User talk:Donnie Park/Archive 2

Australian Carrera Cup
It should perhaps be pointed out that Carrera Cup Australia is the marketting name, and that the Australian Carrera Cup Championship is the official name. By way of evidence I enclose a link to the Australian Carrera Cup Championship Sporting Regulations, as publishing by Australia's FIA recognised ASN, CAMS. --Falcadore (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I can't revert it myself as I am not an admin, at your request, I have made an request to revert the page move. I hope that fulfils your request. Donnie Park (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (January)
– Cs-wolves  (talk)  20:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Donnie Park/Takahiro Higashino
I've userfied the article in a response to the WP:DRV discussion. Please expand it (and provide references). If you're done, you're invited to let the people there know so the new article can be evaluated. - Mgm|(talk) 09:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

Did You Know question
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. Art LaPella (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry I can't because it isn't fact. You could use the beginning of the DYK. Chubb enna  itor  16:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Porsche Carrera Cup Australia ?
Don't get me wrong, I think Australia is great too, but I didn't think it was official yet. Also, is it really a good idea to add a now defunct Carrera Cup series to the Porsche template that collapsed because racing Porsches in Australia has become unaffordable? --Falcadore (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Was you mean. Remember, defunct. And there's still no such country as Great Australia. --Falcadore (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (February)
– Cs-wolves  (talk)  09:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: DYK
You're welcome; congratulations on getting the DYK! Keep up the good work and keep writing new articles, and don't hesitate to nominate your future work as well.

By the way, do you think you could archive your talk page? With all the newsletters and images, it takes a very long time to load. There are several different ways to archive, explained at Help:Archiving a talk page; my own talk page is an example of the first way, the "cut & paste procedure." r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 16:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Demon Tweeks
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Demon Tweeks, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non notable retailer with references that do not in fact reference the article. Fails WP:CORP.

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. Paste Let’s have a chat. 16:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Template
I have moved Donnie Park/Template:1930s Silver Arrows to Template:1930s Silver Arrows. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (March)
– Cs-wolves  (talk)  12:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Couple of things
I was just looking at your contributions and liked what I saw. Just one suggestion though: try to use an edit summary if you can for every edit? Secondly I noticed you didn't yet have the rollback facility on your account, so I have added it for you. Please have a read of that link before using. Best wishes, &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Moto Guzzi cleanup
Thanks for the trivia cleanup on Moto Guzzi. - Brianhe (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Trivia
For the record, I agree with your removal of the Pierce-Arrow trivia, but not the Studebaker stuff, some of which is (imho) very relevant to the article. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed it as according to this guideline, what I will do is ask you to read whatever linked and give you a week to think whether it is worth keeping that trivia, IMO, I don't really think it is really worth keeping. Donnie Park (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I agree with you. To illuminate my personal criteria--on 11th March and 28 March, I myself chopped into the worst trivia. However, yes, Wikipedia would definitely be a more succinct product without any of this type of semi-relevant info. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Maxwell and Mr. Benny
Hi. I reverted an edit of yours to Maxwell automobile. I support the concept of winnowing out truly trivial triva, but think this was far from such a case. I'd say the Jack Benny link is probably the most famous aspect of the Maxwell for at least 4 generations after the brand went under. Discuss possible ways of reworking at Talk:Maxwell automobile. Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

C4
Hello there, to save the back and forth, the WP:TRIVIA page (not the WP:CAR, my mistake)you pointed to originally states that you should attempt to incorporate any 'trivia' into the article and not just delete it. Of the three which existed the one I have left is notable in that it links to two wiki pages and are directly about the car itself rather than the shape of the headlights. Iamthenewno2 (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at that reinstated trivia, I don't think after reading this guideline is going to make me think it really worth keeping. What I suggest you to do is I will do is ask you to read whatever linked there and give you a week to decide whether it is worth keeping that trivia, IMO, I don't really think it is really worth keeping. Donnie Park (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Closed AfDs
... should not be edited. Thanks. Jack Merridew 15:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (May)
– Cs-wolves  (talk)  02:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of fatalities from aviation incidents
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of fatalities from aviation incidents. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of fatalities from aviation incidents. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

For future reference...
DRV is intended to be used after you've attempted and failed to resolve a deletion issue with the administrator or editor in question. It's a bit late now, but if you are considering listing any other pages for review, please contact whoever deleted the page first out of courtesy. In many cases, they will be willing to discuss the issue with you, restore the page, or userfy it for further work. Thank you. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

RED - 1404 AM
Just to let you know, all radio stations (be them in the US, the UK, or wherever) are notable. All stations, be them FM, AM, LP or Closed Circuit are notable. This precedent of notablity has withstood several AfDs, one just recently. I would ask that you recend your request for deletion on this page. Thanks. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 00:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I only removed that PROD nomination just because I read the source which is the saving point, I would like to point out that do all radio stations (including pirate (or those illegally run)) pass that guideline. Donnie Park (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)