Talk:Mitsubishi Motors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Companies  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Japan / Business and economy / Cars / Tokyo (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 14:35, September 10, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Business and economy task force.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Japanese cars task force.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Tokyo task force.
 

Debacle?[edit]

"DaimlerChrysler has also denied reports that CEO Jurgen Schrempp is to step down over the growing Mitsubishi debacle, describing media speculation on the issue as "nonsense."" Source: Channel 4

"Bernhard has had to endure a torrid time throughout DC’s bumpy ride in the past few months following the Mitsubishi debacle and problems reaching crisis point with Hyundai-Kia." Source: AE-plus.com

"...as the board member in charge of Asia, he bears ultimate responsibility for the Mitsubishi debacle." Source: Businessweek

"In Germany and the US, the debacle fuelled calls for DaimlerChrysler chief executive Juergen Schrempps to step down or at least concede that his plans to build a global car manufacturing empire on three continents has failed." Source: The Age

"I realize I am outside the norm for anyone commenting on the automotive industry, but I just can't get excited about the General Motors - Fiat issue or the DaimlerChrysler - Mitsubishi debacle." Source: VehicleInfo.com

That's five independent, reliable external sources explicitly referring to the DCX-MMC merger as a debacle, including a respected American business magazine, a national Australian newspaper and one of the UK's major terrestrial broadcasters. I've now satisfied myself that the word doesn't violate WP's NPOV policy by dint of the fact that so many reliable external sources use it. --DeLarge 16:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to pose that it doesn't matter how many references you find, words such as "Debacle" are weasel words and opinionated, they should not be used, especially in headings. Please evaluate your neutrality. The text speaks for itself. Please let others make evaluate the situation without trying to turn this into a non neutral article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Integra15 (talkcontribs) 20:04, December 12, 2006.
It's a good job you had second thoughts about this. Before I started the article looked like this. Would you prefer I reverted back that far?
The entire DCX section's in line for a comprehensive expansion shortly, once I get down that far -- I'm working through the page chronologically. It may even get a dedicated daughter article. --DeLarge 01:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is better, I will be adding information shortly as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Integra15 (talkcontribs) 03:40, December 29, 2006.

Oh, come on... after all your complaints about "weasel words"? Read Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms as well, that way you won't come up with:
  • Sales of the new Outlander were "surging...above its predecessor", or that Mitsubishi will be releasing "a much anticipated...Lancer".
  • "...the Mitsubishi i has gone on to win a multitude of prestigious Japanese design and automotive awards." I count three awards of note, which isn't a "multitude", or didn't you look that word up while you were searching for "recent"?
  • "Sales for the new generation Mitsubishi Eclipse, that was introduced as a 2006 model, have increased nearly 30% for calender year 2006 and have provided a boost to the company." I think we both know that sales of the current Eclipse are running well below the levels of the previous generation (70,000+ per year from '00 to '03, for example). 30% up on last November's pisspoor performance, maybe. I'm going to fight to keep stuff like that out of this article, or failing that I'm going to give a clear and proper context to it all.
Understand that this is an encyclopedia. When things go wrong for the company it's perfectly acceptable to report them, and even when things go right, we should report them objectively. Leave the hagiographies to fan sites and MMNA's press department. --DeLarge 16:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was simply quoting and interpreting articles as you have made an good example of, albeit {in my opinion} mostly negative terms. You are mistaken, sales of the 2005 eclipse are well below what the 2006 model has sold, I will fix it to make it clear. Their was nothing incorrect about that statement. Even the article that was referenced made it clear. Also "we" are reporting things objectively, after all does it take 100 references to determine the Lancer Evolution is an "anticipated" model?

This was added into the "recovery strategy" portion anyway, a section in which positive things are supposed to be mentioned. Since it seems that this section has been neglected for the most part, somebody has to take the job of expanding this section. If someone takes the time to do it like me please stop erasing my work. Or if you find it such a terrible job reword it.

Regarding the I car, "multitude" would be a correct word to use as a description. Until I can have time to reference them all I will substitute "multiple" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 02:35, December 31, 2006 (talkcontribs) Integra15 (UTC)

First, please stop changining "U.S." to "US". See what convention is followed in various featured articles: 1996 United States campaign finance controversy, James K. Polk, Read my lips: no new taxes, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, etc etc.
Second, if it wasn't clear already - the awards the i has won do not contribute to MMC's bottom line, only sales do that. It's fit to mention them in the main Mitsubishi i article, and they already are. Putting that blurb in there only serves to break up a paragraph to which it's not even relevant, hence why it was moved. And it's not "multiple" or "multitude", it's three. The RJC award, the Good Design award, and a Special Award from the JCOTY. I've added "award-winning", which is all that's required and preserves the flow of the paragraph.
Third, if you'd followed the link, you'll see that indeed the previous generation Eclipse's sales ran at 71,307 (2000), 70,351 (2001), 72,040 (2002), 37,919 (2003), 15,417 (2004). So the current sales of the Eclipse/Spyder, 2,177 in November, are indeed running at less than half the levels of the previous generation when it was 1-2 years old. Kindly don't remove cited material provided by Mitsubishi itself.
Fourth, the order of the discontinued vehicles was alphabetical. You have some problem with this or were you just undoing everything I'd edited because it was me?
Fifth, the Eclipse/Lancer section merely duplicates what was already mentioned two paragraphs before, hence why it was moved. The reference was replaced because autospectator.com is on a Wikimedia blocklist.[1]
Sixth, "The newly designed Outlander, that went on sale in November 2006..." has a superfluous comma and an incorrect wikilink).
Seventh, are you even reading what you're editing? Why mention the company's global sales target in the middle of stuff about new models? Why do you think I re-ordered that section? I'm not just trying to fire out sentences at random, I'm trying to keep a semblance of order and coherent structure to the page.
Eighth, you put references after the period at the end of a sentence, with no space between them.
Etc, etc, etc. Fixing the article again. And learn to sign your comments, please. --DeLarge 13:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Indented comments moved to their own section below. Please read Wikipedia:Wikiquette#How to avoid abuse of Talk pages ("Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to the two of you but it's virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow.")


"First..." I think you meant "changing", anyway that is an easy fix, but I am sure you never make mistakes right?

"Second..." No it was not clear. The awards show that the company if finally starting to design products that are award worthy again. Is that difficult to understand? It is completely relevant in a section because it shows the progress that they are trying to make by designing cars that people might actually want to buy. By the way it is multiple (more than one) go look up the definition if you doubt it.

"Third..." That was not the point of the comment and you should know that. The point is to show that the new model is selling better than the previous model year (did you miss that again?). Anyone who follows the car industry would realize that days of selling sports coupes in mass quantities are long gone. You know that the market was so bad vehicles like the Celica and Prelude are not even bothered with anymore. So it is next to impossible to think the level of sales would ever reach that point again, so please don't have wild expectations in a market that cannot support them.

"Fourth..." It does not matter want order they are in so long as it is correct.

"Fifth..." The reference could easily be changed to a site that is not on the block list. Again it does not duplicate anything because the context was different.

"Sixth..." Why bother mentioning it if you delete it anyway?

"Seventh..." That was not my writing and I did not want to make anyone cry too much so I left it alone. The way it was written was fine, the new (or now deleted thanks to you)paragraph continued to explain new models etc. I'm trying to make the article better by fixing neglected and overlooked areas.

Eighth..." This page if I am not mistaken is to discuss the article so I would prefer talking only about things related to it. Integra15 02:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I won't be losing sleep over a typo on the talk page, especially when your very next paragraph was to comment that "[t]he awards show that the company if finally starting..."
I'll reiterate about the awards. Award-winning means nothing. Past European Car of the Year winners have included sales disasters like the Lancia Delta, Chrysler Horizon, Citroën XM, Ford Granada Scorpio, etc etc. Motor Trend picked the Ford Thunderbird in 2002 before it died a death. And ironically enough, neither the dominant Toyota Corolla nor the bestselling Suzuki Wagon R kei car have won the Car of the Year Japan award. Winning an award can contribute to increased sales, at least for a year or so, but it's not a given, and definitely not part of any "recovery strategy". Just look at the "award winning" Mitsubishi 380, Australia's Best Large Car in 2005.
Nahh, sports cars don't sell anymore. Except GM with the Solstice/Sky. And of course Nissan brought back the Z-car. And Mazda resurrected the RX nameplate. And the new MX-5's doing OK. And the latest Mustang's still popular. And... oh, never mind. I'm happy to see the Eclipse is improving, but given the grim sales levels of '05, a big percentage increase in '06 isn't significant. 70,000+ in 2002, 38,857 in 2003, 19,361 in 2004. The fact that it can't beat the sales of 2003 when they had an ageing product in sales freefall is a bad omen, and beating the 2004 figures is scant consolation.
For the autospectator reference, I did replace it. The article was dated December 11, and MMNA's press releases aren't publicly available,[2] so I used the press release from the global site instead.[3] The fact that it wasn't written like such a fawning sales pitch ("driven-to-thrill dynamics", "cutting-edge user-technology", "bold, dynamic lines of the show-stopping Mitsubishi Concept-X", "the Lancer's exciting new design") was an unintended benefit. --DeLarge 17:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you believe awards mean anything. You pick a couple of examples of vehicles that win an award and end up a "disaster", but for every one of those their are 10 that actually see a benefit and you know it. Do you think Honda and Toyota dominate the competition and win multitudes of quality and appeal awards just by chance? I don't think so. If you don't think winning awards and producing cars that are even capable of doing so is a good thing you are mistaken. If Mitsubishi could manage to win JD Power awards or even score well in Consumer Reports magazines or Car and Driver competitions that would go very far to help the "Recovery Strategy". How? By getting the name recognized as a true competitor and a leader in value, technology, etc... These goals are not different than any auto manufacturers goals, but it does make the difference between winners and losers.

The Solstice and Sky in my opinion are just more bad attempts by GM to make a sports car. I would not be surprised if the hype dies off quicker than it did for the "awesome" PT cruiser. The MX-5 or Miata has decent sales but they are nowhere hear where they were during the peak but I doubt Mazda considers the vehicle a failure. The RX-8 is nowhere near the car it used to be and laughed at by many auto enthusiasts, not unlike the current Eclipse depending on who you listen to. The only vehicle you mentioned that I would consider a success is the 350Z and it still can not live up to the sales of it's predecessor during the good years.

As far a the current sales it is a product of the fact customers have somewhat lost confidence in the brand. That is Mitsubishi's goal, to win back the confidence. Add to that that some people consider the styling and performance of the new Eclipse only average, then add the declining market for these types of sports cars, and that leads to the flat sales numbers. It is not rocket science.--Integra15 02:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Consumer reports? Car and Driver? JD Power? I agree that when Mitsubishi start winning those things will look better. But you put in a reference to a Good Design Award and the "other" Car of the Year Award in Japan (i.e. not the really prestigious one), won by a low-volume Japan-only kei car.
If you could only choose one, would you rather have the Eclipse's reviews or the Solstice's sales? It outsold the Eclipse Spyder by more than 6:1 in November even without a GXP model on offer. And while the RX-8 is apparently "laughed at" (you must read different reviews from me), it too is a class bestseller all over the world; 811,000 RX-7s were sold between 1979 and 2002 (35k annually); 115,000 RX-8s had been sold in the first 24 months after release. The MX-5 sold 750,000 between 1989 and 2005 (47k annually); FY2006 sales were 46,500. The Z-car line sold 1.38 million in the first 30 years, (46k annually); the new 350Z shifted 150,000 in the first three years. Your perception is wrong. The bestselling sports cars are doing as well as ever, and if Mitsubishi can't sell a 2006 Eclipse at or near the levels of the previous generation, it's not the fault of the marketplace.
I agree about customer loss of confidence leading to the downturn. What I disagree with is pimping a percentage increase in monthly sales for one low volume sports car as indicative of any kind of "recovery", especially when that supposedly low volume car is rivalling the Outlander and Galant in the charts. The 350Z doesn't outsell the Altima and Sentra, and the Mazda sports cars don't outsell the Mazda3 and Mazda6. So I don't want the article painting a false picture of a company putting "past troubles" behind it and riding the crest of a wave when the reality is that its monthly sales are still running at one third the level of four years ago. --DeLarge 12:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

GM is GM and they are in just as bad shape as Mitsubishi if not worse. They sell cars just from the name alone, some people don't care as much about cars as others. I am sure the Solstice is a great car for the money, but most tests I have seen placed it behind the competition. Even in the best case examples you speak of, the Miata and Z car, they are not selling at peak levels. Respectable, maybe even good sales, but not top or record setting. I am not commenting on anything else because it is off topic.

Just as you don't want a article that points out any positives for the company. I don't think it fair either to over hype negative things that happened in 1994 or 1997 and talk about them like they are todays front headlines or recent. Or add negative speculation doubting the future of the company or its products.

A turnaround does not necessarily mean a return to previous sales numbers. A company is never going is going to double it's sales in a calender year. It is mostly impossible. Using that logic nobody will ever say GM Ford, Chrysler etc. are successfully companies again because I doubt they will never see the "old days" of 80% market share again.

Unless you have anything else to add I am done editing for now. --Integra15 22:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent Troubles[edit]

Changed to Past Troubles, as 1st reference ( lawsuits) is from 1994-1995 not recent. The Asian downturn is dated 1997, not recent. The most recent years mentioned are 2003 over 3 years ago, also not too recent. The 380 production in 2005 is too soon to be judged as a failure, and should be even considered for revision. The text itself even says it is too soon to tell.

Or this section needs to be broken into 2 parts, Past and recent troubles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Integra15 (talkcontribs) 16:18, December 11, 2006.

This makes a lot of sense. Everything prior to 2003 is too old to be "recent", and something in 2005 is too recent to judge? With the probable exception of the sexual harrassment suits, every other issue there is ongoing for MMC, which if you hadn't noticed is still being crippled by its debt burden. There are ongoing legal actions against the company and the former board members regarding the recall scandal, which is significant enough to warrant a dedicated article on the Japanese WP (and I might just create duaghter pages here myself; there's certainly enough material).
If you want to create a "past troubles" section, then only the sexual harrassment suit deserves to be moved. But I can expand it with the story about bossman Kimura's little racketeering embarrassment in 1996/97, which I've neglected to mention to date...
The whole point of the "Recent troubles" was to give a context to the "Recovery strategy" and why it's so critical to the company's survival. I don't know why you think that "within the last decade, and still affecting the company" doesn't equate to "recent", especially when the article as a whole spans an 80 year timeframe, but I can spare two minutes to revert that edit right now. --DeLarge 01:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it makes perfect sense, however maybe not to a biased person like yourself? Do you consider events that happened in 1994, 1997 or even 2003 to be recent? No, any intelligent person, would not. Recent in every sense of the word means within a timespan that immediate repercussions on current events.

Or perhaps in case you forgot the definition of the word I will help you.

re·cent Pronunciation-(rsnt) adj. Of, belonging to, or occurring at a time immediately before the present.

No the next issue - Originally posted by you - ":If you want to create a "past troubles" section, then only the sexual harrassment suit deserves to be moved. But I can expand it with the story about bossman Kimura's little racketeering embarrassment in 1996/97, which I've neglected to mention to date..."

Seeing from your comments above, you are a biased, unobjective and even go as far as to make unneeded , for lack of a better word, "threatening" comments if the page is altered?

I would have to think such comments go against every value in which these pages go represent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Integra15 (talkcontribs) 03:39, December 29, 2006.

Dictionary definitions of "recent":
Three defintions from verifiable sources which, along with yours, do not quantify a specific timespan. So I'll reiterate, in the context of an article spanning 80 years, a section documenting troubles which have happened in the last ten years and which continue to affect the company, are "recent". Heck, half these issues could be classed as "Ongoing troubles", but I didn't think that sat well alongside a "Recovery strategy" section.
And if you want an external, verifiable source, i.e. which satisfy the criteria of verifiability (one of the three fundamental policies dictating content in WP) then have a look at the two independent annotated reference sources for this article; (i) Automotive World's January 2006 report on MMC, Chapter 1, "Recent History" (p.8) if that helps you. You'll find you're in conflict with their interpretation of "recent" too. Or (ii) FundingUniverse.com's Company History section, which referes to problems after 2000 as "New Obstacles". Darn, I guess I'll have to stop citing WP:RS reliable sources, eh?
Mitsubishi's former president having to resign after his involvement in a racketeering scandal was discovered, is a historical fact. I haven't included it up to now because I felt there was no place for it in the current article, and it certainly didn't qualify as a "Recent trouble". It is, however, a "past trouble", so if you create such a section, in it will go. Quite how you can construe the addition of externally verifiable information as a "threat" is beyond me.
I'm biased against Mitsubishi? Here's three four unsolicited comments left on the MMC talk page or my user talk pages by other users:
  1. User:Samir"very nice expansion" (of the Mitsubishi i article which got it on the front page of WP in the DYK section)
  2. User:Richard Harvey"in view of your knowledgable input about Mitsubishi..."
  3. User:Gnusmas7 - "DeLarge you've done a great job transforming MMC page, keep it up"
  4. User:S Firestone"Excellent job on your whole Mitsubishi section. First rate job!!!" (could he be referring to my massive expansion of Category:Mitsubishi Motors, my creation of Template:Mitsubishi Motors vehicles, etc etc?)
Boy, I must really stink if that's the feedback I'm getting... Pardon me if I take your slings and arrows with a pinch of salt. But I'd suggest you read up on WP:NPA before mouthing off too much about my being "biased" or "threatening" or "not intelligent". Administrators tend to frown on such conduct from WP:SPAs. Regards, --DeLarge 04:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with any of that. But my disagreement with you should be just that, 1 disagreement, nothing more. It was irrelevant to bring up "If you do this I'll do that, etc..." It should have no bearing on anything else you care to add or delete from this page.

I mean no harm so I am glad you do not care. And if some gestapo administrator sees things differently than me it is not too much of a concern to me either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Integra15 (talkcontribs) 05:21, December 29, 2006.

Section removed[edit]

I've again spliced out the "Alternative propulsion and environment" section which reads as follows:

Mitsubishi Motors Environment Initiative Program 2010 (EIP 2010) brings revisions in four major areas: environmental management, prevention of global warming, prevention of environmental pollution and recycling and resource conservation.


Mitsubishi Motors Mitsubishi i EV (innovative electric vehicle) could be on sale as early as next year.

Mitsubishi Motors, has also announced it plans to begin selling electric minicars in 2009.<ref>

The first paragraph/sentence is just a statement about the company's ongoing environmental approaches. It succeeds a previous similar plan, the Environmental Sustainability Plan, and will itself be succeeded by the same thing with a different name in 2010 when it expires. It lists its goals as "collaborating with suppliers", "establishing promotional organization", "improve automobile fuel economy", and lots of other things that all other car companies try to do anyway. In and of itself it is entirely irrelevent. It's just marketing speak.

The second paragraph/sentence and the third are in fact talking about the same car, and are just reptitious. The only difference is that Mitsubishi's latest claim is that the EV i will maybe break cover in 2009, while a journalist speculated that it might be next year. In both cases, it's a severe case of crystal balling, the kind of speculating we try to avoid. In any case, it's covered in greater depth, and in the correct context, at Mitsubishi i and MIEV, which is the correct place for them.

Please discuss before edit warring further, as per WP:BRD. --DeLarge 00:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

world war 2[edit]

in the history section they completely skip world war 2. those people from japn made planes that help blew up pearl harbor and started the war with the USA where we just kick their ass and won the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.68.8 (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the page for Mitsubishi Motors, which didn't exist until the 1960s. Planes ≠ automobiles. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Other alliances[edit]

No citations for Volvo subsection, or Colt & Lonsdale. And no citations for the alliance with Nissan. I think it's from http://auto.moldova.org/brands/mitsubishi-78-0-eng.html as the wording is exact, but not sure if they got it from this article. --Abc518 (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The moldova.org link is just a scrape of an old version of this page (January 2006). The other citations seem to appear elsewhere in the article, including the lede. I've re-cited them, or added new ones. Bear in mind the {{fact}} template is really aimed at contentious information. Every single sentence is not expected to have a citation, even if it was a featured article. --DeLarge (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
dear sir 
i just have acomment about the new version of mitsubishi galant which i am abig fan of it .

i think that the new version is completly unconveniant for acar such as galant and galant desirve to be followed with much more creative design .hatemabuadi@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.248.210 (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's better to step up[edit]

Whenever the finances of a company or organization exceeds three digits, it is more appropriate to go up to higher units (billions, trillions, etc). It is not formal to maintain the same one over and over as the digits increase. 99.9.158.56 (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I see no policy or guideline supporting your attempts to reduce the accuracy of revenue/profit figures. I see a featured article which conflicts with your edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitzinriyadh (talkcontribs) 19:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Being too accurate isn't that necessary. What is necessary is to mention something that's easier for most people to remember or write out. 99.9.158.56 (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Who says what is "too accurate"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitzinriyadh (talkcontribs) 02:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Featured article uses 4-5 significant figures for annual company accounts

Can you name a few "featured" articles that use your way of writing finances? Also, I don't think this article is a featured one because there's no star on the upper right. 180.194.251.221 (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
BAE Systems, Cracker Barrel
Also Good articles: Nokian Tyres, Blackstone Group, Grameen Bank, UBS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitzinriyadh (talkcontribs) 02:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


I so agree with 99.9.158.56. When it comes to the way the media uses those "illion" denominations, I usually don't see numbers that are more than three digits. 180.194.246.199 (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Club VR-4[edit]

Hi!

is there any chance you could add an external link to clubvr4.com? - This would help us with global exposure,

  • Club VR-4 - Club VR4 is the worlds number one English Speaking Website dedicated to the 8G Mitsubishi Galant VR-4 and the 8G Mitsubishi Legnum VR-4.

Thanks B — Preceding unsigned comment added by BraindG (talkcontribs) 09:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)