User talk:Sauron22

Nürburgring times
I don't mean to be rude, but as a reasonably new editor perhaps you should find out a little about original research and why it is not allowed in wikipedia.

I agree that the Radical SR8 is not a normal family car, neither is it as practical as say a Porsche 911 - but it is still a road legal production car. Just because it does not fit in with what you consider to be suitable for the section we are having the problem with is not relevant - unless of course you are an industry recognised expert on the subject.

As it stands, the time is not under dispute and neither is the fact that it is a road legal production car, so it stays in the section. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'm a relatively new editor and I did reivew the "No Original Research" listing. Thanks for the guidance on this. I am actually doing my best at being objective in this matter. It is not my 'opinion' that the Radical is classified as a Small-Series vehicle. It's also not opinion that the Radical has a set of regulations that is no where near full homlogation. This is a fact based on the law of the United Kingdom. The VCA.org link is not original research. The VCA is a government organization and the summary is a synthesis of the regulations from the source. This isn't a matter of subjectively measuring "practicality". It's a matter of common sense in recognizing the difference between a level playing field and an unfair advantage and drawing a line between full homologation and partial/small series, as the government of the UK does. Removing half of the regulations gives Radical an unfair advantage. This is a fact. The emissions laws alone are a major hamstring to fully homologated manufacturers. These emissions laws limit the specific horsepower you can generate from a motor. And that's just one of the dozen categories of regulations the Radical avoids. I think it's well withing the boundaries of this Wikipedia post to make this simple, common sense deliniation especially when it's clearly defined by laws. The Radical was previously and correctly listed in the Non-Series chart. And it wasn't orignially put there by me. All I am offering is greater clarity and a correction to what is already established. --Sauron22 (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam); and,
 * 4) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines.

Thanks for the guidance. I am trying to be careful about what I post. --Sauron22 (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)