User talk:Delahaye-guy

Hi Delahaye-guy. I have read your contributions with interest, but I do not think that they read per WP:STYLE. I appreciate your depth of knowledge, but the huge blocks of uncited text will likely not be allowed to remain for very long. Also see WP:TRIVIA and WP:CRUFT. Your writing reads like a nice article or something you would post on a website dedicated to Delahaye, but this is an encyclopedia. I am telling you because I would like for your edits to be of the kind that will stand the test of time. If there is any help I can provide with referencing or other wikicode (it's often weird) please let me know. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  20:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Delahaye-guy, You've clearly gone to enormous effort to collect extremely hard-to-find information for the article "Delahaye 175" but I am worried that your work qualifies as (good and dedicated) original research. As such, it ought to be published in a specialist magazine, an appropriate website, or somewhere that appreciates original research. Wikipedia normally confines itself to providing material that has already been reviewed and brought together in reliable sources, such that everything can be referenced. I'm really worried that this article's statement that all other sources are unreliable, incomplete and inaccurate, is tantamount to an assertion that there are no reliable sources, which unfortunately puts the Delahaye 175 outside the realms of what WP can write. I don't know what to do. Elemimele (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I came here to say much the same. I have removed the sentence "Constructive critique, and informed contributions, are welcomed and encouraged" as I was unclear what this meant in the context of a Wikipedia article. I agree that despite your use of sources the article does read like original research, and like others I'm also not sure what to do about it. Is it feasible to trim the article to sourced material only? I can see you have taken some text out already. I would urge you to give accurate edit summaries - your last one says it's a one-word change, but you have also added two sentences. Tacyarg (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Delahaye-guy, altough I appreciate your efforts on the Delahaye article, the you turned the lead into a large article itself. The lead should be a short summary of the article, not a lengthy piece of unique information. See the Peugeot article for a proper example. Also you seem to have incorporated a lot of subjective remarks, like 'the dinosaur it has become' which do not fit a medium like Wikipedia but rather a magazine or a blog. I would kindly advise you to revise your work to make the article more in line with the rest of Wikipedia's proper style. Lekkere Kwal (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)