Hey. I don't understand your second edit to my sandbox. Pages are not categorized, if the categories are only added as links by using a colon, as in Category:Grand Prix motorcycle racing circuits. Thanks, Prolog 12:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that right? Sorry if you're correct. The previous categories were showing and I didn't pay attention to the colon on the second visit... Wikigi 13:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I should have added the colons already when I started working on the article, but I figured I would finish it within a few hours or so. Then I got lazy. Prolog 13:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salut! Vu que tu es français je te parle en français; Bon j'ai vu ton message sur la citoyenneté d'Angelina dans "French People", mais on parle du "peuple français" en général (il y a selon l'article 10 millions d'américains considéré comme "French People"), Angelina a sa mère d'origine franco-québécoise (son père était d'origine est-européenne mais par soucis personnels elle décida de replacer le nom "Jolie" comme son nom de famille), donc elle fait tout-à-fait partie du lot des "famous french people". Merci de ta compréhension! --Irrintzi 11:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour,
En ce qui concerne Angelina Jolie, je ne pense pas que le fait d'avoir une mère Québécoise puisse la qualifier pour figurer en tête de tableau d'un article sur les "français". D'autre part, avoir 12 images d'illustres "français" n'apporte rien à l'article. On en compte quatre dans l'article Spanish people, six pour Italian people et huit pour English people par exemple. Cordialement - Wikigi | talk to me | 12:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebonjour cher collègue, Je vous signale qu'avant Angelina dans les personnages célèbres avant que je fasse une "mise à jour"; il y avait Trudeau et Wilfrid Laurier, deux québecois... Et dans ce cas là, dans "German People" Mozart ne serait-il pas Autrichien? Et pour les photos, tu les dis inutiles mais elles enrichissent considérablement un article, et elles attirent l'attention, ce qui n'est non négligeable, pour ces personnages comme Victor Hugo, Lavoisier ou Jules Verne j'y ai mis des liens, ainsi il sera plus facile de les connaître.. --Irrintzi 12:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tout à fait d'accord, j'étais d'ailleur sur le point de poser la question sur Trudeau et Wilfrid Laurier avant que tu ne les retires. Les liens c'est beaucoup mieux mais la question reste ouverte sur la validité de Jolie et sur la multitude d'images. Je vais exprimer mon avis sur la page discussion de l'article - Wikigi | talk to me | 12:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I've closed your Mediation Cabal request because it isn't really something we can help with. We mediate disputes- since this person isn't responding to requests for discussion, there's really nothing we can do. However, what he/she is doing is clearly vandalism. You should probably report the incident to WP:AIV or WP:ANI. They'll be able to help. --Moralis (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the hillclimbing (at Goodwood) isn't an offcial MSA championship though, is it!

Does it matter that SuperKarts don't go as fast around short circuits? I'm sure a GP2 car could go faster round Silverstone than it could round Monaco, but that doesn't mean the Monaco race doesn't count!

Cheers 82.23.32.26 17:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excelente iniciative, Wikigi! Je espére tes chois avec une anxieté positive...! The Ogre (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Please keep both metric and non-metric in specifications (your edit to Sukhoi Su-35) - Wikigi | talk to me | 09:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the climb rate in ft/min is the imperial equivalent of the climb rate in m/s - there is no need to quote m/min as well - or like the editor I reverted, just remove the ft/min.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be a problem to display both? You have got a spec. per second and another per minute. Most people don't know imperial units, it doesn't help to see ft/min to them.. - Wikigi | talk to me | 12:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Units - the units for climb rate quoted here here are m/s at ft/min (or for American and pre-Metric British) ft/min and m/s. Please note that this is the english language Wikipedia so more people may be familiar with Imperial units than you might think (particularly in the United states (and certainly, a large proportion of English language sources are written in Imperial units).Nigel Ish (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2008 (UT)

The English language Wikipedia is universal and is open to all, thus should be understandable by all ; "As of 2006, 95% of the world's population live in metricated countries" (see Metric system). I still don't understand why it is a problem to you if someone post a metric data next to an already present Imperial data. BTW I couldn't find the climb rate reference in the page you linked - Wikigi | talk to me | 12:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the Metric data is already there, in the format agreed by WP:Aircraft. The correct link for the specification is Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content. Please take further discussion to the relavent discussion pages of WP Aircraft to maintain consensus.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Wikigy, I noticed you are the one who created the debate and therefore I presume is the one who will mold all the selected pictures together. I have one question and one request: 1) How long will the vote reamin in session before the pictures are selected and 2) I'm hoping that at least some other users vote for French-Canadians or ethnic French not from France, especially if non-French French citizens like Josephine Baker and Marie Curie receive votes. If not, I was hoping you yourself may hear me out and cast at least one vote for a French-Canadian. Few people in the world disagree that Wilfrid Laurier, Pierre Trudeau or Rene Levesque are more French in most respects than those previously mentioned. Ciao, Epf (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) The poll will stay up until no-one votes anymore (that should be soon) and The Ogre will create the image. 2) I am definitely against having Canadians on the list and at least four other contributors have expressed the same by casting votes against them before it was decided to remove negative votes. 3) It seems you are confused about what French people are. Again, there is no such thing as a French ethnicity.
Beside having been a magnet for immigration since the beginning of human times due to favorable conditions, parts or all of what is today the geographic territory of France has been invaded by all sort of different people for centuries (Romans, Huns, Arabs, Vikings, Britons and later British, as well as Vandals, Visigoths and later Germans etc..). What do soldiers do when they seize a place? They rape the women or at best mate with them and produce descent. The people of France is the result of so many mixing that to try to describe it as an ethnic group is ludicrous, think about that, this is why the population of France is unanimously described as a mixed blend of different ethnic groups such as : Celtic and Latin with Teutonic, Slavic, North African, Sub-Saharan African, Indochinese, and other minorities. - Wikigi | talk to me | 08:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "I am definitely against having Canadians on the list..."

They are not simply "Canadians", whatever that term represents. They are Canadian nationals, but ethnically they are also French and specifically French-Canadians.

It appears you are the one who is quite mistaken on French ethnicity. There IS a French ethnic group and the French people article includes the ethnic aspects of France as well as those who are French nationals and citizens. France has not been a "magnet for immigration since the beginning of human times" as if there was some constant flow of migrants to and out of France. This makes no sense whatsoever and few would ever make such a ridiculous claim. The migrations into France have been fairly few and far between. Why do you think there are ethnic cleaveges amongst the indigenous peoples of France ? Bretons, Corsicans, Basques are some of the indigenous ethnic minorities, but the people who created the langue d'oil (French) and langue d'oc (Occitans) cultures are ALSO the indigenous ethnic groups of France (and majority population). They differ distinctly from the foreign and foreign-descended minorities. France was originally settled (like most other Europeans) by distinct peoples in the Paleolithic and Neolithic and eventually stirred up under the Gallic Celts. The Romans invaded but left a large cultural impact like most other regions in Europe they conquered, but not a demographic one. The same can be said about the Germanic Franks who conquered what was Gaul, but had a lesser cultural impact than the Romans. These three groups made what French culture is. There had been no migration of peoples into France on the level of even the Franks (which was still small) between the time of Charlemagne and the 19th century. The Gallo-Roman with Frankish (or as you yourself mentioned: Celtic "Gallic" and Latin "Roman" with Teutonic "Frankish") cultural elements ARE the French culture, common to all who are ethnically French, while most are primarily descended from the Gallic and pre-Gallic elements. This is why those who are indigenous French have common aspects in physical appearance, common descent and a common French culture from these various elements. The current population of France comprises of different ethnic groups but the "Celtic and Latin with Teutonic" is the French ethnic group. None of the Germans, Visigoths, Vandals, Huns or Arabs (they never even conquered much of France or settled at all, they were driven back by Charlemagne) ever significantly influenced what was French culture or settled there in any noticeable numbers. This can not be said about the Vikings tho who did impact fairly significantly the culture of Normandy, but not so much the population. The influence of the Britons (mainly cultural) was confined almost entirely to Brittany and the Bretons, an ethnic group distinct from the langue d'oil speaking French. Currently, France has predominant French and Occitan ethnic populations with various indigenous and foreign minorities. The actual impact of groups who came here depends generally on how long they conquered the land and how much of an impact their culture has. Soldiers come and conquer but they often come in few numbers. The Normans conquered England and had a cultural influence, but they never came in large numbers and the maximum estimate of their population that permanently settled in England by historians is about 5000. The Romans conquered France but there wasn't a mass migration of peoples, rather there was merely a (for various reasons) strong cultural impact.

One more thing, I again would ask you to please stop simply labelling the French-Canadians on the list as simply "Canadians". They are ethnically French and I guarantee you that most people in the world would consider Trudeau, Levesque and Laurier (again, another obvious example of likely French descent is their common FRENCH surnames we see here) more French, especially ethnically speaking, than Josephine Baker or Marie Curie. The mother tongue of Trudeau, Levesque and Laurier was French, can you say the same about Baker and Curie ? Trudeau, Levesque and Laurier were all raised from birth in traditional French culture AND they are of French descent, can you again say the same about Baker or Curie ? I think I've made my point quite clear. Ciao. Epf (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second both the previous comments. You have a disgusting and distorted view of French history and French heritage, that yes many CANADIANS and AMERICANS have, and if that is how you view the French people maybe you shouldn't be editing on them at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.171.153 (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am French. That my views are "disgusting and distorted" is your (rather strange) opinion. Enjoy your time in Florida, go to the beach, relax. - Wikigi | talk to me | 07:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you dismiss my comments becasue I am from America? The fact you are French does not give you the right to ignore anyone else's comments who are not French. You can't even come up with a good counter other than French women been raped too long theres no tellin who that baby dadddy is, or you're from North America uhh... F@*& off. Also was your IP lookup supposed to scare me? 173.18.171.153 (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a problem ! The new infobox image is proposed for deletion due to the incompatibility of some of the specific licenses of the source pictures. We may have to change some of the pictures. I'm waiting to be told which are the incompatible ones. The Ogre (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merci Wikigi! Le plaisir a aussi était le mien. À la prochaine (peut-être bien tôt, ci le débat continue)! The Ogre (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you keep deleting the post: Industry Organizations :

• KIC - Karting Industry Council - An industry organization supporting the karting industry and promoting the sport of karting in the US.

This is a valid NON PROFIT organization (Not sure if you understand the concept) that supports karting in the US. The organzation promotes karting not for itself but for the growth of the sport in general similar to other industry organizations. This is a free resource for karters, kart equipment retailers, kart manufacturers. Members include Tony, CRG, Bridgestone etc. We are NOT looking for inbound links, but making the organization a resource to karters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prosati (talk • contribs) 15:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking should we get the page Talk:French people/Vote deleted. What do you think? I'm not sure of the normal procedures here, except that I have some idea that such sub-pages are usually only used on a temporary basis. I think the thing to do is to archive the discussion and then get this page deleted, would that make sense? Alun (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to Carla Bruni article, I don't support your argument that someone can be Italian in January 2008 and French in July 2008. Bruni gained French citizenship newly, but her nationality is still Italian. I think you are mixing nationality and citizenship. These are two different things. --NOAH (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She has obtained French citizenship early this July and is married to the French President, what else do you need. Yes, she was born in Italy from Italian parents, but she has been living in France since she was 5 year old. Now she's French, period. The way you put it, "Italian-born, naturalized French", is fine with me.- Wikigi | talk to me | 19:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikigi. I notice you are changing the layout of some lead fisheries and fishing articles. If you look more closely, you will notice that these articles are the lead articles in the navigation template alongside. This means that as you move down articles in the template, a thumb of the lead image remains as a prompt or anchor to what the articles in the template have in common. The pattern applies across 60 templates and 900 articles. --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue I'm addressing here is the useless repetition of the same picture in the infobox and the body of the article. My second concern is that you are breaking the page layout by posting a large seized picture at the upper left portion of the page. - Wikigi | talk to me | 20:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a violation of the guidelines. If you read carefully what the guidelines say about images, you will notice that the guideline to right justify lead images applies in the absence of a compelling reason to do otherwise. And the image is not a "useless repetition" but a way of keeping a visual continuity for a user as he/she moves down the articles in a given template. --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I read carefully the Images section on the page you linked to, I can see the following guidelines : "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or InfoBox.", "Images should be inside the section they belong to" and further "Generally, use the thumbnail option ("thumb"), which is available in the image markup. This results in a default width of 180 pixels" ^.../... "As a rule, images should not be forced to a fixed size".
Now, if you look to the screen shot I posted of the Recreational fishing article as it was, you will see how obvious the left position (preceding the introduction BTW) as well as the size of the picture (regardless of the repetition issue in this particular article) can create layout problems. The fact you implemented this in numerous pages on Wikipedia doesn't make it right. Regards - Wikigi | talk to me | 16:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another example of a page broken by the posting of a picture at the upper left corner at Artisan fishing. I don't know what the resolution of your screen is, but it cannot be over 800x600 for you not to see that as a problem. - Wikigi | talk to me | 09:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thank you Wikigi. I'm not sweeping anything under the carpet. This discussion is happening here. I have your page on my watch list, and that is the way I operate with everyone else as well, so there is nothing personal in that. Thank you for pointing out that problem with Artisan fishing. I don't use such a high screen width as you do, but it was a problem on my screen as well. So I have adjusted it, and I hope it looks better on your screen as well. --Geronimo20 (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikigi. You have new messages at EhJJ's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your request (diff) for a third opinion linked three or more talk pages on which four or more editors are disputing. Because that situation is outside the limited scope of the WP:3O project, which is designed primarily to address disputes between two editors, the request will be removed. If resolution has not been achieved, other means of dispute resolution may help (see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution). — Athaenara ✉ 05:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will rephrase it, the dispute is between two editors, myself and Geronimo20 - Wikigi | talk to me | 20:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is irrelevant next to the facts. --Falcadore (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a "problem", don't be childish. I've already stated that I like superkarts in the editing history just to avoid exactly this.

Although I will bother to answer this despite that. Comparing the performance of a go-kart to a street legal road car makes no sense; the sheer size of the two machines are so different, not to mention they are built for completely different purposes. And while you're boasting about the amazing power-to-weight ratio of the superkart, how about comparing it to a street legal R-bike? Except you don't want to do that, because an R-bike has a way better power-to-weight ratio than the superkart.

No, I don't think they should be compared to either sports cars nor R-bikes -- especially not as in this article they were already compared to the F3 machines. The superkart is a race car, the F3 is a race car, although both of completely different classes they are at least race cars built to go around a track.

Now, as for your ad hominem rant against me, maybe you should consider the fact that constructive criticism is a good thing? All of the ^{[citation needed]} tags I posted, except one, now have a citation to a seemingly proper reference, they didn't before -- care to explain why it is a bad thing that references get added to this article, or any article? I also added the weight and the redline information of the superkart to the article, by the way, not only tags. It is a good thing that Wikipedia can notice its own flaws, this allows them to be corrected.

As for the other statement I deleted, this is an exact quote of the original statement: "Their low weight and good downforce make for staggering cornering and braking abilities.".

Do you really think this is a good and proper statement? Lets analyze it.

• "Low weight", this is the exception, this is plausible as the weight has been stated to be 215 kg previously, although the weight alone is useless (without knowing grip) I will say this is fine.

• "good downforce", what downforce? Quote from the same article: "Superkarts aerodynamic bodywork includes a front fairing, larger sidepods, and a rear wing.", how does this state that the superkart has "good" downforce? As far as anyone can tell it only states the superkart attempts to make downforce by allowing bodywork, and then it is stated this downforce is of the quantity "good"? How much is "good"? And "good" compared to what? How much downforce does it actually generate? What is the frontal area, the drag coefficient and the respective Cx? And most important of all, where is the reference?

• "staggering cornering and braking abilities", why does the word "staggering" need to be there? Staggering compared to what? The article should let the [referenced] numbers speak for themselves, give sensible comparisons (not to big sedan road cars) and not try to persuade the reader into believing a biased opinion by using words such as "amazing", "fantastic" or "staggering".

• "staggering cornering and braking abilities", braking abilities? Because of low weight and high downforce alone? What about the friction component between the road surface and the tire? What about the brakes? Are you saying that low weight and downforce alone can make for good braking abilities?

This is what I thought about the statement and that is why I removed it. Now this statement also has references, which I think is a good thing, but I guess you don't believe in referencing?

Posix memalign (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikigi. Thanks for your message. You mentioned to me that "If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it." - but you should have actually checked the talk page yourself as I had already started discussing it. In future, it might help to look out for this. I had no intention of advertising etc - had you read the talk page, you would have seen that I was trying to add in what I thought was an interesting type of indoor racing at a place I go to. I noticed that you called my effort "spam" in your revert. I find this a bit rude since I had in fact started a discussion which you overlooked. Thanks :) --Sean deFaoite (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikigi insists that he is warning me about spamming on my user talk page, when I had in fact already done what he is advising me. I have explained to him that he advice is not relevant, and I removed the direct link myself.This is the 3rd time that he has put the warning message back onto my page. I consider this harrasement. It also breaks the Wikipedia:3RR Three revert rule.Wikipedia policy is "If a user removes a comment from their own talk page it should not be restored. By removing the comment the user has verified that they have read it. The comment is still in the page history, so it is not necessary to keep it visible just to show that the user received the message. It is also wrong to force them to keep it there as a sort of "Badge of Shame"". If he continues this, I will be forced to complain that I am being harrassed. I have added a Three revert rule warning to his user page. I mean no offence by this, but have asked many times for him to not be rude, and he continues in this unusual behaviour. --Sean deFaoite (talk) 10:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The "Three revert rule" ("3RR") is a bright line rule concerning blatant overuse of reverting, a common kind of edit war behavior. It states that a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any material) on any one page within a 24 hour period, etc..". Look at your discussion page history before posting 3RR warnings...
I have deleted an external link not leading to relevant information twice. As it was, the link was constituting spam. If the information you added to kart racing cannot be confirmed, it will be deleted - Wikigi | talk to me | 03:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about the typos on my edit, my auto spellchecker didn't work. why do you say in your comment, "Nope (Indoor karting doesn't refers to the more serious type of rental karts)"? I meant that indoor karting usually refers to the variety that requires skill to drive, requires safety gear, etc. not the type mostly for kids at an amusement park somewhat common in the US. I don't mean to call it "serious" compared to traditional karting racing or something. I'm not clear on why you disagree.

also you left no comment when you removed the line about rental karts on outdoor tracks. could you provide your reasoning?

finally, I removed some of the text from the section be cause it was not that well written and not really notable, for example, the line about indoor karting being in warehouses. that's kind of obvious and not really notable in my opinion. But I left it in.--RA64 (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have been practicing karting for over two decades, in Europe and in the US, and can confirm to you that : with very few exceptions indoor tracks are shorter than their outdoor counterparts (most of the time around ¼ of a mile or 400 m when outdoor tracks are easily 2 or 3 times longer), that they are narrower and twisted (very short straights) due to the limited space available within a building to design a track (drastically limiting speed), that surface is often very slippery (again limiting speed), that indoor tracks are not fit for the higher performance of a 2-stroke kart, that rental karts used in indoor facilities are less powerful than the rental karts made available for outdoor tracks where 15 hp 4-stroke karts and sometimes even 2-stroke karts (up to 28 hp - Rotax Max) can be rented.
- Not sure I get your point about facilities offering both indoor and outdoor tracks on the same premises...
- Moving this discussion to Kart racing discussion page.
Regards - Wikigi | talk to me | 09:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for asking, but I wanted to clarify the removal of my edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kart_racing&oldid=343213217
As a video file was added (and not just another picture) I'm a little confused about it being "redundant".. -- ElHeineken (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is redundant as we've got a perfect picture already to illustrate what an indoor kart track is (a minor section of the article anyway). Moreover, the fact that your file is in motion doesn't add any new information to the article, and it takes forever to load. Regards - Wikigi | talk to me | 11:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we have quite different conceptions about taking forever to load, perfect pictures and redundant information.
Enjoy your motion free article. :-) No harm meant. -- ElHeineken (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about adding the drivers to the list, I did not realise that only Champions were being used.

However, I feel that the correct term to use would be 'most', rather than 'all'. Jody Scheckter for one didn't grow up racing karts - I could be wrong, but if I am right I think it should be edited. Regards - User:WunderkindSA | talk to me | 05:05, 26 December 2009

As you may know Alan Vega's birthdate is currently listed as 1948. There appears to conflicting evidence - the official book - versus the currently sourced Blast First Press Release. I'm trying to build consensus for a change. Please add comments on Talk :Alan Vega. Thanks. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just thought kart racing pages needed to be brought up to the standard of higher level racing articles a bit more. Sorry that we had one or two disagreements. Out of interest, why do you prefer 'Notes' to 'References' as a heading? I suppose it really makes no difference. Thanks. Officially Mr X (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I must agree that it doesn't make much difference, some make a distinction between "Notes" (which are more like additional information, like a footnote) and "References" (sources, links, etc..). Both are used (see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Summary). Regards - Wikigi | talk to me | 10:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, good catch! Actually this situation confused me more than a little when I looked at the photo, and I've left a note which I hope might help in the future. (Or indeed help myself in 11 month's time when I've forgotten what my confusion even was!) Well done, cheers, DBaK (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have no merit. Just visited the museum website and got my answer... Cheers - Wikigi | talk to me | 12:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too modest! That is indeed all it takes ... yes, anyone could have done it ... but someone had to think to do it, and that someone was YOU! :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a policy of "overlinking" and the Bruni article contains many unnecessary Wikilinks. --BwB (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few issues, and seemingly so do others, with the Superkart article at the moment.

1. The distinction between the long circuit and short circuit is not needed in the article. It is the same reason why (in this article) we do not need to explain why kerbs are sometimes painted red & white, how an engine works, what exactly a tyre is etc. etc. Superkarts race on BOTH types of circuit (in the UK and other places it seems) thus the distinction between the two types of circuit is completely irrelevant to learning more about Superkarts, which is what the article is for. A list of examples of the circuits is useful but explaining the difference between long and short circuits is not. For example: A road car can drive on city roads, country roads, farm roads, gravel roads, narrow roads, inclining roads, wet roads, very long roads, slip roads, picturesque roads, Swedish roads, on bridges, in tunnels and many other places....but does the Wiki article for Cars mention this? NO, because its not needed in the article.
2. I do not question the existence of the terms, so whilst sources are good they do not help the situation.
3. Why are "Short Circuit" and "Long circuit" in quotation marks??? It isn't a quote and the use–mention distinction for quotation marks as you've used them is a) untidy for an encyclopedia and b) not really proper english. You've been corrected on it (literally more than 5 times) but you still insist on putting it back in. Why? Kartcrazy (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Distinction is needed for the simple reason that Superkarts only race on one type of track (Long circuit) under CIK-FIA regulations. For the same reason MSA regulation make a point to define what "Long Circuits" are (see pdf : Specific Regulations for Karting). Your point #3 is relevant, delete quotation marks if you see fit (I note that you kept them in this section title).
ps: 1 - Where have you been for the last four years?
ps: 2 - I am moving this discussion to Talk:Superkart
Wikigi | talk to me | 16:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Kart racing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trulli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you told me that I automatically translated the article; which I did not. I actually printed out the English version and tried to word-for-word translate it by hand, using my knowledge of French and a dictionary. I suppose it would have been better to adopt the ideas of the article rather than translate it word for word like I did. This was my first translation on here so thank you for calling my errors out. If you would like I could give you my email-address, so maybe you could point my errors out for me. Sorry if this is the wrong place to contact you on here also, I'm totally new to the Wikipedia community ( though not to Wikipedia ). James.E.C (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it would have been better to reply here, where my comment was posted. I am not the only one to see a problem with your translation since another user reverted your edit in fr:Montagnes Catskill. Translation can be tricky when you get technical and yes, it would be better not to translate word for word as grammar and syntax are key. Regards - Wikigi | talk to me | 06:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Cinco de Mayo". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 13 November 2012.

The request for formal mediation concerning Cinco de Mayo, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Catherine McCord, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lamborghini Egoista, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Top Gear (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]