Talk:Driving

Discuss links here

Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (You can help!) --Wiley 18:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Don't Delete Links En Masse

The following discussion refers to this edit by Bwileyr (aka Wiley): "(cur) (last) 15:56, 9 March 2007 Bwileyr (Talk | contribs):

(→External links - From WP:EL: You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent... Get concensus on Talk:Driving before adding a deleted link back.)"

... as you did today in the Driving article. Unless you can prove that a user has a stake in an external link he or she adds, you should let the link stand, and if you have a problem with that, you're the one who should seek consensus (notice the spelling) on the discussion page before taking action. Exempting yourself from this requirement is the height of hypocrisy, and warning people not to restore their links amounts to bullying. A feeling you may have about a user's motive in adding a link is not a fact. Spare Wikipedia your magical thinking instead of citing rules to support it. Also keep in mind that almost every rule has exceptions, and you'd be a better contributor if you learned how to discriminate them. 69.183.8.2 (Talk) 03:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:A: The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material.

From External link spamming:

Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam.

From How to identify spam and spammers:

User is anonymous (an IP address)
User:page and/or User_talk:page are red links

From Regular clean-out of undiscussed links:

...go in every few days and remove any undiscussed external links.

--Wiley 03:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Self-Reliance by Ralph Waldo Emerson:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..."

--69.0.27.211 (Talk) 03:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From How to identify spam and spammers:

No edit summary (other than, perhaps /* External links */)

From Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam:

...spammers love to take advantage of the fact that Wikipedians assume good faith, luring us into discussing their links with them "on the merits" as if they had nothing but the good of Wikipedia at heart.

--Wiley 08:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to previous entries from Wiley (aka Bwileyr):

You have been observed policing articles by deleting external links and branding the users who created them as spammers. Your accusations, meant purely to damage others so you can retain a perverse ownership of articles, is itself a form of spam, and your need to prevent other users from contributing to articles to which you have already contributed is tantamount to a conflict of interest.

I’m afraid you’ve become too attached to the driving and cycling articles to be objective, and your actions violate the spirit and express policies of Wikipedia. This encyclopedia is meant as a democratic alternative to traditional encyclopedias, and you’re seeking to stamp out exactly what makes Wikipedia unique.

If you want to dominate contributors and hear them thank you for it, I suggest you apply for a job at Britannica. You might also examine what motivates you to police articles to which you have contributed, and why you relish applying accusatory labels. Understanding, for example, that such behavior often stems from feelings of powerlessness could be helpful with reining in a need to control others.

Try to remember that you’re not above any other Wikipedia contributor. You don’t own the driving and cycling articles. Nobody elected you enforcer. You’re a user--not a true editor, a boss, or a recognized expert. People don’t have to come bowing and scraping to you. There are exceptions to all the rules and regulations you’re so fond of citing. I would suggest that you step back, examine your motives, and try not to make yourself feel better by attacking others.

Finally, please spare us the claptrap about how Wikipedians like you "assume good faith" and have nothing but "the good of Wikipedia at heart." We need a little perspective here: Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a cure for cancer, and everyone who contributes to it has an ulterior motive, whether it's a need to share knowledge, join a group, or feel superior to the group. --69.177.170.126 15:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From How to identify spam and spammers:

User is anonymous (an IP address)
User:page and/or User_talk:page are red links

From Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam:

As Wikipedia grows in popularity the temptation to misuse its editability to bring attention to other websites becomes nearly unbearable... This potential for self-promotion on Wikipedia must be managed. Wikipedia is not a link repository. Wikipedia exists for the purpose of creating a collaboratively edited encyclopedia, not for any individual to promote a site that they have an interest in.

From WP:A: The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material.

--Wiley 19:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source of Three A's

A source is needed for the "Three A's". 70.111.218.254 15:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Link

There are not many sites devoted entirely to driving. Most sites one the net talk about cars or represent driving schools, having some driving information as a related by-product. I would like to suggest for inclusion the external link to the site which is all about driving. The site's idea is to promote responsible driving. Yes, it is my site of course. The link is: http://www.funandsafedriving.com

Thank you for your consideration,

Mikhail71.126.177.220 04:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Instead of spamming the article, a person posts a resonable request for inclusion of a pretty comprehensive site, and everybody just ignores it. What's wrong with you, people?192.86.106.133 08:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not spamming the article is definitely appreciated, but the site at the end of this link is plastered in Google and AdBrite ads, and has a forum with a grand total of 397 forum posts, most of which are made by a single anonymous person. The encyclopaedia section contains even more ads than content - a total of less than 17 dictionary definitions. This site is not comprehensive and fails to meet the expectations of the external link guidelines. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 12:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly none of the links on this page meets those expectations entirely, but thanks for answering anyway 192.86.106.60 13:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

User:Asjoseph added a lot of original research to this. I will remove it sometime this week if there are no protests. It cites sources, however, these sources create an original synthesis of ideas. Wickethewok 17:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your proposed removal. Too many of the assertions are not cited and reek of original research. Plus the quality of Asjoseph's writing is poor. --Coolcaesar 18:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually its not quite original research, as most of the things this said come from http://www.mulhollandraceway.org/. That said, this source doesn't seem to be authoritative and much of their information (ex: skill level classifications), is just stuff they made up and doesn't seem to be a standard thing. Note that the sections are still essays and should be removed. Wickethewok 22:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and do this then. Wickethewok 18:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to re-add a link that was removed

The link is to www.minddriving.org, which is a genuine road safety project aimed at reducing road casualites. The project has discovered a new approach to driving skill that can significantly reduce a driver's crash risk. The approach has been very strongly welcomed by the driver training industry as a long overdue breakthough, and with a contribution to road safety on a par with Roadcraft.

The material describing the skills was initially available free on the site, but is now in a published book after many requests to do so. The book is still, though, simply the medium to make the new skills available.

The small income to the project from book sales is ploughed back (in fact far more) into efforts now to influence Government to give safe driver skills higher priority in road safety policy - to help break the flat trend on death rate.

I believe that Wikipedia is a good place for drivers who are interested in safe driving to find the Mind Driving approach - alongisde other road safety items, and the link is consistent with the site's purpose.

Thanks

Kwiksafe 10:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, links which only exist to sell books fall foul of the external link guidelines. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 10:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the site is really about a new approach to driving skill, but ok. The guidelines say to use the "ISBN link format" instead - would that be ok to let people see what's available? This really is a genuine non-profit road safety project - and the book publisher (Driving Instructors Association) is a registered charity. Thanks. Kwiksafe 19:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a query from Kwiksafe on my talk page which asks: ...people have suggested I should write a brief factual Mind Driving article in Wikipedia - but I don't want to if it would be removed. Could you please help... I suggest that you write a short summary of the material for such an article and then post it on this page with a request for feedback from other editors. Assuming that you get some useful feedback, you would then have a better basis for making a decision about whether to write the article or not.--Wiley 03:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wiley. It may take a little while, but I'll do that. Kwiksafe 20:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kwiksafe,

I have been driving for over 50 years, putting in over 20,000 miles/yr. in 47 states. The more I drive, the more ways I continue to work on improving my driving. I should very much like to know more about Mind Driving.

I recently saw a program on the History Channel about the German Autobahn, and how excellent construction, strict enforcement and compliance allow much of it to have no speed limits. Germans take driving as seriously as all of us should.

Americans evidently have to have the freedom to consider driving just another form of entertainment. My next-door neighbor talks on her phone, smokes a cigarette, listens to her radio and also does some nail repair all at the same time, while tooling down the super-slab at 75M/hr. I remember a custom car magazine in the 50's which showed a car with a t.v. set. In those days, of course, it was illegal to have it installed where the driver could see it. These days cars have TVs, GPS and other computers as part of the instrument panel. I remember when computers first became popular, seeing a keyboard which was installed in the middle of the steering wheel!

In many US states, California among them, cellphones can only be used "hands free" while driving. A few years ago a University of Virginia Study found that "hands free" made no difference in the accident rate. If the driver was arguing with their boss or spouse, they were NOT paying attention to their driving. I believe they should be banned entirely while driving. My wife and I both have phones, but the rule is ONLY the passenger can talk and then no longer than necessary. It's amazing how much my driving has improved after I murdered the radio with hot coffee with cream and sugar a few years ago, so after listening to the Urban Idiot's Boom Cars for a few years, I believe they should be banned in any vehicle traveling at less than 50M/hr in open country.

No German driver would talk on a cell phone, and most would never have the radio turned on while doing 200Km/H+ in the high speed lane. Rude or provocative words or gestures reported by other drivers or observed on monitored cameras are penalized with heavy fines, and in extreme cases by imprisonment. Passing is permitted only on the left and following distances close to the "two second" rule (as endorsed by the U.S. National Highway Safety Administration, and much easier than estimating "one car length for every 10 M/hr.") are much more strictly enforced. If there is one thing all of us can do to save lives TODAY, it would be for all of us to follow the two second rule, front and back, and avoid being any closer to another vehicle than necessary.--W8IMP 10:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are also the additional problems of notability, original research, and verifiability. But if you can address those (with citations to appropriate books and articles) in your draft, then I would have no problem. --Coolcaesar 22:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum motorist ages

I suggest that Minimum motorist ages be moved to a separate article. Biscuittin 11:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Regarding the merge proposal of Over sway, I think it would best be merged to Drifting (motorsport), instead. --Leedeth (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I didn't know that article existed. I'll change the tags appropriately. Pairadox (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ohiodriversmanual.jpg

Image:Ohiodriversmanual.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant 'See also'

Why has somebody put 'Global Warming' and 'Greenhouse Gasses' in the 'See also'. These are quite irrelevant. Is some green minded person going around adding these to any article vaguely related to polution?