re: Thin Lizzy edit
I notice you are a regular editor of the Thin Lizzy article. The article has been changed recently by an editor who doesn't like the idea that there is still a band touring under the name without Phil Lynott in it and wishes to make a memorial page out of it. This user has many skeletons in their closet and have been blocked for numerous offences on Wikipedia. I am only online on weekends so I won't see the page again until Friday. I will also email another user named Anger22 who has had previous email contact with me regarding the merger of the Classical Guitarist Project and the main Guitarist Project. I see he is also a regular editor of this page and I believe he is an admin too. So perhaps he can help protect the verifiability of the article. Thanks. Peter Fleet (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Some citations would be good on the article also. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Email sent. I must sign off now. Good luck. Peter Fleet (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thin Lizzy edit
I am currently trying ignore Wikipedia because I have a techincal document to submit to a client based in the West Midlands. But to relieve stress I like to check my watchlist for trolling/vandalism and pop a quick rv here and there. Mindless constructive edits. Unlike your Thin Lizzy re-work which obviously took a lot of time and dedication on your part. I am very familar with your username. As I check Wiki for vandalism... whenever I have to revert an article... and I see your name... I KNOW I can safely revert to your version. Hopefully when other vandal hunters are keeping Wiki clean... and the see my name... they can revert to me with the same confidence. Kudos on the efforts you have put into the Thin Lizzy article. Obviously you are a fan. But you have edited the page as a neutral reader and aimed for "encyclopaedia" over "praise." I wish all editors were as dedicated as you are. Have a nice day! The Real Libs-speak politely 22:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
About the F1 key colours edit
They should be changed. They look horrible, why not use "gold", "silver" and "cc9966" as bronze colours, instead of the dead ones present there? It looks really bad compared to any other sporting category (cyclists, tennis, etc.) Use true gold and such colours.
btw, I had changed the Michael Schumacher colours to those also, revert it but first see it, because it really fits a lot more with those colours.
Korlzor (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, OK, thank your for your explanation. But I still don't understand why didn't the "normal" one get choosen hehe. I won't change them anymore. Korlzor (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've not opened the Michael Schumacher old colors and my colors version, and its no challenge. One is just full of gold, silver and bronze, meaning to the reader "this is a brutal winner". The "consensus one", is full of dead-yellow, colours. When you see a 1st on a dead colour, you don't give it the importance it deserves. Let's wait for some1 else opinion, and we may start a consensus vote to change it? Korlzor (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I think between the 19th gp and the WDC column, there should be a separation line, like this (on F.Alonso). Sorry for the big table, delete it if ya want xD:
- Yeah, I've not opened the Michael Schumacher old colors and my colors version, and its no challenge. One is just full of gold, silver and bronze, meaning to the reader "this is a brutal winner". The "consensus one", is full of dead-yellow, colours. When you see a 1st on a dead colour, you don't give it the importance it deserves. Let's wait for some1 else opinion, and we may start a consensus vote to change it? Korlzor (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- :P.Korlzor (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Geki edit
Spooky! Of all the drivers in al the world... lol. The only real difference in the tables is that I tend to delete all the <br /><small></small> cruft if it isn't needed. I know the Wikimedia foundation has a fairy enormous server capacity, but I see little reason to store completely redundant code even so. It's just the neat-freak in me, pay no attention! Pyrope 22:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Joe Kelly edit
Joe Kelly, Hi Bretonbanquet, thanks for contacting me, yes I am related, I'm his Son. can you help upload photos of Joe racing at Silverstone.
Thanks Red —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronankelly (talk • contribs) 23:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification - I've given him some guidance on how to display and format the images he has.--Diniz(talk) 13:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Shake a Leg edit
Hey, thanks for your support! I tend to go for a redirect rather than a Prod, as I usually find some IP address removes the Prod tag with no explanation. If the redirect gets reverted, I go for an AfD, which usually results in a redirect being imposed. I really don’t see the need for articles on album tracks, and we have WP:MUSIC on our side too. So yeah, I reckon we should try and deal with anything else that fails said criteria! Nouse4aname (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Cool! Get ready for some angry messages I think! I’m quite busy at the mo, but I’ll take a look around at some point and start redirecting too. I think any articles that just consist of “x is a song by ac/dc from the album bla bla bla. The song is about [insert unsourced interpretation here]” is not worthy of an article. Anything that charted or has been used in multiple tv shows/films etc can stay. Good luck! Nouse4aname (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Progress edit
Hey, looks like we (well mainly you!) are making steady progress on the AC/DC song front! I am still waiting for a mass revert of all the redirects though, and having to go through adding AfD tags to them all! Good work! Nouse4aname (talk) 08:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Reply edit
I feel wikilibs is selectively targeting me. I've had disputes with him in the past (even in his IP versions). In this particular one, he is not assuming good faith in my edits - accusing me of vandalism and trolling. I feel very uncomfortable about that. FMAFan1990 (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Where do I go if I want to take it higher up? (PS I reverted my edit myself so I could start a talk page discussion on whether it belongs). FMAFan1990 (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks edit
Thanks for the back-up. If I had caught an IP making those edits I would've given them a full bore vandalism warning and had an admin friend block them. He may as well have been adding black metal to the article... it would've been just as accurate :-D . Things were so much better when the genre field was removed. Wesley Dodds is supposed to be working on a guideline to help control dumbass edits (like adding speed metal to hard rock pages). But I have read what he has done so far and it is pretty much useless. So we are stuck with the stupid field... and it will have rules that no one will ever follow... just what Wiki needs. Sorry I haven't been more support witht hose AC/DC articles. I have had personal issues pop up so my Wiki-time has been sporadic. I will try and monitor my watchlist closely when I am around though. Have a nice day! The Real Libs-speak politely 12:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- You can bet you won't get any complaint from me about WP:SONG/notability re-directs. That is something that could be done to literally thousands of nn song articles. Some people are possessive of them so it can be touchy. I AfD/re-directed a bunch of Megadeth album cuts that didn't deserve their own page. I have always contemplated forging into Led Zeppelin territory :-D. LZ didn't release many singles. But did have charting hits. And, of course, some tracks are notable because of their, ahem, *cough* supposed plagiarism *cough* thingy :-D. But most are just bunk. To make it worse... someone created album navboxes for each/every LZ album page. And all they do is link to the songs... which are already linked in the articles themselves. Stupid/useless overkill. Edlemand and Meg X and a few others patrol the LZ pages. I respect them as editors and wouldn't want to stomp on any toes. It would definitely be something I would discuss at their project page first. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
re: message edit
I will have someone look into it. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeoman Credit edit
Hi Bretonbanquet. I've replied to your comments on my talk page (I replied there because I plan to refer to the discussion when I revert my changes, so I thought it made sense to keep the discussion all in the one place). DH85868993 (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Pre-2000 Formula 1 edit
Ah, I wasn't aware of that. I just thought that all seasons had drivers classified. Some articles had the positions on them in the infoboxes, so I just continued that tradition in the result tables, therefore cheers for the heads up. Regards. Cs-wolves(talk) 17:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I've got the Formula One Yearbook from the 2001 season, and that doesn't have zero point scorers as classified in the championship. Unfortunately, I don't have the 2002 season one, so I can't directly compare. Sorry. Cs-wolves(talk) 17:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Seems as if that most drivers have classifications anyway. I was sticking a F3000 table on the Kenny Acheson article, and it had one for his 1983 F1 season. Similarly on Stefan Johansson. It'd be a nightmare to change back! Cs-wolves(talk) 19:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Sort of a follow up to this... You have added "NC" to a lot of drivers who finished seasons as non-scorers. I was just wondering: a) where is this information from?; and b) does this also hold true if the driver didn't actually complete a WC Grand Prix? In many of the cases that you have altered not only did the driver not score points, but they also didn't finish a single race. As far as I understood things you had to actually reach the chequered flag to be classified even if you scored no points. Cheers. Pyrope 20:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I see what you mean about "not classified" being technically correct, but in many cases you replaced a dash. As you then point out non-scorers were simply not listed at the time so I'm wondering whether "NC" looks too much like an official designation, rather than the dashes that indicate thay had none. I could probably have phrased that better... Pyrope 13:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
User:DenisHume edit
Please see the talk page. I have been blocked indefinately. 86.45.222.9 (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
User_talk:DenisHume edit
I hope he takes it to heart. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Black Hawk Down edit
Since both Tool2Die4 and I have both used up our three reverts on the Black Hawk Down (film) page you could revert his change and if he reverts a fourth time I can report him for 3RR...Betty Logan (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am amazed at how little you understand how Wikipedia functions. It's shocking. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is how dispute resolution works isn't it? Two parties disagree. A third party listens to both sides and makes a decision. If the losing party chooses not to accept it he can then request further intervention. Betty Logan (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Begging other editors to subvert 3RR on your behalf isn't "dispute resolution". Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- You know nothing at all about a) how Wikipedia works, or b) what I do or don't know about anything. If it were left to me, you wouldn't be allowed to edit. You also appear to be rather easily shocked. I'll have a look at the article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Begging other editors to subvert 3RR on your behalf isn't "dispute resolution". Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is how dispute resolution works isn't it? Two parties disagree. A third party listens to both sides and makes a decision. If the losing party chooses not to accept it he can then request further intervention. Betty Logan (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
If you think that's the only thing you've done that was unhelpful, you're way off the mark. That's just how I noticed you first. Any more personal attacks will be reported, and hopefully one of the many other people who don't like your editing style will block you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
My views on why this is not an acceptable source:
- Wikipedia says references should be drawn from mainstream newspapers. The Daily Princetonion is a college paper with a circulation of just a few thousand.
- The citaion is being used to level a charge of racism at the film (an extreme POV) that isn't supported by the mainstream press or reviews in mainstream magazines.
- A legitmate encyclopedia would not use an article in a college newspaper to uphold such an extreme point of view, so I don't think Wikipedia should either.
That's the basis for my opinion anyway.Betty Logan (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think I basically agree with you. The accusation is VERY contentious and the newspaper is not very notable. If you put that in the new section I started on the article's talk page, then other editors more knowledgable than myself on these matters will chip in. Tool2Die4 should do the same. Edit wars are not the way forward, even with difficult editors :o) Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Take the argument here. We can't keep bothering this important editor with our trivial bantering. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- There's nothing less impressive than someone who thinks he's funny and isn't. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Nationality edit
No I Dont, He is Scottish as he only imigrated to Australia when he was born but still of Scots parents --78.148.231.235 (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Lewis Hamilton edit
What happened there was that the last IP got the blame for a bunch of edits by what, at that hour, looked like similar IPs, which included deleting information from citations -- hence why I considered the edits vandalism. So I got the wrong guy, but there was vandalism going on. I'll be more careful when doing late night editing in future. Jonobennett (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Golliwog edit
Question: I don't know the piece of music "I feel like a wog". Is it actually relevant to the Golliwog article? Does it refer in any way to black woolly toys in minstrel suits? Or does it relate to some later/different meaning that has nothing to do with soft toys at all? Obviously it relates to the "Wog" page, but does it relate to this one, except by some very circuitous route? Amandajm (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Deaths in 2009 edit
- I know that you created a thread on the talk page, which I have responded to, but you did so at the same time as reverting again, so I am concerned that you may just keep reverting. 87.114.13.108 (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I left you a 3RR warning, because you had reverted 3 times and showed no indication of stopping. The next step would have been to have reported you, when perhaps you would have been blocked. I presume you would prefer to be warned first. Accusing me of trolling is a little inappropriate don't you think? 87.114.13.108 (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know why you insist on speaking to me like that. Would you have preferred that I did not warn you and just reported you instead? What has my anonymous editing got to do with anything? 87.114.13.108 (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- You created the talk thread, but still reverted, so you had not stopped. One more revert and you would have been reported. I knew that I had stopped, but if I hadn't, I would have been just as guilty - but that doesn't excuse you. Please stop getting angry about this, you did revert 3 times, I did use a standard message (given to many people who revert), and you did stop. So what is the problem? 87.114.13.108 (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also, as the page you linked to says:
- "Having said this, those who receive a template message should not assume bad faith regarding the user of said template. They may not be aware how familiar the user is with policy, or may not consider it rude themselves. They may also simply be trying to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template." 87.114.13.108 (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- So please stop getting upset. I was trying to be helpful with the warning. 87.114.13.108 (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- You created the talk thread, but still reverted, so you had not stopped. One more revert and you would have been reported. I knew that I had stopped, but if I hadn't, I would have been just as guilty - but that doesn't excuse you. Please stop getting angry about this, you did revert 3 times, I did use a standard message (given to many people who revert), and you did stop. So what is the problem? 87.114.13.108 (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know why you insist on speaking to me like that. Would you have preferred that I did not warn you and just reported you instead? What has my anonymous editing got to do with anything? 87.114.13.108 (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I left you a 3RR warning, because you had reverted 3 times and showed no indication of stopping. The next step would have been to have reported you, when perhaps you would have been blocked. I presume you would prefer to be warned first. Accusing me of trolling is a little inappropriate don't you think? 87.114.13.108 (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
RE:Aviator/Aviatrix edit
Would I like to take part in the (heated) discussion? No, not really. I thought that was a minor copyedit. In fact, it is quite in line with the existing Aviator article. I do my best to clean up punctuation and grammar on Wikipedia, and it baffles me that someone would get upset about such things. If the ruckus is being raised by someone who insists on removing all gender from English, that sounds to me like a non-NPOV bias on their part, and perhaps they should take their opinions elsewhere. I didn't create the language; I just follow the rules as they were taught in school. Thanks for the alert. —QuicksilverT @ 22:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
3RR edit
I just re-read some of the discussion, and I noticed that you were unhappy with the 3RR warning, partly because you had not reverted more than 3 times. I agree that you hadn't, but is it not correct that the warning should be used when someone is at risk of reverting more than 3 times (rather than after they have reverted more than 3 times) - so that issuing after the third revert (but before the fourth) is appropriate? 87.114.13.108 (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Why does it matter how many edits you or I have made? Even with your greater experience you still reverted 3 times, which I understand can still be frowned upon as edit warring. The version I suggested seems to have much broader support, so your insistence on reverting seems even less defensible. 87.114.13.108 (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is clearly far more support for the version I suggested, you seem to have resorted to sarcasm in that debate (so much for me being the one trolling). Edit warring is not ok, even if you stop at 3 reverts (I think you only stopped because I warned you). I would likely have edited more widely if you hadn't made this simple improvement such a drawn out drama. I understand that you no longer want to engage so will not expect a response. 87.114.13.108 (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also two thirds of your edits, and almost your whole word count, for the last 3 days have been related to this. So again we are not too different. 87.114.13.108 (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is clearly far more support for the version I suggested, you seem to have resorted to sarcasm in that debate (so much for me being the one trolling). Edit warring is not ok, even if you stop at 3 reverts (I think you only stopped because I warned you). I would likely have edited more widely if you hadn't made this simple improvement such a drawn out drama. I understand that you no longer want to engage so will not expect a response. 87.114.13.108 (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
This user never edited again. A one-issue troll who had no interest in Wikipedia other than to bait someone. Bit sad that no-one else could see that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
AN discussion edit
Thought you should know that there is a discussion started at the administrator's board by the above IP. LeaveSleaves 15:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that anyone who knows of Peter Green's Heavy Heart album knows their music!
That was an obscure reference and an impossible album to find these days.
I was actually surprised that you had heard of it.
Thanks for everything you do on Wikipedia. It's greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caaaxy (talk • contribs) 09:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
1950 Non-championship races edit
I think that "Nations Grand Prix" is what we will have to call the Swiss one even though it doesn't entirely make sense, as this is what it has been called in all languages. As for the other one, I think that "Pescara Grand Prix" is the way to go for the simple reason of that is how it is listed as at oldracingcars.com. All the other races in the season are okay apart from them.
Another thing that's been concerning me is the actual length of the circuits. On Silhouet, it always have a different circuit length to the-fastlane.co.uk. I was wondering if we could get a clarification unto which is the best source to use, or even, do you know any better place to look?
Thank you for doing the results tables though. They have to be the worst part of doing the reports for me. Also, I've said this before places but, I'm really busy in life at the moment so I really don't have time to do these articles at the moment. If I had no work to do, I could get every article in the season started in an afternoon. So hopefully when the summer holidays come around, we can get all these articles finished quite quickly. Ste900R (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Jeremy Lusk edit
Re: Talk:Jeremy Lusk#Arbitrary section "Disliking the reason that an article was created..." - are you replying to me or to 207.237.250.76 (talk · contribs)? Your indent says you are replying to me, your content says you are replying to to 207.237.250.76. By the way, I created the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Simon Kirke edit
The change you reverted was actually a reversion I did, the change before mine changed the year to 1950 without any notes or arguments. According to http://www.mcnarie.com/KirkeMain.htm and http://www.answers.com/topic/simon-kirke-1 he was born in 1949. I have reverted your changes. Uirauna (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
intransigence edit
Apologies for being so short at Talk:Scotland. My view of your argument was that, firstly, you claimed that confusion could be caused from country being a fixed term (your statement "The home nations are collectively unique in their status in that respect, being described as countries but not being independent - which easily causes confusion in people not familiar with the make-up of the UK."), then, after I made an attempt to show that the term country was not unique and not a fixed term, your second argument was that it could led to confusion as it was such a lose term (your statement " "Country", as Czar Brodie points out, covers a lot of different things, and as such is open to confusion"), was my reasoning behind my thinking the conversation was becoming intransigent. I did note your compromise, but I noted that User:BritishWatcher was now becoming more entrenched, with his statement "...should remain in the opening sentence which is why I strongly oppose any change to it". Under these circumstances I judged it judicious to back away. I did enjoy the talk we had, and look forward to probable future jousting with yourself and User:BritishWatcher some time in the future. Copy sent to User:BritishWatcher. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Re: Thin Lizzy edit
I see you have worked a lot on the article. I think it is a good music page. I have looked at the page before and that section didn't jump out at me. I re-visited the page today just to see if there was any information on the new "Still Dangerous" live album which I just got. For some reason the section just jumped out at me. I don't think the content is false. But it conveys "opinion" a bit which should be cited. A citation should be easy to find for that I would think. We don't have a decent book shop here in Wetherby. And I am too busy to skip off to Leeds or Doncaster to look for one at the moment. I don't think the section needs to example farm the twin lead bands. I expect that sort of detail can be found in the hard rock or heavy metal articles. As it is, the section doesn't mention Judas Priest. The original Alice Cooper band seem to get overlooked as well when it comes to twin guitar harmonies as well. I believe that band probably pre-dates some of the other examples as far as playing lead harmonies in a hard rock context. But now I am off topic. The twin lead style is very important to mention when discussing Thin Lizzy so I think the section can stay. But maybe it should stay focused on Thin Lizzy without name dropping the other twin lead bands. Wether B (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. The 'Still Dangerous' album is quite good (if you haven't heard it already) It's a good show - from the Bad Reputation tour I believe - based on the set-list. I saw them when I was quite young during the early Robbo years. A few shows at the Free Trade Hall and also at the old Crucible. I have always been a fan of their music. Wether B (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Re:Ferrari numbers edit
I know my comment was a little harsh, but to me the whole discussion got a little out of hand, and it's certainly not the most important thing that could be discussed. I thought that somebody independent had to come in and point that out, so I did. As I said, ten days, and then we'll know for sure. Claiming presidency of WP was certainly not on my agenda, though it is a thought. Apterygial 22:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
2009 Australian Grand Prix edit
Cheers for the cleanup of the PoV. I knew it couldn't be perfect. ;) Cs-wolves(talk) 18:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
F1 edit
|
The Working Man's Barnstar |
| Though I was initially annoyed that you reverted some of my edits (lol), I realise that your work to F1 articles is incredible. You always seem to find little grammar errors which I don't see at first, remarkable really. Take this, I hope you'll keep contributing for a long time to come yet. Regards, ayrton_prost 12:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC) |
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Re:Quick note edit
I know. I realise that any frustration about what FAC dictates is directed at those who dictate the rules, rather than FA writers. If you've got a few hours, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 Japanese Grand Prix makes for interesting reading, as it was basically WP:F1 against FAC, and both want drastically different things from articles. Note also my essay on the talk page. ;) Apterygial 01:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- He was being just a little difficult. I think I made the rookie mistake of antagonising him a little bit. All FAC is really is compromise, you go in there with an article that you think is great (otherwise you wouldn't be there) and about ten people come along and say which parts they want overhauled, and you make concessions in some places and in others you hold your ground, and they don't like that. I think it was partly exacerbated by Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 Brazilian Grand Prix, which was an absolute cinch, and sailed through. Apterygial 00:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- ...or as an alternative, pick one out the 1995 Japanese GP selection... you can either have 1, 2 or the lucky one to slice through. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Those just go to prove that it's a bit of a lottery - you can push an article through with relative ease, as in the first case - or it can be a marathon slog lasting months, as in the second case. It looks like it depends quite heavily on which "opposing" editors stick their oars in! Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Although as time goes on you "improve" as it was. Compare the first one I did, 1995 Japan (I'd rather forget about 2007 Malaysia that was a slugfeast), to the 1995 Pacific Grand Prix one here. I could say it depends which reviewers are on holiday and which ones are online. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Those just go to prove that it's a bit of a lottery - you can push an article through with relative ease, as in the first case - or it can be a marathon slog lasting months, as in the second case. It looks like it depends quite heavily on which "opposing" editors stick their oars in! Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- ...or as an alternative, pick one out the 1995 Japanese GP selection... you can either have 1, 2 or the lucky one to slice through. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Alex Blignaut edit
Hi Bretonbanquet. Thanks for the work you have done expanding Ray Reed and Ernie de Vos. Do you have any extra information on Alex Blignaut? He's recently been PRODded (hope it didn't hurt :-) Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Fantastic job. Many thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar edit
And to think I'm only going through taking the Racing out of the Lola Cars links. :) Thanks for the small gift. Regards. Cs-wolves(talk) 21:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
USF1 edit
The official team name, as reflected in the entry, and in every source since they put in their entry, is Team USF1. Stop changing it, you are wrong, period. This isn't a discussion that needs to happen. Eightball (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Here is a quote from the man himself flat out saying what the team name is: [1] Eightball (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- The team name would be Team US F1 if it gets into F1, see this. Spute (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Shall we continue this over at the talk page, and copy and paste this discussion?Spute (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
RE: Cornwall edit
Hey, no problem. Always good to get a helping hand =) doktorb wordsdeeds 07:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Flags edit
I got pulled up earlier so I shall say what was said to me to you, Stop edit warring and go to the discussion page.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- What we do on Wikipedia is discuss before making changes. So we'll revert to what we had, then we can discuss anything you might want to change. Do not change then discuss, that is extremely bad form. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Stop now and go to the fresh discussion as you claim their is a consensus for what you are doing. At the moment all you are doing is pushing your POV start talking and if you believe here is a consensus it will be borne out if not stop using Wiki to prove a point. There was no consensus to change to the national flags in the first place it was done before the discussions had ended by an over zealous user pushing their own POV.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. Take it to discussion before making any further changes. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed and have request the pages be protected.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Don't play double standards either no editing for both of us or we both get banned up to you. You appear as if it was carte blanch not to continue the discussion on 22 May when you made all of your unilateral reversions.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Really, I am not about to get banned for anything. I have reverted once today, no more. The discussion did not continue, regardless of what the consensus was. No-one continued the discussion, it was over. Please direct your edits to the discussion page at the Wikiproject, starting by making your case. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Don't play double standards either no editing for both of us or we both get banned up to you. You appear as if it was carte blanch not to continue the discussion on 22 May when you made all of your unilateral reversions.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Nationalities edit
It's interesting just how argumentative some people become about this (and then of course I end up getting argumentative back, because unless we have a standard the articles just keep changing every week depending on who edited it last). I worry sometimes that as an Englishman, I'm just pushing my own supposedly imperial, pro-Englischer overlord pov, but then I remember that, for example, there are loads of editors from Northern Ireland who feel we have the right solution for the NI drivers. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 11:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: Thanks edit
You're welcome. Considering all the information you contribute to the encyclopedia, I think you're allowed the odd lapse! Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: Barrichello edit
I know it wasn't your intention. I've put the warning on your talk page because if I do this with an IP user, I feel I shouldn't avoid doing the same with an established user, only because he's an obvious non-vandal. =) Cheers, Victão Lopes I hear you... 18:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm sorry, If I knew about "Don't template the regulars" before I wouldn't do this. By the way, this template will prove very useful to me anytime someone template me like I did with you. I will now be more careful when talking to fellow editors. Cheers! Victão Lopes I hear you... 19:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: Applause edit
*blushes considerably* Cheers for that. Pyrope 18:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
British Isles/North America edit
So, are you telling me that it is okay to say:
"The name of the band are Thin Lizzy"
In the British Isles?
That is like nails on the blackboard to me.
No wonder people from other languages/countries get so confused. Say that you are from Nigeria and you learn English from a British subject then travel to the U.S. And that is why we look at them cross eyed.
> Best O Fortuna (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- The /North America is this posts header make it sound like Canucks use the d-down version of English as well. Most Canadians use correct English form (if we leave out Ontariothe 51st state... and Quebec of course :-D ) The Real Libs-speak politely 19:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oi. By "Ontario" you mean, of course, Toronto. The rest of Ontario are very much Canucks and proud of it. Speaking as someone who lives in Ottawa, and works an awful lot of the time in Northern Ontario, the rest of us deeply resent the rest of the country continually lumping us in with the GTA! ;-) Pyrope 15:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
John Surtees & Geoff Duke edit
You reverted my edit but I don't know which part of "Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth and death: The use of flag icons in the birth and death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox is forbidden, as flags imply citizenship and/or nationality" in the section WP:FLAGBIO in unclear and only implies that flags are "discouraged" in your words. To me it is quite clear they are forbidden. ww2censor (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Your quote only applies to birth/death information, and is not applicable here. Scroll down to the relevant part, i.e. "Sportspeople" and it says: "As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes."
- "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or sporting nationality."
In both cases, the flags represent sporting nationality and only appear once, as recommended in the guideline. All Formula One drivers have a single flag in their infoboxes to show sporting nationality, and it is a long-standing consensus at the F1 wikiproject. I can see you're editing in good faith, so I'm not being awkward, but I suggest you take it up at the WikiProject. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- I also see you've just cracked on and removed a lot more flags. I strongly suggest you discuss this before doing any more. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Cosworth vs. Ford.... Round 2. edit
Hey. Not at all sure I should be showing you this, but... I was at the Tremblent circuit on the weekend and snapped this engine install in the back of a Lotus 81. Nearly crapped myself laughing, as in all these years of never seeing any F1 car with anything other than a "Ford" logo on it's cam covers mere days after our discussion this turned up. I asked the guys tending to the car about it and all they could give me was that it wasn't the original motor and they didn't know what was on the cams of the real lump. Anyway, I stand by my position all the same so don't go getting any ideas that I've gone soft! Bye for now. Pyrope 16:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
2009 GP2 Series season edit
Good work with the reversion. Some people don't realise that people can crash during the session and have wholly unrepresentable times, especially if they've lapped within 107% of the times in free practice. Regards. Cs-wolves(talk) 16:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- "Wacky"...well worded, sir. It's happened already this season, if I remember correctly. Can't remember which weekend it was, but everyone over the 107% time was admitted in through free practice. The only genuine DNQ was Teixeira in Monaco, but that is his nature to go quite slow. Cs-wolves(talk) 16:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Through looking the 107% rule page, we can see that there were thirteen occasions in which drivers were allowed to race, with the majority in wet qualifying sessions. I'm sure Trident are only keeping him for the Sonangol money. Sad, because González did a decent job in Germany and Rigon was superb in qualifying today. Cs-wolves(talk) 17:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- It may not be the most competitive series, but Rigon's drives in Superleague Formula last season were incredible. And then in the Asia Series; a third and a lap record. That's right, I completely forgot about that...then again...there's Jean-Denis Délétraz! Very true; reminds me of that Chanoch Nissany, who test drove for Minardi. Boy, was he slow! Cs-wolves(talk) 17:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Unless he runs into monetary problems again, I'd like to see him in a top GP2 role in either the Asia Series, the 2010 GP2 Series or both. Even in nearly a decade and a half of Formula One watching, there have been a few shocking drivers for pace. Minardi as soon as Stoddart took over became the...team that nobody could dislike, and yes they needed a fair bit of money both from Nissany and even the Russians like Zlobin, even though he didn't make the driver role. But at least they were better than Ide. Cs-wolves(talk) 18:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- I was nine when that race occurred and I felt so sorry for that Minardi. At the time he was heading for fourth, and then you saw the gearbox go...heartbreaking. Although at first I found it surprising that Alguersuari was getting a run, but it isn't that bad. Yes, he may be just under two seconds off the pace, but how many drivers can say that they were two seconds off the pace of the current world champion after just 80 laps in the car? I've been following his career since his...rather amusing crash with team-mate Brendon Hartley at Oulton Park in British F3 last year. The way he finished off the title to beat Oliver Turvey: 1 1 1. Incredible.
- He might not be having it his own way in World Series by Renault, but he's second top rookie to Turvey, who won in Monaco. He'll be racing at Portimao next weekend after his F1 foray. I wonder if the results will pick up... Cs-wolves(talk) 19:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- At least it isn't Kimi Räikkönen experience level from 2001. The evenly-matched point was proven with 19 of the 20 cars within 1.1 seconds. OK, it may be practice but I've not seen times that tight for a long time, if ever. I liked what Alguersuari had to say about driving the car. He said: "As I said before, it's another car, another race in my racing career, and in the end it's just one steering wheel and two pedals like everything. That's the target: to learn and to drive." It shows that he doesn't fear any car, even if he is stepping up some 300 hp from a 3.5-litre Renault to a 2.4-litre Ferrari. Turvey had a decent weekend at Le Mans, while Bertrand Baguette rolled them for six with a double win; to move thirty points in front with six races to go. Could be a close championship, especially with a new track finale...another one of Tilke's creations. Cs-wolves(talk) 20:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) 23 races or something like that...he did blitz the 2000 Formula Renault UK season, but to jump straight into Formula One...I'd be surprised if that happens again. Baguette is sort of like the van der Garde mould; I'm sure he'll take part in GP2 Asia over the winter in the hope of a 2010 GP2 seat. A bit like how d'Ambrosio got into DAMS through International Formula Master. Cs-wolves(talk) 21:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Too much reading of Autosport and Crash.net I feel! That and a lot of live timing following; before I looked into more information for the series. Yeah, especially the Eurocup class of last year. A few very talented drivers amongst that lot. I didn't think I'd still be on Wikipedia to this day...contributing the WPF1 Newsletter and sorting out most championships! Ah well, glad you enjoy the coverage. ;) Cs-wolves(talk) 21:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- A 19-year-old with four months off from university; what a way to spend a summer! ;) There are so many companies that do them: TSL, MST, Intranet and of course the F1 timing. I had a look through the Alguersuari article and I forgot that I created it! The things you forget... Cs-wolves(talk) 21:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- There was a holiday in between though. Although thundery was the theme of the holiday with quite a few of them. I believe there's live timing of the Spa 24 Hours on MST. Just a shame the Grand Prix is this weekend. Here we go...a list of all your page creations and redirects. I can see Rigon, and a few NC races! Cs-wolves(talk) 21:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't think my list was as lengthy as it was, but there are a load of redirects there. On the original point, Perera has been barred from race one for causing the Grosjean crash. Trust me, live timing of most series are the best way to spend a weekend, if you have nothing to do! Cs-wolves(talk) 22:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- From what I understand, both drivers were due to be allowed to start. However, the stewards apportioned blame on Perera, giving him a penalty and telling him that he would not be allowed to start the feature race. Perera's time was outside 107% so it's a bit of both really. From the GP2 release:
- Following today’s incident in qualifying, which saw Franck Perera and Romain Grosjean collide early in the session resulting in both cars spinning off track to bring to an end their participation in qualifying, the stewards have judged that the DPR racer impeded his countryman. As Perera’s qualifying time exceeded 107% of the fastest qualifying time set by polesitter Lucas di Grassi, the stewards have decided that the Frenchman shall not participate in Race 1. He will, however, be allowed to take part of Race 2 on Sunday, starting from last on the grid. Grosjean, whose best time also exceeded the 107% time, has been given permission to take the start of tomorrow's race.
- Cheap as possible, yeah! Cs-wolves(talk) 23:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Even though there are the new teams, there will be a couple of changes within the current teams I feel. Cs-wolves(talk) 00:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting to see how qualifying will work out. 8-8-10, perhaps? Cs-wolves(talk) 00:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Plus the fact ITV only ever showed the Saturday session. Or neither in the case of the 2004 Japanese Grand Prix due to the typhoon. Cs-wolves(talk) 01:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Massa edit
I've got a live blog going from F1 Fanatic. James Allen posted it very quickly. Apparently German and Slovakian television are showing replays; the BBC won't show one if there is a chance a driver has been injured. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
F1 driver results tables edit
Hi Bretonbanquet. Thanks for the great work you're doing updating F1 driver results tables. I don't seem to have time to do anything more than "maintenance" work (fixing vandalism, etc) at the moment. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Rigon edit
I wonder if Davide was reading our conversation last night, because he drove a blinder today! Shame all the enthusiasm for the Grand Prix has gone out the window thanks to Felipe's shunt. Quick question. On the 2009 Indy Lights season, another of the wacky ones has decided that the St. Petersburg races should be split separately, instead of having one STP for the two races. I think my version is more simplistic and/or less confusing. Thoughts? Cs-wolves(talk) 22:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Although not seeing it at the time, I've seen the videos many times over the years, and it still gives me goosebumps every time I see them. I have the Senna book written by Ivan Rendall, and the black & white picture of the Williams coming towards the track after impact...it's numbing what happened that May day. Two freak accidents in six days now, with poor Henry getting killed last week. I was due to fly home that night, and read Autosport to see of Surtees being injured. Had to look through Youtube to find the accident, and I was taken aback with the events of that accident. Robbed before he could show his true talent.
- And now today...A fist-size damper spring, no heavier than a bag of sugar colliding with Massa, who was doing around 140(?) mph at the time. A very slight decrease in speed will have still seen him hit the barriers at around 110-125 mph. The pictures of him with the cut over his left eye are ghastly, but shows that it could've been a very lot worse. I'd be very surprised if he was driving that Ferrari again this year, let alone this season. I'm sure Gené will be driving in a month's time, and Badoer will probably get the Italian race. Bourdais might get another shot! ;) Cs-wolves(talk) 23:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- The only crash that I can remember that left me like that, was the one that Greg Moore suffered in 1999. I used to tape all the CART races, and there was the Gonzalo Rodríguez incident. Another robbed talent. But, the Moore one sticks out. Jesus, that was probably the biggest hit I've seen in all my years of watching motor racing. He had already been shaken up with his incident in the paddock the day before, but to see that crash...I think I had nightmares for a week after, just because the crash was so bad.
- Massa would've been dead easily had he been maybe up to two seconds later than what he was. I mean...look how bad it was, just with a side blow. Back to the Surtees incident, I found out just before coming home that he had passed away, I literally could not utter words. I was stunned. I knew there was something gravely wrong with the lack of updates coming from either Brands or the RLH. The handshake before the race between father and son...that's going to stick in my mind for a very long time.
- My aunt and uncle were on holiday in California, and were at that meeting on the day it occurred. They were shocked with what happened, but it was truly a shocking way to go. I know the two you're referring to, and they are horrible shunts to view. Fireballs the pair of them. It's certainly ironic; think of all the drivers/riders that Surtees raced with that passed away during the 1960s. I always remember Badoer driving the Forti and the Minardi. Two truly hopeless cars that Badoer got near the points. Cs-wolves(talk) 00:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- I remember saying that it was such a sombre atmosphere. It's bad enough watching something like that on TV, but to be there in person...easily has to be a couple of times worse. Alexander Wurz was an example. He got a podium first (and only) time out for McLaren (notice that I didn't put that McLaren (racing) link in; bizarre and stupid), admittedly with the BARs DQ. Badoer could've easily been a podium finisher. Don't know how many miles he's clocked at the wheel of a Ferrari though! ;) Cs-wolves(talk) 00:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've been here long enough to remember it under Team McLaren. Better than McLaren (racing) I have to say. I know it's in the rules, but it would've been nice to see either one race this weekend as a replacement for Massa. Sometimes, three cars does work...take tonight's IndyCar qualifying in Edmonton. Penske are 1-2-3 with Power on pole; the one who doesn't get the full season. Ten years is a serious amount of distance covered. Oh, and let's not forget the Top Gear appearance. Forti's best claim to fame, I'd imagine. Think of the dominating cars that Ferrari had. Badoer must've dreamed so many times of driving that car in the races. Cs-wolves(talk) 01:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's the first with less than 20 since 2005; I'll put that in the notes page when it pops up (someone will put it in eventually). Power's a bloody good driver, and coupled with Briscoe Inferno (2005 Chicagoland crash is the inspiration) and Hélio, they are the perfect team. The way Grosjean is literally throwing away the GP2 title to Nico Hülkenberg, he must know something that we're not. Personally, I'd prefer to see Lucas Di Grassi in that Renault over Grosjean. He was a title contender last season, despite missing three rounds. He scored more than Grosjean, who was driving for the all-conquering ART team. Here's hoping for a clean, yet exciting race. Goodnight! Cs-wolves(talk) 01:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Idea? edit
2009 Hungarian Grand Prix - try and make it of FA or GA standard, due to the happenings of the weekend. Fancy helping out with the copy-editing, and such like? Cs-wolves(talk) 19:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've just got to qualifying so far. A lot to think about in that there session! Cs-wolves(talk) 19:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Fair to say I kind of jumped the gun on the 2009 Formula One season article! Ah well, it's all calmed down for the moment, so I'll get on with it. ;) Cs-wolves(talk) 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Personally, I thought the Massa section in post-race might be verging on the unnecessary, but when you have Willi Weber quoting that Michael Schumacher will not be driving the Ferrari in Valencia, it has to go in! Your changes make the page perfect I'd say. :) Cs-wolves(talk) 21:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- If another user feels the need that the section is somewhat redundant, I won't be too disappointed. It was mainly a continuation from what was said at the end of the qualifying section. Once he's fully healed, then there would be no more edits to that section! I was 200% sure it had to go in! ;) I think the best thing for just now is to possibly put it up for peer review, in case someone else finds something wrong with the article. I don't want a repeat of the debacle caused by the GA nomination on the 2009 Australian Grand Prix. Then when the peer review is done, GA nomination I feel! Cs-wolves(talk) 22:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Volts edit
This edit [2] was a copy and paste of the Highway to Hell row from the table, making the purported chart positions and certifications for Volts total fiction. I wasn't aware that the album had been released separately. Piriczki (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
GP2 reports edit
I see that guy has started creating the articles again... Proof that they haven't gone down well. I also see our flags discussion has come back to life again...again...again... for the fourth time. Will she ever give up? Oh, and I'm due to put a final ref in the 2009 Hungarian Grand Prix article from Autosport. ;) Cs-wolves(talk) 19:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I noticed you had that on the userpage. As much as I want to see the GP2 Series getting full coverage, it just doesn't occur for Wikipedia cases. If we were to do the articles for every round, then we'd have to the articles from 2005-2008, where all information may not be available to hand. Plus, the articles only have a line for each race and an infobox. That just doesn't merit so much coverage. I thought the hidden comments that I've been adding may help other people not to change the flags, but obviously not well enough. I definitely think we need a peer review for that article. I'm not criticising the work that you and I have put in, I just think we should have it thoroughly looked at. ;) Cs-wolves(talk) 19:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, and User:MotorsportPete93's "Oh joy, here we go again." left me in stitches for quite a while. User:Mark DG tried the same with World Series by Renault articles, which I helped out in originally, but was later re-merged into the season article. As I said in the AFD for the original GP2 articles, it's at best a redirect then a delete if this can't be achieved. Yeah, it lasted for quite a while I gathered, so all was going well, until some think they're better than consenus troop in. I've noticed the peer reviews done by I think it was User:Darth Newdar, and they always seemed to get it up to GA-level. So it's definitely a good idea, yeah. Might get one setup ASAP, although I wouldn't do it myself...so you might have to get one of the editors (if not yourself) to set it up. I think I've done enough editing for the moment for that Hungarian article. ;) Cs-wolves(talk) 21:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Mainly goes with an "OH FFS" as one of her edit summaries had. The series only gets widespread coverage in Europe, having seen the coverage that SPEED have in North America. Feature race in full and sprint race highlights of three minutes or so. I'm gonna look into it, see if I can do it myself. Cs-wolves(talk) 21:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Twix is British? edit
While Twix may have been first produced it England, it was produced by an American company. I'm quite convinced that had Ford built the Mustang in Italy, it would still be an American product. What do you think? Law type! snype? 23:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Flags edit
Will you please stop claiming a phoney concensus from the three compeeting ideas, there was absolutly no consensus from the three Ideas. As I have said If we can discuss this in a civilised manner without resorting to sensationalism and rudeness, then maybe we will get somewhere. Also what is needed is a start from a fresh point or no progress can be made and the current status quo will weirdly be maintained.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- The use of CAPS as you have just done is a form of rudeness, whihc is what I am tring to avoid, demanding the showing of discussions, whihc would require wading through lengthy archives and thretening Admin intervention are just a couple of examples.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- That is not a form of rudeness, that is a method of stressing a word. A sentence written in caps is a different matter. I suggest you look it up somewhere. "Threatening" admin intervention is also not a threat, it is called dispute resolution. I feel the need to emphassie that my use of bolding is not rudeness, but emphasis. Also, if you are not prepared to provide a link to discussions, then you are quite patently not in a position to use them to back up your argument... You don't get to have it all your own way, you see? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
A disintersted party whom has never taken part in any discussion before to my knowledge on the subject, but I will have to check thouroughly, SpeedKing whom I have never heard of is the most cuurent disinterested party. Also the previous discussion I left alone and Ignore your comments because it was desceninding into the previos tone of discussion so I just left you shouting on your own as you cant have a one sided shouting match all by yourself.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I am willing to have a civilised discussion and not a shouting match with demand after demand and threats of admins and I am right because there was a previous (phoney voted in) concensus, Unless the notion that there is currently no consensus no progress can be made as you a hell bent on having your revsion as the consensus. I am alos not sure what you mean by "drive- by" reversions. I was simply changing back a reversion of the Icon you had done, which was originally carried out by speed king a disinterested user.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
It cannot be claimed by one person the "no-one" wants a discussion, it can only be found out if there is a civilised discussion taking place. I will leave a discussion when one person is trying to steam roller their opinion and demean their opinion. Saying "given your minimal input to motorsport articles in general" shows that you are dismissing my opinions as I edit less than you do, which is very rude. Clearly at least one other person agrees the European Flag should be used as a disinterested user chaged the Country = from Spain to Europe. I appreciate that you can see that I find some of your tone impolite and rude. I will initate a new discussion and will see how It goes. I think that this can be amicable and end up with a real discussion about the Issue.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Templates edit
Ah hello good sir, how is one? Our Hungarian Grand Prix article seems to be at an end, and looks rather fantastic if I do say so myself. Onto other matters, it appears that our disgruntled User:Cybervoron seems to believe that it should just Drift and Sabatino (instead of van der Drift and di Sabatino) on Template:World Series by Renault teams and Garde (instead of van der Garde) on Template:GP2 Series teams. Your thoughts? Cs-wolves(talk) 18:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- I had to search through a fair few webpages just to get them temperatures for each session, plus Midgrid's additions, it looks perfect for a promotion. Yes I've noticed, and I'm getting quite frankly pissed off with the constant uproar that she is causing, in regards to the consensus. I'm getting that annoyed that I'm starting to wander towards ditching all flags. If she can't accept that our consensus, then block her indefinitely. She's only there to cause a fuss.
- I've never seen van der Garde being referred to as Giedo Garde. Plus, the format for Dutch names states that the prefix isn't dropped. Di Sabatino is the same, and should be like Di Canio, Di Vaio or Di Michele. That said, I have seen on British F3 television standings that Renger van der Zande is classed as Zande; but I'm sure sticking that there is much easier than having van der Zande on the screen! A middle name! Haha, that'll be his answer. Cs-wolves(talk) 19:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to be the only way. But then, anonymous users will re-add the flags and the whole situation becomes an endless circle, and we end up back to where we started. She just cannot admit when she's in the wrong and will keep
goingtrolling until she gets her way. Hence why her last discussion went unresolved when you prompted her to show whatever she was going on about.
- It seems to be the only way. But then, anonymous users will re-add the flags and the whole situation becomes an endless circle, and we end up back to where we started. She just cannot admit when she's in the wrong and will keep
- I was going to direct him there, but you beat me to the revert on both templates! Said example at three seconds shows it as just Zande to save space; as it would be a longer name than his team-mate Grubmuller's. I bloody well hope so; too many users in the wrong here! Cs-wolves(talk) 21:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't count on it. Nothing is impossible; especially with the amount of fake pages that get created on here every day. I had a sneaky little look for it and here it is. A threat? Oh my. It's like trying to keep some water in a sieve: it just doesn't happen!
- I know he was doing Euroseries a couple of weeks ago, and that is shown on Sky I think. I've not seen any pictures from it, so I can't comment on whether they have it in full or not. I've only got enough space for a few mischief-makers on here, not a whole gaggle. Cs-wolves(talk) 22:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Flags edit
You are referring to a discusiion on a diffrent board the discussion I was referring to was on the administrators noticeboard, the sheer volume of discussions on the AN/I make it impracticle to search through to find the discussion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- I will attempt to find it when I have enough time.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Luca Badoer edit
Hi. Regarding this edit, the reason I used [[Marc Gené|Marc Gene]] was that the BBC article which is quoted did not include the accent on the E. I think it is standard BBC formatting not to use accents or diacritics. Do you know if there is a guideline on how to quote such text on Wikipedia? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Response edit
I live on Vancouver Island. Many Canadians tend to follow the same date format that the US uses. But it is clear that on Wikipedia date, spelling and grammar depend on the origin of the article subject. And that is the way it should be. I believe Wikipedia whould have a popup box for IPs and new accounts that is similar to the Twinkle tool revert popup box. A box that reminds users that they should read and understand Wikipedia's policies and formatting guidelines before continuing further with their edits. Obviously, after a certain time period or number of edits this popup would no longer be needed. GripTheHusk (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- I compare it to the little nag screen one usually gets when trying out a new trial software. Eventually, either your trial period ends or you buy into the product. Whether a person is a dedicated user who edits here daily or is a user like me who only pops on for a few hours every 2 or 3 days, or someone who only contributes once a month, it's still a commitment to make the project better. Wikipedia should always be open so that anyone can edit. But they should have to work for it in the beginning before earning their wings. GripTheHusk (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks edit
Thanks for the correction on F1 bold and italics. My bad.Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
"Don't go changing it, understand?" edit
Sorry about that. I'm fully aware that changes are made if there is a consensus. When I told that user not to go changing the 2010 table, I meant in the sense of he shouldn't go changing it just because he wants it changed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- I can be a little aggressve sometimes. Particularly when trying to stress a point in writing. Anyway, it's obvious that the debate is just going to go back-and-forth a little bit; I'm hoping there's some higher power we can approach and ask how it should be done. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Badoer fastest sector edit
Hi. Regarding this edit, are you sure that the source is stating that Badoer set the fastest sector one time of the entire race? The way it is worded is confusing since it says he set the fastest sector time on two laps. Doesn't this mean that he was the fastest on that sector on those two laps, not of the whole race? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please ignore the above. I just realised that you added two references and that the second makes it clear. Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Re: Prince Birabongse Bhanudej (Prince Bira) edit
Hello, it is not neccessary about the name of the article. The thai royal articles are always mentioned his/her full name. (see also Category:Chakri Dynasty) Think about it, when the readers search the article for "Prince Bira", they will know include his full name also. According in the article, Prince Bhirabongse Bhanudej Bhanubandh, better known as Prince Bira. So the reader will know all his short name and full name.
Furthermore, I, as a member of this project, and the Thai people agree that it will be inappropriate for him as the Prince of Thailand. I think you know well how much the Thai people love the Royal Family. So we give him highest honour as much as we can. Thank you.
Nationality confusion... Again! edit
I'm still confused, are these really an Australian band? Are they a British band? Are they an Anglo-Australian band? Are they a British band formed in Australia? Are they a Australia band that relocated to the UK? was australia a stepping stone to them? Is Brian Johnson Australian? Are the Young's Australian? how Many british/Aussie Members are there? Is there any proof of the band itself claiming them to be british or aussie? --Tukogbani (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Who cares? Tony (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- About you? nobody! --Tukogbani (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- User warned on his/her talk page of the requirements of WP:CIVILITY. Tony (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- You don't think you provoked this user at all by responding "Who cares?" to his perfectly legitimate question? That's hardly civil in itself, and WP:CIVILITY applies to you too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- User warned on his/her talk page of the requirements of WP:CIVILITY. Tony (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- About you? nobody! --Tukogbani (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't set out to provoke anyone. Perhaps I should have seen that Tuko might read into it a personal tinge, but I was really asking, in short-hand, whether it really matters in terms of the article. The response was of a rather different order (="Who cares about you: nobody."). Tony (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- I found it ignorant to be honest, thats why i retaliated. --Tukogbani (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Now that really is a breach of the civility policy. Especially after I have indicated that I meant no harm. I think this will need to go further. Tony (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I ask that you strike the offensive text or I'm reporting it to the admins. Please be reasonable. Tony (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's not a breach of civility policy, as he was commenting on your post, not you. He said "it" was ignorant, and it wasn't a slur on you personally. It might be worth you reading up on civility policy a bit. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Now that really is a breach of the civility policy. Especially after I have indicated that I meant no harm. I think this will need to go further. Tony (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I ask that you strike the offensive text or I'm reporting it to the admins. Please be reasonable. Tony (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- I know the civility policy very well: I wrote it, largely. Two statements here need to be retracted. Tony (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- His "About you?" post was out of order, and so was your first post. You explained yourself, it would be good if Tukobani would do the same, or apologise. That is where it should be left, as his "ignorant" comment is not a breach of anything. Your initial "who cares" post looks pretty ignorant, as I'm sure you'll agree, so it's hard to argue with Tukobani on that. I can't see an admin disagreeing with any of that, but it's your prerogative. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, "ignorant" is definitely not a characterisation of my comment: I still want to know who cares among the band, the fans, the industry, since that might lead to a solution to the issue for the article, small that it is. That was the import of my question.
Under no circumstances is an editor allowed to call another editor "ignorant", which you have now done as well, indirectly. I have suggested that both of you strike through the offending comments and apologise, or I will take the matter much further up, to ANI, asking that you be cautioned and that Tuko be blocked, since his attitude (and yours) shows a clearly likelihood that the behaviour will continue, with potential to damage the project. The line that the behaviour was provoked is a weak one at best, and "a request has already been made to stop the behaviour", a key criterion for defining a breach of the policy. Tony (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- He did not call you ignorant. I also very clearly referred to your comment as looking ignorant, not you personally. You are now suggesting that I have shown behaviour liable to damage the project, which is frankly bizarre. I suggest you take it to admin. Furthermore, if you have read this page, you'll already know that the band's nationality is very obviously a contentious subject, making your initial "who cares" post rather shortsighted at best. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- It is odd in this situation to keep levelling the insults ("short-sighted"; my suggestion "bizzarre"). I haven't read the page. Referring "to [my] comment as looking ignorant, not [me] personally, your opening line, cuts no ice, I'm afraid. "Your prose is crap" is regarded as a personal insult, and uncivil.
- Again, I'm giving you both time to strike through the offensive text; an apology would be in order too. Otherwise, it is likely to blow up into a big thing. Your choice. Tony (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Don't worry about the time, just take it to admin. By your token, you have just described me as odd, insulting and uncivil. Unlike you, I can deal with it without resorting to threats of "big things". Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'll add that your suggestion that my behaviour shows signs that I am about to indulge in behaviour which could potentially damage the project is a very clear breach of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I will bring this up at ANI. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Tony, bearing in mind that I have at no point said anything as unpleasant as "your prose is crap", please show me the guideline that says criticising someone's comment in a civil fashion is regarded as a personal attack. I can show the part of Wikipedia:No personal attacks that says "discussion of a user's conduct is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion". This being a discussion page, this is an appropriate forum. I have personalised nothing in this discussion against you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- And I suggest using Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, not ANI. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Ooops edit
Sorry about this. My browser freezes now and then and I ended up clicking the wrong link. Didn't notice it till today. Tintin 14:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Suzuka '09 edit
Hey, I added that section on the drivers who haven't raced at Suzuka because it could be an important factor over the weekend. Especially since the reigning World Champion hasn't been there; inexperience could be the undoing of more than one driver. There's actually nine who haven't raced there, but I can't for the life of me think of who the last one is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Guinea pig, et al edit
Thank you for joining in the macabre fun. LOL. Incidentally, I currently own seven live bantams (Bebe, Mimi, Bubble, Squeak, Freckle, Dotty and Layla) - bet they don't qualify either ?!
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Happy to see a familiar name edit
It has been a long time since we last spoke. I have been away from the project for quite a while. But the bug has caught me again to return, even if it is sporadic, to contribute over at WP:GUITAR. I am glad to see a few familiar names still active. You have continued to make a very positive contribution to Wikipedia. Keep up the fantastic work! Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
NowCommons: File:Triumph Courier.jpg edit
File:Triumph Courier.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Triumph Courier.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Triumph Courier.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Clifford Davis edit
Greetings Bretonbanquet. I see that you've reverted my page move for the above article. I see on your user page that you obviously know far more 'bout Fleetwood Mac-related matters than I do, but is it correct to classify Davis as a musician? Did he ever perform in public/on a recording as such? Regards, --Technopat (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've just answered on the article talk page. So how 'bout music manager? It also puts him in illustrious company (?) at the dedicated category. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Jenson Button edit
Muchos gracias for checking over that. I'm just happy I got Autosport before the postal strike took hold. A favour to ask, if you're not too busy tomorrow...2009–10 GP2 Asia Series season is currently as is, but User:Officially Mr X seems to think that test drivers are actually competing in next weekend's races instead of this weekend's test session at Yas Marina. Seeing as I'm at uni, I cannot get the chance to revert any you know...errors. ;) Cs-wolves(talk) 00:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's odd how they go all green for Jenson yet have the smallest amount of blue for Dario, when he won the IndyCar title. I still have the blue-headed one when he won at Indianapolis. He does have his good patches for editing, but then there's the odd ones...some I can't even get my head round sometimes. Scratchy, scratchy on the cranium. Cs-wolves(talk) 00:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's been seventeen years since he won the McLaren Award, and he's managed to do DTM, ITC, Champ Cars, NASCAR and IndyCars in that time. I see what you're getting at, and I do agree. Many drivers seem to be forgotten about, as soon as they hit the States. Wheldon is another who seems to have died out of the press since he won Indianapolis and the title in '05. Then you see the British drivers that are going out now: Howard, Lloyd, Battistini, Tappy, Plowman, Mann, Christodoulou, Wilson, Dempsey and the like. Conversely, we seem to give the young Americans coverage when they come over here. Newgarden, De Filippi and Smrz (brave guy he is) all got coverage when they blitzed the Formula Ford Festival/Walter Hayes Trophy over the last 12 months.
- Justin Wilson is one of the most popular drivers since he went to the States. I thought he was harshly shunted out Newman/Haas/Lanigan, to be replaced by another F1 ex-pat Doornbos. He didn't produce the results and got sacked himself, but Wilson pounded around and took Dale Coyne's first win at Watkins Glen. Having been in Canada at the time of the race, I could see full why Wilson is a popular driver. The Wilson family seems to have decamped to America, with brother Stefan going across to Indy Lights as well.
- Sky Sports have done well to pick up coverage for both series, as they look to win over fans in the UK. IndyCars are starting to get away from the all-oval culture, as the 2010 calendar has more road courses than ovals. NASCAR still has the 34/36 going on the ovals. Danica is one of the few American drivers to actually possess a Super Licence, having finished in the top five of the IndyCar Series. Hell, anyone could do better than Amati, who ended up being replaced by one D. Hill. The press seem to give Danica a hard time, especially after her win in Japan last year.
- Michael Andretti 1993 in Brazil. Standing starts + Americans ≠ Good Formula One drivers. I think the Button-McLaren thing will die down eventually, as Brawn will stump up the money with the $255m revenue they've earned over the past 12 months. Until a definitive entry list/information comes out, we keep it quiet on the Wiki front. Cs-wolves(talk) 21:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wilson should've started more F1 races than he did. I honestly think he could be an outside bet for a USF1 spot, I really do. Ratings are good here, but dramatically falling in the US, since it moved to Versus. Race start times like 10pm ET (3am UK) for Chicagoland haven't really helped matters. I would love to see it on free-to-air, but with Five cutting back on their US Sports package, it seems very unlikely that will be the case. NASCAR can have some great races and some absolutely yawntacular races. 50-50 split really. American Formula One drivers have been in short supply recently, bar Scott Speed.
- Female drivers are rare to come by nowadays. I know there's Sarah Moore (Ginetta Junior champion), Karline Skala, Rahel Frey and Susie Stoddart but all are not talented enough for Formula One, I don't think. Patrick would only have the advantage at the British circuits and Spa, due to her British Formula Ford campaign of the early 2000s. If they get someone like J. R. Hildebrand or Jonathan Summerton in, they can breed them into the style of racing. Hell, Kyle Busch's name is getting circulated also. McLaren would still throw all their weight behind Hamilton, even though Button is world champion. Brawn would then have to sign two new drivers (Barrichello might be tempted to stay if Button does leave) but I just can't see the all-British pairing happening. Cs-wolves(talk) 23:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but the fact that he can quite easily fit in the IndyCars (I don't know the specific differences between cockpit sizes between the two) shouldn't hold him back. Everyone thought Tony George would do that role, then it went to Brian Barnhart but he's not critical enough to be like a promoter. Alonso changed the whole perception of Formula One in Spain, and Alguersuari (crashes aside) may be the next generation. Graham Rahal could be one that the Americans could also use to get F1 excitement back up.
- I forgot about Gachnang in F2, but I see her ending up in sportscars rather than in GP2 or GP3 (too many GP-series). John Edwards, who just won the Atlantic Championship, has Eurocup experience, but he is only 18. Peter Windsor said they were looking at Busch for 2011. Busch has NO single-seater experience. Surely if they can't get those two, Glock or Heidfeld could end up there. Glock could end up at Renault also, if the Raikkonen/Kobayashi Toyota duo is confirmed. Cs-wolves(talk) 00:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Yeah, it is one of the oddities of Formula One teams...they should make them to fit all. Barnhart could do the role, but they really do need someone for the Bernie role. It's been hard for Alguersuari to jump into Formula One midseason, and the juggling cars with him jumping between F1 and World Series. Maybe with a full season of testing, he'll start to lose the crashing mentality. Buemi has excelled himself this season, scoring a handful of points in a dog of a car. He's never done well in any series with the exception of 2008 GP2 Asia where he finished runner-up to Grosjean.
I know she won races in F3, but she has just looked well off the pace in F2. Soucek, the F2 champion, might be one for Campos to have a look at, if they want a Spanish driver. The only problem for Edwards is that after Atlantics, Indy Lights is the step, but I don't think he has the Red Bull money anymore. It was more a case of Kamikaze Kamui than Kamikaze Kazuki. I honestly have no idea how he got away with that. Nakajima could've easily had a Verstappen moment if he wasn't careful. I think the whole grid will become clearer in 2010 rather than the back end of this year. Cs-wolves(talk) 10:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- It seemed to help him straight away when he utterly dominated in the Algarve. But he was pretty poor in Germany, and I've still to see how he is doing at the new Tilke circuit in Alcaniz. Yeah, I was a bit too critical of the car. It was great in Melbourne and great last weekend. Bourdais got harshly bumped out of Toro Rosso, and once he got behind the wheel again in Superleague, he won straight away. John Howett is one of these men who have absolutely no clue about Formula One. He wants rid of Trulli, who is one of those most experienced drivers on the grid. He wants rid of Glock, who has been impressive for them this season. Barmy.
- If Villa does another season of GP2, he could end up with 100 starts! Soucek definitely has a test for the Williams team, and has the Super Licence given for winning the title. De la Rosa is the obvious driver, but he is "getting on a bit" for contemporary Formula One cars, but you never know. Kobayashi can usually get away with that in lower formulae such as GP2 but not in F1. The musical chairs on the run to Bahrain, which will be the quietest opening to a season since 2006. Cs-wolves(talk) 13:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- If Alguersuari does get replaced, will Hartley finally get a chance, or will he fall further down the Red Bull pecking order for a Wickens, a Bortolotti or a Vergne? I hope he gets a slot at US F1; he's as close to an American as a Frenchman can be, with all those years spent turning Champ Car into the Sébastien Bourdais show. He just does not know what he is doing
halfall the time. I mean, look at Bahrain...Toyota should not have lost that, yet they did. Then the blip in between...the drivers were surely trying as hard as they could and getting little to no progress out of the car.
- If Alguersuari does get replaced, will Hartley finally get a chance, or will he fall further down the Red Bull pecking order for a Wickens, a Bortolotti or a Vergne? I hope he gets a slot at US F1; he's as close to an American as a Frenchman can be, with all those years spent turning Champ Car into the Sébastien Bourdais show. He just does not know what he is doing
- Yep, Villa is the most experienced GP2 driver, with 81 starts and three wins. The only advantage he has to that, is that he is only 22 years old. Many years left to break in. Soucek will probably get that third driver role, and he's 24 as well so he still does have time on his side. I like how we say when Hülkenberg is promoted, not if. I still cannot believe how much he destroyed the rest of the field in the second half of GP2 this season. He made Grosjean look utterly silly in some races... De la Rosa would be a good stop gap for Campos, so they can somewhat "prepare" a Spanish driver for 2011. Villeneuve would be alright for US F1 but would the Canadians love that? Davidson will be at either Lotus or Manor, I can't see him being overlooked... I think Badoer has had his chance, sadly. If he did, the epic tales of Luca Badoer could continue! 2006 was moved for the Commonwealths but Bernie wants his way for 2010. Hopefully, a race at Silverstone as well to combat Failington. The butchering of a track without proper founds. Disgraceful. Cs-wolves(talk) 00:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- If I'm honest, I think Hartley would've done worse. He has a mentality of crashing a lot under pressure, including this. Although, Alguersuari eventually did get his own back. I would be happy to see a Bourdais/Summerton driver lineup at USF1. It'd be ironic if Renault managed to pick up Glock before Toyota place a contract at his door. Grosjean will have to up his game over testing if he wants the second seat there. I'm sure Bertrand Baguette (who has rolled over the opposition in World Series - I really need to stop using that Baguette roll pun now!) will be testing a bit for Renault, if Di Grassi ends up at Manor.
- He has to be a title contender if he does in GP2 next year. Although, then there's Bianchi. He may do even better than Hülkenberg. He made the Euroseries his own this season, with nine wins and won the title by 39 from Vietoris. I have a feeling the Hülkenberg deal is done and just waiting for the first driver to be announced until it gets confirmed. Grosjean's confidence did take a bit of a hit after vaulting over Zuber at Monaco. Especially with the Canadian Grand Prix finally returning for 2010. F1 was a poorer place this year without it. He got a lot more out of the Aguri than what it should have, him and Sato. Yeah, think of the distance he has covered over testing - vital for a new team. I bet Fisichella is regretting moving over from Force India, but every Italian wants to drive for Ferrari at one point. No matter how they transformed Donington, it would not solve a lack of overtaking. It's a lifeless circuit with very little chance of overtaking. Except when it's wet or you're Ayrton Senna. Cs-wolves(talk) 14:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Summerton is the runner-up in the Atlantic Championship, losing out to Edwards on the tie-breaker. He coupled the campaign with Indy Lights, until he decided to focus on Atlantics. He's only 21, so again he has time on his side. I think a Kubica-Glock team would be capable of winning races, depending on next year's Renault. Grosjean I think has no chance of staying at Renault. He has underperformed, and has probably done worse than Piquet, without crashing on purpose. Although, it was ironic that he crashed at the same corner. I've heard rumours that Álvaro Parente would be in the second Manor seat, but that would be a serious risk to go in with two rookies. Baguette has the best name for a racing driver; it's just such a class name. Pic is a good driver when he puts his mind to it. Makes many silly mistakes though, crashing on the parade lap in Barcelona sticks out in my mind. But, he's racing for Arden in GP2 Asia - 2010 GP2 no doubt, when he turns 20. So again, time and nationality on his side.
- Hülkenberg is too good to be without a Formula One drive; for a 22-year-old to have four single-seater championships already is bloody impressive. Bianchi's doing a part-GP2 Asia campaign, sharing with Marcus Ericsson alongside Sam Bird; but yeah, the Bianchi name is prominent. Montreal is one of the very best F1 circuits in my opinion. Yeah, Ferrari is the pinnacle of any Italian's career. You just cannot turn it down. Raikkonen finishing in the top six is a bonus for Ferrari; a duel between them and McLaren for third. MotoGP's left Donington as well, leaving it to World Superbikes to take the main event (seeing as they've removed the Grand Prix from their events). When it rains at Donington, surprises galore. On two wheels and four. Cs-wolves(talk) 00:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah. I think if Newman Wachs (his Atlantic team) decide to choose GP2 over IRL, Summerton would be of the one drivers. Absolutely, especially as they start to reel the sponsors back in. Yeah, that would be appropriate for someone like Grosjean. Another one that could find himself in that ever-growing list at Campos. Parente is fast, but slightly inconsistent. Not since his British F3 title has he had a season that wasn't inconsistent. Pic may struggle in the GP2 Asia, especially as he's new to the series, just depends on how well he settles in. Williams-Cosworth should be a handy combination, far more reliable than a possible Williams-Renault would've been. I still think Raikkonen will end up at Toyota. Them and McLaren are the only ones than can handle a $45m salary, and even then, Toyota would need a second driver of some talent. Basically, when one move is sealed, five others will follow. Yeah, the "have you got the money?" scandal...All that money and the end result? Nothing. Cs-wolves(talk) 02:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Jochen Rindt edit
The article FIA Super Licence section Nationality of drivers that the F1 driver infobox links to clearly states that "The nationality that appears on the racing licence is the same one that appears on the driver's passport. This is not necessarily the same as the country issuing the racing licence. A Frenchman living in Germany can race with a German licence, but the nationality displayed would still be French. In order to race as German, the driver would need to have German nationality as well. For drivers with multiple citizenships, the driver chooses one of them to drive for."
Jochen Rindt was a German citizen and is therefore German by nationality. If you want Austria in his infobox you will have to alter the infobox to display racing licence instead of nationality (or perhaps both). It is absolutely correct that Jochen Rindt represented Austria and only Austria during his racing career, but it is absolutely false that he'd ever have been an Austrian national. Therefore to state that his nationality would be Austrian is false. Please alter the in some cases perhaps misleading infobox itself instead of inserting good willing but false informations in the article. Thank you. -134.93.52.128 (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have moved this discussion to the article talk page, where it belongs. I also responded to you on your talk page because that is what we are supposed to do. If you choose to delete that response, that's up to you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: Highway to Hell edit
- I don't see how you think the Vol. 4 source is shaky. Though I think I may have cited the wrong author. Each review in the 1001 albums book is written by a different person, so I just put who wrote the Vol. 4 review. I'm still unclear on how to cite books. The only book I've had no problem citing is "Rock the Rough Guide" which someone used a different version of the book as a source on the 1960s in heavy metal page and I just copied and pasted the way they put down the book and put in the IBSN that my version had. And while on the subject of the 1001 Albums book here's a quote from the Highway to hell review from pg. 424, "Based around the strong guitar Maclom and Angus Young(the man who earned the respect of the metal fraternity worldwide wearing a school uniform and tie on stage), simplistic drum rhythms, and the tough vocal styling of Bon Scott, AC/DC's music is infectious." Would this suffice? Rockgenre (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Highway to Hell is at 18 on the list Metal rules did of the "Top 100 Heavy Metal Albums". Though this list is pretty awful http://www.metal-rules.com/polls/index.php?id=6 Rockgenre (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Of course an album can be bluesy and metal. Most of Sabbaths material is blues based(they even did some straightfoward blues like "The Warning"), as well as Zeppelins. Saying heavy metal has no blues influence I find absurd(no offense). The blues helped give birth to metal. Rockgenre (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I see Sabbath's first album as blues-rock and metal. The album was heavily influenced by Cream(if you want to know what Sabbath sounded before the album see some of their early demos on youtube like "The Rebel", which were much more pop oriented than metal). "The Sleeping Village", "The Warning", and "Wicked World" were definately blues songs. "N.I.B" and the title track though I would call metal. "The Wizard" is kind of a link between both. While on Zeppelin let me say that lots of metal musicians have called them metal. Dave Mustaine, Sebastian Bach, Mikael Akerfeldt, etc., but Zep were a metal band that could play blues and acoustic folk as well. Judas Preist early stuff was mostly bluesy, hard rock and even on their classic albums episode for British Steel Tipton mentioned having some blues in him. Even later groups like Danzig and Down showed some blues. Rockgenre (talk 20:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- A lot of the artists now associated with metal like Sabbath had origins far from metal. Lemmy was doing space rock and psychedelia, Ronnie James Dio had even done rockabilly, Blue Oyster Cult(even though you must likely don't consider them metal) I think originally formed as a psychedelic pop group under a several different names(they had some psych in them, especially on their first album), etc. I'm willing to say that Vincebus Eruptum was heavier than Sabbath's debut. Priests first album I really don't consider full blown metal, rather hard rock with a metal riff here or there. I've always loved "Green Manalishi", especially the original version. Rockgenre (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Whether or not we think an album is metal or not is really not important. I think we should be open minded on these subjects. I don't consider a lot of bands listed as metal on this site,(Primus, Aerosmith, Thin Lizzy, etc.) Albeit both Lizzy and Aerosmith do have one or two songs that definately qualify as metal, I think calling them metal bands is a bit overkill. Deep Purple's early stuff has been compared often to Vanilla Fudge with some prog mixed in there. "April" is one of the best songs from early Purp. In Rock is when I feel they went metal. Flower Travellin' Band were a very heavy Japanese group and they did possibly the first Black Sabbath cover in 1970. I would recomend High Tide's first album(possibley the first prog-metal album), Blue Cheer first few and Iron Butterfly's "Iron Butterfly Theme" is where you can find some early heavy metal. Though Luminifer is most likely right that this isn't the right place to discuss this. Rockgenre (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Senna and Campos edit
I've reversed your reversal of the page on Bruno Senna. You say it's alright to include speculation on the page for Senna because the speculation is in the source - but at the same time, that speculation can't be included on the 2010 page? I'm sure I've seen that Autosport article linked to in the driver table by one of those IP edits that jumped the gun. We had the same conflict with Williams-Cosworth, but I agree with the edit that was ultimtely made: specualtion within a source is still speculation, and if I'd known the article said that, I never would have included it as a source (but I had a poor internet conenction and so never got on to the actual article - I only used the first line as it appeared on Google News). Either Bruno Senna is listed as a Campos driver on his page, the 2010 season page and probably the Campos Grand Prix Page for good measure, or he is listed on none of them. I don't understand how one set of rules can apply to one page, but not to another. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- I still think it's a very fine line - just because you're pointing out that it's speculation doesn't make it anything but speculation. Not to worry, though; I doubt we'll get into a similar situation any time soon. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Move for Campos Grand Prix to Campos Meta edit
Hello. Since your comment on the move for Campos Grand Prix to Campos Meta, there have been several more comments. My question (which I have left for you at the talk page) is: have you changed your mind since your comment? Darth Newdar talk 17:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Then Play On edit
I know it's extra trouble but I'd appreciate notification of cites reqd, particularly when contemplating removal of material. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note and constructive involvement. An edit conflict while adding the reflist reminded me that we are speaking of an article with no prior citations at all. Sometimes, reading articles for casual interest (I had to check around Peter Green re. living person's biographical concerns, subsequently removing a statement from another page), I will make minor style changes, comments etc. on the fly as I go, taking my cue from the level of activity and sourcing present on that page, and a "watch" may seem superfluous in that case. The matter is leading to improvement of the article and the sense of co-operation, which is better than lost valid info and discouragement. Hence my request. Thanks again. Redheylin (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I found books?id=YR2oy8rhUTcC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA32&ots=IswdcG2Igr&dq=macvie+spencer+piano&output=html which carries the report re Sandra Elsdon, which I'll add. It's a printed source but I have to say I do not altogether trust it. Elsewhere wiki states that Horton was in Britain in 1968 and that he recorded with FMac, but no details or cites. The Spencer-piano thing is definitely available on web cos I read it last week. Onward and sideways.... Redheylin (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thin Lizzy edit
Greetings, sir! Thanks for your comments on the Thin Lizzy page! If you want the grammar within this page to be consistent, you need to make a substantial number of alterations to the use of certain terms. Much of the article inaccurately makes use of the words "are", "were", and "their", when referring to the singular subject of Thin Lizzy; indeed, British grammar is most vacuous, in this regard. Yet, my argument is that there exists a plethora of inconsistencies, in which "is", "was", and "its" are used in their place. Please, go through the article and change them all to one form or the other. I don't particularly care which style you choose to implement, since Wikipedia is considerably negligent in its endorsement of genuine scholarship, and arguing over such matters will inevitably prove futile. I only hope that you would be consistent in your misguided applications of grammar. Sorry to sound condescending. I'm a scholar, somewhat vexed by Wikipedia's failure to establish proper specifications for qualified articles. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.215.154.27 (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: Walter Wolf Racing edit
In principle I agree, but these categories are called Formula One drivers by constructor teams, and therefore anyone who drove for that constructor, eg Nelson Piquet in the BS Fabrications McLaren, should be included into these categories. However, Falcadore proposes changing the name of the categories to Formula One drivers by team, which would mean that you are correct. Thanks. WilliamF1two (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Thanks for the constructive discussion. However, I do think that these are really useful categories, and we could definitely create more of them. Thanks. WilliamF1two (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Barnstarring edit
A question, or an idea. Is it just me, and I include myself in this, but have you noticed in the last year have you found that Wiki:motorsport editting has become increasingly confrontational and much less community orientated? It also led me to think that whether I've just been unobservant, but I've never actually seen the awarding of Barnstars to anyone in the motorsport community. While I am aware they have occured, not much is made of them, from what I've seen it almost has been done privately. Perhaps it might help foster a sense of community within group to do a few of them, and to make them more publically acknowledged? --Falcadore (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Like to start with the folks with the F1 Wiki newsletter - lotts work there, and all background, for perhaps not as much reward. Midgrid and CS-Wolves? Unless they've already been showered with barnstars. Maybe GTHO, whose work while a large part has been domestic Australian work, he's also done a lot of work on motoring articles and on international series, F1 and sportscars for the most part, a lot of fine detail and is always researched. Seems to me he adds when he finds research rather than researches for their additions, making his work look haphazard, but laudable for its exhaustiveness and correctness. --Falcadore (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Difference between US English and British english edit
Hey, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US English and British English?! I always believe that if you are talking about a sports team, you should always use are or were, but if you're talking about a INDIVIDUAL ON A SPORTS TEAM, use is or was. You don't say "The Indianapolis Colts was 14-0 in the 2009 season", you say "The Indianapolis Colts WERE 14-0 in the 2009 season"! Also, you say "The Panthers(or any other team that has a plural ending) suck", but when talking about an individual on a sports team, you say "Jake Delhomme sucks(And HE DOES SUCK! LOL)"
YouTubeaholic2009 (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, don't you think there should be 2 seperate Wikipedias, one that has all the articles complying with the rules of US English, and another that complies with the rules of British English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouTubeaholic2009 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks edit
At what is an unbelievably bad time for me, your message of support was very much appreciated. Many, many thanks.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- My pleasure - chin up, mate ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Duuude! edit
I've sent for it to be translated. In the meantime, I suggest watching Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. (And also giving editors more than 3 minutes to find the suitable citation template they've never used before to add a source.) Let's hope we get a support from you when it gets to FAC. Cheers. PRB88 (T) 17:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Snowy White edit
Do you happen to know whether the Jeff Allen who played drums in White's backing band, is the same Jeff Allen who drummed for Hello in the 1970s ? Regards,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I want to become administrator edit
Hello, bretonbanquet I know the two of us don't get along that well. It's me whose wrong every time. But I think I've gained enough experience to become administrator. You're right about the 2010 - present thing. And if I want to make a big edit I should discuss it. I know most of the script. I know how to become admin. But you seem like a wise guy and I want some advice. I also reference whatever I put on. I don't put on rumours. e.g. Kubica moves to renault reference today by me. Hope to see you reply soon (Wiki id2 (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC))
Rumours edit
Duuude, it's up at FAC for your perusal and any feedback. Take some time to comment. Cheers. PRB88 (T) 23:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs edit
Hello Bretonbanquet! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 942 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
- Mark Nauseef - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Karl Oppitzhauser - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Jac Nelleman - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
England/UK edit
Bretonbanquet, in response to a message you left me, it is a fact that England is a country within the UK. Changing England to UK reduces the amount of information on the page, as a person can very easily click the link to work out England is in the UK, but not by clicking UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.148.215 (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- England is not an independent country. All this stuff has been worked out through consensus and long discussion - if you want to try and change the consensus, please start a discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Clap Clap your right. But there is a difference between independent country and country.England is a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.148.215 (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is a difference, and independent countries are the only ones that are relevant in this case. Do you think you might learn how to sign your comments at some point? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure removing UK from articles, or England, is helpful. Arguably each of them is redundant, but reverting their inclusion - however unhelpful the contributions of the editor adding it may be - seems equally unhelpful. Having both seems to be the obvious - not to mention accurate - solution to many of these issues. --Nickhh (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is a difference, and independent countries are the only ones that are relevant in this case. Do you think you might learn how to sign your comments at some point? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Clap Clap your right. But there is a difference between independent country and country.England is a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.148.215 (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Bonnier edit
Thanks for fixing that error in Bonnier's non-championship results table. Some of the other chassis in that table are also questionable - the table shows him driving a Brabham BT11 in all six of non-WDC races he contested in 1964 but the race reports show him driving a Cooper-Climax for the first five of those. I'll check/fix the table later today (but have no objections if you want to do it sooner). Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Go team! :-) DH85868993 (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Petrov edit
It might not be confirmation from the team, but we used something similar for Jose Maria Lopez. Will Buxton might not quote sources directly, but he is the editor of GP Week magazine, so he clearly knows people in the industy and is not someone who is easily taken for a ride, like Joe Saward. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I disagreed about Lopez too, I just didn't say anything. It was the same with the Heidfeld hype, and he hasn't gone anywhere yet. This stuff just isn't reliable enough, regardless of who the journo is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
GA reassessment of Bon Scott edit
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Bon Scott/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
? edit
Could you please explain what references I have removed? 82.1.157.16 (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)