Mschumacher69
thescuderia.net link edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I removed the links because forums and fan sites are generally not considered helpful to readers of an encyclopedia; see Wikipedia:External links for suggestions on links which might be more appropriate. Thanks for your contributions and I hope you decide to stay! — Dan | Talk 03:25, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
Possibly unfree Image:Crissy Moran.jpg edit
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Crissy Moran.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC) --Sdrtirs (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Per a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#F1 Team Templates, the two templates you recently created have been redirected to the existing template, Template:F1 team. The two templates you created are redundant and add no new information that is not already presented by the existing template. Template:F1 team will be modified in 2 weeks anyway to eliminate information from 2008, so the information on Honda which is currently on the Brawn template will not remain. The359 (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Mschumacher. We seem to be starting an edit war over the chronology of that Archer episode. Let me just explain myself, though, because I truly distaste edit wars and arguments altogether. As you have noted yourself, the episode is the series' pilot; as such, it is the first episode, no? It does not matter if it was officially aired as the second episode, because that was merely a rerun of it as it previously aired during an unannounced preview. Even though it has been billed by the network as its second episode, it is still indeed the pilot, so saying that it is the pilot episode and then saying its the second is just cooky, no? I hope this explains the situation, so we can just cease what is becoming an edit war and continue improving the wiki. :) Cheers, The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 16:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Let me start by saying that I completely understand your point and find your argument extremely solid. However, I believe you are false by saying it is not the first episode. Because—simply put—if this is the pilot episode, it is by definition the first episode, no? It was both produced and broadcast first, and while "Training Day" may have been billed as the pilot, I believe definitely so FX might just be false by doing such. If you look at "Rollercoaster," the first episode of Phineas and Ferb, you'll see it was the first produced episode and also aired as the pilot. Then, the series officially premiered with the episode "Flop Starz." Media resources all reported this as the pilot and such, but as if the fact that it aired first and was produced first was not enough, the creators themselves called it the pilot and a special on the DVD clearly labeled it as the first episode. This is a similar case; accept, reporters are actually calling it the pilot. The TV Squad review's title even says "series premiere"! So, I am still pretty positive we should chronolog it as the first episode and not put "Training Day" preceding it in the infobox. :) The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 22:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Classic Team Lotus edit
With moving pages to new names it is ok to move the pages if it is clear cut. If the move has any potential to be considered controversial at all, then it must go through discussion prior to to see if it is the best solution. Grabbing and moving Team Lotus to Classic Team Lotus, then altering Team Lotus to a redirect of Lotus Racing was an enormously destructive move. It then meant that every link in wikipedia pointing to Team Lotus, including all the 1950s, 60s, 70, 80s and 90s Formula One article now pointed to the Lotus Racing page, which of course was completely inaccurate.
Surely you understood this was going to be a controversial move which some would oppose.
The guideline for moving pages can be found Wikipedia:Moving a page - you may wish to particularly note the section titled Before moving a page for what to do in the event of a controversial move. --Falcadore (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! edit
Hello, Mschumacher69. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message edit
Hello, Mschumacher69. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)