Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:39, 29 August 2006

Welcome to my talk page!

Hooray!

Please make use of edit summaries.

I have been looking over your recent edits to all S-Chassis related pages, and I am concerned as to the verifiability and method behind many of these edits. Since you have neglected to use edit summaries in the majority of these edits. Particularly your edit to the Nissan Silvia page here which I should also point out is not a minor edit, and should not have been marked as such. I am also concerned about the paragraphs you reduced, eliminating information without explanation. Whenever information is removed it should be indicated in the edit summary why, and if it is a substantial amount of information, it would bhe appropriate leave a not on the article talk page with a detailed explanation of why the information warranted removal. I am asking you to please go through and make these notations on the talk pages, or here, explaining the reasons for these removals and reductions. If you are unable or refuse to do so, I will revert to a previous version until I, or another wikipedian can identify a valid reason for removal.--Oni Ookami Alfador 20:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added comments about my changes to the Nissan Silvia article to its talk page.

Expounding on what I wrote there, I'm trying to improve the signal-to-noise ratio and reduce ambiguity in the S platform articles. My source for all Japanese-market version info for these cars (except the Sileighty) is the "Nissan Museum" maintained by Nissan Japan. Sileighty info comes from the original printed brochure for these cars and the info provided by the Gran Turismo series of games... I'll try to find a web-accessible source. Further S12 Silvia/Gazelle info comes from a Japanese owner's website.

I've tried to keep references to production years consistent with model year as it's defined in North America. The Japanese don't use our model year system but they have a registration year system that's similar. I know Australia, at the least, is more familiar with calendar years, though. If model years are too confusing to non-American readers, I don't mind seeing it changed back... or better yet, changed to year + month; readers familiar with the concept of a model year should know that a car introduced in October of year x will have been sold as an "x+1 model".

I dont see model years as any way confusing, so long as it is wikilinked (which I believe it is).--Oni Ookami Alfador 21:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

looking for help with a wikibook

I started a Nissan 240SX performance modification book. I'm looking for help with fleshing it out, thanks. http://en.wikibooks.org/Nissan_240SX_Performance_Modification Sean1978 14:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

new Portal:Korea

User:Visviva has worked hard to create a brand new Portal:Korea. Please take a look & contribute if you can. I think the new Template:Korea-related topics has the potential to be a more useful reference tool than categories or lists, if editors continue to expand and update it. It's also a good reminder for help & requests on ye olde notice board. Hopefully, this will help revive some activity all around. Appleby 22:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Kumdo

Hello. I am Michael Friedrich. You may remember me. I am the one who made a suggestion that Kumdo be merged into Kendo. I left an answer to your comment. Please read it and leave a comment, whether you're still against the merger or not. As for now, 3, including me, are for the merger and 3, including you, are against it. This talk is not over yet. If you don't leave a comment, I understand it as approval for the merger. Thanks.Michael Friedrich 15:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/FM 5-31 Boobytraps

In case you're not watching the page, I've added a response/question to your vote there. -- Hirudo 20:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

My apologies

Didnt mean to revert you there. Got a edit conflict, and I thought the nom was blanking now. Dominick 17:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

greetings from australia re 200SX/silvia deliveries

Is this the messaging method we use? I couldn't find a "reply" option on your message to me...

As for the 200SX / Silvia naming problem with the Australian delivery, it's a sad sorry mess. Different marketing terms in different markets, with different engines on board. Cross-pollination between the Silvia line and the 180SX is also something I'm not entirely clear on, but I know there is one significant difference.

All the Silvia/200SX I have seen in Australia have been quite faithful renditions of the japanese domestic market (JDM) items. Since we drive on the same side of the road, there's been quite a grey market for japanese imports.

I don't recall seeing the "S13 Chuki" with the popup headlights, but I know we got S14 and S15 Silvias with the SR20DET badged as 200SX. Apart from the badging they are definitely Silvias. In fact, my car still has some Silvia badging on it, because Nissan Australia didn't want to pay for it's removal! By that time the Silvia name was already known and it probably helped them with the marketing.

I don't know if the JDM 180SX was the same basic chassis as the Silvia, but I do know that one major distinction apart from the engine capacity was the use of a lift-back rather than a coupe.

Then there's the American 240SX delivery based on the S-chassis, whereas our 240SX was a rather boring block of a sedan that didn't sell much. We also had a Gazelle in the late 80's but I don't know if it was based on the S platform as alleged in the wiki.

If I could show you the badgings of my S15 you'd see immediately the Silvia written in script on several places on the car. However I've left my quick-n-dirty photos on my home computer so I'll try to pass them on over the weekend. By all rights my Australian 200SX the entry should be in the Silvia section. Then again, if you go strictly on the marketed name, it does belong on the 200SX page. Perhaps the Silvia page should have a few sentences pointing out that Australia got the exact copy of the S14 and S15 Silvias but rebadged and "see the 200SX page".

I'm inclined to agree with whoever suggested that the 200SX and Silvia pages should be combined. Perhaps also combined with the 180SX and 240SX pages too!

Anyway, I'm comfortable with the move at this point. I still have a few facts to chase up that I haven't had time, and I want to show you some poor-quality pics of the Silvia badges on my car. I'll also put up a nice pic of the actual car; you'll see immediately that it's definitely a Silvia despite the marketing confusion.

This is the right place!

I have no doubt your car is a Silvia in everything but name... it's really just how they broke up the articles even before I came along. I've just tried to stay consistent, and your content was a perfect fit for the 200SX article, especially because I know the Australian meanings of "Spec-S" and "Spec-R" were very different from the JDM versions.

It'd be much nicer if we could combine all these different variants into the Nissan S platform article and compare and contrast, but it'd be enormous! — AKADriver ☎ 13:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

contradiciton in 1229

Which contradiction were you refering to when you tagged it? (see it's talk page) -- ∞Wirelain 07:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The wording for the two entries about the Sixth Crusade is confusing. Was the truce signed in February or March? It says both. The Sixth Crusade article says the truce was signed in February and the coronation was in March. I don't know if this is correct, so I just added the tag and left it. I thought I had made a talk page comment, I guess I forgot. — AKADriver ☎ 13:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Neon / PT replacement

It's certainly a fact that when the Plymouth Neon was dropped, the PT cruiser was introduced, and it fit into a similar though not identical niche. Will you revert if I restore this? --matador300 17:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The Dodge Neon continued in the US as well as the Chrysler Neon in export markets until 2005. Not to mention, the PT is a Chrysler in all markets, never a Plymouth. Most Plymouth dealers were Chrysler-Plymouth, but not all. As far as I'm concerned, there were no replacements for any Plymouth-branded vehicles, and the PT ran concurrent with the Neon under the Chrysler brand.

The PT was also just plain never intended nor sold as a Neon replacement. The Caliber, on the other hand, is marketed as a Neon replacement even though it too is a different type of car.

I and a few others would revert that, yes. — AKADriver ☎ 22:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Honda S2000 page

Hi AKADriver. Instead of taking up the case (as stated in the title) myself for mediation, I would recommend you to seek the advice for the arbitration committee instead. They can better deal with this. Alternatively, contact some administrators to initiate a lockdown on the page (and just keep the short criticism section instead), and/or block SpinyNorman from constantly imposing his version on that page. Mediators can only mediate something when all parties are willing to compromise - something tells me SpinyNorman is not the compromising type. Jsw663 07:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)