User talk:DeLarge/Archive 8

Speedy deletion of Hot Air
A tag has been placed on Hot Air, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

CSD A5

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I created the page as a redirect to an anchor point on Michelle Malkin, and I've explained this at talk:Hot Air in case you want to comment. I agree that the additional edits since then don't serve any encyclopedic purpose, but I'd be happiest to see them reverted to my [sic] version instead of outright deletion. Thanks for letting me know anyhoo, --DeLarge (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Forecasted --> Forecast
(originally posted at User talk:Caiaffa) I've reverted this edit; "Forecasted" is not a typo. It's certainly the less common form. especially in American English (less so British English), but is acceptable in both. I think a blanket attempt to purge the word from WP wherever you find it would not be a good idea. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: I see it was listed at Lists of common misspellings/F. I've removed it for now. It's funny, but older versions of American and British English Differences actually list "forecasted" as a regional variant (see here). Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi DeLarge
 * Although the word was already on the List of common misspellings, before made the AWB changes, I checked at Cambridge Dictionaries Online and Dictionary.com, and forecasted doesn´t exists in both. I've made this correction in about 250 articles. I'll appreciate if you confirm the use of forecasted in some cases giving me examples so I can check all those 250 edits to revert when it's necessary. Thanks in advance. Caiaffa (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (originally posted at User talk:Caiaffa) Cheers for response.


 * I see it in both the Cambridge Online Dictionary ("verb [T] forecast or forecasted, forecast or forecasted") and Dictionary.com ("verb, -cast or -cast·ed"). It's even in the American Merriam-Webster dictionary ("Inflected Form(s): forecast also fore·cast·ed; fore·cast·ing").


 * I have seen the occasional website which criticizes its usage (e.g. grammardoctor.com), and some online forums where people have opined strongly that it's "wrong". Nevertheless I would consider the dictionaries above (and the British news sources below), to be more reliable arbiters.
 * BBC: 2006, 2003, 2001
 * The Guardian: 2004, 2004, 2000
 * The Telegraph: 2003, 2002, 2000


 * Hope this helps clarify things. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Vanessa Collingridge
Please see my comments on your comments at Talk:Vanessa_Collingridge. Nice to see your interest in the motor car by the way! SoMuchTime (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Challenger based on Mitsubishi Triton?
the blogger claim it is, however in press release from Mitsubishi it never said the new Mitsubishi Challenger is based on Triton. only the blogger self assume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.31.126 (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied at Talk:Mitsubishi Challenger. There seems to have been a user who reverted you already, so since three editors are involved, that's the best place to keep the conversation. --DeLarge (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

4B1 engine model year
Hey DeLarge,

Maybe u wanna be more specific with the Mitsubishi 4B11 and 4B12 application model year? The way how you are using calendar year is very confusing. If people read this and go out and buy car they wouldn't know what they're getting. For example, 4B12 is used in Lancers in Canada and United States only. I'm not aware of any other region has lancers with 4B12 engine. And guess what, both Canada and United States call this Lancer the 2009 Lancer, not 2008. And 4B10 and 4B11 are both on 2007 Lancer? Mitsubishi motors marketing would disagree with this kind of info.

Seeing how you're monitoring the edit, I'm not going to edit it myself. But I recommend you name every Lancer in their respective region naming instead, such as Galant Fortis, Lancer 2.0, 2008 Lancer, 2009 Lancer GTS, New Lancer, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.153.27 (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mitsubishi ssu.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Mitsubishi ssu.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 09:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:DeLarge/Bestselling
Why haven't you published this yet? --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 10:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Per my user page template, I wanted to get a citation for each claim, not just to verify the numbers but to confirm that each vehicle was indeed the bestseller in whatever category it was mentioned. Lack of time, lack of motivation, etc has stopped me getting round to it. I'll take your comment as an endorsement of its quality and move it to mainspace so that others can work on it if they like. Heck, it's no worse than 99% of the rest of Wikipedia anyway... --DeLarge (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

--KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

AAU reminder notice

 * Notice delivery by xenobot  14:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OKBot
(originally posted at User talk:OsamaK) At Bots/Requests for approval/OKBot_4 you requested and were approved for permission to bot-tag images "higher or wider than 500px". That means the minimum size limit of the largest side is 501px). I'm going to start reverting instances where you tagged images whose maximum dimensions are 500px, as that's a more convenient solution than trying to rescale and replace images unnecessarily. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You're losing your time and doing unacceptable edits. one pixel makes no different, and it was just a very minor mistake while explaining the bot task. There is no fair use image used as 500px; and if so, it must be reduced, otherwise it will violate fair use policy (And this is the point of the bot). Now please stop doing this, and 'think outside the box', something about your view explained in this guideline.--OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please 18:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (responded at User talk:OsamaK as below) Excuse me? Have you read WP:Assume good faith? Unlike WP:FU, that is a policy, and I'd appreciate it if you could follow it a little more closely.
 * For the record, my criticism of your actions have nothing to do with fair use, and everything to do with your slipshot programming. Your assertion on my talk page that "it was just a very minor mistake while explaining the bot task" is wrong; you explained it perfectly well; you simply executed the task wrongly by setting the bot to tag images at 500px instead of 501. People work in round, divisble-by-ten numbers, hence why standard thumbnail sizes on Wikipedia are 180, 200, 250, 300, etc. 500px-wide images scale will downscale easier than 499px-wide images.
 * As for the statement that "one pixel makes no different" [sic], clearly that is not the case. Hundreds of images are now tagged for deletion because they're at the limit, not above it. And as others below have asked, exactly where are you getting this 500px figure from? There is not one iota of information about maximum pixel sizes. Is there anywhere others can read these limits and discuss them, or has your bot just arbitrarily created it?
 * Now, I see you've reverted me on many of my edits. I also see that in a section below, it's been suggested that wherever you are reverted, you leave well alone. I hope the increasing numbers of dissenting voices on this talk page are finally alerting you to the possibility that you might not be absolutely right, and everyone else might not be absolutely wrong. The last thing WP needs is another Betacommand drama-bot. --DeLarge (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "are now tagged for deletion" is pretty wrong, please note that Non-free reduce says nothing about deletion, it just suggests reducing image resolutions to fit our needs. BC's tagged thousands of images for deletion, mine did not, this is the huge difference. However, if that will cool the thing, OKBot will never tag 500 px anymore.--OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please 13:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bolt (1994 film)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bolt (1994 film), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * I have looked through search engine results and the results of subscription-only databases, but I could not find any significant coverage of this film to establish its notability. The film title is frequently tied to actor Richard Grieco who himself appears notable, but without coverage, the film itself does not seem to be.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. — Erik (talk • contrib) 18:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"Outdent"
Greetings, DeLarge. I surely appreciate your attention and efforts on maintaining orderly comment hierarchy on talk pages, but as one kangaroo once said to another, You don't have to go "boing boing", just jump!. By this, I mean you needn't keep on putting <--Outdent at the start of your comments. Just quietly following good hierarchy practice is fine. We can all see that you've reset the indentation to zero. Just a friendly note; I haven't got my panties in a wad or anything over it. Happy new year. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 20:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's quite commonplace for a comment to be made; I see User:Typ932 did it as well earlier in the page. See Talk page: "When a long discussion has many indents (many colons before each paragraph), the discussion may be awkward to read, particularly for people with smaller computer screens. Eventually, for everyone's convenience, an editor will remove all the colons from his or her next reply, usually briefly noting the formatting change." (bold text mine).
 * I think it may have started because there's two ways of indenting a threaded discussion. Although rare on WP, I've seen it done elewhere, with people choosing an indent to "identify" themselves in conversation. For example:

[user1] Hello, everybody. :[user2] Hello, user1. ::[user3] Hello from me too. [user1] How is everyone? ::[user3] I'm good. You? [user1] I'm OK. :::[user4] Hello from me, user1 ::[user3] I'm good as well, user1


 * And so on. Rare on WP, but probably because there can be so many contributors to WP conversations, and only so much space, that it's not practical to implement. Regardless, the practice of actually saying "I'm outdenting" remains. Speculating, it might be that editors contribute to other messageboards and websites outside of WP, and they're not going to change their standard posting habits just for one of them. Sorry if it bothers you. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)