This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives #1: 2006, May–June #2: 2006, July–August #3: 2006, September–October #4: 2006, November–December #5: 2007, January–June #6: 2007, July–December #7: 2008, January–June #8: 2008, July–December #9: 2009, January–June #10: 2009, July–December #11: 2010, January–December #12: 2011, January–December #13: 2012, January–?

Hi, Delarge! I would like to inform you that now Qian Zhijun and Little Fatty now have articles. Or rather, they are back. They both survived a DRV. An administrator speedied them since I had started the articles even though I had not started a discussion on whether there is enough evidence to allow subjects to be restored. I started a thread on the BLP noticeboard inquiring about this, the discussion moved to DRV, and after a lot of effort from not only me, but a Singaporean (User:Lonelydarksky) who helped translate articles in Chinese so I could use them as sources, the articles were restored as a result of the DRV. I must add that I cannot thank the Singaporean enough for helping me with this. The people involved in the 2007 discussions/etc not only failed to examine the sources to check for signs of in-depth analysis, but they also failed to consult Chinese speaking users to get their assistance.

After both articles were restored, to "Little Fatty" I added additional sources from academic journal articles that demonstrate notability from the academic world. Please take a look at them. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyway, I e-mailed Badlydrawnjeff. He told me that he felt strangely vindicated by the matter. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this from a distance, and was of course delighted at the outcome. Hopefully the successful DRV and article expansion will put this to bed for good. I also noticed the former Doc Glasgow (Scott Mac) has quit again, so that should end any further troubles. And I'm glad someone's let BDJ know; the way he was driven off this site after his many FA contributions was pretty unconscionable, and it does vindicate his original position. (albeit several years too late).

I may just reconsider my semi-retirement now... --DeLarge (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took some steps to make sure that the articles would remain. After "Little Fatty" was restored, I found some academic journal articles discussing "Little Fatty" and cited them, just to cement the article's notability. At least three (Wallis and the two Cheung sources) discuss the "Little Fatty" phenomenon in depth. I also found that several books talk about it too.

I hope that Wikipedians learn from this DRV so they understand the correct way of dealing with notability issues involving foreign subjects. While the 2011 DRV had the new Chinese sources available (as for after the DRV, the four journal articles and the book sources all came in 2009 or later), I also believe that focusing the discussion on the article content and consulting a Chinese speaker helped achieve the successful restoration.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited List of motor yachts by length, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Katara (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) 10:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darn it, thought I'd checked all of them. You're quite a handy little bot, aren't you? --DeLarge (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 March 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article A (yacht), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Philippe Starck-designed A has been described as both "the most extraordinary yacht launched in recent memory" and "one of the ghastliest megayachts ever created"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/A (yacht).You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on a fantastic article! --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I missed it on the main page, unfortunately, but it seems to have had plenty of views despite not being used as the lede item (with an image, which would surely have boosted it further). Anyhoo, next stop: GA-class. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This might be helpful Wikipedia:Notability (vehicles) as a reference point NealeFamily (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mehh. That's just an essay, and not really germane to the issue. No-one's suggesting they're not notable, or that the articles should be deleted outright. I'm just planning on having them redirected to the "original" vehicle. --DeLarge (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DeLarge. I respect your reversions about website names and have contributed to dialog on the talk pages of the affected articles. I would only suggest that opening and closing the discussion at Slant Magazine on the very same day, and closing it in favor of one's own position, might have been handled more constructively. Generally these discussions stay up for a week, and generally aren't closed before someone who had made the move has had a chance to weigh in.

I'm respectful of your requests for formal discussion on what I had thought, perhaps incorrectly, where noncontroversial moves. I ask similar respect in that you reopen this one discussion; less than one day simply doesn't give enough interested editors adequate time to comment. I'm sure two editors of good will can work this out. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initially, I only weighed in to point out that the nominator didn't need to go through the RM process, and only decided to offer a support vote midway through typing my comment. When he said he didn't feel comfortable being so bold, I stepped forward. In retrospect, perhaps I shouldn't have bothered joining the discussion, although if I only had one edit to make, undoing the move would have been it. Nevertheless, I've re-opened the discussion. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind of you. Thanks. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, De. I've been swayed to your point, given the consensus that agrees with it at Talk:Comic Book Resources and Talk:Comics Bulletin, so I'm withdrawing my requests. I do think we need to be consistent, so I hope you'll respect and support my note at those pages. I must say, it's been good working with an editor who can debate an issue calmly and rationally; even where I might initially disagree, it's nice to see the process working as it should. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. However, you might want to consider your most recent page moves. I can assure you that the opposition to previous changes cannot be taken as an endorsement of your latest moves, per your apparent assumption here.[2]

First, check out WP:NCDAB, where three suggestions for a style of disambiguation are offered. One of them is indeed <X (disambiguation term)>, but the first suggestion says "When there is another term or more complete name... that is equally clear and is unambiguous, that may be used." For websites, using the TLD offers just as much accuracy, and seems to be a more common disambiguator than <X (website)>. So you can't really claim that your page moves are improving things, all they're doing is applying a different, arbitrary style.

Then—and this is the most important one—check WP:TITLECHANGES. Specifically, "Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub."

I hope this clarifies the situation. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly understand if you don't want to support my move on those two articles. I'd like to address some assumptions in the above, however, in the hopes that you'll chose not to actively oppose them. I believe, for example, that calling these changes "from one controversial title to another" is assumptive: I don't believe there's anything controversial in calling a website a website. In regards to stability, if something is not the most correct title, then we shouldn't use it; continuing to have an incorrect or less correct title through inertia certainly isn't the intent behind promoting stability.

I also would disagree, strongly with a characterization of the disambiguation "(website)" as being "arbitrary". Going by points made at some of the aforementioned discussions, "Salon.com" would not be a more "complete" name any more than "Nabisco Inc." In both cases, the name of the company is the name of the company, irrespective of their product or medium, and ".com" and "Inc." are both appendages. "(website)" being a synonym of ".com" is by definition equally clear — with the additional benefit of not changing or appending to the actual name of the company.

I'm sure you have an open mind, and even if my points don't sway you to agree, I hope you'll at least concede there is nothing arbitrary or ill-considered here and perhaps allow other editors, if they wish, to be the ones contending the move at those two articles. Does that sound like a fair balance between our views? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word "contoversial" was Wikipedia's, not mine; I was merely quoting a paragraph from the relevant guideline. (The important bit for me was the sentence I bolded.) I believe here it's being used in the WP context, i.e. an uncontroversial change is one that would fix a typographical error. Moving Salon and TMZ were edits another editor disagreed with, ergo they were controversial.

As for "not the most correct title", I think that is assumptive. What is actually wrong about TMZ.com or Salon.com? I appreciate that you personally feel one style is better, but the longtime, widespread existence of both approaches demonstrates that for WP as a whole, both are equally acceptable. That's why I saw your moves as violating the MoS. The irony is that to support your argument, you've used as a parallel the example of companies, which do not have their legal status appended. This is true for Nabisco, which does not require disambiguation, but in fact WP:CORP's naming guidelines explicitly recommend it where disambiguation is needed. Hence Apple Inc. and Nike, Inc.; Apple (company) and Nike (company) are both mere redirects.

Asking for other editors' views would be a great idea, though I believe—given our disagreements, and the fact that your previous good-faith moves were heavily opposed—that a formal move request would be best done after you restore the pages to their original locations. I feel the weight of consensus should be borne by your side, as it were. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a bit strange about your reply, since I don't follow your logic. My moves followed your own rationale for not having ".com" — that website names don't need them. You cited disambiguation as the reason for Salon.com and TMZ.com — but ".com" is not the only way of disambiguing, and since "(website)" and ".com" are synonymous, and "(website)" doesn't change the company's name, "(website)" is preferable according to your logic of removing them from Comic Book Resources and the like. It seems now as if you're simply determined to disagree with me no matter what. I'm afraid that seems unnecessarily contentious.

I didn't say anything when you went through several days' worth of my edits, looking for moves you disagreed with, with would seem to fall under the definition of wikihounding. Now, it seems you are continuing to have a very personal, directed issue with me, and intend to follow me around specifically to other articles I edit. I would ask you, please, not to shadow me in an attempt to force your own views on me in an WP:OWN-like manner. Your indication that you plan to follow me around is troubling. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My logic is very simple, and follows exactly the section of the MOS I quoted and bolded. I'll do so once more: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." There is more than one way to disambiguate, so I will argue for <Foo.com> in one instance, <Foo (website)> in another, and Foo in a third, if that is the longstanding name.

As for WP:STALKING... seriously? I don't know whether to be insulted or amused. For the record, you came to my talk page and initiated a conversation. I've responded in good faith, and other than that I've made no edits of any description in the last 48 hours. In fact, I've made barely any in the last five days. I have done precisely nothing with either TMZ or Salon, despite my obvious opposition to their recent moves. Only three days ago you were praising my conduct—what exactly has changed since then? Which of my six subsequent edits has concerned you so? What single page have I visited that you consider a demonstration of hounding? Please provide some diffs, or quotes, or... anything more substantial than your rather puerile and paranoid accusation. --DeLarge (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you acknowledged that I've treated you with respect and that I've been a flexible and collegial editor. I'm very disappointed that you choose to call me names ("puerile") and to cast highly personal assertions about my mental health ("paranoid accusation"). I think an objective observer would agree those statements were completely uncivil and uncalled for, but you do not.

For the same reason, I bring up the hounding. I fully understand you don't see it that way. As in your name-calling, you don't think you're doing anything wrong. But that doesn't mean it's OK to name-call or that you're not hounding, which is how I would characterize taking an intense enough interest in another editor to not only look up several past edits in order to revert/challenge them, but then to suggest plans to follow that editor to two more.

I came to your talk page only after you reverted/challenge a number of my edits. It was absolutely proper of me to come discuss such edits with a fellow editor, so I'm not sure why you're seeming to suggest that this was not the right to do.

"[T]here is no good reason to change it"? That is an extremely ill-faith statement. You may not agree with me, but that in no way makes my edit non-constructive and done arbitrarily for "no good reason." I think retaining the integrity of a company name — following your example — is a very good reason.

You don't seem to want to let me or my edits be, or to let the matter drop and let other editors revert/challenge if they wish. I've behaved in good faith; I'd like to think you have as well, despite your saying some unfortunate things. All I can do is hope I've given a calm and reasonable explanation of why I believe that your intimation that you would continue to follow me to Salon and TMZ seems hounding. To put it another way, sometimes it's good to put ourselves in other people's shoes. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I ever did acknowledge your good conduct. You did with mine, but all I did was highlight your behaviour when it suddenly became lousy. After a week, you've still failed to provide a single diff which supports your nonsensical claim of me hounding you. If you make mistakes and they need to be undone or discussed, that's nothing to do with you personally. You seem to think it's acceptable to make accusations without any evidence or justification, but it's somehow unacceptable for someone to call you out on it. And now, to cap it all, you've stated that a direct quotation from the MOS is an "ill-faith statement"? You need to take that up at Wikipedia talk:Article titles.

If you think you're being hounded, put up or shut up: report me at WP:ANI. Otherwise, you're no longer welcome on this talk page until you're willing to withdraw, redact, or apologise for your accusation. I consider this discussion over until then, and will see you at WP:RM. --DeLarge (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~~~~~~~~~

POSTSCRIPT: User was banned indefinitely in March 2021. I wonder how much insidious damage he did in the intervening years...?

Hello, DeLarge. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Hounding and name-calling by an editor regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Conversation archived.

I hate to give any encouragement to blatant spammers but I see that you have Robert Mouawad on your todo list. So you may care to look at user:Mouawad/sandbox as a possible source of info for a bio of Robert or even an article on the company. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hagiographic and completely unsourced, but it might be a starting point. Cheers for that, and well done for spotting my plans. --DeLarge (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you are interested in a second discussion regarding whether the Subaru Outback deserves a standalone article or if it ought to be merged into the relevant generational articles of Subaru Legacy (and Impreza)? Thank you.---North wiki (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:250px-DSC044032.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mitsubishi rpm7000.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Julia phillips filmproducer.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move #10. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C ☎ 17:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mitsubishi pistachio.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2015 (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) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DeLarge,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Golf Australia logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hans Redl, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite losing his left arm in World War II, Austrian tennis player Hans Redl reached the fourth round at Wimbledon in 1947? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hans Redl. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hans Redl), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsubishi i has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsubishi i has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 750h+ (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]