- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Unreferenced edits, that's one thing, but this edit summary is another. "Keep clicking undo"--well, if it continues you will be blocked and the article will be locked, unfortunately. Threats of future disruption are not taken lightly. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
- Actually, after looking at the rest of your edits and their summaries, I'll let this note function as a final warning. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- You seem to be unaware of how an encyclopedia works, but it's quite simple: base your edits on reliable sources (WP:RS) and play nice with others. Your own expertise is, sad to say, irrelevant; other websites may be interested in that, and it's probably marketable, but it's not for Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hrmmmm... expertise not wanted. Huh. Not sure I agree there, Drmies. Is that really what you meant to say? :-) Let's see if we can fix this sorry situation up, and get the page unprotected once again, so 24 can get back to adding facts. Nothing in WP:PG says they have to be a librarian, right? WP:REQUIRED seems to suggest otherwise. They do seem to be basing their edits on reliable sources, from what I can see. Sure, sure, anything can be challenged that is not explicitly cited, and if citations are not found after some time, the challenged data can be removed. But have you looked at that Honda-page? It is in seriously poor shape! Wikipedia needs 24's expertise quite badly methinks. They are clearly trying to help. WP:AGF applies. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I'm trying to figure out the ECU for the Civic CX. Do you have time to help me? Thanks for improving wikipedia. You can reply here, or ping me on my talkpage if I don't respond promptly. Appreciate it. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I clicked the "talk" link and got a long list so the only way I know how to communicate is by clicking the "edit" link. Hope it works. I have two D15B8 ECUs. What's your question? PS. Thanks for thanking me! You are the first one who seems to appreciate my efforts. The others are relentless a$$es who keep deleting my entries. I got tired of dealing with them, so I didn't use Wiki for a while, which is why it took so long for me to see your message. Sorry about that. I'm not an ECU specialist but lmk what you'd like to know. I think the two I have are a '92 and a '95 (which is in the car).
- Left you a message over on my page, please reply over there, I'll see it quicker. You can always hit 'new section' which is the fastest way to use the talkpages. Or, just scroll to the bottom past my long list, and you'll see the D15B8 section, with a little 'edit' button right by the section-title (you can always hit 'edit' at the very top instead ... but it's easier to just edit the specific section you want). Here is the section-shortcut-URL you need, just click here and it will take you to the correct place, then click the little blue 'edit' by the dark black title.
- My question is, basically, how many different ECU models does the CX really take? Most places say one, some places say two, but at least *one* place which sounds like they know what they're doing says four different part-numbers, and a bunch of part-suffix-stuff. Details over at the link above. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- p.s. Agree that getting deleted is a slap in the face... especially when the whole dern page is almost totally bereft of "citations" for anything! But calling people dollarsign-names will just get you in hot water -- we have four main rules, #1) only put info here that belongs in an encyclopedia, #2) stay neutral just the facts, #3) the facts belong to everybody free-as-in-freedom, #4) everybody damn well better be nice to everybody else or they get chainsawed off at the knees. ;-) Remember that fourth one... you are rock-solid on the other ones, but if you treat wikipedia like most of the Honda forums on the internet work, where most people talk like tough bikers in a bar cause they are only on the internet, you will get booted, while the people that love deleting your stuff will stay.
- See also, WP:IMAGINE. I actually know drmies from their other wikipedia-work, they are no donkey. As for MrChoppers, I've never seen them around, but from reading their talkpage they really and truly do believe deep down they are helping improve wikipedia. Getting riled up and saying mean things about other people -- whether justified or not... it makes no diff -- will get you nowheres, but here's what *will* help you get your knowledge into the article. Rule number five, the king of all the other rules, goes like this. If any rule prevents you from improving wikipedia, ignore it.
- Personally, I just love that fifth pillar. :-) I'm guessing you like the sounds of it, too. And those are the only five rules you ever need to read. But you gotta stay calm, and let me help you convince drmies that you *are* here to improve wikipedia, not just battle for supremacy with MrChoppers. (Believe it or not, you and MrChoppers are on the same side -- the side of Just The Facts -- even tho they may seem rude and super-prickly.) Hope this helps, and thanks again for trying to fix this place up to be better. It is much appreciated by the 200M readers every month, even if the other 30k editors don't say it often enough. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- p.p.s. Oh yeah, and you can call me 74. Nice to meet you. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
D15B8 ECU answer
[this was sent to user "74" a few months ago, but I felt it necessary to copy & paste it here to show any skeptics how thorough and detailed I am.]
1. Thank you for being WAY super cool. (why aren't people like you in power instead of Drmies?)
2. I will thank you more and talk about your wonderfully funny points when I have time. (got stuff to do today)
3. Glad I said I'm not an ECU specialist because I had no idea there would be so many ECUs for a puny 8-valve!
4. Before answering your question... Need to clarify that there were two different CXs. You seem to understand that you are focusing on the CX models with the D15B8 engine, made from 1992-1995. Just pointing out that the 1996-2000 generation Civic line also featured a CX, but the engine was the noticeably more powerful D16Y7. (I owned one of those cars too and although significantly faster than the 92-95 series CX, you paid for it, in higher fuel consumption). You're talking 92-95 only, right? Just checking.
5. Answering your question... I don't know. I like to say "I don't know" when I can't be absolutely sure. I have two CX engines w ECUs and two VX engines w ECUs. (I also have a D15B7 - the DX engine). Since this topic is only about the CX then here's what I can disclose: I have a "92" and a 95. The '92 is in quotes because I'm not the original owner. I bought the engine and ECU from a guy off CL. He said it was a 1992. I saw the car the engine was from so that was enough  for me. I seem to remember the car did not have a passenger airbag so it's either a '92 or '93 at the latest. The seller also plugged the ECU into another hatchback, started the engine, and saw it work perfectly. So there's my "proof".
6. Label from that aforementioned '92 CX I acquired:
37820-P05-A00 730-508063 =IPT=
and to the right of the above code was the double-sized APT.
7. Details... It was a manual transmission, probably not from California. The date was stamped (in ink) "MAR 1 1 '92". And molded into the alloy chassis is a "1" over a "91" in a circle that looks like a little sun dial. I took photos of this ECU. If you would like me to upload them (to appease stubborn skeptics like Mr.choppers) I'd be happy to. (just tell me how).
8. the other D15B8 ECU is a 1995 and still in the original CX car. I'm reluctant to spend the time pulling the carpet off (and who knows what other parts) to gain access to it. I'll photo that one too but only if you really want me to. I don't like doing time-consuming things for free.
Sorry for the lengthy answer :/ The behavior of the two listed below has me feeling compelled to list every detail, right down to the last baryon, gluon, and meson.
-the D15B8 guy who's tiny additions keep getting undo'd by the undudes Mr.choppers and Drmies.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)