User talk:DeLarge/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Mitsubishi articles

Maybe we could try to work together on these articles rather than revert eachother. - Diceman 11:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to work together - I disagreed with the necessity of mentioning the 380 in the maintext of the Mitsubishi Galant article after it was moved to the "related" field of the appropriate generation infobox - it has its own dedicated article and is therefore not just treated as a rebadged Galant (unlike the Grunder and 240M). However, after you restored it, I left well alone.

The Magna photo, however, did not need mirroring. There's no rule saying all car photos need to have the vehicle pointing the same way - that's a bizarre personal preference and there's no need for such an edit, especially since two of the photos are replaceable fair use or copyright and therefore inappropriate for WP (and I'm removing them just now). Why not get free alternative images to replace them? That'd help the article more. --DeLarge 11:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"Bizarre" is your personal opinion. I only reverted your reversion due to no reason being given in your edit summary. On the subject of the current trend of tagging any image not created by a wikipedia user for deletion, some of those photos may not be replaced for a very long while or not at all (especially in the case of rare items). - Diceman 06:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

First, with regards to my edit summaries, I find your comment a little disingenuous considering that your edit summary consisted merely of the word "link". My edit summary did make clear that the edit was a reversion.

I agree that it may take time to replace fair use images of rare cars. But are you claiming the Magna was rare? What's worse is that the photo is of an American Diamante, not a Australian Magna. Unless you think that the two cars are interchangeable, and therefore that Mitsubishi Magna should be merged and redirected to Mitsubishi Diamante, the fair use claim fails on that as well. Frankly I don't even think the 3rd gen photo (another U.S. Diamante) should stay, but that at least is a Commons image so I left it for now.

If you genuinely think the article needs images that badly, what's to stop you taking photos yourself? Alternatively you could leave a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Requested images. Or, following the recommendations of User:SteveBaker (see talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 4#Car brochures as fair use images WikiProject Automobiles), you may wish to contact an eBay seller or online owners' club and requesting permission to use their photos. We managed to get this rather excellent photo of an AMC Matador that way.

The photo of the VRX was a blatant copyvio, with the user who uploaded it dishonestly claiming it was a self-taken image in the public domain. Ten seconds of Googling uncovered the source at an Australian online motoring magazine, so that should unarguably be removed and deleted. --DeLarge 13:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Drug rehabilitation

I am not spamming anything. My goal in life is to use the internet to help others dealing with addictions. Have you any any experience dealing with addictions? It is just frustrating that I have options i would like to share and you people continue to tell me I cant. Tcennis 19:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Delica production figures

Thanks for the information. Excellent! Richard Harvey 09:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

YouTube Links

Hi! It looks like you've stumbled upon the Great YouTube Controversy. There's more to it than Nick pointed you to - there's the discussion at WP:EL, but there's also Wikipedia:External links/YouTube and Wikipedia talk:External links/YouTube, some of this has ended up at Wikipedia:External links/Copyrights (and associated talk), and has even ended up as an RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. Sir Nick is one of the more egregious YouTube deleters, and gets his back up whenever any of his deletions are challenged, unlike most of the others involved, who will actually listen when challenged. Argyriou (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Mitsubishi i

I haven't really worked on GA/FA (or even DYK) at all, but what's there does look pretty well written and well referenced. A minor nitpick, ==External links== usually goes below ==References==/==Footnotes==. --Interiot 16:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation rules

Note that, as with every publication, our Manual of Style is what counts — this applies to all titles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I know, that's why I linked to WP:MOSTM in the edit summary, which is in fact part of the Manual of Style. It says "Capitalize trademarks, as with proper names". --DeLarge 21:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

And it is capitalised — but part of it is a preposition, which isn't capitalised — and as the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) says: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment". Note, incidentally, that the New York Times' MoS is different from ours in many respects, and shouldn't be followed in preference to our own. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment" applies to trademarks which are often spelled entirely in capitals, as in the given example ("REALTOR"). It makes absolutely no mention of prepositions. Capitalizing the "O" is common practice on WP, hence 25 O'Clock, 9 O'Clock Gun, The 7 O'Clock News, Three O'Clock High, Twelve O'Clock High, The 11 O'Clock Show, the original Ten O'Clock Classics before you moved it, etc etc etc etc etc. And capitalizing the "O" not only tallies with the NY Times, but also the BBC.[1][2][3][4][5] And the Chicago Manual of Style, which is the most widely cited by Wikipedia, has no problem with "O'Clock", so this edit and this one seem to smack more of personal preference than WP policies/guidelines. --DeLarge 23:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But, first, saying that many other article make the same mistake is no argument (or do you plan to have "receive", "arguement", and "seperate" added to the MoS?). Secondly, it's our MoS with which I'm concerned, not the Chicago, the NYT, or the BBC (the last of those, at least, is no guide to correct English — they've become very sloppy). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that such article titles exist is evidence of a tolerance of the capitalized "O" on WP; I think it's disingenuous to make a comparison between that and mere spelling errors. Also, while you keep mentioning the WP:MOS, I can't see anything to explicitly support your position ahead of mine, especially since Wikipedia's style guide is simply a consensual interpretation of existing manuals (most often the CMS, and it's fine with the capitalized "O" as previously shown). Since we're just engaging in conflicting interpretations here, I'll try and provoke some wider debate at the MOSTM talk page. --DeLarge 12:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It clearly says that prepositions shouldn't be capitalised; I'm not sure what it could say that was more straightforward and to the point. (I was interested to discover that all but one of the articles to which you linked contained other errors, with the capitalision of "in", "the", etc., in titles given in the text.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Postscript (mostly for my benefit)

The above user, at the time a well-respected admin, moved all the above pages I'd pointed out to him, and then edited the redirects to prevent his actions being undone. Charming. Within a month, however, another admin restored The 11 O'Clock Show, and after a brief and rather unsightly move war, Mel's slightly less autocratic attempt to get his way were shot down by RM community consensus. I then did a mass move nomination, and order was restored. Within three months, Mel was gone; I wonder if this little tiff had the slightest thing to do with his departure?

Flixster

Just wanted to drop you a line to say we don't necessarily disagree. Blogs are not a good source of reliable factual information except for a few specific ones. Doubt anyone would disagree with that. I also agree that commentators may want to look "with it". However, we weren't looking for verifiability of info on the flixster page, but notability. If lots of people independently start mentioning a specific site on their blog, that's a good sign of notability, although you'd have to be careful how much factual info you tried to take from them. Similarly, if a commentator wants to name-drop, he's only going to name-drop a notable site, surely?

I've actually just come across something interesting about an apparent advertising war between MySpace and Flixster. I'll investigate and add something to the article if I learn anything - this site might start making a name for itself very soon. GDallimore 10:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the AfD has closed, so that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. I occasionally visit the older AfD pages and try to contribute to undecided discussions if I think my vote/contribution could make a difference, but I rarely have any personal interest in the content.

I'll grant what you're saying about the difference between notability and verifiability, but to give a contrast; one of the other old AfDs I chimed in on at the same time was Ronen Segev. There was a move for deleting that article on the grounds of non-notability (including User:Jimbo Wales himself), despite the fact that he was the subject of articles/interviews in both the NY Times and WNYC. WP:Note and WP:WEB are fairly specific in their criteria, and I don't think Flixster's coverage was either wide enough or non-trivial enough.

However, like I said, AfD's over so it's off my watchlist. There's too many articles worse than Flixster for me to concern myself with it. --DeLarge 11:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

6million lancers sold

hi delarge

check this out official presentation

http://www.autospies.com/news/photo.aspx?photoId=16788&galleryId=842

http://www.autospies.com/news/Spies-give-you-an-early-preview-of-the-next-Mitsubishi-EVO-12186/

remeber when i gave you the link to autospyes for the engine code of 6b31 3.0 v6

i thought the galant was thebest selling mitsu nameplate? mhm..

cheers :) gnusmas --195.210.209.95 09:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, the Galant claim was referenced, but in retrospect it could be ambiguous; bestseller in America? Bestseller annually or cumulatively?

I'll try and get a better source to corroborate this, since I don't like just linking to a photo of a slide, even if it is official MMNA stuff. I'll also try to verify production numbers of the Minica; I won't make any bold claims for the Lancer until I know that. --DeLarge 12:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

here you go, a video source, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3536599999593053730, cheers "--195.210.231.251 21:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I added the sales figures to Mitsubishi Lancer, although with the current anti-Google Video/YouTube campaign I'll leave it as uncited. Given that there's no other refs in the article I think it's unlikely to be challenged. --DeLarge 10:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

here you go, http://www.allnewlancer.ca/, canadian lancer site, .pdf specifications (go to specs, click on download .pdf, but copy the direct link to the file for "best selling nameplates") its on the 2.page, keep up the good work, cheers, --193.95.236.216 21:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well done -- that's perfect. Citation now added. --DeLarge 22:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

no problem, how about adding lancer to best selling nameplates? it's official (comulative global sales exceed 6million)--193.2.122.8 11:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Could do. I want to split the page up, though -- there's far too many cars on there now that aren't really "bestsellers", and it's becoming a bit difficult to navigate. Still, it would qualify as the bestselling Mitsubishi on the list. --DeLarge 11:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

FWD

Thank you for participation in Talk:Front-wheel_drive. Are you agree with me that the statement about Intentional skidding and the assertion For a given vehicle weight, power and tire size, a front wheel drive car is always faster over a given section of road should be removed from Front-wheel_drive. This is our main dispute with User:Liftarn, thinks that this should be kept. Please help to resolve the dispute. --Maxim Masiutin 19:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:1964debonair.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:1964debonair.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:DelicaD5.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:DelicaD5.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:99dignity.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:99dignity.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:99proudia.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:99proudia.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

S-AWC

hi delarge, we should also create S-AWC article and adding AYC and ASC to mitsu technologies, S-AWC (super all wheel control) = ACD (active center differential, need to create article) + AYC (active yaw control, article already exists) + ASC (active skid control, need to create).

here is a good source, http://www.mitsubishi-cars.co.uk/features/technology.asp and for AYC and ACD (http://www.mitsubishi-cars.co.uk/features/ayc.asp), ill try to find more links, when you get around to it, and i hope some day mitsubishi motors article gets "featured article" status, cheers :)--195.210.209.218 15:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Motors will get there in the end. I still want to make sure that the underlying structure of all the supporting articles is up to scratch as well (see my mooted revised layout at User:DeLarge/Mitsubishi), so I'll need to improve MMAL dramatically, and also finish writing the two daughter articles about the DCX debaclé and the recall cover-up. Hopefully I can get that done by April, just in time to update the page with the fiscal 2006 data.

I've been ambivalent about creating too many pages about MMC tech; there's a risk of having stubs which could really be better served by redirects to more generic pages. I think S-AWC might end up being such a page, but we'll see. I was going to do one about their MVV lean burn tech, but couldn't find sufficient resources to justify a dedicated article. I'll just need to revise the lean burn page instead to reflect MMC's work, as I did with gasoline direct injection and balance shaft. It currently reads like Honda was the only company doing stuff like that in the early 1990s. --DeLarge 23:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

For research, there's a lot of detailed stuff on the global site. Just go to Google and type "<name of tech> site:mitsubishi-motors.com", and plenty of stuff is unearthed. That's how I built up the Super Select and INVECS pages.

well here's some info on MVV Mitsubishi Vertical Vortex, http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.za/featuresites/mm_history/GDI.asp , and more importantly (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3165/is_n9_v27/ai_11321093) 2 pages, i agree you should revise the lean burn article to include MMV, and add a redirect to that article in mitsubishi technologies....--193.95.237.164 17:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw that Ward's article a while back. It's a good source -- about the best I could find as well -- but I think it's probably better just to work on lean burn instead of trying to spread different lean burn pages too thinly. I've created a redirect at Mitsubishi Vertical Vortex with a category entry (which populates Category:Mitsubishi technologies), and I'll disambiguate MVV later. I think that's probably best. --DeLarge 23:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just stopped by to thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. --Ann Stouter 15:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

List of cities with the most billionaires

You are right that does look very odd. And of course there is a place to request a review of deleteions called Wikipedia:Deletion review. However, I noticed that it was 76.21.176.141 that prodded it and at least one other related artcle. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I see it's back. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: Mitsubishi i

To answer your question, yes I did use the JavaScript programme to format the article. There are no rules set in stone about the changes - but they are used to keep articles consistent in Wikipedia. I also noticed that when you reverted my edits you failed to remove the image size parameters (see WP:MOS#Images). I don't particularly care that you reverted my edits - but I only ran the script to fix up problems that I found evident in the article, hopefully giving the article more of a chance of being promoted to GA. Cheers OSX 06:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but...

Hey, thanks for your RC patrolling, but I didn't vandalize my own userpage, I swear! :-) Leuko 11:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. Luckily I already posted my apology on your talk page. I'll just leave everything alone. --DeLarge 11:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, edit conflicts happen. Thanks again. Leuko 11:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Template redirects

Please read my answer to your request and (if possible) reply it. Thank you. -- NaBUru38 16:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

New mitsubishi's 1.0 liter engine that redesigned smart four two uses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mitsubishi_i#The_Smart_Connection.3F

there is a 1.0 liter engine which isnt listed in mitsubishi engined family unfortunetly, i dont know the designtion and other specifications....

maybe chrysler has listed the engine code in their press release.... have you heard about it?

cheers, --193.2.122.8 09:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

use this page

alot of info, reliable source btw, please fix my edits in 4g9x engines article, tx

• http://autospeed.drive.com.au
• http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_2651/article.html
• http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_2977/article.html

have you heard about this "In addition to the base MIVEC principle, Mitsubishi also released a sophisticated MIVEC-MD (Modular Displacement) system in the ‘90s.

The MD system is an early form of cylinder deactivation which involves closing the intake and exhaust valves at light engine load. This means the driver must open the throttle further to maintain power and, as a result, pumping losses are reduced and active cylinder pressures are increased. This results in greater efficiency and fuel economy.

Depending on conditions, the MIVEC-MD system can reduce fuel consumption by 10 – 20 percent."

cheers --193.77.134.70 17:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sonofagun. That's the first time I've ever seen a Mitsubishi engine family referred to the way we do on WP (with the x at the end). I always thought it was a horrible naming convention, but here it is externally verified. Oh well... Mind you, July 2006? If that journo reads WP, maybe he copied us? Argh.

I'd heard of MIVEC-MD, but couldn't have said much about it. I'll have a read through the links and see what can be added to the MIVEC page. --DeLarge 20:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

more work i'm afraid :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mitsubishi_4B_engine#I_reccomend_enaming_to_4b1x

check my previous edits... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/195.210.209.242 and also this (i used a public pc) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/193.2.122.8

cheers --195.210.209.242 15:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

ok, i finally registered, just to let you know, keep up the good work delarge, i've been following you from the start :-D --MitsuFreak 19:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to double check... without divulging too much, is Mitsufreak your first registered ID? I thought you'd been around last year? --DeLarge 20:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

it's my second, lol, first was gnusmas7 :) --MitsuFreak 22:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Holden VE Commodore FAC

I have now fixed up those errors you pointed out on the Holden VE Commodore artilce, so would you consider supporting the aricle? OSX 21:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for your comments on the article's FAC, would it be possible if you stiked out the issues that have now been resolved? OSX 06:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and get round to this in the next few hours if I have time. I still see problems though (especially with the fuel economy). Basically, you mentioned a change in consumption, not an absolute figure. If a Holden could do 0.1L/100km, it would be the equivalent of 2353mpg. However, an improvement of 0.1L/100km doesn't convert in the same way. --DeLarge 14:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

To get around the issue all together, I've decided to remove the statement all together, and instead have quoted the official fuel consumption figure: 10.9 L/100 km. OSX 10:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The article has now had a thorough copyedit, and I think that you will find that all of your issues have been resolved. The entire development section has been totally reorganised, and is now in chronological order. If you strike out your complaints so the FAC director can clearly see that your issues have been taken care of, that would be good. Cheers OSX 00:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Mitsubishi FTO page

<cut/paste conversation to User talk:212.159.69.126> (bolded text for benefit of clarity; see below)

Nice how you deleted everything written here, is that so no one can see you are quite happy to prevent FTO owners finding out as much info as they can, you must be on one very serious ego trip.

Nice how you alone can decide what people should be entitled to read, maybe because you have never owned an FTO and never will it has no importance to you.

People like you ruin wikipedia with you nazi approach. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.159.69.126 (talk • contribs) 18:19, April 4, 2007.

Not wishing to violate WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL, but can you read English? The reason I'm asking is that I've written "cut/paste conversation to User talk:212.159.69.126" at the top of this section, with a direct, embedded link to your talk page where I methodically cut/pasted the conversation (including all your spam warnings) to keep it contiguous. It didn't seem to me like overly technical terminology to say so, but if you didn't understand I'll try and rephrase it.

And just to let you know, I have a dedicated talk page for Mitsubishi-related conversations, which is at User talk:DeLarge/Mitsubishi. I was actually planning on moving this section to that daughter page, but in light of your latest comment I thought I'd better give you advance warning lest you suffer a fatally apoplectic fit at my latest demonstration of underhanded censorship. How dare I.

Warmest regards, --Wikipedia Obersturmbanführer DeLarge 19:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC) (zieg heil!)

PS Ist es ein bisschen früh im argument nicht, das Gesetz von Godwin aufzurufen?

PPS do these leather shorts make my bum look big?

I guess you feel so much better now quoting Godwin's law, when all you have done is bypassed the fact you are not allowing FTO owners or potential owners find as much info as possible on the model, how are people benefitting from your actions? At least I have a genuine interest in providing as much info as possible without having to inflate my ego, I certainly having nothing personal to gain in fact it costs me money to keep the info out there.

I am only innerested in making ze Vikipedia free of ze linkspam. I am alzo vishing to improve ze articles on goose-stepping, sauerkraut, and putting my towel on ze best spot on ze beach before ze Englander tourists get out of bed in ze morning. --Heinrich von DeLarge 21:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting pages

Hi,

I'm new to this and have probably made some mistakes. This evening, I've made changes to the following pages and it would be really helpful if you could tell me why you've made changes:

• 21:25, 2 April 2007 (hist) (diff) m Frida Kahlo (→Films - rm spamming) (top) - I think the problem here was the link to the website?
• 21:22, 2 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Audio description (Revert to revision 110168711 dated 2007-02-22 22:11:52 by Thijs!bot using popups)
• 21:22, 2 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Sign language (Revert to revision 119192344 dated 2007-03-31 03:06:46 by 65.175.174.150 using popups)

With these two, I'm not sure what the problem is. The film 'Nectar' is one of the few films around that portrays Deaf identity and an individual's journey to embrace sign language. It's been well received by the Deaf community, won various awards at Deaf and disabiility film festivals, so it seems to make sense to list it on a page about sign language. The work that Roaring Girl Productions (a not-for-profit media group) is doing in design of captions, BSL interpretation and audio description is pioneering new approaches to audience access. There's no money to be made in this for me, but I DO want filmmakers and audiences to be able to locate the work and apply it to their own understanding and practice of audience access.

Best, Liz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoomuno (talk • contribs) 23:05, April 2, 2007.

I'm afraid the edits fell foul of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not ("Wikipedia is not a...mere collection of external links") and Wikipedia:External links ("Links to normally be avoided: #3, Links mainly intended to promote a website" and "#4, Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services."). You don't actually have to be trying to make money to fall foul of this; it was the fact that you edited three different pages primarily to add an external link for the purposes of promotion. I've no doubt your project is well-meaning and worthy, but the policies were designed so that Wikipedia won't be swamped by thousands of well meaning and worthy projects trying to raise their profile in a similar fashion.

I did leave in the mention of the film in Frida Kahlo as it was appropriate in context, although I had to remove the embedded link. However, you should realise that in the case of Audio description and Sign language, your edits were done more for the benefit of Roaring Girl Productions (a website with products for sale) than the articles themselves.

I hope this clarifies things, and doesn't put you off contributing in future. --DeLarge 22:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure whether this is the right route to replying to your message... Thanks for being really constructive on this and I can see the rationale behind the 'What Wikipedia is Not' rules and don't want to get into one of those 'well it applies to everyone else but me', but, there is a but... There doesn't seem to be a consistency to how rule 3 is applied. On the Audio Description page, Joe Clark's website is included as a link - it should be because it's a key source of information on film audio description. But then so is the article that my entry leads to. I'm so uninterested in doing a self/organisation promotion, but if Wikipedia exists to inform then it makes no sense to exclude either this. I can see that my other entry (Nectar) is more borderline, but don't understand how it's okay to including a link to a film about Frida Kahlo on the FK page, but not okay to include a link to a film about sign language on a SL page. So is the problem because of the way I phrased those entries? What would you suggest as a way forward? I want to post entries that useful and usable, not ones which use up people's time in further edits! L

It's fine to reply here; keeps the conversation in one place.

This argument does get brought up a lot, to the point where an essay was written to counter it. It's aimed at our Deletion section but applies across Wikipedia: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Basically, the existence of something similar on Wikipedia isn't justification for inclusion.

To explain why I seemed to "target" you, I'll explain. I spotted your edit via Special:Recentchanges, a page which lists all recent edits to Wikipedia and which is heavily monitored by "anti-vandal patrollers". Your edit was only the insertion of an external link, so I checked Special:Contributions/Zoomuno, your history of contributions. You were inserting the same link across multiple articles, and had no editing history prior to this, so I just quickly reverted them (except in the case of Frida Kahlo). Your editing pattern damned you as much as anything else.

Looking at the joeclark.org link on Audio description, I don't see any great value in its inclusion either. However, in its favour are two factors; there doesn't seem to be anything for sale at the linked page (although I may be overlooking that), and Joe Clark himself is User:Joeclark, an active editor and longtime contributor to the article.

What I'd therefore recommend you do, if you feel strongly enough about it, is to leave a message at Talk:Audio description requesting the inclusion of the link. Regular editors to the page can then assess whether or not it's suitable and give you more feedback. However, I wouldn't get my hopes up; from the history of the article, JC has removed several external links in the past, and I don't see any particular benefit to the articles themselves in including yours.

Hope this helps, --DeLarge 08:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Will have a read and a think... All the best.

RISE system

hi delarge, i need your input on my Mitsubishi RISE sandbox page. What do you think? Is the page ready to be moved? I would like you to help me finish the article. Please, feel free to edit my sandbox page (expansion, grammar, layout...). I was hoping to find a logo for the RISE system, but i wasnt able to find any. I dont know what else to add to the page, because there are limited informations about the system. I could add a picture of a body shell of a specific model... I need your expertise. --MitsuFreak 09:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed yesterday(?) that you'd created the page (I must have been browsing through your contributions history) and I had mixed feelings about it since I'd tried myself a while ago and then gave up because I couldn't create a worthwhile article. However, your page looks great. The only thing I'd say is that it could do with more wikilinks, as it's obviously a very technical article and Wikipedia's supposed to be a general interest encyclopedia. That is, if a casual reader clicks on the Special:Random button, they should still be able to get through the article by using wikilinks to explain unfamiliar terms. Also, I've stopped putting the names of individual models in bold text (although I used to do that). Nowadays, the only text I put in bold is the article name (in the opening sentence), and any occurrences of text which is also the name of redirect articles.

However, it's ready to be moved to the Wikipedia mainspace, and integrated into the MMC technologies template as well. Any work needing to be done is very minor. Good job - better than my effort, for sure.

Also, Wikipedia's getting very sniffy about copyrighted images these days, so I'll get a fair use justification drafted to prevent the pic being deleted. --DeLarge 12:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

exellent, so how do we move it? should i use the move button above? I tried to be "neutral" as i could, i can expand the article even more, because RISE also monitors active safety features, so i can cite how many airbags, side curtain airbags... a specific car has and so on (abs, ebd, srs...). How about you move it? I never moved a page before...And is there a way of citing official press kits as sources, because i have them that offer more official info on RISE system, but i cant link to them....thank again,--MitsuFreak 12:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Update I managed to move it...--MitsuFreak 18:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Spammer

Please go ahead with adding an entry to the spam list. It is well over the threshold whatever it is. I am not an admin on Meta, so your entry will be as good as mine and you seems to have better grip on the events Alex Bakharev 13:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorporating RISE in car infobox?

Currently only Template:Mitsubishi_Motors_technologies links to Mitsubishi RISE. How about adding "Safety body: RISE" in car infobox? Can it be done in mitsubishi car infobox? Alternatively, i must add RISE link in every mitsu car article. What do you think?--MitsuFreak 14:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Belated reply -- been a bit of a busy week at work, and I've needed a break from the place to recharge my batteries. Sometimes WP isn't worth the hassle.

I don't think it'd be wise to add the safety body section to {{Infobox Automobile}}, as strictly speaking the RISE system is just a brand name for a combination of features (much like their "Dynamic four" was a combination of 4WD, 4WS, 4W independent suspension and 4W ABS). If you think it should go in the infobox, I'd put it under "platform" as the closest match (albeit not 100% accurate), since that's often not "populated" in MMC articles. --DeLarge 22:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Question from your adoptee...

Hi

I'm trying to get involved in editing a particular page (Outdoor Education), but someone else has done a lot of work on it, so I am trying to discuss with them whether and what I can do to the page. I feel there is some phrases that should be removed in particular. However, I posted a comment on the discussion at least a couple of weeks ago and (although he has done some article editing) he's not responded to my comments/questions. Is it appropriate to try and contact him through his user:talk page or should I just be more patient? I don't want to start an edit war with him.

--Vertilly 12:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the event of an edit war, there's two of us and one of him, haha...

You've done the right thing insofar as you've tried to communicate in advance, and you went to the right place (i.e. the article talk page). If he chooses not to respond he can't complain if you then begin editing, and he certainly can't claim ownership of the article just because he's made a lot of edits. Frankly, looking at the article's history, he'd have made a lot fewer edits if he knew how to use the preview button a bit more often... Feel free to cite WP:BOLD in support of your own contributions (especially the sentence "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it").

Although I think you've been more than patient with him, you can leave a message at his talk page. If he doesn't respond to that within a couple of days, jump right in without a second thought. I can assure you that in the event of an edit war, any failure to respond to your extensive good faith attempts to communicate would strongly count against him in the eyes of administrators, who always try to maintain the collabaritive spirit of WP. --DeLarge 16:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice! I'll arm myself with some well written words and do as you suggest! :) --Vertilly 15:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

BACK IN BLACK

first annual profit in 4 years

you should update the mmc page regarding revenue and profit....

presentation http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.jp/corporate/ir/share/pdf/kessan/070426-5.pdf

full year results http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/corporate/ir/share/pdf/e/kessan/070426-4.pdf

newest facts and figures http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/corporate/ir/share/pdf/e/fact2006.pdf

Mitsubishi Motors Technical Review 2006 http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/corporate/about_us/technology/review/e/pdf/2006/18e.pdf 60MB!

http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/corporate/about_us/technology/review/e/2006.html specific papers in 2006 tech report

annual report for 2006 will be published later... regarding engine family naming, mitsubishi uses for example 4B1-type in most cases i recommend renaming or moving pages using that naming pattern, 6G7-type and so on (search the mmc media website....)

cheers...--MitsuFreak 11:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd received an e-mail from MMC Media Services when I came back from lunch; good news that the profitability from the last quarter's been sustained. Hopefully it's not just down to the plummeting dollar and they can get back on an even keel permanently. I'll update the main page just now. I'll also update the stats for MMNA, since I think the 2006 figures I added from The Pantagraph weren't like-for-like comparisons with previous years.

I'll also try and work on the engine pages very shortly; before the end of the weekend at the latest. --DeLarge 12:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's the engine pages renamed. I went for the "6G7 engine" format rather than "6G7-type engine"; Mitsubishi seems to use both, but it seems more common away from MMC not to use the word "type". --DeLarge 14:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

<moved to User:DeLarge/Barnstars>

Deletion review for Template:User no GFDL

Just thought you'd like to know:

A template you participated in a Tfd for (Template:User no GFDL) has subsequently been speedily deleted, and is now under deletion review. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   16:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Adoption?

Hello. I'm relatively new on Wikipedia and would really like help learning the ropes. Please respond soon! Awesome Truck Ramp 00:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Awesome Truck Ramp

(Positive) response left at User talk:Awesome Truck Ramp --DeLarge 07:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:ADOPT input

Hello, DeLarge. The Adopt-a-User program is looking for new ideas and input on the program. If you are still interested please stop by the talk page and read some of the ideas being floated and give a comment. If you want to update or change your information on the adopter's list page, now would be a great time! Thanks! V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 03:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Little Fatty" AfD/DRV

Please see my response to your comments at User talk:Daniel.Bryant. You have raised some valid points that are worthy of discussion, which should probably occur in the context of AfD, not DRV. Under all the circumstances, I've told the closing administrator that it might be best to reopen and relist the AfD for further discussion, which I hope will be acceptable. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun

You commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun. It has been closed early after a confusing and IMO unfortunate sequence of events. I have now listed it on Deletion Review. You may wish to express your views there. DES ^(talk) 01:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:FordFalconXK01.jpg

Hello, DeLarge. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:FordFalconXK01.jpg) was found at the following location: User:DeLarge/Bestselling. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:DeLarge/Bestselling

Hi DeLarge! While searching for info in the F-150, I came accross your private page User:DeLarge/Bestselling, very interesting! I just wanted to point a little mistake out: for the brand 'simca', the car that is currently presented is a volvo, not a simca. Have a nice day! (hum, well it's still morning in europe... :-)) Vonvon 08:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for that. Looks like I did the same with the Saab 900 link as well. If I ever get through copyediting the page to ensure the references are OK then I'll move it into the mainspace. --DeLarge 08:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun

psst, it just got undeleted. Might want to jump in and fix it up a bit. Don't need to take his name out, but refocusing it on the meme would be ideal. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you save a copy? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A Google cache of the original article prior to the first AfD's closure is still available here. The version I drafted for the benefit of the DRV on May 18 is at User:DeLarge/Little Fatty. However, that version was aimed at the page Little Fatty, to avoid using his name altogether. The version which was most recently deleted was an amalgam of the two; the third paragraph of the original, which mentions his weight and current job, were more or less removed and replaced, but the lead sentence which mentioned him by name remained intact. Hope this helps. --DeLarge 08:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I (disambiguation)

<original comment copy/pasted from User talk:Indolences>

Hi.

First, I'd like to ask exactly how you know that "Nobody is coming to the "i" page looking for apple computer products"?

Second, I didn't add the link to this page myself, and looking at the edit of the person who did, I'd say your characterisation of them as a "fanboy" isn't altogether accurate. Also, I have never edited the target page and have no particluar interest in doing so. However, both of us (the anonymous IP and myself) obviously consider lowercase i prefix a legitimate article to wikilink to from this page. I can't see anything in WP:DAB or WP:MOSDAB which supports deleting it from this page. I think it's especially important to include it as I don't think the page title is particularly intuitive, and I could perfectly understand someone typing "I" in the search box, going first to I and then following the {{dablink}} template link at the top of the page to come here. Your removal of the link is causing a "dead end" in that circumstance, and I'm not seeing how Wikipedia or its readers are benefitting from that. Regards, --DeLarge 22:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If you were looking for "Ipod" or "Imac" you would most certainly search on wikipedia for... "Ipod" and "Imac", right? You might as well put a link "btw, all these pages start with I too." Just because it CAN mean something doesn't mean it does. See my userpage for more on the CAN rule. --Indolences 22:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you talking about iPod or iMac? Please read straw man argument. Just because I'm arguing for the inclusion of one article does not mean I'm arguing for any other wikilink to also be included. I don't know what weight your user page is supposed to carry, but if you're referring to either WP:Disambiguation#Set index articles ("A set index article is a list article about a set of items that share the same (or similar) name")and WP:Disambiguation#Redlinks ("There is no need to brainstorm all occurrences of the page title and create redlinks to articles that are unlikely ever to be written"), I agree with them. Your comic book guy example is fine because the letters CBG do not appear together anywhere in Comic Book Guy and there is no evidence of the character being referenced in such a way. Clearly that does not apply with lowercase i prefix, which is about the letter "i".

Bear in mind that there are no inbound links to lowercase i prefix from Apple Inc., nor from iPod, nor any of the other products which use the prefix except iMac, where it's a piped link in the second paragraph of the second section. This is not a particularly easy article to find, and your arbitrary dimissal of this seems perplexing.

This is because the article in question needs to be deleted.

In fact, the iProduct page is probably the more Appled-centred; there's an inbound link to lowercase i prefix from List of Google products as well since that company introduced "iGoogle", and a decent page on the topic could (and should) cover all the uses of the letter outwith Apple's as well. Whether or not the article is any good is not for a disambiguation page to decide. It's an article which exists, and whose title does not necessarily lend itself to being easily located, hence its inclusion.

My first question remains unanswered: how do you know that "Nobody is coming to the "i" page looking for apple computer products" (although again this is a straw man argument; the link is not to a product, but to the use of the letter "i" in marketing)? --DeLarge 09:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

My question remains unanswered as well. If you were looking for apple products, would you look up "i"? Most certainly you would look up say... "apple", right? You should add "Toyota" to the "Toy" page. Also you might want to use your writing skills and free time to add more content to wikipedia instead of my userpage. :) -Indolences 15:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been selected more or less at random to add a third opinion. I have some trouble imagining how likely it would be for a reader (or an editor adding a link) to type "I" in order to find "Apple Inc.", "iPod" or "iMac", and it would probably not occur to me to add this link to the disambiguation page. On the other hand, if an editor added it, I would not be too quick to remove it unless I saw some kind of malicious or silly intent. I don't. Adding it does not make Wikipedia a lot better, and removing it does not make Wikipedia a lot poorer. On the other hand, something approaching an edit war does make Wikipedia poorer, and two honorable and skilled editors could make Wikipedia a lot better if they walked away from this one and fixed or wrote some other articles. I would honestly support one side if I thought one of you was plainly wrong, but I don't see that. My neutral opinion is: flip a coin to decide whether it goes or stays. Happy editing!

To flip a coin from a distance, and anonymously, allow Tuesday's Dow Industrial Average at closing, as reported by Bloomberg, to decide. If the last digit before the decimal is even, leave the link in; if odd, remove it. Chris the speller 20:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Chris the speller. You are very nice. Also I think it closed odd, I am not sure though. -Indolences 16:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which closed successfully a couple of days a ago. I was busy the last couple of days, but I do really appreciate your support. Happy editing, Signature^brendel 05:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun RfC

Hey. The Zhijun debate is now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute. I'm dropping you a message, because I have mentioned your edits to the article in my comments. Thanks, Prolog 02:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael Moritz

I replied on my talk page. Paul^C/_T+ 17:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

AFD discussion

Hello, you participated in the AfD discussion for Lowercase i prefix. That discussion was closed with a "keep" decision but I felt there was enough consensus to warrant merging the information to Internet-related prefixes. I have placed a comment regarding my decision to go ahead and perform this merge on the talk page here and as you participated in the original discussion wished to alert you to this action and invite you to comment if you felt it was inappropriate. Thanks! Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 06:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I (disambiguation)

It wasn't a double redirect, it was a redirect. Redirects are afeature, not a bug. If it was a double redirect Lowercase i prefix would take you to another redirect page, and redirects to redirects do not take you to a third page. Please read WP:REDIRECT to see the difference, specifically WP:REDIRECT#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken.

Please also note that as per WP:MOSDAB#Piping guidelines, there are only three exceptions when piping should be used, and this isn't one of them.

I know you don't like the article, but there was a consensus to keep the content, and I'm going to continue to maintain the dab page according to Wikipedia guidelines. --DeLarge 07:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry now that I think about it you're right. I saw the pipe redirect that said like initial lowercase i but really linked to lowercase i prefix which redirects to Internet-related prefixes. I looked at the WP page and fixed the page in question. ¡Buenos días! --Indolences 15:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Hi. I thought you might be interested to know that I mentioned your name and a comment you once made in the DRV discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007 May 28#Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby. It's in my long comments just below the "arbitrary section break," in case you are interested in taking a look. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at page

Have a look at : Outline of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

History: [6]

J. D. Redding 00:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a straightforward avoidance of a 3RR block. I'm not an administrator myself, but given the lack of response at WP:ANI, I'd try the talk page of the blocking admin directly top see if he can assist. Regards, --DeLarge 21:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Main/Userspace typo

Hi! I've moved User DeLarge/Mitsubishi Motors to User:DeLarge/Mitsubishi Motors, since it sounds like your intent was for it to be in userspace, and requested the resulting redirect be speedied. If I messed something up, or shouldn't have done that, please let me know. -Bbik 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for that. --DeLarge 20:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Alf Refactoring

It is general WP guidelines to remove personal attacks and uncivil behavior from posts. You might want to take a look at someone's body of posts that are removed before deciding tthat someone is being picked on. The larger part of his posts to me are uncivil and/or personal attacks. For whatever reason, he deither doesn't get that, or thinks he doesn't have to bother being polite. Like I said, learn a bit more about who you are defending before doing so. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I did take a look -- I've been watching this pantomime unfold since the WP:RM was posted last week. "Who is this royal "we" and what are you referring to?" and "I hope that I have provided an accurate summation of events" are not personal attacks, and therefore should be left well alone. If you're so sure they're attacks you can go to WP:ANI and either (a) have the user sanctioned or (b) have an uninvolved administrator remove them. Otherwise you should not be removing or editing other users' comments. --DeLarge 13:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps those weren't as bad as the others, I will readily admit that. However, you will agree that incivility and personal attacks are disruptive. There are guidelines allowing for the removal of uncivil or personal attacks from posts, if they are disruptive. Which they have been. Dude, if I said half the things to you in RL that he's said to me online, we'd be throwing down right about now. That I've only re-factored his posts to remove the attacks instead of having hiom bounced from WP is me just being a bigger person than he is. If you are unclear as to what personal attacks are, you should take a look at the section concerning them. I don't tolerate them at all, as they are corrosive to editorial harmony. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We have a case of pots and kettles here. Clearly, removing other users comments when they're not personal attacks is going to cause further disruption and escalate the argument. If that wasn't the case I wouldn't have felt the need to step in and revert you. If you're genuinely committed to calming things down you won't edit other users' comments in future; there's plenty of uninvolved editors in this matter who can make a more objective judgement than yourself. --DeLarge 13:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Okey-doke. Since you are stepping up, I'll give you the chance: the next time he posts anything uncivil or a personal attack, I'll give you the chance to show me you mean what you say. I won't allow a personal attack to remain too long, so I would ask that you keep an eye on it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but since you suggested you were going to keep an eye on the alf DAB discussion page, you seem to be missing some incivility on the part of Viriditas. Not to put too fine a point on it, I would like you to put some action behind your words. If you don't want others refactiorng, you misght want to consider helping to stop the behavior behind the posts needing refactoring. I am rather disappointed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, since yo have noit bothered to bakc up your statements with action, please do not bother me regarding refactoring anymore. I am not going to allow a single editor to disrupt an article with his bad behavior. Thanks you for your time, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination)

You recently commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of Humanity, which closed with no consensus. The article has been re-nominated for deletion, and you may care to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Erica Larson

On 12 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Erica Larson, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 06:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

icons.com as Linkspam

I'm not convinced that the icons.com links that you removed were Linkspam, please could you explain your reasoning? If a website is the official site of the subject of the article, surely it can be linked to? Why are these Linkspam and not (say) the official Manchester United website? Admittedly the footballers don't have their own domain, but this shouldn't matter, should it? Thanks. --Jameboy 11:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I also refer you to WP:EXT which states (under "What to link"): "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." --Jameboy 12:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits many footballers use icons.com as an official webiste. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 13:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking Icons.com isn't an "official site" at all, even though they may represent themselves that way -- consider who actually owns the site itself and dictates the overall content/design. Away from their own little section, each footballer has no direct control. Genuinely "official" sites for sportspeople are, for example, tigerwoods.com, max-biaggi.com, rogerfederer.com, etc etc. For guidelines supporting my edits, see WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided (specifically nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6). Also, I came across the pages circuitously via the edit contributions of User:Dribbles11; even if the links themselves proved ultimately useful, it was still an obvious demonstration of linkspamming by a single purpose account. I also noted the lack of talk page contributions by the user as evidence the links had been added unilaterally (in contrast to, say Soccerbase, which seems to have its own dedicated template) before making my removals.

However, I hadn't watchlisted any of the pages and had no plans to return to them (I wouldn't have noticed the reversions if you hadn't posted here to tell me), so if other users are OK with the links I'm not going to be edit warring. --DeLarge 22:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from but I disagree with you the little sections are the footballers official website for those who cannnot be annoyed setting up a domain Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked no1, I agree with you that the person was spamming however he was spamming the footballers official website so the links should stay. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 02:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)