User talk:DeLarge/Archive 10

Straight-four engine
Hello- I need your Support vote on the talk page, please. regards.Vegavairbob (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a vote, but a discussion. --DeLarge (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

About using certain math units in Mitsubishi Motors
Hi, I noticed you made some reverts in Mitsubishi Motors. As I read the article days before, it says that the company made a revenue of ¥1,973,572 million. Rather than saying ¥1,973,572 million, why not just say ¥1.9 trillion? It's more compact that way. 124.106.203.208 (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Three reasons: (a) Verifiability; the original source, Mitsubishi Motors, reported their figures in millions of yen, not trillions. (b) Accuracy; reporting figures to the nearest million yen provides more specific figures than reporting it to the nearest hundred billion. (c) To eliminate errors; ¥1,973,572 million ≠ ¥1.9 trillion. You should round up to two trillion. You made a similar rounding error with the profit figure as well, rounding down from ¥54,883 million to ¥54.8 billion instead of up to ¥54.9 billion. For the same reason, I'm going to revert your edit to Hyundai Motor Company, since you made a rounding error there as well. Also, the figures given in the article don't tally with HMC's 2008 Financial Statement, so I'll amend them.
 * Hope this clarifies my edits. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

MMC RVR
Hi! Why did you change the image description i did? Believe me i know the difference between RVR N23W and RVR X3 because i own them both ;) and i assure you that left image is RVR N23W SportsGear (4g63 T). And right one is N74W GDI 2.4 165 hp. the photo of real RVR x3 can be found here. You can publish this image on the Wiki page. I haven't found a possibility to publish it quickly.

Br, Ilya


 * I never disputed that the information is correct. But as per my edit summary, I felt that the information was unnecessarily technical, especially in a photo caption without any context. Readers unfamiliar with Mitshubishi chassis codes will see nothing more than an apparently random sequence of alphanumeric characters, and I don't think such a brief article would benefit from being overwhelmed with this lot. Even in a much larger article I'd be unlikely to use those codes, for the simple reason that no reliable secondary sources do either. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Racing driver infoboxes
Hello, DeLarge! I've just found that User:Pigsonthewing made a proposal two years ago of merging all racing driver infoboxes. You were opposed to it. Last June I did a similar thing, but this time including a ridiculously massive example. Do you support the merger now? --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say no, for the same reasons as originally expressed. There's also the wider practical issue of getting co-operation and consensus from three different Wikiprojects (F1, NASCAR, and Rallying), which I can't see happening—they'll want to continue to do their own thing. You might want to see if you can consolidate some of the less useful overlapping infoboxes though; I can't see a good reason for separate BTCC driver/BTCC alumnus or Champ Car driver/Former Champ Car driver. If they can be successfully merged, Category:Racecar driver infobox templates will look a lot tidier immediately. --DeLarge (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

MIVEC
Why do you keep adding and deleting information from the MIVEC page section? By deleting the high performance Mitsubishi Eclipse, and keep adding the Lancer Evolution, show bias by you, at if you had this car. The Mitsubishi Eclipse has been the staple car from Mitsubishi for a long time, and is a high performance coupe as the Lancer is the high performance sedan. We need to get this information straightened out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin5117 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 9 September 2009


 * "We" have straightened it out. It was explained on your talk page almost a year ago that the sentence is not there to list every car which uses the MIVEC technology, but to represent either end of the performance spectrum. Therefore only two cars need to be mentioned—one economy car, and one high performance car.


 * The Eclipse is, in every measurable way, not as extreme a performance car as the Lancer Evolution, which is more powerful, more accelerative, faster overall, and consequently is more expensive to buy. It is also, thanks to its long history in global motorsport (especially the WRC), a much more high-profile and recognizable car globally than the Eclipse, whose sales are limited to a select few left-hand drive markets. Your claim that "leaving it out would lead people to assume that the Lancer Evolution is the only high-performance car" is unsubstantiated nonsense, especially given the large tables in the article which list the past and present implementations.


 * I'm sorry if you can't or won't understand that, but it's fairly basic stuff. I have now explained it to you twice, once on your talk page, and now on mine. By contrast, you have done nothing to justify your position, yet have continued to edit war endlessly. --DeLarge (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

For one, you do not have to be ignorant. I don't know if it makes you feel better to insult people via wikipedia to justify your means or what. For one, contacting the moderator/editor of pages isn't exactly user friendly. You sir, and engaging in war by deleating my comments, and not attempting to rectify a means of compromise. Stop being ignorant, over the internet. I will justify my position. The Mitsubishi Eclipse has been around for quite some time, actually first manufactured in 1990 and was built under 3 different names. The Mitsubishi Eclipse, Eagle Talon, and Plymouth Laser were all the same with different brandings. You are misleading people, the WRC is irrelevant. I don't know why you have so much dislike for the Eclipse but it clearly shows since you will not attempt to correct this. The latest generation Eclipse's have roughly 30 less horsepower then the Lancer Evolution. To quote you "The Eclipse is, in every measurable way, not as extreme a performance car as the Lancer Evolution" is your own personal agenda. You are misleading people, and I'm offended by you saying that my comment's are "unsubstantiated nonsense." I believe you are abusing your admin rights, which is a extreme violation of Wikipedia's rules. You are in violation of the conflict of interest with your admin tools. It clearly states on Wikipedia that Conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute — Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools. This is stated here ]. You clearly must own and or have some sort of relationship with the Lancer Evolution because you are very active in the Mitsubishi section editing things to your own liking to make the Lancer sound better. I just want to be able to enjoy wikipedia and you are bullying me around and insulting my intelligence. This is not acceptable. Justin5117 (talk)Justin5117] comment added by Justin5117 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "You do not have to be ignorant". I do not believe I was being ignorant, but if you make a statement about me misleading people which is unsubstantiated nonsense, I will say so. To avoid this in future, please stop making statements which are unsubstantiated or nonsensical.
 * "I will justify my position". Your entire justification seems to be that the Eclipse and its sister cars have been available since 1990? The Galant, which can also be had with MIVEC engines, has been available since 1969. Why not mention that instead? (Answer: because it's not as powerful.)
 * ''"The WRC is irrelevant". It's at least as relevant as the potted history of the Eclipse you've provided.
 * "I don't know why you have so much dislike for the Eclipse." I don't have any dislike for the Eclipse. My cousin owned an Eagle Talon for years, and it seemed like a perfectly nice car whenever I was in it. I was looking forward to driving an Eclipse convertible from New Jersey to San Francisco in 2002, but at the last minute the rental company gave me a Chrysler Sebring instead. And I think the current Eclipse is a lovely looking car; it's just less powerful than the Lancer Evolution, which is the whole point of this debate.
 * "Contacting the moderator/editor of pages isn't exactly user friendly". I don't even know what this is referring to, unless you mean the comment at Talk:MIVEC by User:Jezhotwells? I didn't have to contact anyone; these are pages with publicly accessible logs, and he left the comment without any encouragement from me because he was concerned at the edit warring.
 * "You are abusing your admin rights". I can confidently state without fear of contradiction that this is absolutely, positively, categorically not true.
 * "The latest generation Eclipse's [sic] have roughly 30 less horsepower then the Lancer Evolution". And...? I said that Lancer Evolutions are more powerful than Eclipses. So you're agreeing with me? Great, that's one thing settled. It's not quite accurate though, since there's a world out there beyond America's shores. The most powerful Eclipses have more horsepower than the least powerful Evolutions; but there are factory-backed, fully warrantied, official Evolutions with over 400 horsepower. The overall range of power outputs is c.160-265 hp for the Eclipse, and c.260-405 for the Lancer Evolution. I didn't choose the latter as the most powerful Mitsubishi because I'm biased, or because I hate Eclipses, I did it because it's true.
 * "You clearly must own and or have some sort of relationship with the Lancer Evolution because you are very active in the Mitsubishi section editing things to your own liking to make the Lancer sound better". Several flaws in your logic here:
 * Being active in the Mitsubishi section would only infer that I own a Mitsubishi. Anything more than that is an unsubstantiated leap of logic on your part.
 * In fact I don't own a Mitsubishi, although I have in the past. It wasn't a Lancer Evolution, though.
 * Even if I did edit the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution page more than any other, it would still not mean I owned one, as I can easily demonstrate: the Mitsubishi vehicle page I have edited most is Mitsubishi i, a car I have never owned, driven or even sat in. But I had to make lots of edits, because I was trying to bring the article up to good article standard.
 * I'm not making the Lancer Evolution "sound better". I'm using it as the example of Mitsubishi's most powerful car, which is, as you agreed above, exactly what it is.


 * Maybe this will help. Here are both sentences, but with mention of the specific cars replaced by more generic terms:
 * Original version: "The [MIVEC] system... has been introduced across Mitsubishi's range of vehicles, from the most economical to the most powerful."
 * Your version: "The [MIVEC] system... has been introduced across Mitsubishi's range of vehicles, from the most economical to the most powerful and the most powerful."
 * Surely you see the tautology there? That's the effect adding "and the Mitsubishi Eclipse" has to the sentence, and that's why I've been removing it. There's no hidden agenda; no bias; simply an attempt to avoid spoiling a perfectly good sentence with a redundancy. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Steam car vs Steam automobile
Thanks for reverting this page move. It's good to know the Google stats support the chosen title.

On a related theme, should we request Category:Steam automobiles be renamed to Category:Steam cars? Didn't want to make a big thing of it, which is why I raised it with you locally. -- EdJogg (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Mitsubishi vehicle range
Hi DeLarge. can you checkout the edits by Anon user 79.69.31.179 to these Mitsubishi vehicle articles please:- Mitsubishi RVR, Mitsubishi Grandis, Mitsubishi Chariot. I have already reverted five edits to the Mitsubishi Delica article, which were quite incorrect and one to the Mitsubishi Space Star. Unfortunately I haveinsufficient Knowledge in these others to be confident in reverting anything. The editor is making a considerable amount of changes fairly quickly to a number of other makes and models also. Richard Harvey (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for delayed response. I can see some factual errors at Mitsubishi RVR (e.g. production dates), plus I think the Mitsubishi Chariot article looks much worse for the addition of so much whitespace; that goes against the good layout guide's recommendation on section and paragraph lengths. I'll revert those just now. Looking at his edit history, I also think his revisions to stuff like VW Polo are way beyond boldness and need discussed. I'll raise this at the WP:CARS page. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Mitsubishi i Miev
I see you reverted my commit about Mitsubishi I MIEV being a vehicle, saying its a technology. Well, Mitsubishi started serial production of something they call "i MIEV" this june. See the reference articles. Its a series production car now. Their own page ( http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/special/ev/whatis/index.html ) says this: “i MiEV” is an electric vehicle based on the gasoline-driven 660cc “i” minicar. Serial production, coming off the assembly lines. Also see the referenced news articles. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=mitsubishi i miev

So how is this a technology, not a car ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savuporo (talk • contribs) 17:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * MIEV is the technology, Mitsubishi i MiEV is the car. Please note that as stated in my edit summary, I added the categories to the latter page immediately after reverting you (see here), so that it still appears within the categories themselves (as you can see for yourself). Only now the vehicle is listed, not the technology which powers it. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Its sort of more correct now ( i MIEV shows up in Mitsubishi vehicle template for navigation ), however the production vehicle should probably get its own proper page at some point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savuporo (talk • contribs) 20:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

pajero evolution
Interesting article on Pajero/shogun/Montero etc and I apprciate your solid attempt at trying to collate the naming mine field Mitsubishi give to the world.

Not directly in refrence to your own article but more on one of its subjects do you have more information on the 1997-2000 SWB Evolution version you have made passing ref. to.

I remenber there was a dedicated page to this model which I myself added details from the owners manual but this now appears deleted. So if you fancy a new page on tis subject it would be appreciatted as details on this model are particularly difficult to find, especially production numbers.

Had a chuckle at the naming discussion, surely how you pronounce Pajero is of no relavence, we know the imported Japanese cars are call Pajero becouse the badge says so, how a spaniard pronounces that is upto them, because I am sure if I only spoke Japanese then it would have a Japenese name and if refering to it by it's badged name I would most likely refer to it in English/american as Spanish is unlikely to be my next langauge of choice.

thanks for your efforts. (82.5.79.147 (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC))


 * Can't see any evidence of a separate Mitsubishi Pajero Evolution page; it always seems to have been a redirect.
 * As for the name, many Americans will read this page, and because of the large Hispanic community, I suspect many of them would follow the Spanish pronunciation. We've included the English (used in Australia), the Japanese (used in Japan, obviously), and the original Spanish for clarity. Given the apparent issue with the name as it's originally pronounced, and the subsequent renaming of the model in many markets, I felt it was very relevant. --DeLarge (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)