User talk:DeLarge/Archive 6

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is an archive of past discussions about User:DeLarge. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

→

interesting article

http://abc.net.au/time/episodes/ep6.htm
could it be usefull to expand mitsubishi australia article?
cheers...--MitsuFreak 19:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty good find. I'll add it as an external link just now, so that we (or anyone else) can use it when they have time. The MMAL article could do with some work... --DeLarge 22:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

2G Lancer, Marcos comment

Hi. Just wanted to check on something. In a revision of the Lancer page you... compressed, I guess is the word I'm looking for, what seems to be speculation on the part of the original contributor. The original wording was "and that the government was probably getting a kickback from the sale of each car". However, after you were done, this was treated as an established fact ("with the government getting an increased share in any foreign manufacturing venture").

I'll probably be the last person to claim that the Marcos government, or any government for that matter, is beyond reproach. But still... wouldn't this be hard to support with references to actual findings?

Neil 21:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's see... the original paragraph read as follows:

"In the Philippines, this generation of Lancer was the only car manufactured and sold officially in the country for most of the 1980s due to restrictive foreign investment laws initiated under the Marcos administration, with the government getting an increased share in any foreign manufacturing venture. Other car manufacturers, like Toyota, Ford and General Motors left the country. A popular nickname for this car in the Philippines is "Lancer Kickback," a pun, due to the fact that such an aged vehicle was being produced in the late-1980s (a throwback to the 1970s), and that the government was probably getting a kickback from the sale of each car, which was priced unusually high. Other manufacturers would return to the country around 1988. Nonetheless, this model was quite popular, especially the GT versions."

The text I've bolded is only the most obviously controversial, and the least likely to ever be supported by external refs. However, don't let the fact that I didn't purge the whole lot put you off doing so yourself; I hate those kind of region-centric edits ("In <one specific country>, blah blah happened.") and would be happy to see it gone. --DeLarge 21:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. I wouldn't mind it so much if I thought it likely that we could find a supporting article. But considering the state of the country at the time... *shrug* --Neil 10:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I need your input, again

Hi DeLarge, tell me what you think about my S-AWC sandbox article?

is there any way to get a bot to wikilink the page? --MitsuFreak 18:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK, although I don't know of a wikilink adding bot. I'll go through it myself and see what I can manage. --DeLarge 10:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What happened?

[1] "Arrrrgh - edit conflict! Lost 90 minutes' worth of expansion. Tried to restore as best I could.."?

hehe :-D MitsuFreak 12:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No edits on that page for three months, then two edits at the same time!

It was very careless of me: after the rewrite I got the "edit conflict" message. I had too many browser tabs open, and closed the wrong one while I was trying to clean my screens up. Lost everything I'd written with one click. I'd been using exactly the same source document as you'd added as a reference as well. Very spooky co-incidences. --DeLarge

lol, you are using firefox, right? did you try "undo close tab"? --MitsuFreak 13:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What?!? Argh!! Yes and no! CTRL+SHIFT+T... You learn something new every day. Well, I guess I won't be making that mistake again. God, I don't know if that makes it even worse... (bonks head on table in frustration). --DeLarge 13:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

hahaha, relax, it happens, so what did you do for 90 min? lol, we already talked about this once, there is another member of 3b2 family, a 1 liter 999cc that the new smart fortwo uses. (see above) But when you calculated the bore/stroke ratio you foung out that it doesnt match. I found many sources and they all say the engine has 72 x 81.8 mm ratio, [2]but i just cannot find the engine code. Why is mitsubishi and chrysler hiding it? I've searched for 2 days. It's getting ridiculous. But i will get to the bottom of it. :)--MitsuFreak 13:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry about this lol [3], what the hell was i thinking!, i'm still laughing about your comment, hehe, about the 1 liter engine, check this out [4], cheers....--MitsuFreak 13:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) I'm getting lots of confirmation that it's indeed a 72 x 81.8 mm bore/stroke, so it's definitely based off whatever the 2003 i-Concept had: [5], [6], [7]. So, if we assume it's one of the new designs, is it derived from the 3B20 or the 3A91? 'Tis a mystery, but we'll figure it out. --DeLarge 13:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You uploaded so many non free image

at mitsubishi motors. you must obey Wikipedia:Image use policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Totoz (talk • contribs) 10:44, July 30, 2007.

Reply posted at User talk:Totoz. --DeLarge 09:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and deal with your issues in order:

your mitubishi motor images are simply not going to survive a challenge to its fair use justification. According to Wikipedia's Non-free content policy, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Since the mitsubishi motors image has now been available for about several months, your claim that it is not replaceable is patently false. When one person abuses our fair use policies like this, it makes it more difficult for everyone else, so please do not be disruptive.
The WP Manual of Style is very specific on the issue of forcing thumbnail sizes: "Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended". Remember that many users have small screens (WP is designed to be viewed on PDAs, web-enabled phones, etc), and users can also set image sizes in their user preferences. Forcing the size of the thumbnail, especially to something like greater, forces them to view images according to your personal preference. This is why it is recommended not to do so.
Your edits to the various MMC images were, frankly, childish and disruptive to make a point. As with the several mitsubishi images, these were concept vehicles not available to the public. Further, you marked it as replaceable fair use when in fact it was a free image. This is vandalism.
Similarly, your edits to Kia Motors were equally disruptive. In the event that these issues escalate further, your conduct in these matters will count against you, as you will not have demonstrated (a) a willingness to work within WP policies and guidelines, or (b) an ability to work with other editors in a constructive fashion.

Regards, Totoz 09:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Note, the above is a copy/paste of my comments on User talk:Totoz.[8] I guess I'll be taking this further... --DeLarge 09:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Mitsutech banner.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Mitsutech banner.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Sorted by User:OSX.[9]. --DeLarge 16:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

your images are non-free and you are socket puppet

i found these non-free image. this image uploaded by user:DeLarge. do you think that these images are free? user:DeLarge is author of these image? these images are clearly authorized and free image? these images are created by user:DeLarge? no.

if this image is free, then why delete 'Image:Kia Ceed gray front.jpg' ? what is different?

i thumbnailed 'Image:Kia Ceed gray front.jpg' 200px.(small) and this image is low resolution image.

i upload only 1 image, but this guy user:DeLarge upload so many non-free image.

anyway, One thing is clear, those images are clearly non-free image.

personal attack? is this my intention? no. I JUST TOLD YOU. WHAT IS DIFFRENT WITH 'Image:Kia Ceed gray front.jpg'?

WHY THESE IMAGES ARE FREE? If you want a picture of it, you only need to go to your nearest mitsubishi dealer. ok? do you think that those images are free? huh? you make a make a contradictory statement.

THIS GUY IS A CLEARLY SOCKET PUPPET. SAME IP WITH Mitsufreak MitsuFreak and DeLarge are socket puppet. not personal attack. i edit image from DeLarge then, this guy MitsuFreak revert in just 5 sec.(every image) these are clearly non-free image and he is a socket puppet. this is the point. Totoz 19:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the suspected sock template because it's putting your talk page in categories that really don't apply. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mitsufreak has been denied because the procedure wasn't carried out properly, I think it's up to either a clerk or a checkuser to finish with the IP check. I don't think there's anything to worry about, it might come up in a WP:RFA but when people see the result & explanation it won't matter. I consider it better to take disputes into more viewed areas, it means others can add info and perhaps diffuse the situation. If there's anything else, don't hesitate to ask. James086^{Talk | Email} 23:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I've watchlisted this page so we can discuss it here, that way there's an explanation right underneath the big red stop hand :) James086^{Talk | Email} 23:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

check your e-mail

let me know what you think, also can you archive this page, it's getting to long and to big, have to wait a few seconds to open it....cheers--MitsuFreak 11:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

47k. Hmm, yeah, that's chunky. I'll do that first, then reply to your e-mail. --DeLarge 18:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

hey, why did you stop expanding the Mitsubishi i article, currently it's 21kb big? It's rated as a good article. But one of the reasons you didn't strive to make it a featured article is because of it's size (or should i say text length. But there are numerous technical papers on i on mitsubishi's website, plus the stuff that i sent you (i'm sending you more in a few minutes). You could expand it to 32 kb (recommended max size), mostly of text data? Making mitsubishi "i" the first Mitsubishi Motors related feature statused (whatever) article? tell me what you think, i'll be sending you a lot of files in the next few days, stuff thats very hard to find, you'll see. cheers--MitsuFreak 20:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You're spooky. Last weekend, you edited the same article as me, using the same sources as me, at the same time as me. Now you ask about Mitsubishi i... In my e-mail a few hours ago I wrote a paragraph about pushing it towards an FA nomination, but chose to delete it before I sent it to you. Eeek, you're in my head!

From peer review to GA promotion took almost two months (see Talk:Mitsubishi i), and I wasn't 100% happy about some of the changes I had to make. When it was finally, abruptly promoted, I just decided to take a break from the page for a while. I wanted to wait until after the annual sales were reported, and after the UK launch, so that the article wouldn't be at risk of big changes in the middle of an FA nomination. But since then I've just lost a bit of momentum -- I should get back to it though, it's probably the best article I've made major contributions to. --DeLarge 22:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

uploaded pictures

take a look at the bottom.[10]. I'm thinking of removing the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Grandis_RISE.gif. The whole thing about uploading copyrigted pictures on wikipedia is generating to much controversy. I might never upload a picture again. It's getting ridiculous.--MitsuFreak 11:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that myself. Personally, I think you'll be OK with Image:Grandis_RISE.gif; the fair use rationale is decent enough, and at the moment the big concern is untagged or unjustified images. Image:Boulay_sup_cabrio.jpg is more doubtful, as WP is strict about fair use claims for living people. Also, on the Mitsubishi SUP page we already have one fair use image in the infobox, so there's reasons to challenge both FU claims.

Still, it won't really be an issue until one of the image patrollers actually complains. And in the meantime, I'll move the RISE image so that it's right next to the section about the Grandis. See if you think that's too detrimental to the page overall. We can't do much more than that, though... --DeLarge 13:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

can i upload the logo of s-awc (it's inside those schematics, so i'll have to cut it out). Would that qualify for fair use? Also did you receive the mitsubishi i presspack i sent you yesterday, could it be usefull?--MitsuFreak 14:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the logo is OK. There's a specific logo tag you can select, which assumes fair use for a page about the subject of the logo (S-AWC); we have such a page, so it's OK. Shouldn't be different from MIEV, where I've put the logo in. The only limitation is size: because we only ever show the logo at about 200-250px maximum, we don't need an image bigger than that. Even if you can get a higher rez version, I'd reduce it in size before uploading. --DeLarge 15:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

i've uploaded it Image:S-AWC_logo.jpg, if you think it's too big then reduce it, but this logo is even bigger and no one is complaining Image:Mitsubishi Motors.png, same here Image:Ralliart.JPG---MitsuFreak 16:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nahh, that's OK, and it looks fine in the article. "Too big" is the version of Image:Mitsubishi Motors.png which I had to revert.[11] (and the version before that was 4x bigger...) --DeLarge 10:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

you know the drill

User:Mitsufreak/Mitsubishi_AWC. Needs wikilinks, slightly more neutral, do you think i'm overdoing it with applications, check out outlander's AWC system, i think so...Your suggestion edits are apreciated...--MitsuFreak 14:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply by e-mail. --DeLarge 16:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you, [12], [13]---MitsuFreak 22:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

ok, i finished it, i've toned it down, made copyedits...can you check it for the last time, it's needs wikilinks in the pajero and evo ix awc system section, already found the awc logo, i'll add it after i move it...another barnstar for you, thank you DeLarge ---MitsuFreak 11:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

oh yea, i need to ask a mod to move it for me, the Mitsubishi AWC already has past edits...what tag should i use and how? help me out....--MitsuFreak 11:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Put {{db-move}} on the page, and say in your edit summary "making room for page move from [[User:Mitsufreak/Mitsubishi AWC]]". An admin will delete the old page within a day or so, and then you can move the new one. --DeLarge 15:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

ok moved it, will add the awc logo tommorow, the article still needs wikilinks, need to decide which barnstar to give you, talk to you tommorow.....cheers and thanks again---MitsuFreak 20:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Snail racing

Thanks for the great addition to snail racing - the only other person to have done anything on that article so far has been someone trying to speedy delete it! I'll be working on it for the next 30 mins or so and it'll be interesting to see if a semi-decent article can be written! violet/riga (t) 21:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to look for a further hook -- I tried but didn't have any luck finding a reliable source to confirm -- Guinness sponsoring the Gastropod Championship probably came about as a result of their "Good Things Come To Those Who Wait" ad campaign. The original ad, called "Bet on Black", can be seen here. A variation was shown in 2003 as part of a cold-themed campaign they developed for the introduction of "Guinness Extra Cold"; video for that is here.

PS: Urban legend related to the original ad is that the red shirted guy with the thick black beard, whose snail won the race, was supposedly Guinness fan Robert DeNiro/Al Pacino (delete for which version of the apocryphal tale you're passing on), who was in the area at the time they were shooting it. --DeLarge 22:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I understand and I was not going to escalate it, I just wanted leave a friendly reminder. The article is coming together nicely. When I came across it, there were no references and was very incomplete to a point that it appeared to be a junk article. Once references were added there was no question that it was notable. Adding an {{underconstruction}} tag will let other editors know that it is not complete and not speedy it. Helmsb 23:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Totoz - I know for an absolute fact that DeLarge and Mitsufreak are different people. You need to apologize to both of them because accusations of malign sockpuppetry are very serious complaints indeed. so, i'm sorry. Totoz 07:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't worry about it -- all in the past. You made plenty of good contributions in other articles, citing sources to support your edits, so I never saw you as a troublemaker. --DeLarge 21:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Butting heads yet again

I don't suppose you'd agree with Wikipedia:Be bold. - Diceman 13:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And I don't suppose you agree with WP:BRD? I agree with WP:BOLD where editors follow WP:COMMONSENSE. Infoboxes are there to summarize articles, they're not articles in themselves. If you read essays like User:Doc glasgow/BoxWatch you'll see how much opposition many experienced editors and admins have to this kind of stuff.

The page had barely enough information as it was, never mind splitting into multiple miniscule sections (exactly what the Guide to Layout recommends against), each with a dedicated infobox. I've no idea what resolution your screen is at, but there wasn't a single screen width between 800 and 1600px where the massive amounts of whitespace created wasn't an absolute joke. That's exactly the reason I created the "gallery"; break up the whitespace created by having an infobox with an image at the top.

I'll be off WP for the next few hours, but if the current state of the page is your idea of a good layout, don't expect it to remain unedited. --DeLarge 13:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, you are a tool. Get off wikipedia. - Diceman 15:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

With the anger having worn off a little (you can have your Mitsubishi articles to yourself) basically I prefer discrete sections (whitespace is sometimes unavoidable) for generations of automobiles rather than as in this case one overly large infobox, or the infoboxes clustered at the top of the page with the corresponding information a screen or two below. BTW the User:Doc glasgow/BoxWatch rant is a load of crap and has very few signitories considering the size of wikipedia. I've skimmed over Wikipedia:Guide to layout and don't see anything related to infoboxes and whitespace. - Diceman 15:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 15 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Agricultural Bank of China robbery, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 19:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

John Jorgensen

(originally posted at User talk:NawlinWiki) This might be a bit complicated. You deleted John Jorgensen on March 5, 2007 under CSD#A7. However, according to what I can gather at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Jorgenson in December 2006, There was a (mis-spelled article) at John Jorgensen, before a correctly title John Jorgenson was created. The content of the former was then supposedly going to be admin-merged into the latter, to preserve the history for the GFDL. I can't tell from the history at John Jorgenson if this was done "legally", or merely by copy/pasting. Would it be possible to check if everything's above board here? Cheers, --DeLarge 12:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I undeleted the article and reverted it to a redirect to John Jorgenson. It doesn't look to me like there's enough of a prior history to be worth preserving; see the author's comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Jorgenson. NawlinWiki 13:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Eurgh, what a mess. I googled around, and there seems to be a 1980s speedway rider who might be sufficiently notable. I'll just leave the page as it is for now though, since I'm not finding much in the way of sources and have no interest in speedway. The contributor who "hijacked" the redirect to make it about the non-notable author seems to have left WP anyway. --DeLarge 10:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Evo7grille.jpg's original source

If you've cropped an image of a LANCER EVO 7 into the image "", can you upload the original photo for me please? I'll save it to my computer if you do. 172.141.28.96 16:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Doping at 2007 Tour de France

Thanks for all your comments on the page. I have been on a mini wiki break and hope to get round to this shortly - have not been ignoring your efforts in the peer review! Thanks again Dick G 10:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good improvement, although I've not had a really close look. I'm a bit busy in real life right now, but will try and get back to you in the next 1-2 days. --DeLarge 12:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Spawn of a previous Mitsubishi AfD

I've nominated List of Mitsubishi GTO appearances in media due to the fact that it appears to be spawned from the AfD for Mitsubishi vehicles in media I'm gonna be away from my computer for a few days on a business trip, can you please keep tabs on this in my place? --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it got deleted when I was typing this message for you. Apologies. --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Cut/paste repair query

(originally posted at User talk:Cool Hand Luke) Thought I'd ask you this, seeing as how you seem to be a regular helper outer at WP:SPLICE. Is the move repair stuff, which I understand is for the benefit of GFDL compliance, relevant to talk pages? I've just discovered Talk:European and Talk:European ethnic groups, but while the untidiness of the move makes me grind my teeth and claw at my cheeks, I know that's just my rather anal attitude to keeping things tidy, and I may have to just... (deeeep breath...) put up with it. If I can slap a {{db-histmerge}} tag on it that'd be just grand, but I wanted to check before I added it to the list. Cheers, --DeLarge 11:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. The pre-Aug 17 versions of European need to be selectively moved over as well. I'll go ahead and fix those. It's usually acceptable to just put the merge template on the article unless it's very complex; the admins who regularly check Category:History merge for speedy deletion can usually figure out what needs to be done unless it involves multiple articles or a very specific selective history merge, in which case you should explain it on the cut and paste repair board. Cool Hand Luke 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. I can stop grinding my teeth now. --DeLarge 18:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Evo 8 Picture

Hello, I recently changed the Evo 8 Pic to better one with NO copyright issues, it was taken from a poster and uploaded, the i realised it was the wrong size and uploaded it again, and fixed the copyright settings, it was then taken down by DeLarge. I appriciate that the current picture is of a higher resolution but as regaurds camera work the pic is very poor. almost as bad as the picture of the evo 7. In my opinion the picture should be taken from angle to the front of the car showing its front and side. The car should be still with no occupant in it. This article also is about a standard evo 8 not and eveo 8 with non standard parts added to it (IE Wheels, Mudflaps, etc) The background is not great either the pic I uploaded was far better --Grahambo2005 14:24, 03 Oct 2007 (GMT)

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, the picture was taken from a "poster"? As in the pictures you put on walls for decoration? Posters are copyrighted. You should only upload photos that (a) you've taken yourself or (b) have been released by the photographer under an appropriate licence (e.g. Creative Commons or GFDL). That's why your image will be deleted sometime after next Wednesday if more information on the source is not provided (see Image:Evo8red001.jpg for the warning message).

The image is good ~ as it should be, if taken by a professional ~ but as per our Image use policy, we never use copyrighted images when good free alternatives are available. Sorry. --DeLarge 14:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am the owner of the car in the currently used picture. My wheels are stock - they are the standard wheels on a USDM MR edition Evo. The mudflaps are the only non-standard item in the image, and I feel they're a pretty minor thing. As far as the other objections go, I'm not sure that I understand why a sharp, well-focused image of a car that's standing still is superior to a sharp, well-focused image of a car being driven. All other things being equal, I think seeing the car "in action" is more interesting. I would understand if it were a blurred or otherwise inferior image, but it's sharp, well-lit, and shows only the subject of the photograph; I think that's better than a picture of a car in a parking lot or somebody's driveway. TomTheHand 19:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

re: DaimlerChrysler link repairs.

(originally posted at User talk:RobDe68) I noticed your work with this when you edited DaimlerChrysler-Mitsubishi alliance, and when I checked your recent edit history noticed that you had been systematically making these changes. Please note that there's no need to fix links pointing to "DaimlerChrysler". As per WP:REDIRECT#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken, "there should never be a need to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]."

I think this is doubly true when talking about the former company in a historical context. Just because something no longer exists does not mean we should expunge all references to it, which is why I think this edit was unwise, and should be reverted (or at least restored and edited to reflect that it is a former stock symbol). Regards, --DeLarge 09:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I should point out that I'm fine with the vast majority of your edits, as I appreciate the text had to be updated where it referred to the old DCX in the present tense. --DeLarge

I was doing a ton of edits at the time and thought I'd change the target while I was editing the page anyways. I don't think I'd edit a page just for the sake of fixing a redirect. But I'll leave the past tense ones alone from now on per your suggestion. As far as the DAB page for DCX, that is no longer the stock symbol and the canadian branch is Chrysler LLC now with no stock symbol. Are we really in the habit of listing all defunct stock symbols? If we are I'll revert as you suggest.

Thanks for the input RobDe68 15:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about all stock symbols, but DCX was one of the ten biggest companies in the world (by revenue) for the best part of a decade, and only ceased to exist five months ago. Does it really benefit WP to remove the information so quickly? Are we sure that no-one is ever going to look up DCX again in that context? The Canada addition I wasn't really concerned about, but as can be seen, "DCX" was also an acronym for the company as a whole, not just a stock ticker symbol.[14][15][16] Regards, --DeLarge 17:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Oxford United

Thanks for the GA Review. I'm not quite sure what you mean with your suggestion about tidying up the references. Eddie6705 20:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I think I may have given the wrong wikilink when I pointed to WP:FOOTNOTE; I should have pointed to WP:CITE instead. Apologies for that. There's been a bit of a battle there lately (see the talk pages of both guidelines, esp here, here and here), but the dust seems to have cleared, and what's recommended for inline citations is one of the following:

"...blah blah.^[1]" (after punctuation, no space; WP's traditional house style, recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style)
"...blah blah^[1]." (before punctuation, no space; the style used Nature and the EU)

In Oxford United F.C. there is inconsistency. Sometimes before punctuation, sometimes after, sometimes with a space, sometimes not, and sometimes with punctuation both before and after, which is grammatically incorrect (the worst I can see is for refs 4 & 8). The style guide recommends a single style, and the least controversial are one of the two above (directly before or after punctuation, no spaces). The reason for no spaces, as much as anything, is to prevent the footnote wrapping onto the next line. I think it happens in IE anyway, but in other, better behaved browsers there's no wrapping, and the footnote stays "attached" to the text associated with it.

Hope this helps. Regards, --DeLarge 10:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Will do a further copyedit now. Thanks again. Eddie6705 16:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I have started to make the changes suggested and will continue to do so over the next couble of days. Eddie6705 22:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, your hold on this article expired several days ago. Might I suggest that you pass, fail or extend the hold of the article? Cheers, CP 15:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes its ok if you go through it again tonight. Thanks Eddie6705 13:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with reviewing the article, will try for FA in a few months. Eddie6705 19:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Libero

It would be good for you not to go against the Wikipedia naming conventions that have been agreed upon long ago through concensus, if you wish to change the status quo I suggest you go to football (soccer) and state your case, or better yet WP:COMMON. - Soprani 19:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's amusing you cite WP:COMMON (a mere essay), WP:NAME (which refers to article naming, instead of WP:MOSDAB, the relevant guideline for disambiguation pages), and football (soccer), a page whose title demonstrates that "football" is an ambiguous term and should therefore be avoided where a better alternative is available. --DeLarge 19:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You can "somewhat amuse" yourself at our policies on something else now, the issue has been fixed by an admin. Good day. - Soprani 19:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You might wish to familiarise yourself with who created that redirect in the first place before crowing too loudly. And you might also wish to read WP:VANDAL before getting any more edit summaries wrong. And you might also wish to read the comment Angelo made in reply to you, where he said (and I quote) "Sorry, but [DeLarge] is right". --DeLarge 19:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You might wish to note the second part of what he wrote, where he said I was right in the naming convention issues and that I was only wrong in the bit about adding Italian language meaning to the article (which you didn't even come to me cawing about). There is no "victory" this is not a game.. its a place for education. You can bore somebody else instead with your "games". Good day. - Soprani 19:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I noted exactly what he wrote, and quoted it (here's the link, if you need it, and note the edit summary). And I noted that he used a redirect that I created (as above) to do exactly what I was doing ~ removing your clumsy pipe link with a link to a redirect, as per WP:MOSDAB guidelines. And why do you keep saying "good day" and then returning? You're certainly not bored if you're having such trouble leaving... --DeLarge 19:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

About your changing proposal, you are quite right, however your proposal looks a little confusing to people unfamiliar with the subject. I'd rather a third way:

Libero, a more versatile type of centre back in football (soccer)

What is your opinion on it? Thanks in advance, --Angelo 22:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I know about the piping thing (and I sincerely agree with it in a general basis), but I don't really have any other alternative proposal. About your proposal, my fear is that someone might get confused when reading "Libero (football) is a position in soccer". In any case, if we want to strictly adhere to WP:MOSDAB we can keep the statu quo, which is fair enough to me. --Angelo 23:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, in this case I'll implement your favourite choice of the two. --Angelo 23:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Libero. Cheers --Pak21 07:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Blippu, Blippu comment

IMHO Blippu is NOT the same as traditional Bippu, but the redirection to the VIP page does not reflect this. Please reconsider and restore the original content. Blippu is a unique variant or some would even consider parody of VIP Style, similar to other styles such as Bosozoku, Vanning, etc. Thank you for your reconsideration, its an acquired taste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blippu (talk • contribs) 21:04, October 22, 2007

Hobart Biulding

Poetic, but actually inaccurate, since there is clearly no shadow on the Hobart Building. But a trivial issue, since the image really needs to be replaced with one that presents the Hobart Building in all its glory. MrRedwood 16:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Za gosp.Omer Halihodzic!

Bok!

Moje ime je Marko. Zivim u Hrvatskoj. Veliki sam ljubitelj automobila. Svaki mjesec citam novine poput "auto kluba","auto moto sport" itd. Jednostavno sam lud za autima. Ovaj mjesec sam vidio vas na naslovnici "Auto kluba" i saznao tko ste i sta ste. Saznao sam ukratko nesto iz vase biografije i cime se bavite i moram vam reci da sam zadivljen. Divim vam se sto ste tako daleko dogurali i uspjeli! Cestitam!

Razlog zasto vam se javljam je sljedeci. Iako ne znam hoce li ova poruka doci vas valja pokusati. Idem u srednju skolu, Gimnaziju. Vec dugo razmisljam u kojem bi smjeru nastavio svoje skolovanje tj.koji fakultet odabrat. Kako sam vam vec reko zanima me sve u vezi auta. I volio bih kad bi mogao radit u nekoj firmi automobila. Dosao sam na ideju da se obratim vama i da vas pitam mozete li mi vi sta predlozit i da mi kazete kako ste vi do toga dosli, sta je bitno u ostvarivanju zeljenog cilja, koji fakultet odabrati itd.

Mozda se ovo cini glupo, ali jednostavno sam morao pokusat. Nadam se da cete primit ovu poruku i da cemo se uskoro cuti!

Hvala unaprijed!

moja e-mail adresa na koju mi mozete odgovoriti: markoka [at] net.hr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markobmw (talk • contribs) 19:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Translation courtesy of an English-Croatian online translation service. My best guesses where the translation was garbled are in parentheses, using an online EU dictionary for assistance:

Hello!

My name is Marko. [I live] in Croatia. [I am a big fan of cars]. [Every month] quotes put to press like the "auto kluba","auto moto sport" etc. Simply unattended witless for autima. This month unattended lift up the eyes you at an cover sheet " car club " plus cognition who ste plus sta ste. Cognition unattended concisely nesto through vase biography plus facia does take upon plus moram you reci yes we do unattended I am amazed. Divim you does hundred ste so that far away dogurali plus success! [Congratulations!]

Reason lock you does javljam had following. Though does not type hoce li this message doci you cylinder test. Idem into a among skolu , High school. Vec long razmisljam into a which bi way to proceed features skolovanje tj.koji colleges to choose from. Of how unattended you vec reko trade me all in shoelace auta. Plus volio bih when bi could working with into a certain company car. Yet unattended at an the idea of yes we do does scum to you and that you pie mozete li we you sta predlozit and that we cassette How are you you up to gown dosli sta had intrinsically into a ostvarivanju zeljenog aims , who colleges to choose from etc.

[Mazda] does this zinnia foolishly , limit simply unattended ought test. We hope does yes we do cete Primakov ovu a message and that cemo does soon cuti!

Thanks up front!

my [e-mail address so we can] talk back : markoka [at] net.hr

From this, my best guess is that you are in school, you congratulate me on writing the article about Omer Halilhodžić, and you hope to go to college to study about cars? I should say that much of the credit should go to User:Mitsufreak, an editor who found the source material. He may also be better than me at translating or understanding your message, since he is very fluent in English, and may also understand Croatian. Unfortunately, at the moment I cannot give a better answer to you, as I do not fully understand what you are asking. --DeLarge 12:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

lol, i'm still laughing.... hi delarge, long time no see, i took a wee break, but i'm still here...you are correct, i also speak croatian, this guy Marko read the Omer Halilhodžić article, and wants to contact him, and because he obviously cannot, he decided to write a message to Omer on you usertalk, cause he saw you were the one that wrote the article and this is his best shot of contacting Omer (presumably if he reads your talkpage :-D), in fact, not a single word is directed at you, only for Omer. Marko want's to work for a car company when he finishes his education, and he's asking Omer to guide him to achive his goals....
I also took the liberty to edit the country of my origin in you reply, i don't usually edit other users reply's because it's rude, but i'm too lazy to ask you to remove it and i know you wont have anything against it in this case.....There's nothing wrong for you writing where i come from, i would just like to keep it private on wikipedia, thanks. I'll keep in touch....cheers----MitsuFreak 09:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Templates

(originally posted at User talk:Woohookitty) Please consider recreating and repopulating this category. Despite your comments that "4 templates isn't enough for one cat", it served several purposes (not least of all keeping the parent category more organized).

Further, from what I can see at WP:OCAT, there's no fixed number (the exact words are "avoid categories that will never have more than a few members"), and past discussions seem to disagree with your judgement. According to User:jc37, "It was determined from several CfD discussions that "4" was the minimum number for a stand-alone category."[17] Further, the implication at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/Archive 5#Question about Small with no potential for growth is that it's acceptable for small categories to exist where they tidy parent categories (see User:Dr. Submillimeter's comment that "I really do not see the problem with having small categories that are part of a larger scheme".

Finally, the existence of the Mitsubishi Motors Australia and Mitsubishi Motors Europe articles could follow Mitsubishi Motors North America, which uses the {{Mitsubishi Motors North America timeline}}, That's two more regional timelines, and the existence of this document (see pp.26–27) allows for a (sourced) third timeline, of the Japanese market; seven potential templates in all, a healthier number, and potential for growth.

Regards, --DeLarge 22:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll restore it and put it up for a CfD vote. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 00:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(originally posted at User talk:Woohookitty) Further to this, I'm kind of puzzled why you removed Mitsubishi Motors vehicles from Category:Automotive company navigational boxes. I could understand it if you were restricting the category only to automotive corporate structure templates, but the vast majority of the templates in the category seem to be for vehicle models, which the MMC template is (see {{Chrysler}} and {{Chrysler LLC}} for an example of both, but the majority are for cars only). --DeLarge 12:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Because I was setting up my compromise. :) If the Mit. Motors temp cat goes back under the automotive company cat (which is going to happen. See my latest post to the CfD page), then obviously the templates within the temp cat do not need to be in the company cat as well. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Side note. I really like your archive graphic. :) Might have to use that myself. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, (I think) I get you. --DeLarge 20:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the archives, I seem to remember finding my way to icons the Archive icons category on the Commons while building that box, and the yellow one just seemed nicest (as well as being the only one that actually said "archive" on it).

Oooh, as for not liking sparse, neglected categories (as per the CfD discussion), I've a few user contribution pages I could point you in the direction of, but I wouldn't want you tossing and turning while you're on your wikibreak. --DeLarge 20:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:American track and field athletes

(originally posted at User talk:Waacstats) I noticed you added two pages which I'd created to the above category: Erica Larson and Matt Carpenter. While I was writing the articles I'd considered this, but I'm not sure that I'd call their long-distance trail running events "track and field", at least not in the way I'd understand the term. Even if, as in Larson's case, they occasionally participate in more mainstream t&f events, it's certainly not what they're notable for, and I'm therefore not sure that this is an accurate categorization of either athlete. --DeLarge 10:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the category is not 100% correct but I believe that they should be in a subcat of athletes by nationality. Maybe we need to split out the American long distance runners into a Category:American long-distance runners as I am sure there are many marathon/ultra marathon/trail/fell/x-country runners in the category who don't do track and field. Waacstats 11:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm all for subcategories. --DeLarge 11:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If nobody beats me to it I'll get on to it in the next couple of days. Waacstats 12:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

GTO content question?

Would a link to a technical resource page on the gto/3000gt/stealth be appropriate for the reference section? --alan92rttt@3si.org (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're meaning this or similar, no. The only links in the references section should be those supporting specific claims in the main text, and as a result they have to be from reliable sources. Whether or not 3si.org is comprehensive is irrelevent, as it's a self-published resource. It could be in the External Links, except that historically there's such heavy spamming on Mitsubishi GTO that the {{DMOZ}} template is obviously the best way to go. That should be sufficient, since 3Si.org seems to be the first DMOZ link anyway. Beyond that WP can't and shouldn't be trying to direct people to specific websites, since that involves a subjective judgement over which websites are better than others. WP isn't a a repository of links.

Also, WP's not supposed to be the most complete resource on any given topic, because there's a difference between encyclopedic and comprehensive. We can't include the big blurb of text from the Japanese Supercars book because it's a copyvio. We can't include the recall notice information because WP is not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook. We can't include info on the transmission reliability rumour because it isn't discussed outside of fan forums, which are not reliable sources. All of these things can and are included on 3Si.org's wiki. WP serves only to pubish articles containing encyclopedic info, and if people want or need more than that, they can jump onto Google and search for alternative sites like yours. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Partial Acronyms as Registered Trademarks, GETRAG/Getrag

Please see Manual of Style (trademarks)discussion regarding issues such as GETRAG and SAAB, which are capitalized registered acronym trademarks, but are not strict acronyms. I'm starting a discussion to modify the manual to address the issue of these names. Too many people disagree, and it appears you have some interest in participating. Nicholas SL Smith (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd add, after reading other comments you've made here and there, that I meant no disrespect in my disagreement or editing -- and I apologize for my editing style (I'm learning). I'm open to discussion about this, and I'd just throw a note in here that I don't want to project any hard feelings. Nicholas SL Smith (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please - lets work together. I don't see a need for a win-lose situation here. We are both intelligent editors with a lot to offer. Would you be willing to work together to resolve edit conflicts with situations such as in GETRAG or Orange? Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 02:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I hadn't actually detected any "edit conflicts", merely differences of opinion. One issue has been settled, the other will be in due course, in both cases by impartial administrators. I disagreed with certain of your methods, but presumed in every case that your inexperience was the root cause (i.e. copy/paste page moves, canvassing). --DeLarge (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Had you assumed that I knew no better (which I did not with the copy/paste edits), why did you not inform me of the issue? You never so much as even notified me that you disagreed with my edits. You were unfriendly and your tone denoted wrong doing and warning instead of education and acceptance -- you took the issue to another talk page (WikiProject Automobiles), and discussed my edits in a clearly negative light, indicating that it ought to be undone. What I have a problem with is the fact that you publicly insulted my editing instead of informing me of unfavorable editing style. Public humiliation is the worst form of education. Perhaps you did not intend this, but please, do not bite the newcomers. Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 03:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you mean inform you of the canvassing, I did, here. However, I was compelled to also post at the relevant WP:RM discussions, since your canvassing had successfully encouraged further votes which could have influenced the outcome. Had no editors posted I would perhaps not have bothered.

If you mean inform you of copy/paste errors, they can only be undone with admin assistance, so I simply did that instead. If you wish to be informed, similar requests will be required for Getrag 260 transmission and Getrag 420G transmission in due course.

As for the conversation at WP:CARS, I did not "take the issue" anywhere, I added to a conversation already in progress, which had been initiated by User:BrownHairedGirl.

Finally, I disagree that I "humiliated" or "insulted" you; I merely commented on your edits. There's a difference between personal attacks and not sugar-coating things. I'm merely blunt, in my opinion. If you think it's merited, you're free to take future complaints to WP:WQA I can certainly say that I'm unlikely to change my style or approach based on your above comments. --DeLarge (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A little finesse my fellow editor - a little finesse will get you a lot further than bluntness. I don't seek sugar coating - I seek to be treated as another intelligent editor (a "call the cops if you don't like what I do" attitude isn't very helpful either). Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 18:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is DeLarge?

Who are you? Are you an employee or some other kind of official associate of Wikipedia? I notice that you seem to go around deleting and reverting other users posts as if you own the place. I think an explanation would be in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.195.56 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 30 November 2007

Something tells me you're not entirely clued up on how WP operates...

Lots of stuff I don't delete. That which violates the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, on the other hand, is fair game for purging. If you're going to drop the names and/or websites of five companies into an article (i.e. this edit), don't be surprised when a passing editor reverts you. WP:SPAM is enforced here. Regards, --DeLarge 20:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I checked your own user history. You can hardly describe yourself as a "passing editor". More like you are hovering over the entire Mitsubishi content with X-ray eyes, 24 hour vigilance, and an iron fist. Since I actually own a Galant Sapporo and you in all statistacal probability don't, by WP's rules, I am more likely the more interested party, not considering anal retentive, obsessive possessiveness. What do you have, some kind of pop-up bot that alerts you the second anyone makes an edit to any article?

"the article is a shared work based on the contributions of many people and one editor should not be singled out above others." signed, An Interested Sapporo Owner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.195.56 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 30 November 2007

You can hardly describe yourself as a "passing editor". "Passing editor" ≠ "editor with few contributions".
Since I actually own a Galant Sapporo and you in all statistacal (sic) probability don't, by WP's rules, I am more likely the more interested party... Ahh, no. Actually it's the other way round. See WP:Conflict of interest and WP:Neutral point of view. You can even throw in WP:No original research, if you're going to try and write content based on personal experience rather than citing external sources.
...not considering anal retentive, obsessive possessiveness. For this I'd direct you to WP:Civility.

Back at you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.195.56 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 1 December 2007

What do you have, some kind of pop-up bot that alerts you the second anyone makes an edit to any article? I have a Watchlist, as do all registered users.
"...one editor should not be singled out above others". WP:Signature? So many more appropriate guidelines you could have referenced than that one. I made edits based on the quality of the contributions, not the editor. You, on the other hand, came to this page and made statements to the effect that I should not edit the article on the basis that you know better than me. "O wad some po'er gift tae gie us, tae see oursel's as aithers see us." Regards, --DeLarge 09:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Epaulette mate

Hello. I saw that you reverted most of my edits in the article about Epaulette mate (Diff). As you noticed, I had removed the part about epaulettes on military uniforms. That was a pure and unintentional blunder from me, and I'm glad that you restored it. However, as for the reference template I have to ask why you reverted that also? I've tried to follow the guideline regarding citing sources on Wikipedia, but I like to hear your opinion on the matter as well, since I might have missed something. Also, this particular matter/article is currently discussed on the Village pump: When to use "cite web". Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist talk contribs 06:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Three reasons:

As I pointed out at the Village Pump, both WP:Citing sources and WP:Footnotes explicitly say that citation templates are not (yet) required. The VP discussion may lead to revisions of one or both of those pages, and for the record I'm not strongly in favour of "my" system. I have used the {{cite}} template in the past, when editing articles already using it, although I admit that I do prefer to avoid them, at least when citing from online sources (as an editor I find such references much more fiddly to create).
I have a personal preference for "tight" code, and despite the accidental deletion, the page had still grown by about 20-30 bytes. I concede that this alone is no reason to revert.
Most importantly (aside form the accidental deletion) I don't know if this is a fault of the template itself or just your application of it, but the dates were being forced to display in the YYYY-MM-DD format. Something to do with not wikilinking the dates within the template, presumably. The previous references incorporated the application of date preferences. Personally, I prefer your (ISO-recommended) style, however I think that it's most important that readers should have the choice.

Under those circumstances, the most straightfrward option was to just revert to the older version. Nothing personal; Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Motors

Hey DeLarge. I orphaned this fair use upload of yours by replacing it with two free images. I don't think the image meets NFCC, and more importantly, we have some great free images on Commons that we should use as much as possible. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not nuts on either of the replacement images, which don't serve the same purpose (of showing a contiguous motorsport history of which the company itself is aware of, and uses for marketing and promotion). Nevertheless, I don't expect that the image would be kept under WP's current policies. --DeLarge (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured articles

I've started a thread about this at WikiProject Automobiles. If you're interested take a look! --Solumeiras ^talk 15:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)