User talk:DeLarge: Difference between revisions

Archives
	Archive 1, May–June 2006
	Archive 2, July–August 2006
	Archive 3, September–October 2006

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:54, 7 December 2006

For issues specific to Mitsubishi, please click here and leave your message on my dedicated talk sub-page.

NOTE: I know some people carry on conversations across two User talk pages. I find this ludicrous and unintuitive, and would much prefer to follow Wikipedia's recommendations (see How to keep a two-way conversation readable). Conversations started here will be continued here, while those I start on other users' pages will be continued there. If a user replies to a post of mine on this page, I will either cut/paste the text to their page, or (more likely) copy/paste from their page to this one and continue it here.

Freshwater

(originally posted at User talk:RobertG)
I only just noticed this rename request after you did it, but as per the fresh water article (and its talk page), "fresh water" is a noun, "freshwater" is an adjective. In this context therefore, it should surely not have been split into two words when being renamed? Sorry I couldn't have noticed this sooner... --DeLarge 11:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! After I read your message I checked, and I found that on Merriam-Webster freshwater is actually both a noun and an adjective, but that's US usage: in British English is "freshwater" used? Scotland uses British English. Even if the move was superfluous, would the reverse move not be equally superfluous? In any case, if you feel strongly perhaps you could take it back to CFD? Best wishes, --RobertG ♬ talk 16:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just to help on this question. We do infact use the wording freshwater in the UK not fresh water, which would generally be used when saying such as "This is fresh water". to use fresh water when refering to rivers and Islands in the lochs would be incorrect. I spend a lot of time diving and doing underwater photography in Scottish Freshwater Lochs and rivers. I have accordingly placed some external links to freshwater & UK environmental agency websites on the Fresh water article, redirected List of fresh water islands in Scotland to List of freshwater islands in Scotland and sorted the category Category:Fresh water islands of Scotland to Category:Freshwater islands of Scotland as well as the associated linked articles. Richard Harvey 23:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Jeeeez, what a mess. I guess I just "got involved". --DeLarge 21:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no big mess, don't fret! I put it back to how it was, simply because cutting and pasting is not a valid way to do a page move (it loses the page's edit history), and then submitted the whole thing to CFD for a rename; I think that "freshwater" is probably best, but it needs a consensus. I will leave a message for Richard too. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 09:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WRC

Thanks for your efforts on the WRC articles. I have worked on these a lot in the past but got caught up in my work for the WP:Novels. Is there any mileage in setting up a proper WikiProject as the Formula 1 project, but probably "a more modest" effort. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about it, but don't know if it'd be worth it. Aside from User:SndrAndrss's repeated attempts to drag his knuckles up to his keyboard so he can insert incorrect event dates all over the place despite the ample verifiable evidence contradicting him, no-one seems really interested in contributing to past years. No point in a formal Wikiproject if there's only two or three members. Seems a shame, but then Wikipedia's full of teenage troglodytes only interested in the here and now. Historical records are reserved for Britannica, which explains the lack of so much as a stub here for multiple RAC Rally winner Roger Clark until I created one, but an entire well-populated category of professional wrestling moves. John Cena pwnz U d00d, etc etc. Sigh... --DeLarge 21:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proton

Funny why you can't accept the criticism, which is the truth. I as a ex-Proton owner know about it especially the car quality. You can't denial the Proton Iswara is still using the based chasis and engine from the 1985 Proton Saga. Even Proton themself accept the criticism and said they will try to improve. And you know that Lotus is bought by Tun Mahathir Mohamad and Proton is the pride of the country. Why the Waja is RM60k, and Honda City sold in Malaysia is RM80k but only RM50k in Thailand? Why Honda City get more duty & tax compare to Waja which pay less than 10% of tax from their total value? There were no direct facts but Malaysian know it. You can ask 10 Malaysian about Proton, i believe more than half will support my statement. [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.208.248.235 (talk • contribs) 16:01, November 7, 2006.

"Funny why you can't accept the criticism, which is the truth." As per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Which is why your later statement, "There were no direct facts but Malaysian know it" was so damning to your case. See also Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --DeLarge 16:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So can you prove Proton cars is reliable? And Proton car only officially export to Singapore in South East Asia, not all country in South East Asia as mention. So this is also not verifiability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.48.199.129 (talk • contribs) 16:13, November 12, 2006.

Blah, blah, blah. Car still giving you problems, then?

I don't need to prove that they're reliable, as I'm not bitching about the cars (or saying they're any good either). I'm merely ensuring that the article is only about the car company itself, and not about one particular editor's bad experiences with one or two individual cars.

If you want to write something encyclopedic, you could do better than to search Google for two minutes. You could end up with "According to the first quality survey of Malaysian automobiles by global marketing information services firm J.D. Power and Associates in 2003, Protons suffered from a level of reliability below the industry average.[2]" That's the difference between editing and soapboxing. --DeLarge 16:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:DelicaD5.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DelicaD5.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Promotional tag now added. --DeLarge 00:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 15 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article London-Sydney Marathon, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Rally Championship results

Hello! Can you write up the race results for the World Rally Championship from 1984 to 1991

Sondre

Image:380vrx.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:380vrx.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ×Meegs 14:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to WikiProject World Rally

Hello, and thank you for your contributions on articles related to rallying. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject World Rally, a new WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of World Rally Championship and related articles on Wikipedia.

As you can see from the image on the left, we haven't achieved a four-wheel-drive yet. If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks, Prolog 04:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Rally Championship 2006 results

Hi, was there a reason why you reverted the changes to this page? I thought the improvements were quite useful. This page looks bad when the tables are stretched to full page width, especially on widescreen displays but also on normal 4:3 displays greater than XGA resolution. Why did you revert those changes with no explanation in the edit summary? Andrwsc 19:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are 34 pages of resultsfrom 1973, all of them following the same rough stylistic template, and the anonymous user (who had made no other contributions) changed two without any discussion or consensus and left the rest as they were; I reverted back to the consistent style followed on the rest of Template:World Rally Championship results. And I didn't explain it because I used popups, which fills in the edit summary automatically.

And for the record, as I recently mentioned on another talk page, 60% of internet users have a screen size of 1024x768, and there's as many using less than that as using more (see here and here for confirmation). Going on about what looks good at 16:9 or greater than XGA is only discussing what one in five Wikipedians can see.

So, I'm reverting again to restore a consistent style. If you want to revert, make sure you do all 34 pages instead of just one or two. But I'd recommend you discuss any changes at Wikipedia:WikiProject World Rally. Among the members are the two editors who came up with the layout in the first place (I wasn't one of them, I only copied what was there). I'm quite happy to follow the will of the majority, but let's (a) follow due process before making blanket changes and (b) be consistent throughout. --DeLarge 20:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough. I am a strong advocate of consistency myself. When I get some time, I shall update all 34 pages. I viewed the pages again on a 1024x768 display, and they look bad there too. There is far too much unnecessary whitespace to the right of the manufacturer and driver names, even at XGA resolution. My goal is to format pages so that they look good for all Wikipedia readers, not just 4 out of 5.

More importantly, the table headings don't make sense. The "Events" column heading appears above the lists of manufacturers and drivers, which is clearly wrong. That label should appear above the list of event flag icons. Andrwsc 21:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the vandalism

Thanks for fixing the vandalism on my userpage. Now I can finally activate the 'userpage has been vandalized x times' userbox. Caper13 01:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A word about the EPA size classification system

Classification of vehicle sizes by interior volume: it sounds great, but it doesn't work. I can prove this by using this example: say there's a hundred-foot car with the interior volume of a Honda Accord. Based on the EPA size classification system, it would be classified as a midsize car, which is what it classifies the Accord as. But since the car is 100 feet long, doesn't that seem like a bit of a stretch?Hondasaregood 15:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never once offered any approval or endorsement of the EPA's methodology, so getting me to agree or disagree is irrelevant. The bottom line is that the organisation with the responsibility for classifying cars by size in the United States define the RL as mid-sized. Calling it full-sized is contradicted by a reliable source.

You are of course welcome to lobby the EPA directly if you think their system needs revising. Their contact details are available on their website, and if you choose to follow this route then I wish you all the best. If or when they revise the RL's classification I'd be delighted to restore your edit, but not before then. --DeLarge 15:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Rearcross" and"Rearcross Hall" entries: Please Delete

I have contributed the above named articles, which you are, apparently, unhappy with. On reflection, I realise these contributions are personal observations, and are not suitable for Wikipedia. Therefore, I would request you to delete them. Thanks, MountainRambler69

@@ Line 114: / Line 114: @@
 :You are of course welcome to lobby the EPA directly if you think their system needs revising. Their contact details are available on [http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/contacts.shtml their website], and if you choose to follow this route then I wish you all the best. If or when they revise the RL's classification I'd be delighted to restore your edit, but not before then. ''--[[User:DeLarge|DeLarge]] 15:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)''
+== "Rearcross"  and"Rearcross Hall" entries: Please Delete ==
+I have contributed the above named articles, which you are, apparently, unhappy with. On reflection, I realise these contributions are personal observations, and are not suitable for Wikipedia. Therefore, I would request you to delete them.
+Thanks,
+MountainRambler69