User talk:Cruiser-Aust
Holden SIDI economy
[edit]Hi, it is probably best to avoid such comparisons as fuel consumption figures can range dramatically based on the testing methodology used. Other tests have shown the car to be significantly under 9.3 L / 100 km, but only due to feather footing the pedal. Every car is different. It's inevitable that the Holden used more fuel because of its lack of torque compared to the Falcon, as required for the hilly Bathurst terrain. I think Holden have positioned the SIDI 3.0 engine for city driving, as such environments benefit the smaller-capacity engines such as the new engine used by Holden. It really depends on the buyer's needs: city drivers will prefer the 3.0 litre, highway/rural/lead foot drivers the 3.6 litre unit. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- And by the way, welcome to Wikipedia. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hi,
- Yeas, aware that comparisons can vary, however this is a referenced real world comparison of fuel economy and I believe a useful addition to the page. Readers are able to read the article and decide whether it's a valid comparison for their driving style or situation.
- Thanks for the feedback, and it's good to be here! Cruiser-Aust 10:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Well then you would have to include other reviews as well as the above to satisfy the Wikipedia requirement for a balanced article. Such comparisons are really beyond the scope of this project as they have no scientific standing (the same can be said for reviews that undercut the official figure as well). The official ADR figure is only a guide. It's not too hard to better the ADR if you're light on the pedal; likewise, it can easily be doubled if you're a lead foot. The point of the ADR figure (especially the separate city/highway figures) is to demonstrate the likely difference in economy between different cars. The testing methodology is the same regardless of the vehicle in question, and thus this figure can be considered scientifically obtained. The same cannot be said for Drive's Bathurst figure or the Global Green Car Challenge which yielded 6.48 L/100 km (no air conditioning, et cetera (in the 40°C+ desert heat too!). OSX (talk • contributions) 11:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Your reasoning for excluding the comparison is incorrect. To get around the problems with real world testing, a back to back (aka convoy) test is exactly what manufacturers use. There is no requirement that objective facts be balanced. The article mentions the claimed official numbers, I see no reason why it shouldn't include real world test numbers from a reasonable test that do not agree with those numbers. The actual issue is not whether there is a disparity between lab numbers and a particular real world test, the interesting and relevant thing is that that disparity is so much greater for the new engine.
- As I also said, if negative criticism of the product is inappropriate so is the previous section 'critical acclaim'.
- I am not going to indulge ina revert war over this, you have the numbers , and I am actually waiting for the RACV's measurements, and feedback from the fleet managers. Greglocock (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius#Independent_test_data_and_comparisons_with_other_vehicles -that is there is no generally applicable ban on presenting independnet test on fuel consumption. Greglocock (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- As I said above, if your going to include "real-world tests" (by how much Bathurst qualifies as "real-world" is questionable) you can't just include one test. You have to include three or four. Did you see me rushing to add the 6.48 L/100 km figure as soon as the "Global Green Car Challenge" results came about? No. So why include this when the Commodore article is merely supposed to summarise each of the Commodore models. On the same basis, when I was involved in the overhaul of the Ford BA Falcon I did not bother adding that the BA's real world figure was significantly above that of the equivalent Ecotec engine. Filling the article with details such as independent fuel economy figures is rather pointless. If it is really bothering you, you could as a sentence saying something along the lines of, "real-world figures for the SIDI models have varied" but even that is pointless because any test of any car is rarely going to achieve the exact ADR figure. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Australian Vaccination Network
[edit]Thanks for all the work that you are doing on the Australian Vaccination Network page. Exazonk (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- No problems. I'll keep updating it as I find more information. Cruiser-Aust 01:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Australian Measles Control Campaign article
[edit]Page is now live Australian Measles Control Campaign
Fabian Coulthard
[edit]Hey, nice Fabian Coulthard photos, but just letting you know they will probably get deleted because they've got watermarks on them pointing to a website which probably indicates it's either a copyright breach, or published previously. Just letting you know, cheers. Great shots. --Falcadore (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Cheers. I put the watermark on there for credit, but have released the images on a commons licence. No copyright issue. Cruiser-Aust (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
[edit]
|
The Modest Barnstar | |
| Thanks for your recent contributions! -129.49.72.78 (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC) |
There a content dispute for National Broadband Network, could you offer a third opinion? Thanks. —[d'oh] 07:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
In an attempt to resolve the content dispute with National Broadband Network, I have created a new RFC. Please help resolve the dispute by joining the discussion. Thanks. —[d'oh] 11:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)—[d'oh] 11:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
NBN Conroy quote
[edit]Please join the discussion on the Talk page re. your reinstatement of this quote. Thanks. Rmarsden (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Cruiser-Aust. 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)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]Hello, Cruiser-Aust. 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)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Cruiser-Aust. 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)