Talk:Mika Salo

ferrari

he didn´t led much of the race. only 2 laps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.96.200.9 (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mika Salo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120214034049/http://www.f1complete.com/content/view/424/273/ to http://www.f1complete.com/content/view/424/273/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Paid contributions tag

A paid editor made contributions to this article, and has disclosed that fact on this page, therefore the paid contributions template is a matter of fact and does not require discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

According to the policy "if you place the Paid tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article." As a paid editor I'm not allowed to remove the tag myself, but if any volunteer editor thinks that the neutral point of view of the article is ok, they are free to remove the tag as told in the Template:Paid contributions instructions: "If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning."Jjanhone (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello JAAqqO! You've edited this article earlier, do you see some problems in its content? Jjanhone (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of "paid contributions" template

Are there any issues with this article that can justify the warning added at the beginning of the article? If yes, can you give an example please?Jjanhone (talk) 09:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jjanhone. I assume that you are concerned with the part of the tag (not really a warning) that suggests some clean-up might be necessary? As the part which points out that there is a paid contributor is surely not disputed, right? As i understand it, that clean-up phrase is a built-in part of the template, and is simply there to alert editors about the possibility or potential for extra work; it does not say ~ or even imply ~ that there is something wrong with any contributions, including your paid ones. Therefore, i don't think that there's anything necessary to discuss here.

In addition, i'd point out that though you have used an RfC template, you haven't really put a commentable neutral statement at the beginning, all you've done is ask for any issues. That being said, i'd suggest that you remove the template, and the DoNotArchiveUntil bit, and see if anyone else has any points to make.

Just to be clear, i have not yet read the article, nor evaluated whether i think there are any issues with its neutrality; i am merely commenting on your RfC set-up and query about the article's tag. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 19:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This is not a proper RfC. See WP:RFC. It needs a clear, neutral statement/question for editors to discuss and resolve, not an open-ended "are there any issues". That is not what the RfC process is for.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Absent any identified issue in the article, it would be more approriate to move the CoI template to the talk page. Skimming through the article, I don't see any obvious glaring problems, but I also know very little about the subject (e.g., this could be a complete whitewashing for all I know). We need more input from those who follow this sort of topic. I'll ask some wikiprojects.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Update: I've asked the four most relevant wikiprojects' talk pages to direct some attention to this thread and article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

My concern with this article is the lack of sources in some sections (being paid is not an excuse to post original research), and also the way some parts have been phrased. E.g.: "2005 was a year somewhat lost in the doldrums" – these are not characterizations worthy of an encyclopedia. Ved havet ≈ (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my mistake in RfC process, and thank you for taking a look at the article.Jjanhone (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)