User talk:DeLarge

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.

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)