User talk:Regushee

References, facts, etc

Hi Regushee. While I admire your energy levels, you are adding errors. For instance, you incorrectly removed the X60 model code from the Toyota Cresta (see here) and you added some entirely incorrect information regarding the transmissions in the Toyota Chaser. Are these edits just based off hunches of yours? Please take care to only add verified information and include references; adding edit descriptions would also be nice. It takes a lot of time to wade through hundreds and hundreds of your edits to determine what is real and what is just assumptions and guesswork. Pinging @Stepho-wrs: for good measure. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I found the model code from the Toyota website. I have translated the information from Toyota Japanese language brochures that Toyota scanned. Regushee (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

But that was just one model code; it used both X50 and X60. If you find something which seems incorrect, verify it before changing. The 75 years is just a snapshot, the linked catalog is merely from a single year.

As for the transmission changes, there is no support for the diesels being fitted with the 4MT and 3AT; quite the opposite. I am merely asking you not to add things unless you know them to be true. Try looking in more than one place, too.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. I saw Regushee's removal of X60 and did a quick fact check against my own data at https://web.archive.org/web/20230530112012/http://members.iinet.net.au/~stepho/cressprd.htm and saw I had no listing for any X6# Cresta. But I did a more thorough check just now and found more entries at https://www.megazip.net/search?q=cresta

Toyota has an infuriating lack of total lists. They produce partial lists (eg vehicles sold at Vista dealerships, vehicles sold to N.America, vehicles sold to non-N.America/non-Japan) but no complete lists. Even worse, some special models only appear in special brochures and not in the general brochures. So its really, really hard to say that Toyota never made a particular model unless you know you have every single brochure, microfiche, manual, etc. My collection is good but definitely not complete, so I get fooled occasionally too.

As an example, https://www.toyota-global.com/company/history_of_toyota/75years/vehicle_lineage/car/id60013153A/index.html lists models as "MX63(2800), GX61(2000), GX60(2000), RX63(2000), RX60(2000), TX60(1800), LX60(2200)" but do not mention the MX62 wagon sold outside of Japan (MX62 is same as MX63 but even numbers have solid rear axle).

Also beware that Wikipedia Japan has a woeful lack of references and that I do not trust it very much. Great for inspiration but I always do fact checking of anything I read on it. Naturally, it is focused on models sold in Japan.  Stepho  talk  23:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I've just done a bulk revert of your changes at Toyota Mark II. I admire your enthusiasm but you are making mistakes faster than I can correct them.

• Copying from Japanese WP is great for inspiration but everything you copy must have a supporting reference. The Japanese WP is not a reliable source for English WP, as per WP:USERGEN and WP:CIRC.
• References to brochures must actually support the article. If the article says that the Canadian Mark II did not use an auto seat belt then linking to 5 pictures of a Canadian 1982 brochure with no text is not enough.
• Be careful of WP:SYNTH. You have used 75 years and its linked catalogues as though that was the entire range. Then stated that only those engines and trims were available. They are only samples to give readers an idea of what was offered. They are not complete. My own collection of brochures covers a lot more options than they list and I know that my collection is not complete. Sometimes I find another brochure that has an option I never knew off. You can only state what the source explicitly says. You cannot extrapolate it and make new conclusions from incomplete data.
• Do not rely too much on Toyota sources. Some use is fine but secondary sources are much better. Dry facts like the length, width, etc are fine but remember that car brochures are designed to sell cars, not record history - they are biased. Even the 75 years website may ignore or exaggerate certain things to make the brand look better. There are editors that delete all references to primary sources, then delete the article because there are no references left.
• Please slow down. I am the primary fact checker on these articles (with help from Mr Choppers) and I cannot keep up with you. I have a day job and household chores to keep me busy.
• Please fill in the edit summary - it makes it so much easier when fact checking and correcting your additions.
• Make use of the preview button. Many of your edits are little changes to correct a change/typo that you made a few minutes before.
• Take care of spelling and date formats. You seem to use American spelling and MDY dates a lot - even on articles that are marked as British spelling and DMY dates. It is tedious for me to keep the article consistent and it should not be required for an editor that has been here as long as you have been here.
• Your grammar is often wrong. If you are not a native English speaker then I won't complain about this much (my Japanese and Chinese grammar is awful) and I am willing to correct your edits. If you are a native English speaker then bad grammar is just being lazy. Where are you from? (I'm Australian of European descent but with links to China).

I say these not to put you down or to discourage you but to help you be a better editor that doesn't require every edit to be corrected by others.  Stepho  talk  23:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

OK...I've gotten out of habit of using the preview feature. I've recently uploaded an AI spelling checker and it isn't always accurate either, while I'm a native American English speaker. The dimensions I'm getting from the brochures are listed at the back and I've learned how to recognize the various dimensions, which is how I learned top level trim packages usually come with extended bumpers. The brochures printed by Toyota and then scanned by someone at Toyota are about as reliable as it can get, as they also list fuel economy ratings for each engine under Japan's very strict testing so what they claim in the brochure can embarrass the company, which doesn't sit too well, and Mr. Toyoda doesn't like publicly apologizing and then ask why he had to. It appears that the brochures are the first printing, and Japanese companies update standard and optional equipment seemingly every six months.

I'm also a "shade tree" mechanic from a very long line of auto mechanics. My father could strip an engine down to the block and rebuild everything and I learned that from him. Not that I've recently rebuilt an engine recently, which is how I know what an econometer is; we had a car with one. I lived in Japan for two years so I'm very aware of Motor-vehicle inspection (Japan) which explains why they change something every year to drive sales. I'm using an OCR reader to translate printed brochures and find all kinds of things that aren't represented by a photo. I'll stick to JDM, while the exported models do give a clue as to what was offered to Japanese buyers. Regushee (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I second all of Stepho's warnings, and please stop using AI. Slow down, please. And I beg you, stop introducing erroneous information.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Toyota Camry V6 Petition on Change.org

Mister, A petition on Change.org began in November 2023 by Andrew Huynh, requested fans of the Camry to petition Toyota to bring the V6 back for model year 2026. By July 2024 it had received over 250+ signatures. It will be on Change.org

Change.org Keywords: "Toyota Camry V6" 2600:8801:9B13:EC00:385E:2169:7EBC:BE22 (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)