but is not actually a Toyota itself. Still, looks like an interesting vehicle that deserves at least a link from a few Toyota pages.

Any clue about what the Toyota President is?  Stepho  talk  02:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Toyota Philippines

It is obvious you spend a lot of time on Wikipedia. I do not. I am 69 and spent most of my life in the Philippines. I worked with a think tank for President Marcos. We focused on economic development. I created and implemented the Progressive Car Manufacturing Program. I get very frustrated when I read revisionist history that is distorted when dealing with Marcos and the Martial Law period. My email is ltunison@oberlin.net. If you are really interested, let me know and I will take the time to write back. I am not interested in fighting with Filipino's that could be my grandchildren about history.

There was never a Delta Mini-Cruiser. It was the Toyota Mini-Cruiser. It was made under exactly the same guidelines as the Asian Utility Vehicles but with higher material specs and utilization of compound curves.

I will look for pictures of the President. It was very long, heavy and powerful. It had an air conditioner in the boot.

Let me know.

Larry

There were also specially modified Coronas made to accommodate participants in the World Bank Meeting. The Metro-Manila Taxi Program was one of my projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltunison (talk • contribs) 19:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ltunison:: Having researched the Delta Mini Cruiser extensively, I have only seen it referred to as such; I don't think Toyota would have allowed Silverio to sell it under their name. See this site for instance. Whether it is an AUV or not is hard to say, but it is a much more capable off-roader and served a different market entirely. Wikipedia operates on the system of verifiability - trusted sources are what counts, not truth. Sometimes this means that correct information will be included, which can be hard to swallow. Luckily, the truth is usually published somewhere. As for Marcos, whatever I write is simply derived from what sources say - you may have other knowledge and another opinion, but as a primary source you cannot write it yourself. Also, with all due respect, you are clearly mistaken about the President so I hesitate to give the remainder of your statements oracular weight. You are probably conflating the Nissan President and the Toyota Century.

The PCMP seems to have been a reasonably well designed program, but the eighties' economy and the Martial Law period undermined it. I would be interested to hear your opinions about it and Marcos though - however, for your statements to be included in Wikipedia they would first have to be published somewhere else. Maybe a memoir is in order? Also, we would love it if you have some photos sitting around that you could share with Wikipedia; this might be a hugely valuable addition.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Larry. I am 50 and spent most of my life in Western Australia and Hong Kong. Have not yet been to the Philipines but I hope to one day.

My Choppers is correct that Wikipedia requires all our facts to have reliable, published sources. Which means personal memories don't count. However, your personal memories may give us clues to research better. You have already given me a good start to a vehicle that I didn't know existed.

Today I spent some time searching the Web for info on the Mini Cruiser. I am by no means expert on it but I will report what I have found and you can correct me.

1. Delta was a Philipines based company that assembled and distributed Toyotas.
2. The AFP designed the Mini Cruiser, loosely based on the FJ40 but smaller. Engine was the 12R-M, for which the government already had rights to a part of the WWII agreements (even though the 12R engine started production in 1969).
3. Delta applied to The Philipines government for the tooling for the 12R-M engine and for the contract to make the Mini Cruiser.
4. Delta started in 1962 but not sure when the Mini Cruiser started production. Both ended circa 1984.
5. Front axle was the Dana 30 and rear axle was the Dana 44 US based Dana (owned by Chrysler). Why would Toyota use these instead of their own? Delta was building the 12R-M engine and locally sourced only a few other components (I'm guessing glass, trim, battery, tyres but have no proof). So Delta would have a need to source axles from any company while Toyota would only source from itself.
6. Toyota Japan was not enthusiastic about selling a civilian model.
7. The civilian version started sales in 1974 (not sure about this) - http://www.panorama-auto.it/auto-classiche/epoca/delta-mini-cruiser-1974
8. Delta assembled the RT110 Corona with the 12R-M engine starting in Nov 1975 (Japan had the RT110 Corona with 12R engine in July 1974) - http://members.iinet.net.au/~stepho/manuals/Toyota/IdManualExport1979/p066Corona.jpg
9. The military version has slanted door openings and no brand on the grill.
10. The civilian version has square door openings and "DELTA" on the grill. Found a small handful of images that say "TOYOTA" or have the bean-with-a-hat logo but I suspect that these were owner modifications.
11. The civilian version has "DELTA" on the ID plate - http://www.fj40-garage.de/GEKNIPST/GEKNIPST_1/GEKNIPST_2/hauptteil_geknipst_2.html
12. The civilian version was advertised in Italy as the "DELTA Mini Cruiser" (with minor variations on upper/lowercase and spacing) - https://sites.google.com/site/deltaminicruiser/home/emeroteca-1
13. The civilian version sold in Italy had the option of an Isuzu 1951 cc diesel.
14. The petrol version had a model ID of RJ-2B, which roughly but not quite matches Toyota's naming scheme (R family engine, J for LandCruiser but should have a 2 digit generation/variant number after J, matches if B is considered as a digit and the Mini Cruiser is part of the J20 generation) - http://members.iinet.net.au/~stepho/manuals/Toyota/IdManualExport1979/p013LandCruiserId.jpg
15. The diesel version had a model ID of DJ-2B, which strays even further because it doesn't have a D engine. This is similar to how the XT130 Corona uses an X for the Holden derived Starfire engine used on the Australian market.
16. Frame/chassis number RJ2B0006321 matches Toyota scheme - http://bringatrailer.com/2016/08/05/never-seen-one-1982-delta-mini-cruiser/
17. The Mini Cruiser does not appear in the Toyota Vehicle Identification Manual (export). But neither does the XT130 for Australia. However it does mention the RT130 with 12R-M engine for The Philipines and the RT130 with 12R for other markets - http://members.iinet.net.au/~stepho/manuals/Toyota/IdManualExport1979/
18. The stretch version seems to have been made in 1992 (30 years after the first 1962 model) using new chassis and bodies with other parts salvaged from older models. Unclear which company did this, possibly the AFP did it by itself - Part III at http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=12395.0

Of course, I may be wrong about some of this. I don't count all of the above references as reliable (forums and personal web pages are notoriously unreliable). Please correct me where you feel I am wrong. Any reliable, published sources (e.g. newspaper clippings) would be appreciated as well.  Stepho  talk  05:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Toyota Philippines

I teach history,politics and sometimes philosophy. The semester starts soon so I will not have time to get into a lengthy discussion. I bring that up because we, as well as most other colleges and universities, do not allow any references from Wikipedia for the reasons you state about truth and verification by publication. We have a program that checks for that just as we have one for plagiarism.

I have already stated that I will not discuss the Philippines on line. A good deal of it is inaccurate and/or revisionist.

"The PCMP seems to have been a reasonably well designed program, but the eighties' economy and the Martial Law period undermined it." First of all, The comment about he PCMP was an insult. You guys do a great job gathering data and creating pages. I developed an automobile industry for an entire country. I devised several economic programs, one of which was overseas projects to provide jobs for Filipinos. One of these was the Iraqi-Jordanian Land Transportation Project. There is very little about it on line but we were partnered with Steyer and Freuhaff. It was the largest purchase of Steyer trucks in its history. They operated three garages - Aqaba, Amman and Baghdad. I lived in Steyer for almost 6 months putting the project together with them. The actual town of Steyer is the same as it was 400 years ago. While I was there, Steyer and BMW were working on a diesel engine. I found nothing about that sale of trucks in your article. The Taunus was sold in the Philippines as were the MGA and MGB.

You will not find my Toyota President on line. I stated that it was given by Mr. Toyda (not Toyota) as special gifts - thus the name President. As I looked for pictures, I found that it was based on the Toyota.

"Front axle was the Dana 30 and rear axle was the Dana 44 US based Dana (owned by Chrysler)" The reason why, is the PCMP.

Cars were being being brought into the Philippines CBU and with 8 cylinders. The challenge was to bring in dollars, create jobs and small business. In the first step, car engines could be no more than 4 cylinders meaning less dollar export for fuel and big cars. Cars were brought in PBU so the small amount of assembly trained workers, required the importer to have a small assembly area and provided jobs. Only five companies would be authorized into the PCMP. They were to build a factory to produce major automotive assemblies. They were allowed to import only equal to the dollar amount they exported. The end result was Ford building a stamping plant, GM manufacturing the Saginaw transmission, Toyota the 2R engine, Chrysler heavy casting parts and Volkswagen electrical. Nissan had nothing to do with the PCMP.

Cars were imported CKD and major assembly plants were constructed and jobs provided. There was a schedule of how much local content had to be provided and over what periods of time.

One of the major objectives was to put affordable vehicles to small business. My staff and I made project studies for farmers, fishermen, merchants, etc. I cut a deal with a local bank to provide financing if the project study was viable and the purchaser credit worthy. There were no credit mechanisms so I had to develop one. In turn the bank asked me to design a domestic credit card. I did and later I did the same for banks in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Only Ford and Toyota really succeeded in making AUV's. The PCMP only required a chassis cowl and they had the option of making different models. However, local companies made most of the bodies. The AUV had a simple H frame, 2R engine, Saginaw transmission, Chrysler differential and brakes and Volkswagon/Bosche the electrial.The body parts had no compound curves for easy repair.

The Toyota Mini-Cruiser was built on the same principal. They were originally for the Philippine military but were sold to Iraq (Iran-Traq War) and Australia. I have no idea what happened after 1980. I was in the Middle East starting projects for our labor export program.

I also negotiated with DeLoren to assemble his car in the Philippines. Ireland won.

All imported vehicles had their original specs except the Australian Torana. It had an 8 cylinder engine. We substituted an Opal Engine.

Your information on the economy is wrong for the 70's and early 80's. It tanked mid-80's (see World Bank reports). The external debt rose because manufacturing expanded too fast and was not under control. President Marcos gets a bad rep. He was not responsible for the things you read in the news. That was his wife. He became very sick about 1977 and she unofficially took control. There was another problem that is not usually included in history. Americans had the same rights as Filipinos except for voting. They controlled, telephone, radio, television, electric, the ports, mining and much more. When the parity rights expired most took their money and left.

Philippine history talks of the excess of Imelda citing her numerous shoes as an example. That will forever be in history. However, having them was not the worst thing about them. At the time the Philippines was the second largest producer of shoes in the world. The center of the industry was about 2 miles from where she lived. She could have had any shoes she wanted custom made. A big percentage of the shoes on her shelf were actually made there. That makes the excess worse that reported.

As for the "People Power" revolution, it was never planned. Look at the Palace with Google air shot. There is a huge asphalt area from EDSA to the palace. At the sides are universities. The area was usually full at lunch time. If you look at films of the beginning of the demonstration you will see no signs. Everything was started as a student demonstration. It was shown on TV and Broadcast on radio. People started comming and some political people took advantage and the revolution started and ended within a few days. My best friend, Australian Frank Scaiffe, had an advertising agency and filmed the entire thing. In history, the revolution is presented in a different way.

That is enough. Like I said, I do not want to get into arguments with Filipinos. Please respect this and not call attention to this writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltunison (talk • contribs) 16:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I found the Holden Torana quote interesting, although most Toranas were definitely not eights. I wonder if it had the same engine as the GMK Camina, Opel's ancient 1500/1700 unit. I would be interested to hear more about the Delta Mini-Cruiser's career in Iraq. As for the Philippine economy, I said that it was weak in the eighties and that's what you said. I don't see what is bothering you.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm an engineer. Politics are not my thing except for when they affect the engineering subjects I like - eg when it provides a reason to start an engineering project or a reason why it failed.

It looks like our professional paths have covered some similar ground. I spent the 1990s implementing software for credit card POS terminals for Asian markets. China was best summarised as fragmented (every bank modified the card encoding and electronic communications "standard" to suit themselves, making inter-operability very hard). Taiwan was best summarised as AMEX and the NCCC both saying "do it my way". At least in the projects I was involved in.

Anyway, back to the Mini Cruiser. You haven't disagreed with anything from my big list above, so I will assume that you agree with the majority of them - or at least you don't strongly disagree. From what you said above, the PCMP outlined the basic design, each company within the PCMP contributed different parts (eg engine, axles) and the Mini Cruiser was the result of this collaboration. This tells me that the Mini Cruiser was definitely not a Toyota product - even though the styling was heavily based on the Land Cruiser. Its not clear to me if the design was done by the PCMP and then manufactured by Delta or if the PCMP only laid out the general principles and then Delta designed the Mini Cruiser around those principles. I'm not sure about the AFP's role in this. Its also not clear to me if the PCMP resulted in the design of any other vehicles (although you did say that members of the PCMP were then allowed to import CBU vehicles such as the Torana). Of course, I'm just gathering threads without understanding the larger picture, so please correct me.

Sounds like we should either make an article for the PCMP or heavily expand it in Transportation_in_the_Philippines#Cars of the Philippines. Your input for this would be greatly appreciated.

The Torana had a V8 from 1974 onward. In Australia it also had an option of 6 cylinder and 4 cylinder engines - first an 1897 cc Opel engine, which was replaced by the 1892 cc Holden Starfire (aka misfire) engine in late 1979. The 4 cylinder car was sold as the Holden Sunbird but was otherwise the same as the Torana. The Sunbird was a heavy vehicle for a 2 litre engine.  Stepho  talk  00:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You mean?

You mean Main stream Christian? Peter Horn User talk 14:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

In broad terms, yes.  Stepho  talk  22:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Euro NCAP/2009/test

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Euro NCAP/2009/test, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Mini edit

Re this undo, I was dating the template to when it was added - namely this edit last week.Le Deluge (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, obviously a cut and paste error by Dennis Bratland, which he has self corrected. My apologies.  Stepho  talk  02:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Merge template CxA into CdA?

Hi Stepho, my understanding is that Template:CxA is the same in all but name to Template:CdA. As such, do you think a merger would be appropriate? OSX (talk • contributions) 16:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

They do represent the same thing - just a name change. I should probably make CxA a redirect to CdA.  Stepho  talk  21:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that would be best :) OSX (talk • contributions) 14:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the redirect and other minor cleanups.  Stepho  talk  22:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks but question

Stepho, I appreciate you asking for the name calling to stop here [[1]]. I certainly don't appreciate all the public accusations made against me. That said, I'm not sure what name calling I've offered in kind. I don't recall accusing Dennis of editing in bad faith (and resent the accusations of such against me). Anyway, if you think there is an example please let me know as I've been trying to bite my tongue in these exchanges. Thanks Springee (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Just trying to nip it in the bud before it escalates. I'm not going to accuse anyone in particular.

I'm guessing FOC was taken for another word that sounds like it. Anyway, let's move on to something productive.  Stepho  talk  05:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Help with Dugu and Models List

Thanks for your help in defense of Dugu and in restoring the models list. Take care.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem.  Stepho  talk  23:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Lists

Actually we do not usually include items in list articles unless they are notable, the guide for which is generally that they have an article. Sometimes there may be a few unlinked entries, but here the majority of manufacturers in that list have no article and no sources. Which is not how Wikipedia works: we're not supposed to be an unreferenced list of things people remember.

I am not sure if you are a modeller. There are a lot of model firms that make one or two vac-formed or resin cast items, they run out of garden sheds. They can disappear overnight with nobody any the wiser if the proprietor suffers a change of circumstances. My field is railway modelling, this happens all the time. There are also firms that make diecast smokestacks and other details, a craft more than an industry. I doubt they make a living at it, most seem to be semi-retired or spare time. So it's not that easy to tell, without sources and an article, whether a firm is actually a firm or is just a one man band that turned out a couple of resin kits for a few years. Without this kind of context including them in a list is not really helpful to anyone. Guy (Help!) 06:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I have answered at Talk:List_of_model_car_brands#Removing_non-notable_manufacturers so that others may also contribute. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  00:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

On Rampini

I've never had or used any Rampini books or sources, though I see references to them / him frequently. I think the main issue is that the source is being added to all the articles without any attribution or citation so you don't know the direct relation to the subject of the article. If specific material from his works were used, it would be appropriate. Simply, the mass addition of the source to all the articles appears to be spam. The discussion about Rampini possibly being blocked somehow IS disturbing. Take care.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The Mad De-Piper

Hi there,

I notice you added a comment to the Nissan article complaing about a user messing about with the piping.

If you catch what appears to be the same user doing this again (even if he/she is editing from another address), can you take a look at that user/IP address's other edits, since that person appears to be doing similar things with other articles. If nothing else, you can draw my attention to it (or someone else's if you think they'd be quicker!) and I'll see if I can get all their edits (or at least the problematic ones) quickly reverted!

I'm assuming that it was the same user who was most recently editing from anonymous address 50.100.178.173.

All the best! Ubcule (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Looks like I missed the last one he did at Nissan. Thanks for catching it for me.  Stepho  talk  22:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Toyota Avalon

Thanks. I just found the information, but didn't know all this other detail.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Unfortunately, American's writing for American magazines for American readers tend to forget to qualify that what they say is only true for the American market. Understandable but unfortunate. And the Toyota Century is not well known outside of Japan. I suspect the Toyota Crown would also give the Avalon a run for its money but I'm not sure which is bigger - the 1985 Crown was a pretty big beast for a Japanese car. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  00:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

HEMMT

Thanks for those changes. They (and a rearrange to development/M-number) were on my 'to do' list for today. I just ran out of time yesterday. Should have probably said. Wolpat (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Duhhhhhh... I mean HEMTT not HEMMT! Wolpat (talk) 08:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I've still got things on my to-do list from years ago. Thanks for your own work on that article.  Stepho  talk  09:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Stepho-wrs. 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)

2006 GS 300

I don't agree with your change. I live in the US and bought a 2006 GS300 at the end of 2006 (around Nov). I still have it (it's parked outside right now) and it is an 06 model. I bought it at the year-end discount pricing because the 2007 models were arriving and they wanted to get rid of this one. I'm not sure where you are located, but if I just google 2006 Lexus GS, I can find lots of hits from US places (cars for sale). Here is a Car and Driver review from April 2005 [2] on the 2006 car. Since this review is from 2005, maybe they started selling it in the US in March 2005 as a 2006 model? MB 03:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

US model years are so confusing to non-Americans - which is why we try to use unambiguous months and years whenever possible. Deferring to your experience, what were the month/year ranges for the 2006 and 2007 US model years? Previously I would have thought March 2006 to Aug 2007 would be the (long) 2007 model year. But based on what you said above, I'd guess March 2006 - Aug 2006 for the short 2006 model year and Aug 2006 - Aug 2007 for the 2007 model year.  Stepho  talk  03:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't provide any further info. Your guess may be right. Although there was no 2007 GS300, that year it was the 2007 GS350. Someone will have to do some digging for reliable sources. I notice that the source given in the table at the bottom of the article for the US specs is the Lexus website which currently talks about the 2017 model year - so those aren't valid references anymore. MB 04:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The article already said: "For the 2007 model year, the GS 350 replaced the GS 300 in the U.S. and other export markets". I believe that to be correct. For 2006, it was the GS300. I can't confirm when it was first sold in the US. MB 07:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I will adjust the article to keep it at 2006 model year but with the March 2006 date as well.  Stepho  talk  08:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I notice that Lexus GS and Lexus GS (S190) both have a similar table "Model configurations by region", but they don't agree with each other. Both tables cover the 2006-2012 years only (but aren't consistent). Also, the other tables in Lexus GS cover the entire life (1993-present). I don't really want to spend any more time on this article myself. Do you want to make a note for yourself or should I just tag the articles and move this to the talk pages? MB 16:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

hilux

you said you needed a ref for the 16mil hilux. just below your edit contained this.. (8th wonder section) http://blog.toyota.co.uk/history-of-the-toyota-hilux — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.192.193.143 (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem. Edit summaries are just a hint to other editors about what you changed (literally, a summary). Somebody reading this article in 5 years will not trawl through the summaries in the edit history. References must be in the article itself, not just in the edit summaries. You need to add the reference in the article by using <ref></ref> tags. Also see template:cite press release and WP:REF. Or ask me for help.  Stepho  talk  02:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Reen brand

Stepho. I've never heard of Reen. It does ring a bell though.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Your recent editing history at Lexus LC shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Toddst1 (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Noted. Although I saw this warning just after my last change.  Stepho  talk  16:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)