User talk:Stepho-wrs

Stepho's talk page Hullo. Please Click Here to leave me a new message. Please see my user page for more information about me. To messages left on my talk page, I respond on my talk page. If you are responding to a conversation I started on your talkpage, please respond there - rest assured I have bookmarked your page and won't miss your responses. Local time is UTC+8 in Western Australia (we get sunrise 8 hours before the UK and 12-16 hours ahead of North America). Please have that in mind if leaving time-sensitive comments. All messages on my talk page are archived once the page gets uncomfortably large. Please do not remove/revert things here, as I like to archive everything. Babel:   *en, cn-1, ja-1 Reference date format If you think I wrongly reverted your scripted changes to the reference date format then please read the RFC at Talk:Tesla Model S#RfC about date format in references first to see why. If you still have an issue about it then please Click Here to leave me a new message. Messages

Scion iQ EV

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

Backtalk

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

Hello, Stepho-wrs. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Problem Editor

I have noticed a string of highly problematic edits by user Carmaker1:[1]. As with Volvo V70, Nissan Murano, Audi 100 and Honda Odyssey (North America), he inserts the names of car designers based on missing, misleading or spurious references. In the Volvo V70 article, he inserted the name of a dubious designer into an article in such a way as to leave a direct and referenced quote by the actual designer attributed to his newly introduced spurious designer. And from what I can tell, he's pretty much blazing a trail through lots and lots of articles. His responses are... well... not helpful, to say the least. I notice that you ran into some similar issues with him recently. Is this something you could help with?842U (talk)

US$

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

Toyota Motor Corporation Development Interviews and Photography

I have finally been able to submit a library of development information on various Lexus model generations and that of other Toyota models. I had seen similar in the past few years, but had no way of linking to them (which explains my poor ability to provide direct link sources). How good at you at deciphering Japanese text? If interested, I will send you a Google Drive link with access to this content. Since late April, I have been to trying to unearth various items from step-by-step stages of development of these vehicles. Here is a publicised sample of what I have, which isn't complete yet, but plenty more to come. Also, just want to confirm if you've seen these before?–––Carmaker1 (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

As a translator I'm awful. I recognise a fair number of characters in Kanji and Katagana (but not Hiragana) - enough to navigate through brochures and websites and enough to know where I need help from computer aided translation I can usually. I'll give it a go.  Stepho  talk  00:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Well how can I give you private access to screenshots of these articles then? I refuse to directly publicise them on your talk page, for security reasons (drive-by readers). I'll be looking into different methods, as I have design information on the new XV70 design development at design approval in 2014 and freeze in 2015.--Carmaker1 (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Production car speed record

Hi Stepho - Just a comment about the reversion of my edit from kph first to mph. All the other speed references have mph then kph, and I am sure many of these were in kph first. My edit was for consistency and I wonder if it should remain unless you intend changing the others? NealeFamily (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You're right! Guess I wasn't paying attention. The reference was in km/h, so the number use in {{convert}} must also be in km/h, but I somehow missed the rest of the article being in ancient units first. My apologies.

I'm tempted to make it all km/h first and ancient units in brackets but I'm reluctant to change it on my own personal preference. If I do that then I am also telling the Yanks that they can change other articles to their favourite units and we get anarchy again. I might claim WP:CARUNITS though.  Stepho  talk  09:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Noted and thanks. NealeFamily (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Honda J engine

I am very guilty of not always handling things at a calm and civil level, but in following your principle of making sure that timelines for vehicle life-cycles are not based on U.S.-style model years, I am having serious issues in this Honda J engine and feel that there is no discussion possible, with the extremely novice editor User:Vortex833(gives me the impression of a sock account situation). I had reported the matter to the Dispute Resolution board, but to no avail. Possibly I am not presenting the matter well enough?--Carmaker1 (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I love your leading sentence: "Excuse my manners, but you are a dunce." Apparently the bees don't think much of your vinegar. I noted that the article said the J engine was produced only in US. If this is true then they are allowed to use their horrible model years that no-one else uses or understand - as long as it is clearly marked as model years in a few key places so that non-US readers can get a grasp of the weird slant to reality. However, if a member of that engine family is also used in other countries that don't use model years (as implied by the J25A section) then we can claim it is an international engine family (as Honda is also a non-US company) and therefore needs to written such that non-US readers can understand it. If this is true then we can rewrite it similar to "in 2001 (for the 2002 model year)" or even better "in October 2001 (for the 2002 model year)". Because it is a predominantly US engine family there will have to be a lot of "MY" qualifiers because they really can't understand calendar years in relation to cars. Hard to accept for us outsiders but they really have brainwashed themselves into thinking only and purely in terms of model years. Sigh. Anyway, I will poke around a bit tonight.  Stepho  talk  22:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

LOL, thanks! I see what I can fix, to mediate this issue. Until you pointed this out a few years ago and I became an engineer, I had issues with the marketplace mixing such information up and attempting to standardize it across the board. I honestly don't see the point of them using model years in this manner outside of 4th quarter months. This is originally what was the intention by the U.S. automakers in the early-mid 20th century. Since the 1960s, too many automakers have allowed their U.S. marketing departments to cheat the past 50 years and muddle things up into this big mess, that many of these users unfortunately fall for. This is the noticeboard I brought it too. I have become very particular on this matter for certain reasons. Conflating these model years with actual dates of introduction, has shown to down the road, confuse individuals that look at a model generation in retrospect and then question timeliness of mid-cycle enhancements or full model change redesigns as being "too early". Despite the fact, that the life-cycle dates to a much earlier date than the so-called "model year". The XV40 Camry was launched in Q1 of 2006 and refreshed by Q2 of 2009. The replacement arrived in late 2011, yet some individuals have been quick to say "launched in 2007 and then redesigned in 2012. In reality, that is a nearly a 6 year life-cycle, at about 66-68 months. Similar for the XV50, that was sold for 70-72 months, yet one hears sold from 2012 to 2017, updated in 2015. It doesn't make sense anymore and clearly most people echo that sentiment perfectly out of forgetfulness, in highlighting that they should correlate with real time dates.--Carmaker1 (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I blame Sloan. He wanted people to buy new cars every year so he encouraged yearly aesthetic updates. Why be stuck with last year's outdated model - buy a modern car! Then with model years he can say why be stuck with this years cars - buy next year's model, today! And the gullible public fell for it with both brain cells. Sigh!  Stepho  talk  12:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Oldsmobile Toronado

Your reversion of my recent edit to Oldsmobile Toronado also discarded punctuation corrections. Please be a bit more discerning when reverting edits. Furthermore, per my test results, the addition of a blank line before the {{Clear}} template produces no discernible benefit to readability at any screen resolution from 640x480 (VGA) to 1276x942, or larger, so your insistence on having that white space makes no sense whatsoever. Wikipedia is not a desktop publishing program: The purpose of HTML on the Web is not to manage layout, but to manage content. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 14:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi! The extra comma you added is optional. Some style guides prefer them, some prefer to leave them out. I have no preference either way and neither does Wikipedia.

However, the blank line before the {{Clear}} does have a tangible benefit. In terms of the final rendering on the reader's web browser there is no difference - not even a single pixel. But for editors the extra line makes it standout from the paragraph of text. When the {{Clear}} is tucked in tight at the end of a paragraph it is common for new or inattentive editors to start a new paragraph after it, leaving the {{Clear}} in the middle of a section where it does not belong. Whereas a {{Clear}} on a separate line gives a clue to editors that a new paragraph should be before the {{Clear}}. It's a little thing but it is so cheap and easy that it has no real downside. From your own argument, anything that makes the information clearer is good.  Stepho  talk  22:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

copyvio images uploaded to Toyota Century

Hi,

I left a message at admin User:Kudpung for six images I found illegally added to the article. The first one was of the new model that hasn't yet been released until the 27th, and the editor claimed it was his own work when it's the image Toyota created. I then found five other images uploaded by the same editor which I've seen on the 'net before that are highly suspicious, uploaded with a wizard. I've reverted the editors contributions and given examples to the admin for removal. While I'd love to keep the images, they are illegal. (Regushee (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC))

Ok, no problem.  Stepho  talk  23:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Toyota Century Royal hearse exists, just haven't found a fair use image...yet

There are images and a YouTube video showing a funeral procession for Prince Mikasa last year, but a fair use image of the vehicle doesn't yet exist. I mentioned it from images found on the 'net. So, how do we go about legally, without committing a "copyvio", uploading an image of this elusive hearse as proof? (Regushee (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC))

Even if we can't find a photo to use directly, we can always just add a link to it in a reference.

Do you know if the Royal total is 4 sedans + 1 hearse or is the hearse one of the 4 Royals (ie 3 sedans + 1 hearse)?  Stepho  talk  06:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

From the Japanese Wikipedia translation there were four sedans and one hearse. Maybe that explains why they originally planned for five sedans, then changed the plan to four sedans and one hearse. UPDATE, After reading the latest content on Japanese Wikipedia, there are three sedans and one hearse, and they each have names. Empress 1, Empress 2 (the hearse), Empress 3 and Empress 5. I added in the article why there isn't an Empress 4.(Regushee (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC))

This is long overdue

[[ File:Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png|100px]]		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Anata no jidōsha kiji no kōken ni kansha shimasu Regushee (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

, and

This editor is a Senior Editor and is entitled to display this Rhodium Editor Star.

どうもありがとうございました! Thank you very much!  Stepho  talk  10:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, Just wanted to say thanks for reverting the IP - I have a sneaky suspicion they're a sock of the IP who keeps adding/removing manufacturers, Could be wrong but regardless they can discuss their changes like everyone else :),
Anyway thanks again your help's much appreciated :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, he's been annoying me. 9/10 of what he puts in is close to being right but is actually wrong (eg the Toyota Crown would be a mid-size vehicle in the US but in Japan it's legally a full-sized car). 1/10 he gets something right (eg Prius 3rd gen really is full-sized). But having to wade through the crap to get to the rather small nuggets is more effort than it is worth. Not sure if it is a malicious editor or just a naive teenager thinking he can fix the world with his view of everything. If only he would use the same IP address so that we can have a chat with him.  Stepho  talk  14:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah see I have no idea if he is correct or not, I'll self revert on the Prius article as if he is correct then there's no need to revert although as you said we shouldn't have to sift through all of his edits see which are correct and what are not, Exactly if he used the same IP and would be willing to discuss this it'd make everyones lives just that little bit easier, Ah well thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Because of the sheer amount of crap he's putting in, I'm starting to favour reverting him on sight. It's not fair on us to spend an hour each day shifting through his edits to find the one good one - we have better things to spend our time on. I'm sure it will came back to bite me one day when I revert his one good one but I'll stand by my right to not have to sift through mountains of crap. I wouldn't mind if he slowed down a bit and also stopped doing the exact same mistake 10 times to the same article in spite of our clear explanations why he is mistaken.  Stepho  talk  14:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Production car speed record

Did you really mean to restore all of this? [2]. Please take another look. Much of this appears to be the contested content that should not be included (the Guinness World Record rules, for example). Meters (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It is precisely because it is contested that I am reverting it - not because I agree or disagree with any particular viewpoint. WP:BRD is the guideline to follow. Leave the article in its original state, thrash it out on the talk page and then follow consensus to edit the main article.  Stepho  talk  22:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you actually look at the diff or not? Two days ago you reverted [3] because the change was attempting to use the Guinness World Record definition of a production car. Today you are reverting so that it does use the Guiness World Record definition [4]. That's not the original state. Look at what you are reverting. It is not appropriate to restore this contested content while this is being discussed, which is what you are doing. The other editor has indeed raised the issue of the Guiness World Record definition issue on the talk page. See [5] and most recently [6], which specifically mentions your edit. The person who is edit warring to restore an inappropriate version without discussing it on the talk page is you. I can understand one mistaken revert, but continuing to do when two different editors have pointed out that you appear to be reverting without actually reading what you are restoring is disruptive. Please read WP:EW and follow your own edit summary advice: follow WP:BRD and discuss the issue. If you don't you may end up blocked for edit warring. Meters (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Oops, looks like I got it backwards. I was attempting to restore the original and instead unintentionally restored the changed version. Too many other editors on too many fronts all at once and me spread too thinly. My apologies.

Who was the second editor to warn me? I saw your warning yesterday (and interpreted the diff backwards, so I thought you were advocating the change). Your second warning and Sagenode's warning only came today - before I have made any further reverts or changes and I am making apologies where appropriate.  Stepho  talk  09:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up. You are correct that Sagenode did not point out that you were reverting to the wrong version until after your last revert. My apologies. Sagenode may not have mentioned you by name earlier but was very clear about why the material was being removed here [7] and on the talk page. You reverted twice more after that. We've all made mistakes, but when someone actually posts to your page that they think you have it backwards it's probably a good idea to actually look. Meters (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Pagani Zonda PS

Accidents of the cars are notable since they would entirely change after the rebuild. U1Quattro (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The PS, 760LH and 760 Fantasma mention accidents. Only the 760 Fantasma mentions a rebuild or supplies references. To the average reader (and me, since I don't really follow the Zonda much), the implication is that it was repaired after the accident with no major changes - just like most other accident repair jobs.  Stepho  talk  23:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please stop edit warring and go to the talkpage! - You disagreed with the MDY changes so I've changed those back and so as such there's absolutely no need to revert unless you truly have an issue with my tidying too!. –Davey2010^Talk 00:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad that we now have a stable Tesla Model S article again. The non-date changes are quite fine and I have no beef with them. Unfortunately the date changes were so many that it was hard to see the wood for the trees, so it was either bulk reversal or spend half an hour checking each and every change by hand. I see that among your recent changes you undid one of your own changes to reference <ref>http://www.motortrend.com/cars/tesla/model-s/2017/2017-tesla-model-s-p100d-first-test-review/</ref>. You can see how hard it is to get it right when so many changes are in the mix.

Now that the article is in the original state regarding the dates, we can have a discussion on the talk page. Notice that I opened a discussion at Talk:Tesla Model S#Date format yesterday but you haven't replied yet. Your edit summaries imply that you didn't see that. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  03:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Stepho-wrs. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Production car definition draft

G'day Stepho.

Given that I'm seen by some as a contentious figure (posting rules that the company I work for would be subject to on the page), I thought I would run this draft past someone who isn't contentious prior to posting it there. Basically, I've taken the definition that NealeFamily started with and made some tweaks to cover various things that have been discussed.

I figured it would be better to hone it before posting to minimise the chances of not achieving consensus.

Thoughts? Questions?

---

For the purposes of this list a production car is defined as:

1) A vehicle that is constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, to transport people on public roads (no commercial or industrial vehicles are eligible);

2) A vehicle that is available for commercial sale to the public via an authorised dealer network in the same specification as the vehicle used to achieve the record;

3) i) A vehicle manufactured in the record-claiming specification by a manufacturer whose WMI number is shown on the VIN, or ii) A vehicle that is modified by either professional tuners or others that results in a VIN with a WMI number in that professional tuner’s name (for example, if a Porsche-based car is remanufactured by RUF and has RUF's WMI W09, it is eligible; but if it has Porsche's WMI, WP0, it is not eligible);

4) A vehicle that is street-legal in its intended markets, having fulfilled the homologation tests or inspections required under either a) United States of America, or b) European Union law, to be granted this status.

5) A vehicle that is sold in more than one national market, subject to the conditions noted elsewhere in this definition

---

StevenWade (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think you were contentious. You were upfont about your COI, polite, answered questions when asked and not pushy.

The definition above is fine for me with the possible exception of clause 4 if Japan makes a supercar and doesn't sell it outside of Japan. Kind of tricky to specify a good rule for this that leaves out some countries that register anything given enough cash.  Stepho  talk  23:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll post it on the talk page, then. And in the meantime, I might ask our homologation manager about the circumstances you mentioned, re Japan. I know we sell there, but I'm unsure as to homologation regime that allows us to do so. i.e. does Japan have its own regime or does it basically rely on EU standards like the rest of Asia.StevenWade (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:NOx

My thought in changing the documentation for Template:NOx to include an example {{NOx|x=<var>z</var>}} is to remind users to use variable syntax / italics when the template argument is a variable rather than a number. If you too think this is worthy would you undo your undo or otherwise modify the documentation accordingly? 64.132.59.226 (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Not the of the world as we know it but just the end of the Agera RS :-)

Hi.

Sorry about the revert, I must have read totally wrong and reverted in the wrong section. Will try to recreate it.

Sijambo (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Or rather, there was one add of the end of all of Koenigsegg Agera, it was not originally created by you but the reverted edit added information to that link and all of that was removed because there are still Agera FEs produced. But when reverting I missed you also fixed an error in the correct period of Agera RS and that one should not have been removed. But some else have already fixed it. But once again sorry about that.

Sijambo (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the reply.  Stepho  talk  23:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello!

Hey, Stepho, before an edit war or anything starts between us repeatedly changing images on electric vehicle pages, do you think we could find a way to contact eachother? Thanks --- LordLimaBean (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I prefer to use the discussion page at talk:Electric car. However, an internet search on 'Stepho' and 'Toyota' will find my web site with my email address. Forgive me if I seem a bit grouchy on this issue. I've had the same discussion so many times in the past and each time the opposition arguments boiled down to an American editor saying 'I like Tesla and I hate small European cars'. It gets a bit frustrating trying to apply reason to what is at heart an emotional argument. Nevertheless, I will always listen to well reasoned points.  Stepho  talk  09:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Toyota concept vehicles, 2010–19, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tamiya and Toyota GB (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed.  Stepho  talk  13:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of MY information from infoboxes and other stuff by a random IP

Hi, as you do a lot of editing on car related articles here is a bunch of words on your talk page.

You might, or might not, have noticed a random IP "going around" and deleting MY from infoboxes, replacing with
in infoboxes, changing the years listed in section headlines (in most cases from the actual year date to the MY date) among a few other things. It's been very damaging to articles. One particular interest to the person editing seems to be the usage of liftback vs hatchback vs whatever else term there is; and what segment a vehicle is in e.g. full-size, mid-size and so on.
Not every edit is wrong however a lot of them are at least discussion worthy before editing. Is there a good way to protect the articles? I am aware that as a random IP myself this is probably a bit strange but it is what it is. The random IP I am complaining about is from the Atlanta region, at least all of the previous IPs were.

regards, 2A04:4540:901:E700:D5EB:E3E2:4CAB:F587 (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately the "anyone can edit" nature of WP leaves us open to vandalism. If the vandal (or misguided editor if we are being generous) hits a particular page often then we can semi-protect that page for a week (only registered editors can edit). Otherwise, all we can do is to be vigilant and clean up after them.  Stepho  talk  21:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Musk and "S3X" comment

You said: "Regarding your recent edits at Tesla Model 3. The reference says "Elon Musk wanted to name his Model 3 Model E so Tesla's brands would spell SEX". He may have had "SEXY" in mind but this is WP:SYNTHESIS, which is not allowed at WP. You would have to find a public reference that actually says he wanted them to spell "SEXY". Stepho talk 23:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)" If you line up the model names of Tesla cars the result is "SEXY". This is all public reference. There are also multiple public quotes taken from Musk's speeches where he says that he intended to name today's model "3" as "E". this is all public knowledge. You can ignore the fact that he had all these in his mind as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkoELP (talk • contribs) 20:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The article only gives a single reference for "S3X". That reference does not mention "S3XY". If you want the article to say "S3XY" then you need to add a reference that says so. Since you say this is common knowledge then it should not be hard to find such a reference and add it to the page.  Stepho  talk  21:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Dates

So ... you held your own private RfC without notifying the styleguides. Your only argument there seemed to be "that it's been like that for a long time", which is a very weak proposition.

Now, if you're so keen to keep your blessed ISO dates in the refs (I can't believe the obsession) are you going to fix all of the MOS-breaching date links (manually)? Because if you're not, you're perpetrating a direct breach of the guidelines. Tony (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I posted the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Rfc on reference date format at 'Tesla Model S', Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Rfc on reference date format at 'Tesla Model S' and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Rfc on reference date format at 'Tesla Model S'. Note those last two. But I'm quite happy to discuss it at Talk:Telstar#Date format in article text and references.  Stepho  talk  13:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, those RFC links have been archived and should be Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive_43#Rfc on reference date format at 'Tesla Model S' and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive_157#Rfc on reference date format at 'Tesla Model S'.  Stepho  talk  13:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for you !

Hi Stepho

Many thanks for your message back in 2016- see copy below. I'm still a novice on Wiki and I've only just worked out how to send you a message of thanks. I agree with you point about consistency. Interesting too, learning that '×' symbol is different to "x".

Cheers for all your work on the Toyota Hilux wiki,

regards

richard

Thank you for your recent change to Toyota Hilux. However, the previous example was '4×2' (note the middle character is not a simple 'x') and you added '4x4' with a simple 'x'. Wikipedia will look more professional if we keep it consistent. You can get the '×' character by either cut and pasting from the previous example in the article or by clicking on the insert special character buttons just below the edit summary line. Thanks. Stepho talk 02:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Eco-climber (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please feel free to ask any questions.  Stepho  talk  21:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please stop edit warring, You have an issue with my date changes (and that's fine) but you should change the dates back not wholesale revert all of my constructive edits all because you have an issue with one minor/trivial thing,
You're more than welcome to revert back to a revision and then apply all of my edits thereafter,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

See my comments at Talk:Toyota Celica#Reference date format.  Stepho  talk  19:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Avensis discontinued

Hello. This is proofs for Yours, that Avensis is discontinued.

Best regards, 2018 year Toyota Avensis owner.

https://www.toyota.co.uk/ https://www.toyota.ie/ https://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/car-news/hybrid-camry-here-next-year-as-toyota-phases-out-avensis-37053127.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/toyota-announces-end-avensis-production-151032617.html?guccounter=1 https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/british-built-toyota-avensis-future-doubt-due-slowing-sales https://www.carscoops.com/2018/08/toyota-avensis-dropped-uk-camry-hybrid-coming-next-year/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.7.28.37 (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that proof. Can you insert those into the Avensis article. Don't worry about mistakes, I will tidy up afterwards, if needed. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  09:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markkonen (talk • contribs) 22:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Toyota identification

Not for the first time, I find I have uploaded a picture without being quite sure what the picture was of. I need to invoke the help of an expert. I wonder if you might find a moment to check out (1) the category in which I placed it and (2) the note I placed on the page concerning its name. If necessary, please can you correct my error(s). I've seen these cars around here in Europe - though never very often - for years. I find the design pleasingly coherent. More pleasant on the eye than the notchback (booted) equivalent. But I still find the naming thing perplexing.

Thank you (if you applied them) for any thoughts/corrections/improvements. Regards Charles01 (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't sold in my home of Australia, so I only have second hand knowledge of it. When the Corona switched from the RWD T140 to the FWD T150, Toyota also merged the Corona and Carina lines. Often the T150 was sold in Asia as a Corona and in Europe as the Carina, with only minor detail differences. Very soon after, the T160 also swallowed the Celica line (the T160 Corona coupe and the T160 Celica coupe are identical apart from littel trim details).

Your picture doesn't show a badge but it has a Germany number plate, so I would assume it is an AT151 Carina.

The Carina II name seems to have been introduced with the T170 in 1987, although this is also second hand knowledge for me and I generally only follow RWD cars. Mr.choppers (talk · contribs) is from Europe and likes Toyota's, so perhaps he can confirm or deny the Carina II name. I have also asked the question at Talk:Toyota Corona#Carina II name.  Stepho  talk  22:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi guys! The Carina II name was indeed introduced with the T150, although it was not used fully - about half the time, it is just referred to as Carina. According to Automobil Revue, the "Carina II" name was used in some export markets. German pricelists include the "II," and almost all T150 Carinas sold there are indeed the 1.6. This looks like a 84-85 1.6 GL (AT151 indeed). It is a pre-facelift, which was never offered with any other engine there, but the facelift was so light that I am still not quite sure what it entailed. See this page for more.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both. It was indeed photographed in Germany, in a hospital car park which we were visiting for sentimental reasons. Back in the day there were quite a few of these cars (and of the notchback version) around in the Netherlands and in Germany where I lived or visited frequently at various points during the 1990s. I changed the license plate on the image for the usual anonymisation reasons, but left the "-H" on the right of the number which in Germany denotes old timer status ("H" for Historical), which confers certain tax privileges. I have updated the note on the image page in accordance with your information and clarifications, and I have copied your link, Mr.c, to the schedule setting out the various codes with reassuring teutonic clarity. Feel free to improve on what I wrote, but to me it looks like "job done" in broad terms. Thank you again. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 08:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

To answer your statement about the VW emission scandal

List of scandals with "-gate" suffix - User talk:Naraht

Thank you for the link. Still seems stupid to me, but it is what it is.  Stepho  talk  22:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Automobiles Comment Comment

Dear Sir/Madam, I notice that you are an active contributor to the above mentioned project and thought I should bring this matter to the projects attention. During a new page patrol I reviewed an article Renault Kangoo (Argentina) I didn't think the Argentinian model warrants it's own article so sent it to AfD here [[8]]. The author had previously been warned and blocked and has subsequently been indefinitely blocked. Worryingly they had made quite an amount of edits/re-directs/deleting re-directs to auto related pages (see here [[9]]) As I am no expert in this field I trust you could check out, or know an editor that could check out, the legitimacy of the edits this author made before their ban. Kind regards and best wishes from Ireland XyzSpaniel Talk Page 18:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Better to post this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles.  Stepho  talk  21:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks and done XyzSpaniel Talk Page 22:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)