Edit filter log

'{| class="infobox" width="150" |- align="center" | [[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]] '''[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]''' ---- |- align="center" | [[/Archive 1|1]] [[/Archive 2|2]] [[/Archive 3|3]] |} ==Barnstarring== Yes, I agree. Things get considerably confrontational quite quickly and quite often, in my experience. I'm not sure why this is, or whether other WikiProjects suffer the same problems. But certainly there aren't enough barnstars handed out among us, especially given that there are a few WPF1 chaps who do an enormous amount of work, some of it very tedious. I've given out one or two in the past, but maybe we should, as a group, be a bit more liberal with them - good call. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet|talk]]) 23:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC) :Those guys seem like a good place to start, and I'd add DH85868993 to that, since he seems to do a lot of the picky, boring work that I keep telling myself I should do. Those are guys whose edits I never feel the need to check. I'm a bit busy over Christmas but I will start handing out barnstars from now on, making sure those guys get covered. I sometimes see others who I think deserve one, and instead of making a mental note, I'll just award. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet|talk]]) 00:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC) :: I'll do some if you like. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 01:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC) :::Cool, I'll watch out for them and award some later when I get a bit more time :) [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet|talk]]) 01:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC) ==Driver Renames== Sorry, you are quite right, I will do my best to find and change all of the links. (Not sure I know how to get a bot to do it). [[User:Officially Mr X|Officially Mr X]] ([[User talk:Officially Mr X|talk]]) 10:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC) :Try the link '''What links here''', in the toolbox on the left of screen. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 12:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC) ::With all due respect, that is going to take ages. How can one create a 'Bot' to do all this for me for [[Simon Wills (racing driver)]], [[Kevin Bartlett (racing driver)]], [[Steve Owen (racing driver)]], [[Andrew Jones (racing driver)]] and [[Frank Gardner (racing driver)]]? [[User:Officially Mr X|Officially Mr X]] ([[User talk:Officially Mr X|talk]]) 12:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC) :::As I said to [[User:DH85868993]]: The way I see it now, does it really matter that the links aren't the same as the page name? Surely the links will just redirect so it is only a minor problem and if I'm honest, not really worth my while to correct for the sake of asthetic perfection over functional use. There is no point in reverting it because it is better that all pages are named Driver (racing driver) for people searching the name in the search box. Without seeming uselessly lazy, I say just leave it as it is unless a simple way to amend the situation can be found. [[User:Officially Mr X|Officially Mr X]] ([[User talk:Officially Mr X|talk]]) 12:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC) ::::How can it slow accessing page time? It takes less than a second most of the time. I don't see how it can be such a big issue. I will correct the links whenever I come across any. [[User:Officially Mr X|Officially Mr X]] ([[User talk:Officially Mr X|talk]]) 14:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC) == [[Paul Stokell]] == Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biography of a living person]]: '''[[Paul Stokell]]'''. Our [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability policy]] requires that all content be [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|cited]] to a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]]. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --[[User:LaraBot|LaraBot]] ([[User talk:LaraBot|talk]]) 00:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC) == Flagicons == Without wanting to go into all the whys and why nots, I've always been of the opinion that it looks neater and more organised when editing to have the 3 letter system, although I am aware it makes no difference to the article. As a result, for the most part I simply tend to code country names when I come across them. [[User:Officially Mr X|Officially Mr X]] ([[User talk:Officially Mr X|talk]]) 14:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC) == TRS as F3 == I saw your answer but TRS is not a Formula Three Serie, this serie is runing a 1.8 liter without restrictor. To be considered as a Formula Three Serie, the cars used must follow the FIA rules. By the way the "Chilean Formula Three championship" cannot be considered as a Formula Three serie. Since 1972 this championship did not follow any of the Formula Three regulations. [[User:Danilowski|Danilowski]] ([[User talk:Danilowski|Danilowski]]) 23:23, 3 January 2010(UTC) :The Tatuus car is a Formula 3 car. Several Formula 3 series do not or have not run the open two litre engine specs. A control engine version of F3 is not even remotely unusual. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 23:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC) ::Many other Tatuus build one make class chassis such as Formula Renault (FR2000), Formula Challenge Japan and Formula Master are just as much F3 as TRS as well as many other single seaters by other manufacturers (for example Mygale FBMW). These series, how ever, are not considered as Formula Three series. ::The difference between series like FCJ, TRS etc and the ones like European F3 Open, Italian F3 and South American F3 is, that the "control engine version of F3" use actual F3 chassis that are/were used in traditional multi-make F3 championships too. Another difference is the fact that series like TRS don't even claim to be F3! ::I'm also quite sure that the Tatuus cars don't comply all the F3 chassis rules (at least not the current ones). [[Special:Contributions/91.155.238.81|91.155.238.81]] ([[User talk:91.155.238.81|talk]]) 11:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC) :::The Toyota Racing Series website says it does. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 13:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC) ::::Do you mean this: http://www.toyotaracing.co.nz/flash/carSpecs.swf ? It refers to the monocoque (which is build to FIA F3 safety requirements) only. That doesn't make it a Formula 3 car. [[Special:Contributions/91.155.238.81|91.155.238.81]] ([[User talk:91.155.238.81|talk]]) 14:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC) :::::http://www.toyotaracing.co.nz/Default.aspx?pageid=5 Chassis: FIA F3. Seems pretty clear. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 15:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC) The situation is difficult, and it could be possible to try to convince you. '''1''' As it has been said, TRS does not claim to be F3: but it is only your personnal opinion to write in Wikipedia that TRS is a F3 serie. The TRS chassis is build to the FIA F3 safety spec, which is easier for Toyota to have TRS approved as a National Formula by the FIA. From a regulation point of view TRS does not follow the appendix J of the FIA Formula 3 regulation: 2.7.2 Engine and gearbox must be homologated by their respective manufacturers, which is not the case for TRS 4.1 For F3 the minimum car weigth must not be below 540kg, TRS is at 480kg 5.4.1 Each engine must be homologated by the FIA, and describe on homologation form for F3 engines, which is not the case of TRS 5.4.5 The intake system is free but must be fitted with an air restrictor, 3 mm long and having a 26 mm max diameter, which is not the case of TRS 5.4.14 Variable valve timing is forbidden is F3, TRS has one 5.11 The only engine control unit which may be used is the one specified by FIA, not the case of TRS '''2''' From a performance point of view,there is a big difference between a Formula 3 chassis and the Tatuus chassis. I had the chance to work on Dallara Formula 3 cars and on Formula Renault 2000 and 2.0 with the Tatuus chassis, I had also the chance recently to have a look to the new Formula Fiat Abarth with the Tatuus chassis, and I can assure that the Dallara F3 chassis has a higher stiffness than the Tatuus one. There is also a big difference in term of downforce created under the car, which gives to the F3 a big advantage. I would also point on the fact that nobody tried to race the Tatuus chassis in any Formula Three race. '''3''' It is strange that you have no doubt even when two different guys try to explain the same thing '''4''' As a conclusion I would say that TRS is a "National Formula" as defined by the Fia, like Formula Renault, Formula Challange Japan, Formula Master, Formula Fiat Abarth, etc; [[User:Danilowski|Danilowski]] ([[User talk:Danilowski|Danilowski]]) 22:15, 4 January 2010(UTC) ::::::Well, if you've got it all with references why aren't you adding it to the article? Article comes before the edittors. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 11:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Dear Falcadore, May I ask you a personnal question? what is your technical knowledge in motorsport and what kind of experience do you have? Best regards. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Danilowski|Danilowski]] ([[User talk:Danilowski|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Danilowski|contribs]]) 08:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> :Depends on what you mean by technical. I'm not a mechanic or a racing engineer if that's what you mean. Who's the 'two'? --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 10:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC) As you are described as an expert by [[User:Officially Mr X|Officially Mr X]], I wanted to know from where was coming your knowledge in motorsport. [[User:Danilowski|Danilowski]] ([[User talk:Danilowski|talk]] 11:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC) :I've no idea what he has said about me. I work part-time in motorsport on the media & officialdom side of things, but I've never claimed to be a mechanical expert. I work with plenty who are and lean on them when I need additional information. :You can understand how cautious inspect the unreferenced work of unfamiliar edittors. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 11:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC) ::I'm having a longer look at the above, and I'm concerned by some of the above which does not seem to tally. ::Comparisons between Dallara chassis and Tatuus chassis is not necessarily that releveant. Also that Tatuus has not raced against Dallaras in F3 is also not neccessarily relevant. Dallara's competance within F3 has scared away comparions for a decade now, various potential rivals, Van Diemen, Lola, Ralt, etc had built cars that have been uncompetitive and have disappeared within a year. If the Tatuus chassis was built to F3 standards and specification then its not relevant that its not competitive against the Dallara as a spec racing series you can't use Dallaras in TRS. ::If the Tatuus is not based an F3, then that's a good reason, find a reference that the TRS car was built to different specifications and we'll be fantastic. ::Leaving TRS aside for a moment - the Chilean F3 series is decades old, is it your contention that Chilean F3 has never used F3 cars, or only currently do not? Going be fading memory Chilean F3 evolved out of the SudAmerica series and has drifted away over time, but that history should still be recognised, so the deletion of F3 referencing regarding the Chilean series should done on the basis of relevancy to the time period concerned. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 07:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC) The FIA Formula 3 regulation is for car(chassis+engine), in order to have a Formula Three car, your car must be in line with the chassis + engine rule. The fact that the TRS chassis, is designed to fullfill the Formula 3 safety rules does not mean that TRS is a Formula Three. The Formula Renault has a chassis built to FIA Formula 3 safety spec, but nobody is claiming that Formula Renault is a Formula Three. I remind you that TRS web site does not claim that TRS is a Formula 3 but the TRS chassis has been designed up to Formula 3 safety rules. '''Peharps to close the discussion, it would better to have confirmation from Toyota New Zealand, if they claim TRS is a Formula Three.''' The Chilean F3 is not derivated from the Sudamerica serie, and was never run under the same regulation, and also the Chilean Formula 3 did not follow any F3 rules even an old one. As I understand the memory side of that, it would good to keep only a link to the Chilean Formula 3 page, for reference, saying that it is called Formula 3, even if it is not following any FIA rules. [[User:Danilowski|Danilowski]] ([[User talk:Danilowski|talk]] 14:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC) You have to take into account that writing in wikipedia is not for glory, but to share your knowledge with readers who come to find some information, '''so everything you write has to be true''', and must be real facts and not interpretation of what your read on web. [[User:Danilowski|Danilowski]] ([[User talk:Danilowski|talk]] 20:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC) :OK I really don't understand what you mean by that last, but I have to ask, how far from the strict definition of FIA F3 can any F3 series stray in your opinion, before it ceases to be F3? --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 02:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC) It is easy to define a Formula 3, you take the FIA Formula 3 regulation, and the reg must be applied to the full car . For example, if you want to enter a car in the British or Japanese Formula 3 championship or Euroserie (which are fully in line with FIA reg), the car has to be 100% compliant. It means that a TRS car would be rejected because weight, engine and gearbox are outside the spec. A car from the Spanish (Euro open) or Italian Formula 3 championship will be accepted in the British championship because even if the engine is a spec one, it is following the FIA rules. So be short, '''In 2009, a Formula 3 car is a car which would be accepted in one of 3 championships following the 2009 FIA rules (British, Japanese and Euroserie).''' The case of the Sudam championship is a little more complex, because since there is a Berta spec engine (without inlet restrictor), the cars are not 100% compliant anymore. Chassis and gearbox are in spec, the engine is a 2 liter derivated from a production engine (Ford) but without the inlet restrictor. The Berta engine is not homologated as F3 engine by the FIA, but could be homologated with an inlet restrictor (which does not mean that it would be at the right level in front of the competitors but that's an an other question). So in order to be precise, there must a comment in the Formula 3 page, concerning this point for Sudam. If I can express here, a personal opinion, as Brazil want to organize an international Formula 3 race and if they want to be successfull to have foreign entries, it is possible to expect that Sudam could be back to full FIA rules. In order to explain what I mean with so everything you write has to be true, I must have written everything we write has to be true. If you think to the reader who does not know anything about Formula 3 but who wants to have information on the subject, the presence, without any comment, of the Chilean Formula 3 championship in the Formula 3 page would let him think that this serie is a Formula 3 one (in line with the FIA regulation), which is not true. [[User:Danilowski|Danilowski]] ([[User talk:Danilowski|talk]] 06:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC) :So you would claim that the Australian Formula 3 series is not fully complaint? You would claim it is not a Formula 3 series? --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 06:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Do you have the Australian Formula 3 regs? [[User:Danilowski|Danilowski]] ([[User talk:Danilowski|talk]] 06:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC) :[http://www.camsmanual.com.au/sportregs/2009_Aust_F3_SportTechComm_Regs_v3.pdf] --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 06:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Thank you very much, it is very interesting. If you look page 13, it shows that the 3 classes of cars are fully following the article 275 appendix J of the FIA regulation for Formula 3, valid for cars manufactured between 1st January 1999 and 31 December 2007. The Australian F3 cars would be admitted in the National class of the British championship. In fact the only diffence between British, Japanese and Euroseire on side and the Australian Formula 3 champiosnhip, is just the fact that cars manfactured after the 31st Decemebr 2007 are not admitted in Australia. To be clear, the Australian Formula 3 championship follows the FIA regulation, and must be considered as a Formula 3 serie. One little point, I do not understand why only the cars manufactured in 2001 are not obliged to use the spec ECM. [[User:Danilowski|Danilowski]] ([[User talk:Danilowski|talk]] 09:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC) :The older cars have the older engines. There are a lot of cars not doing the rounds, so cost cutting would be a part of it. That and a large number of older F3 chassis are being converted to AF2 and Formula R specification because AF3 is too expensive to run. And running against '07 cars with the good HWA motors isn't so fun as it could be. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 02:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Running a Formula 3 is expensive, it is also the reason why national Formula as Formula Renault, FCJ, TRS etc are attractive as the performance/cost ratio is better for these national series for people who are not on the way to Formula 1. What is Formula R? [[User:Danilowski|Danilowski]] ([[User talk:Danilowski|talk]] 08:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC) :Formula R is a mix of former Formula 3 and Australian Formula 2 (no relation to F2) chassis (mostly Dallaras and Cheetahs) running a low specification Golf engine. Intended to be a very cheap wings/slicks category, and a method of running AF2 more cheaply. Prolifierated when a second ASN needed an open wheel category for its national racing series. Named for Terry Robertson who at one stage owned more than half the cars in the series. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 09:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC) One question: from different sources, and mainly from "the Formula 3 survey" by Karl-Friedrich Katabian, it appears that Australian Formula 3 serie would have started in 1997. Would do you know about that? [[User:Danilowski|Danilowski]] ([[User talk:Danilowski|talk]] 12:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC) :Australian Formula 3 dates back into the 1960s. The original Formula 3 was a local category, a downward evolution of Australian Formula 2, in turn downwards from AF1 - which was the Tasman Formula. Formula 3 as we know it today was introduced in 1989, originally to bolster fading grids of Australian Formula 2, which used F3 chassis anyway. By 1997 there were sufficient numbers of F3s to run their own series. It graduated to Australian Championship status in 1999. In 2005 Formula 3 replaced the fading Formula Holden as the category carryhing the Australian Drivers' Championship, to which the winner is awarded the Gold Star. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 23:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC) ==Unreferenced BLPs== [[File:Information.svg|30px]] Hello Falcadore! Thank you for your contributions. I am a [[WP:BOT|bot]] alerting you that '''12''' of the articles that you created are tagged as[[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources| Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons]]. The [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]] policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure [[WP:VERRIFY|verifiability]], all biographies should be based on [[WP:RELIABLE|reliable sources]]. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current ''[[:Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs|{{PAGESINCATEGORY:All_unreferenced_BLPs}}]]'' article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{tl|unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list: # <del>[[David 'Skippy' Parsons]]</del> - <small>{{findsources|David 'Skippy' Parsons}}</small> {{Done}} # <del>[[Peter McLeod]]</del> - <small>{{findsources|Peter McLeod}}</small> {{Done}} # <del>[[Graeme Bailey]]</del> - <small>{{findsources|Graeme Bailey}}</small> {{Done}} # <del>[[Alfredo Costanzo]]</del> - <small>{{findsources|Alfredo Costanzo}}</small> {{Done}} # <del>[[Armin Hahne]]</del> - <small>{{findsources|Armin Hahne}}</small> {{Done}} # [[George Fury]] - <small>{{findsources|George Fury}}</small> # [[John French (racing driver)]] - <small>{{findsources|John French (racing driver)}}</small> # [[Bob Holden (racing driver)]] - <small>{{findsources|Bob Holden (racing driver)}}</small> # [[George Reynolds (racing driver)]] - <small>{{findsources|George Reynolds (racing driver)}}</small> # [[Midge Bosworth]] - <small>{{findsources|Midge Bosworth}}</small> {{collapsetop|More...}} 11. [[Bill Pitt (racing driver)]] 12. [[Leo Geoghegan]] 13. [[Barry Seton]] 14. [[Steven Johnson (motor racing)]] {{collapsebottom}} Thanks!--[[User:DASHBot|DASHBot]] ([[User talk:DASHBot|talk]]) 06:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC) ==Toyota Racing Series== Thanks very much for getting rid of all those Kiwi flags that I mistakenly added when I put the standings in at 3:50am my time. I know I shouldn't be making excuses, but ''oh well''. <font face="Zemestro">[[User:Cs-wolves|<span style="color:black;background:gold">Cs-wolves</span>]][[User talk:Cs-wolves|<span style="color:red;background:white">(talk)</span>]]</font> 09:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC) ==A reward for your efforts to Australian motorsport== {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Tireless_Contributor_Barnstar.gif|100px]] |rowspan="2" | |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Tireless Contributor Barnstar''' |- |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For continuously providing articles in relation to Australian motorsport to a high standard. <font face="Zemestro">[[User:Cs-wolves|<span style="color:black;background:gold">Cs-wolves</span>]][[User talk:Cs-wolves|<span style="color:red;background:white">(talk)</span>]]</font> 09:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC) |} == Mt -- > Mount at [[Mount Panorama Circuit]]article. == Hi, Regarding your reversion of my edit, which changed some "Mt" references to "Mount". If you check, you'll see that the external references which I changed (Footnotes 15,16 & the Skateboard downhill external link) do indeed refer to "Mount", rather than "Mt", so I've reverted your reversion. Thanks for challenging my edits, you're not the first one to do so ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJohnmc&action=historysubmit&diff=339503960&oldid=278107557]), and genuine Don Chipp efforts to keep me honest are appreciated. [[User:Johnmc|Johnmc]] ([[User talk:Johnmc|talk]]) 01:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC) :You are correct, my apologies. My original error then in thinking I'd written the reference correctly. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 03:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC) == [[Alfredo Costanzo]] == :Moved from [[user:ikip]] As you can see by examining the article - referencing has begun in the last week or so. Is this really neccessary? --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore|talk]]) 04:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC) :Thank you for your message. I appreciate editors such as yourself monitoring wikipedia. I will revert back the article to main space. Thank you again. [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] 04:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC) ::I have been sent a list of 12 articles to work through (as listed above) and am about half-way there. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 04:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC) ==www.therealmountpanorama.com== Do you know where I can get the 1987 Bathurst class 3? (1.6 l) results (apart from Wikipedia)? This is for that [[Bob Holden (racing driver)]] reference. Is http://www.racingsportscars.com/etcc/photo/Bathurst-1987-10-04.html suitable? [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 06:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC) == 2010 V8 Supercar Championship Series/2010 V8 Supercar season == Eh, nevermind. The merge is self-evident and ought to be uncontroversial. Of course I read the pages in detail; I'm a bit baffled that you think I haven't. Have you read them in detail? Many links are broken, pointing to the championship when referring to the season or vice versa. It's a complete nightmare. I started trying to fix it, but the only real solution is to merge the pages. There is so much overlap there is no justification in having them separate in the first place. But if you prefer have it broken I don't have the time or energy to fight it. [[User:EeepEeep|EeepEeep]] ([[User talk:EeepEeep|talk]]) 08:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC) :Sorry I didn't start a discussion; I've never done a merge before and didn't know. I'm certainly not trying to edit wikipedia in isolation, if I were, I would have just done the changes myself rather than starting a merge and seeking help with it. Working in isolation would be cutting off the process before it starts and directing hostile messages to people who are only trying to improve wikipedia. The pages with broken or confusing links are [[2010 V8 Supercar Championship Series|here]], [[2010 V8 Supercar season|here]] and this [[Template:Australian Touring Car Racing|template]]. [[User:EeepEeep|EeepEeep]] ([[User talk:EeepEeep|talk]]) 18:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC) :Oh, and I never suggested merging all three series into one article, that would be ridiculous. [[User:EeepEeep|EeepEeep]] ([[User talk:EeepEeep|talk]]) 18:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC) ::Pretty much every link to [[2010 V8 Supercar Championship Series]] actually points to [[2010 V8 Supercar season]]. If that's "exactly as intended" then this structure is more confused than I previously thought. ::For the way this ought to work, take a look at [[2010 in NASCAR]]. Just links to the series, with distinctly unique article names, no duplication of information or a confusing combined calendar. [[User:EeepEeep|EeepEeep]] ([[User talk:EeepEeep|talk]]) 23:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC) :::They're all over the place. Just try clicking on some of them. For example this [[Template:Australian Touring Car Racing|template]], [[V8Supercar Championship Series]] (should be [[V8 Supercar Championships]], more confusing and inconsistent naming) points to [[V8 Supercars]] and the season links point to the V8 Supercar season pages. Is this really intentional? [[User:EeepEeep|EeepEeep]] ([[User talk:EeepEeep|talk]]) 23:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC) :::At least I think that's supposed to be [[V8 Supercar Championships]]; looking more closely at the 2 pages there's lots of overlap. See what I mean about the structure being confused? [[User:EeepEeep|EeepEeep]] ([[User talk:EeepEeep|talk]]) 23:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC) == You TEST my patience == WILL YOU STOP REMOVING TESTING DETAILS! You are so destructive. If testing was so insignificant why would it get reported on all the time by publications. What is your thing obliterating articles? [[User:Officially Mr X|Officially Mr X]] ([[User talk:Officially Mr X|talk]]) 10:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC) :Quite frankly it is interesting and by putting it on Wikipedia it is in a place where people can easily find it without having to search for ages through backlog news items on various websites. We give them the fastest driver with the link to the results and I think that is worth it for only a slight increase to the length of the article. In the motorsport world, testing is used to give a platform to young drivers, find race drivers for a season, test new parts, act as a venue for car launches, be a media outlet and attract sponsorship from onlooking investors. If testing was so insignificant why would there be such a big thing about the lack of testing, why would they even mention, or be aware of it, if it was so unnotable and lacking in any use. Ultimately we only put anything on here because it is interesting and that someone, somewhere might find what they were looking for and they won't be interested to say "oh I found what I want but what is that information on testing doing there, i better get rid of it so nobody else can ever find it, oh, aren't I doing the right thing". That surely can't be right. We must cater for all and real motorsport fans are often going to want to seeing the testing info and certainly wouldn't see any value in removing it. [[User:Officially Mr X|Officially Mr X]] ([[User talk:Officially Mr X|talk]]) 10:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC) ::The problem is we are removing stuff but not replacing with anything and then comes the complaint that articles are too short. The point i'm making is that what may not be notable to you would be notable to testing officials, to the drivers involved etc. I definitely don't consider [[List of Pokémon]] interesting but its not to say some people don't (talk about a table giving heap loads of statistical information) and it's hardly notable in the real world, surely? What I want to know is where is the balance and the conistency and if that is happening [[List of Pokémon|there]] as a motorsport fan I don't want to be cutting back here on things I feel are important, and I can't be the only one in the world who thinks that. [[User:Officially Mr X|Officially Mr X]] ([[User talk:Officially Mr X|talk]]) 10:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC) :::If they're not motorsport fans then they're not going look at these pages anyway. The point I was making was that [[List of Pokémon]] (which goes into ''so'' much detail) is far less notable than testing. Sometimes I wish you would just stick to creating Australian driver pages. [[User:Officially Mr X|Officially Mr X]] ([[User talk:Officially Mr X|talk]]) 12:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC) == Opinion == I know you've been one of the more vocal members of Motorsport articles on WP regarding the desire for more prose than charts and lists, so I was wondering about having a quick opinion regarding the [[2010 FIA GT1 World Championship season]]. Since it's a new series and I can really start fresh with it, I've been trying hard to make it fit more into the style of season summary that it seems yourself and others want to turn the F1 season articles into. And it is certainly far different from the majority of the season articles I have been doing. So I just wanted to know if you thought this article was heading in a proper direction. [[User:The359|<font color="#004400">The³5₉</font>]] ([[User talk:The359|<font color="#004400"><b>Talk</b></font>]]) 18:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC) == 2010 IndyCar Series Season == I'm tiring of you declassifying [[Richard Antinucci]] and [[Jay Howard]]'s rookie status. Neither have run more than 4 races and neither have competed in the Indy 500. They are ROOKIES. [[Ryan Hunter-Reay]] was classified as a rookie in 2008 even though he ran seven races and didn't contest the Indy 500 in 2007. Please show some critical thinking skills...... <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Aaron5572|Aaron5572]] ([[User talk:Aaron5572|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Aaron5572|contribs]]) 17:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> Ha Ha Flacadore and EeepEeep suck it! Davey hamilton was signed by LDR/de Farren just like I said. == Ford Falcon GT Interceptor reply == {{Talkback|OSX}} == Unreferenced BLPs == G'day Commocon, As you are probably aware, based on the Dashbot message above, there has been a big focus on eliminating unreferenced BLPs from wikipedia. In particular, the [[WP:Australia]] project is trying to eliminate them all as soon as possible (and thereby avoiding as much drama as possible). We started out at around 2000, we are now down to under 500. I see you've done a few, and you're edits to [[Leo Geoghegan]] showed up on my watchlists today. As you probably have knowledge and quicker access to relevant sources, could you see if you could knock off any more on this [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Unreferenced_BLPs#Racecar_drivers|list]]. Thanks a lot, [[User:The-Pope|The-Pope]] ([[User talk:The-Pope|talk]]) 15:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC) ==Eugene Laverty== Yeah I know. But, Laverty does race under the Tricolour. It's something that relates to the political status of which Northern Ireland and Ireland consist of. Parkalgar, Laverty's team, also list him under just Irish, rather than British for a Northern Irish rider such as Jonathan Rea. What makes it more confusing is that the other brothers (John and Michael) race under a British licence. Anyway, I'm off out for the afternoon, so I'll struggle to find more conclusive sources until later on. It's pretty similar to the [[Adam Carroll]] situation with him racing for [[A1 Team Ireland]], but more confusing. Anyway, I bid you farewell for the afternoon. <font face="Zemestro">[[User:Cs-wolves|<span style="color:black;background:gold">Cs-wolves</span>]][[User talk:Cs-wolves|<span style="color:red;background:white">(talk)</span>]]</font> 12:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC) ==Todd Kelly / Mark Skaife== I thought that I would put Skaife in 6th, Kelly 7th and Richo 8th due to the fact that they were very close on points and that Skaife had the most points of them all. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/58.167.85.242|58.167.85.242]] ([[User talk:58.167.85.242|talk]]) 09:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> I thought that I would put Skaife in 6th, Kelly 7th and Richo 8th due to the fact that they were very close on points and that Skaife had the most points of them all. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/58.167.85.242|58.167.85.242]] ([[User talk:58.167.85.242|talk]]) 09:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> Yes I'm aware of that but due to the fact that all 3 were one point apart and I like Skaife more I put him in 6th. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/58.167.85.242|58.167.85.242]] ([[User talk:58.167.85.242|talk]]) 09:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> Yeah but I don't like you <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/58.167.85.242|58.167.85.242]] ([[User talk:58.167.85.242|talk]]) 09:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> Yeah but I'm the ultimate V8 Supercar guy, your just a loser <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/58.167.85.242|58.167.85.242]] ([[User talk:58.167.85.242|talk]]) 09:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> ==[[2011 Formula One season]]== Your IP friend had put Kimi back in the Red Bull team for this year. I replaced the table with the last good version ( from your last edit) but you may want to give it the once over to see that I have it right. [[User:Britmax|Britmax]] ([[User talk:Britmax|talk]]) 16:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC) ==Car racing world championships== You can help us. If you know about Car racing world championships, you should improve this template : [[Template:Main world championships]]. Thank you --[[User:Italodal|Italodal]] ([[User talk:Italodal|talk]]) 04:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC) :Thank you very much! I will update the template soon as possible.--[[User:Italodal|Italodal]] ([[User talk:Italodal|talk]]) 16:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC) == Mike Burgmann == Oh yeah, that's right. Could Brocky go on the list? Does it count if it wasn't broadcatsed? [[User:Dunnybrusher|Dunnybrusher]] ([[User talk:Dunnybrusher|talk]]) 06:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC) ==Formats and templates?== There seems to have been something wrong with the pages you made on the V8 Supercar Championship Series - a glitch with the "align" tags in the beginning infobox made the text grotesquely overflow the margins. I've trimmed these down; mind checking my work? [[User:DragonflySixtyseven|DS]] ([[User talk:DragonflySixtyseven|talk]]) 13:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC) :Been fixing those as I find them. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 17:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC) == 2009 Mini Challenge == Just started the [[2009 Australian Mini Challenge]] series page. Could you help out with the colours for the points score please. I'll fix up a few references in coming days. --[[User:NigelPorter|NigelPorter]] ([[User talk:NigelPorter|talk]]) 06:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC) == <nowiki><br></nowiki> == Hello. Wikipedia uses [[XHTML]] (right click on the page and select "view source") and the proper way to insert a [[newline]] is <nowiki><br /></nowiki>. Check [[XHTML#Common_errors|the relevant section]]. Hope this helps! --'''[[User:Kimon|<font color="black">Kimon</font>]]'''^{[[User Talk:Kimon|<font color="#008080">talk</font>]]} 00:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC) :How is enforcing correct syntax not an answer? I guess correcting typos and spelling is also "millimetric correctness"? --'''[[User:Kimon|<font color="black">Kimon</font>]]'''^{[[User Talk:Kimon|<font color="#008080">talk</font>]]} 01:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC) ==Racist IP edits== You know the slew of racist edits against Lewis Hamilton that we've been getting lately, from the 115... IP addresses? That address is Malaysian, and I noticed this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2009_Chinese_Grand_Prix&diff=prev&oldid=352924161] from a Malaysian user Gokul009, which he swiftly undid with a very lame excuse. I don't want to assume bad faith, but do you think it's the same guy, and he made the vandal edit without realising he was logged in? Do you think it might be worth talking to an admin and getting a [[Wikipedia:CheckUser|Check]] ? [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet|talk]]) 11:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC) :Absolutely. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 11:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC) ::Shall I ask an admin or do you know one who might be up for it? [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet|talk]]) 11:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC) :::I don't know one. Sorry. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 11:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC) ::::No probs, I'll get on to it. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet|talk]]) 12:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC) :::::Good pickup. All I could remember was I hadn't seen that IP in awhile. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 12:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC) ::::::I've asked a CheckUser admin for advice. Will keep you posted. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet|talk]]) 12:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC) :::::::Gokul009 indef blocked, and his IPs are blocked for two weeks. He was even doing it today - at least it gives us a break... [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet|talk]]) 00:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Again, great work for picking it up. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 00:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC) :::::::::Thanks, and thanks for the barnstar!! Much appreciated, cheers :) [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet|talk]]) 01:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC) ==Port Wakefield== Ok, why was it wrong??[[User:HoldenV8|HoldenV8]] ([[User talk:HoldenV8|talk]]) 15:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Are there any records of this? I know the circuit closed in 1961 but do you have any evidence that Brabham & Hunt's time was bettered? If so, why not put it in as a track record instead of just deleting what I contributed and telling me I was wrong? I'm not disputing that the time could have been lowered from 1:03.0 in the six following years as race cars do tend to get faster with development, but where is the proof that their time was beaten? And what's this you mentioned about a 49 second lap time being fantasy? I never wrote anything about that.[[User:HoldenV8|HoldenV8]] ([[User talk:HoldenV8|talk]]) 15:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC) == Formula 1 2010 Season colors in points system table == ''Just stop it OK? The colours do not add anyting to this table, they do not provide any additional explantion,, the key to the colours is much further down in the article, they only thing they are is pretty, and potentially more confusing as the unfamiliar reader has to ask why its there.''<br /> Hey, I'm not being rude when posting those changes. I'm as much intereseted as you to make this article look and be right.<br /> You also agree with me they do add to the aesthetics, and also it really is coherent with the colouring of the standings table. Maybe what is confusing (I assume) is that the table represents points and not positions. Then it colud be right not to mix them up. Although, the table looks really withered. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/200.1.117.15|200.1.117.15]] ([[User talk:200.1.117.15|talk]]) 14:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> <br /> Update note: Every page of every F1 driver has those colours in their GP results, without any references to them. It's not the same table as the points system table, because the latter shows positions and not points; and to mix their references could be confusing. <br />Even though, the driver's results problem still exist. Maybe F1 seasons articles should be presented better, and driver's pages could be kept this way (both as they are).[[User:LehonardEuler|LehonardEuler]] ([[User talk:LehonardEuler|talk]]) 14:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC) == 2009 Chinese Grand Prix == Thanks. I've requested semi-protection. [[User:DH85868993|DH85868993]] ([[User talk:DH85868993|talk]]) 13:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC) == 2001 Australian Grand Prix Points Tables == Hi, you reverted my edit on this article, adding BAR to this table. Why? As the table states - it shows the top ''5'' positions in the championship, and BAR were technically fifth in the WC, as were Minardi the year before. Thanks. [[User:WilliamF1two|WilliamF1two]] ([[User talk:WilliamF1two|talk]]) 16:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC) :Technically it's true, however as they were on zero points it is somewhat of a silly addition as it would need explanation to someone not familiar with the concept that teams that have not scored points can still be ranked. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 16:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC) ::To me, it seems more difficult to understand how something can claim to be the top 5 and only show the top 4. ::I'm going to put this up on [[WP:F1]]'s talk page and see what people think. [[User:WilliamF1two|WilliamF1two]] ([[User talk:WilliamF1two|talk]]) 15:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC) == Motorsport Notability == I can see where your worries stem from. However, I think you might be going about this the wrong way round. What you propose at present is just another type of subjectivity, albeit subjectivity that has been written down. What we need aren't lists of series that conform to some arbitrary assessment of notability. What we need are objective criteria against which a series or independent race can be judged, and which are transferrable between geographic areas and eras. I think prize money is actually a good one to include in this list. Ok, so it isn't so great for the gentlemen racers of the Brooklands era, but for most race series, in Europe as well as North America, the majority of top-level racers since WWII were and are supported in a large part by start money, finishing money, prize money and support in kind from the race promoters. This is not a North American invention. Modern deals (e.g. between FOM and the F1 teams) are extremely opaque so assessing their relative worth compared to the cost of a series is difficult but not impossible. Other criteria like this are what are needed. Criteria including significant coverage for the race or series in independent sources. Defining what constitutes "significant" and "independent" would be a huge help here too. For example, results and occasional five sentence series headline articless in Autosport do not constitute "significant" in motorsport terms. However, a similar length article in a national newspaper might well. Rather than diving in and assigning notability to series based on your gut instinct isn't what we need right now, we need to go back to fundamentals and make these notability criteria robust. '''[[User:Pyrope|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:#92000a">Pyrop</span>]][[User talk:Pyrope|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:#CE2029">e</span>]]''' 03:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC) == 2009 season graphs == Falcadore, please see my [[Talk:2009 Formula One season#2009 Season graphs|comments]] regarding the issue of graphs on the F1 articles. I look forward to your considered response. Many thanks. [[User:Curtholr|Curtholr]] ([[User talk:Curtholr|talk]]) 21:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC) == Surfers Paradise lap record == "qualifying laps do not count towards lap records. Only race laps"? A lap record, is by definition, the fastest lap, which is generally a qualifying lap. This is consistent throughout all forms of motorsport I'm familiar with, and is the convention that is followed on all the racetrack articles here on wikipedia. See [[Grand Prix of Long Beach]] for comparison. [[Special:Contributions/169.233.38.156|169.233.38.156]] ([[User talk:169.233.38.156|talk]]) 04:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC) :Oh, I am also [[User talk:128.114.59.182|128.114.59.182]]. No intent to sock puppet or anything - just editing from different computers. [[Special:Contributions/169.233.38.156|169.233.38.156]] ([[User talk:169.233.38.156|talk]]) 04:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC) ::You're insane. You treat any Australian motorsport article as your own walled garden. Do you really think you're contributing? I've never seen you be anything but be completely destructive. You should seriously seek professional help. No joke. [[Special:Contributions/169.233.38.156|169.233.38.156]] ([[User talk:169.233.38.156|talk]]) 05:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC) == Deleted article == Hi Falcadore. Thanks for letting me know about that. I'll have to give it some thought, this seems to be a borderline case - the article I deleted contained only the letter "A", as such the two aren't really comparable. I'll definitely weigh in with an opinion though. Best wishes, [[User:Rje|Rje]] ([[User talk:Rje|talk]]) 16:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC) == Mark Larkham == [[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|left|48px|]]<!-- use [[Image:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|48px|]] for YELLOW flag --> {{Quote box | quote = You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the [[Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0|Article Wizard]].''''' | source = Thank you. | width = 20% | align = right }} A tag has been placed on [[:Mark Larkham]] requesting that it be [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedily deleted]] from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the [[WP:CSD#Articles|criteria for speedy deletion]], articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please [[Wikipedia:Notability|see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable]]. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the [[WP:Your first article|guide to writing your first article]]. If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> to the top of the article ('''just below''' the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on '''[[Talk:Mark Larkham|the article's talk page]]''' explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for ''speedy'' deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)|for biographies]], [[WP:WEB|for web sites]], [[WP:BAND|for bands]], or [[WP:CORP|for companies]]. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.<!-- Template:Nn-warn --> [[User:Gezzza|Gerry]] ([[User talk:Gezzza|talk]]) 08:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Tony Longhurst Racing did win the Australian 2.0 Litre Touring Car Championship in 1994 but I forgot to add that.[[User:HoldenV8|HoldenV8]] ([[User talk:HoldenV8|talk]]) 05:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC) == Flag for Europe == You reversed my change to the EU flag for the European Grand Prix, refering to a previous consensus. Where can I find that consensus? There is a EU flag at [[European Grand Prix]], shouldn't that be changed too? Isn't it enough that there is a Spanish flag at the list of circuits above the results lists? [[User:John Anderson|<span style="color:white;background:#002868">John&nbsp;</span>'''<span style="color:#BF0A30;background:white">Anderson</span>''']] ([[User talk:John Anderson|talk]]) 05:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC) :Might take a while to find but this argument has been thrashed out, more than once. The problem isn't so much the European Grand Prix, but other supranational Grands Prix, for example the Pacific Grand Prix. There is no analogue to the European Union, and the closest example does not include Japan as a member nation. Then there are sub-national Grands Prix like Ceasar's Palace Grand Prix. Eventually it was thrashed out an accepted that the host nation was a preferred indicator. I'll try to dig out the last time it was thrashed out of the archives but do not expect a quick response. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 06:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC) ::Well, for subnational grands prix I know we are using the national flag, so that's not an issue as I see it. Of course there are problems with what flag to give to the Pacific Grand Prix, or for that matter to the European Grand Prix in the pre-war years, when the present European flag didn't yet exist. While the Pacific GP has always been held in Japan, the European GP has changed host countries more than once, so I think it could be a point in being consistent and having the same flag every year. I'm looking forward to see what you dig up; take your time, there's no rush. [[User:John Anderson|<span style="color:white;background:#002868">John&nbsp;</span>'''<span style="color:#BF0A30;background:white">Anderson</span>''']] ([[User talk:John Anderson|talk]]) 11:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC) :::The point was, same for all with supernational, subnational, or national. A single criteria, rather than a custom criteria because we feel like using the European Union flag. :::Anyway here is one: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One/Archive_22#Which_flag_for_the_Pacific_Grand_Prix.3F] --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 11:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC) ::::That's an interesting discussion to read, even if it is loooong... However, at the end, it seems no consensus was reached. ::::I can see the point in not using the European flag for the European Grand Prix. I have always been of the opinion myself, that it could be better to use a flaglike icon with a map of Europe to represent European things which have no direct connection to the EU or the Euroepan Council. However, I think the flag with the stars is better to represent the European GP than the flag of Spain, even if the race will take place in Spain this year. [[User:John Anderson|<span style="color:white;background:#002868">John&nbsp;</span>'''<span style="color:#BF0A30;background:white">Anderson</span>''']] ([[User talk:John Anderson|talk]]) 05:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC) ::::I would prefer something like this: {{flagicon|Europe map}}. What do you think? [[User:John Anderson|<span style="color:white;background:#002868">John&nbsp;</span>'''<span style="color:#BF0A30;background:white">Anderson</span>''']] ([[User talk:John Anderson|talk]]) 05:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC) :::::It was one of many such discussions, held over a few years now, and in the absense of a consensus being reached the previous consensus remained. Just because a new discussion does not achieve a consensus does not invalidate previous consensus discussions. Digging through the archives to find many such long winded discussions is not something I'me very interested in. We achieved this level of stability and having it upset, AGAIN, is something I'm actively disinterested in. :::::Personally I do not like the little map. I much prefer host nation for a variety of reasons, including the local authorities that run the races are the the local national authorities, not any such fictional pan-european authority. Much in the same way I would prefer the San Marino Grand Prix to display under the Italian flag as it is nonsense to suggest that San Marino does any organising towards what was always a second Italian GP, but I know I'm not going to win that debate. :::::The other drama involved is all of the other series that raced on the support card for these oddly named GPs were acquiring European flags for their races even though the European GP nomenclature belonged specifically to Formula One. :::::Even supposing a consensus did not exist, I would not support this amendment. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 06:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC) ::::::Well, but if you claim there is a consensus to change from having the EU flag to have the flag of the host nation instead, I think you should be able to point to it. Because what I did, was to reinstate the EU flag which has been there before. I can't remember the host nation flag was the original or the former consensus flag icon for this GP. [[User:John Anderson|<span style="color:white;background:#002868">John&nbsp;</span>'''<span style="color:#BF0A30;background:white">Anderson</span>''']] ([[User talk:John Anderson|talk]]) 10:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC) :::::::[[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One/Archive_22#Use_of_Flags]]. Basically other than one edittor stirring the pot that issue has been stable for a year with everyone involved working along these lines. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 13:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC) == 2010 Formula One season == Care to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010_Formula_One_season&diff=365453490&oldid=365448472 explain]? --[[Special:Contributions/78.34.238.130|78.34.238.130]] ([[User talk:78.34.238.130|talk]]) 16:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC) :To match previous seasons. While I understand part of your point, there are plenty of links to report articles, five (each) in all, a sixth set of report links are unneccessary. Deleting one column would be preferable. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 20:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC) ::"To match other articles" is not a valid argument. Regarding the point about the other links, it's also not a valid argument since the links are all inside the section [[2010 Formula One season#Results and standings|Results and standings]] in the bottom half of the article. Two links each are at the top and bottom of the [[2010 Formula One season#Drivers|Drivers]] and [[2010 Formula One season#Constructors|Constructors]] tables. Feel free to remove those if you think the total number of links to each article is a problem in and of itself.<p>Regardless, links to the 2010 reports would make a lot sense in the [[2010 Formula One season#2010 calendar|2010 calendar]] section; and definitely more sense than two links to the main GP article directly next to each other in the same table.<p>However, you get my point, and I get yours: You just don't want it changed, commonsense and the better of the project be damned. With editors like you, who needs vandals. Now have fun with your article ownership. --[[Special:Contributions/78.34.204.254|78.34.204.254]] ([[User talk:78.34.204.254|talk]]) 21:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC) :::Fine, shower me with abuse. There is still the other point. There are already five sets of links to report articles. How does adding a sixth set improve anything? Does pointing out that you missed five sets of report links offend you to the point that you feel personal abuse is justified? :::I also offerred you a solution that did not reflect the status quo, satisfying your desire for change, and yet you feel abusing me was a better methord of spending your time. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 02:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC) :::Yes, "To match other articles" is a valid argument in this case. We have loads of formula one and other motorsport season articles. If we should change the format, we should change all of these articles and if the change is not an improvement it is much work for no good. [[User:John Anderson|<span style="color:white;background:#002868">John&nbsp;</span>'''<span style="color:#BF0A30;background:white">Anderson</span>''']] ([[User talk:John Anderson|talk]]) 08:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Cool. I honestly didn't know that.![[User:HoldenV8|HoldenV8]] ([[User talk:HoldenV8|talk]]) 23:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC) == Albert Park circuit map == If the only change was the direction, it would be a snap to make a special map. However, if the layout changed, I need to be able to see it in Google Earth before I can successfully reproduce it. So if they tore out those roads, I would be out of luck. That's the problem at Riverside, California. The track is completely gone. :( [[User:Will Pittenger|Will]] <small>([[User talk:Will Pittenger|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Will Pittenger|contribs]])</small> 04:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC) :Well, the important thing is that the pavement is still there. If the road was moved, I might not be able to do it. [[User:Will Pittenger|Will]] <small>([[User talk:Will Pittenger|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Will Pittenger|contribs]])</small> 19:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC) == You are now a Reviewer == [[File:Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png|right|130px]] Hello. Your account has been granted the "<tt>reviewer<tt>" userright, allowing you to to [[WP:Reviewing|review other users' edits]] on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a [[WP:Pending changes|a two-month trial]] at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC). Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not [[wp:autoconfirmed|autoconfirmed]] to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious [[WP:VAND|vandalism]] or [[WP:BLP|BLP violations]], and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see [[Wikipedia:Reviewing process]]). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found [[WP:Pending changes|here]]. If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. <!-- Template:Reviewer-notice --> [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 17:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC) == BP Sponsorships == A corporate cat can be useful for readers interested in understanding what sporting and social activities a company supports. That being said, it looks like I got carried away with [[Paul Morris Motorsport]] because Castrol/BP only supports the one car not the overall topic and a number of other company sponsors are mentioned. I removed the cat from that article. Thanks for your feedback; I'm always happy to review any of my edits.[[User:RevelationDirect|RevelationDirect]] ([[User talk:RevelationDirect|talk]]) 10:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC) == Toyota Camry Hybrid == Hi, I though you might be interested in voting in this discussion [[Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid#Restoring this article]]. You particiapated in a discussion [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 22#Dedicated articles for "mainstream" vehicles with hybrid drivetrains|here]] earlier this year. Regards. <small>[[User:OSX|OSX]] ([[User talk:OSX|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OSX|contributions]])</small> 08:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC) == Why are countries not important? == Flags are one thing, but what do you have against listing the countries? Please add your thoughts at [[Talk:List of Formula One circuits#Column for countries]]. [[User:John Anderson|<span style="color:white;background:#002868">John&nbsp;</span>'''<span style="color:#BF0A30;background:white">Anderson</span>''']] ([[User talk:John Anderson|talk]]) 12:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC) :Or since you've asked here, I can reply here. My objection was specifically to the flags, and the overuse thereof, which is a favourite external criticism of WP:Motor articles from other WP edittors and is a specific point which on a number of occasions, has prevented motorsport articles progression to higher status, B Class, FA class etc. At some level we should respond to this by not using flags frivolously and this is an instance where the flag do nothing other than act as decoration, the country and wikilink sit right next to them. :The other part of your criticism, yeah, my bad removing both flag and country link, although with very few exceptions, the name of the grand prix gives an indication to country location. :But reall my specific objection was to the flags. They are overused and in this instance add nothing other than a splash of colour which is something specifically against [[WP:MOSFLAGS]]. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 12:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC) ==Your user page== Falcadore, it's your user page and you're not doing anything against policy that I can see. My suggestion is merely aimed at improving it and you are free to ignore if you wish. Re your "articles created" list, how about making a subpage and listing them there. You can add a link to the subpage on your user page, and if you want to keep an eye on them, link to related changes also on your user page. To see what I mean, on my user page theres a table in the "about me" section. Click on the words "Article's I've created" to see my list of articles created or worked on. Return to my user page and click on the words "or worked upon" to see how I keep a weather eye on them. Of course, this method doesn't watch talk pages, and I do have a small number of articles on my watchlist where I can do that, but I think having something like 3k articles on my watchlist would be a bit excessive. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 11:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC) == Sandown map == Sorry. The infield section was torn out. I could clearly see where it met the surviving track. I tried to use the historical imagery option in Google Earth, but the oldest image they had of the track showed a horse racing track there instead. The infield part was already gone. [[User:Will Pittenger|Will]] <small>([[User talk:Will Pittenger|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Will Pittenger|contribs]])</small> 05:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC) :Your GIF links were blank images. [[User:Will Pittenger|Will]] <small>([[User talk:Will Pittenger|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Will Pittenger|contribs]])</small> 06:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC) ==1971 ADC== Hi. Regarding the question of where John McCornack finished in the 1971 ADC, my source is the Australian Motor Racing Annual 1972 - page 40 (published by Sport Magazine Pty Ltd). It disagrees with your table of results for Round 4 (Sandown) having Bartlett getting 9 points for a win and Max Stewart 0 points. This result is confirmed in Racing Car News October 1971 (page 69). So the final points are: Max Stewart 23, Bartlett 22, Hamilton 22, McCormack fourth with 21 and Tony Stewart 16. See table below: {| class="wikitable" style="font-size: 95%;" |- | M.Stewart | 6 | 9 | 3 | | 1 | 4 | 23 |- | Bartlett | 9 | | 4 | 9 | | | 22 |- | Hamilton | 4 | 6 | 6 | | | 6 | 22 |- | McCormack | | | | 6 | 6 | 9 | 21 |- | T.Stewart | 3 | 3 | | | 9 | 1 | 16 |- |} Hope this helps. --[[User:Marcusaurelius161|Marcusaurelius161]] ([[User talk:Marcusaurelius161|talk]]) 05:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC) == Logo of Matra == Please could you help me, I want to insert a logo of Matra company into article about Matra but I do not know how to inset pictures into wiki articles. thank you <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/178.41.90.31|178.41.90.31]] ([[User talk:178.41.90.31|talk]]) 18:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> == RE: TKR == Thanks for your comments about Team Kiwi Racing, you are correct that MW Motorsport are contracted to run the TKR car for 2010, however to state the car has TKR stickers on it and MW Motorsport run it would be a bit unfair as it is TKR who pay the bills, if MW Motorsport were paying the bills then they could rightfully claim to running Matthew Hamilton in a TKR Stickered car, but as MW Motorsport are in the business of running cars for paying customers then to claim that the TKR are a sponsor is a bit disingenuious and would seem to be a continuation of the TKR bashing that occurs in the feral motorsport forums of the internet.--[[User:porsche911guy]] Thanks again for the comments, I am sure Vodafone don't run around paying for the drivers flights, accomodation, rental car, race suit, entry fees for race meetings, crash damage, plus from time to time additional staff including providing their own signwriter directly from their own pockets, There is no sponsorship agreement between MW motorsport and Team Kiwi Racing, so not even the same as Vodafone. falcadore I have seen that you post in internet forums under the same username so I am not surprised at you going out of your way to create misinformation. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Porsche911guy|Porsche911guy]] ([[User talk:Porsche911guy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Porsche911guy|contribs]]) 02:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> == Re: Morgan Park == You should read [http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showthreaded&Number=1353222#Post1353222 my notes in the KMZ]. I knew that there was a new extension, but didn't know when it would open. "Circuit F" is the best I have for now. In a year or two when GE shows updated imagery, I might do more. As is, I can't show the new extension. If you have physical access to the track, you could drive a GPS-equipped car around the extension and send me the GPS tracks. I could import those into GE and work from that. However, if you do that, please do <span style="color:red; padding-left:.5em; padding-right:.5em; background:yellow;">'''<u>''NOT''</u>'''</span> use the racing line. You would just throw me off. Instead, drive along the center line of the track. Please include the pit lane extension. As for the turn names, I may work on them tomorrow. Do you know of any others or official turn numbers? Also, some documentation on official turn names and numbers wouldn't hurt. [[User:Will Pittenger|Will]] <small>([[User talk:Will Pittenger|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Will Pittenger|contribs]])</small> 09:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC) ==[[1988 Goodyear NASCAR 500]]== Hi Falcadore, As a tire company, Goodyear is very prominent in motorsports both as a sponsor and a supplier, something I expanded in the actual [[Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company|Goodyear]] article. Last time, when I incorrectly added a Cat to an article because it had a large number of sponsors and the company at issue was not primary, I promptly corrected my change. But this case is different. Based, yes, on the title and the first of two sentences in the article, I'm assuming that Goodyear was the title sponsor. The article is only two sentences long so there's not much to go on: '''The Goodyear NASCAR 500 race was run at the Calder Park Thunderdome, Australia in 1988. Neil Bonnett won the race.''' Based on your edit comment, "one insignificant race held on another continent is not sufficiently notab", it sounds like you question whether the article itself shouldn't be deleted as trivia. That's a valid point if it can't be expanded beyond a stub. (Your edit comment also suggests that non-Australian companies should not be referenced in articles about Australia which may be less practical with so many global companies nowadays.) For comparison, the [[Sprint Cup Series]] is in the [[:Category:Sprint Nextel|Sprint Nextel]] category. Why would this article be treated differently? Thanks,[[User:RevelationDirect|RevelationDirect]] ([[User talk:RevelationDirect#top|talk]]) 03:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC) :The Sprint's sponsorship is a major commitment, probably Sprint's largest single advertising expense across all aspects of the company. My concern is that you are taking a very minor event in Goodyear's history of sponsoring motorsport, an event all but forgotten by motorsport and blowing it way out of all proportion to its importance. Goodyear's multi-decade commitment to Formula One would utterly dwarf their efforts with a single race in a branch of NASCAR which NASCAR itself all but refuses to acknowledge ever existed. ''it sounds like you question whether the article itself shouldn't be deleted as trivia'' not what I meant, but not a long way from it either. Compared to what Goodyear did, and does the 1988 Goodyear 500 very definately is trivia. While the race itself may be notable (the stub doesn't really establish that) it isn't notable in the scheme of Goodyear the tyre company. You're not for example including say [[Mikko Hirvonen]] in a BP template on the basis that his World Rally Championship team is sponsored by BP are you? It's this level of significance. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 03:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC) ::I think there is a basic misunderstanding about applying categories to stubs. If an article contains little information establlishing its notability, it should be expanded or deleted. That doesn't mean that applying appropriate Categories to the stub either is overcategorization or trivializing the subject of the category. Indeed, better linking the article to a related topic may bring in editors to help improve the article. ::Similarly, Wikiprojects in the discussion page rate the importance of articles. This one received a low priority from both the Australian and Nascar projects. (There's no Goodyear or Tire project but let's say it would receive the same.) The presence of this article doesn't make Australia and Nascar any less significant as topics in Wikipedia and those groups didn't respond by removing the project link from the Discussion tab as an insult to them. ::Putting a corporate category on a driver or race car is problematic because they are usually literally covered in sponsorships so including them all would admittedly be overkill. This race and the Winston Cup have a single title sponsor though, eliminating that issue. ::This stubby stub of an article tells us the location of the race, the date and the sponsor. And it is allowed to have location cat and a date cat but not a sponsor cat? Why would this article trivialize Goodyear and not Nascar or 1988?[[User:RevelationDirect|RevelationDirect]] ([[User talk:RevelationDirect|talk]]) 10:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC) :::My primary concern was it's appearance in the Goodyear template, thus giving the event a wildy inflated significance compared to what else is in the template. Whilst the Goodyear sponsorship was significant to the race, the race was not overly significant to Goodyear. Goodyear have had significantly higher sponsorships elsewhere (sometimes by a factor of as much as 1000 times greater) which get no mention whatsoever. :::My additional concern is your suggestion is that virtually judgements on an events significance has no place in the establishments of categories or templates. Does wikipedia really believe in this level of objectivity, to the point that very minor events carry equal weight to very important ones? Again I make the comparison to charity golf tournaments. :::Additionally I make comparison to Formula One. Goodyear spent decades supporting Formula One with product. I would not have a problem in beliveing they had spent tens of millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars might even have been possible. Additionally Goodyear also would have retrieved much data towards research and development. :::Do you really thinking placement of this event, which I would be surprised if it cost them more than $200,000, in a Goodyear template does not trivialise their sponsorships elsewhere? If a school fete for some reason gained notability, for presumably some reason not relating to its support of the event, but had Goodyear naming rights, would then consider it appropriate for inclusion in such a template? :::Would you consider it appropriate, or even imperative to include for example [[Renault Formula One crash controversy]] in [[:Template:Renault]]? --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 07:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC) ::::Initially, we were discussing the category and the template together but in the course of this conversation, it sounds like we're starting to distinguish between the two. The [[Renault Formula One crash controversy]] actually is already in the [[:Category:Renault]], although I think it would better fit within [[:Category:Formula Renault]]. Are we now in agreement that the Goodyear Category is OK for the article? ::::To answer your question, I would not put the crash controversy article on the [[:Template:Renault]] because it's not important enough to the overall template but I would place it on [[:Template:Renault F1]]. Take a look at the Goodyear Template. [[Dunlop Tyres]] is more important than their [[Sava Tires|small Slovenian division]] and the [[Loral GZ-22|current Goodyear Blimp]] is more important than what is [[Goodyear Inflatoplane|arguably the weirdest weapons system of the entire Cold War]]. And [[Charles Goodyear]] is far more important than anyone else in the template. Templates can become unwieldy in size so there have to be cutoffs for inclusion but, at the same time, it is understood that some items in a template will be more importan than others. ::::I would love to include the article on Goodyear's involvement in Formula 1 (or Indy Racing) because it would be much more important than this stub as we both agree. But the Formula 1 article doesn't exist yet and this one does. So, we either include the Goodyear/Motorsports article we have or we exclude Goodyear's important motorsport involvement entirely.[[User:RevelationDirect|RevelationDirect]] ([[User talk:RevelationDirect|talk]]) 18:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC) :::::''Templates can become unwieldy in size so there have to be cutoffs for inclusion but, at the same time, it is understood that some items in a template will be more important than others.'' - That doesn't mean we should encourage, and/or participate in such additions. Conciseness has value too rather than being indiscriminate. :::::Goodyear's chain of specialist stores in Australia did not begin until 1989, so it may not have been Goodyear themselves who placed the sponsroship. Although that I have no idea how to prove. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 20:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC) ==Mark Webber== I've given Feedizzle a uw-3rr re his editing to the Mark Webber article. The issue should now be discussed at the talk page. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 12:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC) :Working on that. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 12:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC) == Re:Lola template == It's a tricky one. As I'm sure you're well aware, the THL1 and THL2 were ''called'' Lolas (in reference to Eric Broadley's company) but weren't actually ''designed or built'' by Lola. On the other hand, the template also includes the [[Honda RA300]] which ''wasn't'' called a Lola, but ''was'' designed by Broadley. Perhaps we should seek wider opinion at WP:F1? [[User:DH85868993|DH85868993]] ([[User talk:DH85868993|talk]]) 02:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC) :Sure. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 02:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC) ::See [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Template:Lola]]. [[User:DH85868993|DH85868993]] ([[User talk:DH85868993|talk]]) 23:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC) == Template:Motorsport in 2010 == I strongly contest your view that Superleague Formula does not belong on [[Template:Motorsport in 2010]]. Explain how you believe it to be less international or significant than World Series by Renault or GP2: World Series by Renault is entirely based in Europe, GP2 has one non-European round whereas Superleague has two. I believe you are way off the mark and cannot see why you are so adamant and unmoving on the issue whether or not to include SF on the template, where it clearly belongs. You implied reference to Bourdais, but he is not the only top level driver in the series. Six drivers have competed in F1 and/or IndyCars, and nine of the rest have competed in one of the other series you consider significant enough to include in this template: think about that, and SF's Asian rounds, and their TV/media/sponsorship coverage. Whether you consider my arguments valid or not is up to your ability to comprehend you might be are wrong and to revert your stubbornness. Ultimately this is a minor issue but one to which you seem to have taken to with great clout and for some reason you seem to dislike Superleague as a concept or whatever but that is qutie irrelevant and should have no baring on whether it should go in the template. I ask you to take a neutral stand-point and if you admit it probably has a place in the template, I will show complete humility and respect for you in carrying on from here as normal. It's up to you how you react to my imput, but I hope we can try to co-exist in a manner which means this current situation stops with respect to whatever reason you seem to like reverting certain of my edits. This comment has turned a bit from a simple message of my opinion to a rant and even plee but nevertheless it is as usual up to you how you handle it et cetera, and whether you consider it important enough to let it drag either one of us down a hole of disagreement and frustration. No doubt we'll bump into each other further down the line, so TTFN. [[User:Officially Mr X|Officially Mr X]] ([[User talk:Officially Mr X|talk]]) 20:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC) :Any other personality flaws of mine you'd like to assume for me? :Would you like a second attempt to write the above with some additional coherency? Or do you feel this sums it up nicely? :And while you're at it, the comparison point with World Renault and GP2, have a read of [[WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS]]. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 21:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC) ::Just answer this one question: what reasons do you have for believing Superleague Formula doesn't belong on [[Template:Motorsport in 2010]]? Answer properly. [[User:Officially Mr X|Officially Mr X]] ([[User talk:Officially Mr X|talk]]) 20:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC) :::Becuase it wasn't in the original consensus. And several other edittors have in the past removed it, and it was discussed and removed again. It's all there in the talk page. This is not a new opinion I've just settled on. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 00:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC) ::::Yes, but the quarrel before was that is wasn't international enough. Since then, SF announced its China races. Surely now it must qualify for that template, otherwise it makes no sense to have any single-seater series other than F1 and IndyCar on there, then what is the point of the template: you are being unreasonable. [[User:Officially Mr X|Officially Mr X]] ([[User talk:Officially Mr X|talk]]) 10:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC) :::::Then maybe WSR and GP2 should be removed, but, and again I cite [[WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS]], this is about SF's merits, not the merits of other series. Since this seems to be a debate about the template subject specifically, I suggest to raise your issues there, rather than with me personally. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 03:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC) ::::::You are always quick to sideline the issue to someone else but you still make edits without proper reasons for doing so. I couldn't really care less about the concept of [[WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS]] but if applying that leaves us with only two single-seater categories in the world which qualify for the template then obviously the parameters for inclusion are wrong, surely? [[User:Officially Mr X|Officially Mr X]] ([[User talk:Officially Mr X|talk]]) 14:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC) :::::::I gave you those reasons already. The addition of a couple of races in China has not substantially altered the series standing. Several series have raced in China and their place in motorsport has not altered because of it. China has to import series because they have little or no domestic motorsport. It wasn't suitable for inclusion before I still believe it is not now. The debate on this subject is not purely you vs me, so again I ask this debate be conducted on the talk page it is supposed to be discussed at. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 19:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC) ==Curious== I note the copyvio tag you placed on [[1976 New Zealand Grand Prix]]. How do readers compare the content at the source you specified with the content of the article text you removed? [[User:Moriori|Moriori]] ([[User talk:Moriori|talk]]) 03:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC) :The original content is still there behind the copyvio tag. Additionally by comparing the article history you can easily find the old text. The problem is there are large slabs of text copied directly from the referenced source. That's just not on. :There have been changes in how the copyvio template works. Previously it just placed a large black notice at the top of the article. I note now it blanks it out. :[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1976_New_Zealand_Grand_Prix&oldid=369725542 You can look here for example.] --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 09:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC) ::I asked how ''"readers"'' could compare contents. It is not really rational to expect readers to know that something is hidden behind the grotesque notice on the page, or for them to know to check article history to see what went before. I accept this is not your doing, but it is just another mystifying change to wikipedia. What with all the do's and don't's that have inexorably infiltrated into Wikipedia over the past few years if I ever accidentally let go a tiny squeaky fart I immediately look over my shoulder to see if a wikipoliceman noticed, and I rarely check my e-mail in case one of the wikicops has fired off a summons to me. Cheers. [[User:Moriori|Moriori]] ([[User talk:Moriori|talk]]) 09:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC) :::I don't think directly copying another website is a "new" don't, nor has it ever been acceptable. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 10:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC) ::::Hey, I wasn't suggesting any such thing. I simply wonder how the general readership can check to see that a page tagged copyvio is truly copyvio, if the content is no longer on the page so can't be compared with the source it is supposed to be pinched from? Openeness, being transparent, etc. [[User:Moriori|Moriori]] ([[User talk:Moriori|talk]]) 01:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC) :::::My apologies then. As for the reasons for blanking, you'd have to take it up with those managing the Copyvio procedures. Perhaps the talk page [[WP:COPYVIO]] would be the best place to start. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 08:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC) {{#ifeq:{{{header}}}|2|=== Nomination for deletion of [[Template:Australian Touring Car Championship]] ===|== Nomination for deletion of [[Template:Australian Touring Car Championship]] ==}} [[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|30px]][[Template:Australian Touring Car Championship]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Australian Touring Car Championship|the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page]]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 08:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC) {{#ifeq:{{{header}}}|2|=== Nomination for deletion of [[Template:Australian Touring Car season]] ===|== Nomination for deletion of [[Template:Australian Touring Car season]] ==}} [[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|30px]][[Template:Australian Touring Car season]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Australian Touring Car season|the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page]]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 08:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC) == V8 Supercars 2010 == Thanks for picking up on that one. I have no idea what happened. I think it has something to do with Firefox crashing mid-edit. [[User:Prisonermonkeys|Prisonermonkeys]] ([[User talk:Prisonermonkeys|talk]]) 06:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC) == Motor racing event notability threshold == Has an opinion been formed on this? I note in particular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Indonesian_Grand_Prix. Where is the line normally drawn? [[User:Allenbrown|Allen Brown]] ([[User talk:Allenbrown|talk]]) 16:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC) :[[WP:Notability]] has its own guidelines, but personally I believe any national grand prix is inherently notable. Any race that defines or attempts to define itself as the eminent race in the country for a year has at least the aim of being a serious and notable event. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 17:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC) == Australian Track Edits == Hey Falcadore, just a quick one, i just wanted a bit more info as to why all the links have been removed from the Australian race tracks pages? Which part of the extrenal link guidelines did they not comply with? Thanks :) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/92.20.9.22|92.20.9.22]] ([[User talk:92.20.9.22|talk]]) 22:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> :A good external link should provide additional information, preferably more extensive detail on the subject. The website that was removed generally provided ''less'' detail than the wikipedia article already provided. It was a pointless addition. Wikipedia is not to be used as advertising opportunity for other websites. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 22:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Okay then, The reason i added them was because there was more information on the actual location of the track, ie address and transport information. I'm not trying to advertise that site, i just thought it was useful for a bit more info. Thanks for the reply! <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:TP199|TP199]] ([[User talk:TP199|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TP199|contribs]]) 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> :In that event, the prefered action is to add those address details to the wikipedi article and reference it. Transport information is beyind Wikipedia's scope. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 22:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Okay then no problem, i'll go through some of the other tracks and delete some of the external links then, several reference to a couple of sites which just have the address of the track on and nothing more than adverts, thought that because other sites were doing this with various links i was allowed. Apologies! <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:TP199|TP199]] ([[User talk:TP199|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TP199|contribs]]) 22:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> == 2010 Rugby League Attendance == Originally I didn't mention any other codes or other sports and that was HiLo's first complaint so I modified it accordingly. I can easily change it back to its original format - however the AFL section specifically states its record crowd, so I fee HiLo48's criticism was rather biased to begin with considering he is an AFL fan. I will delete the reference to other sports and set it back to what I originally had - but if HiLo48 undoes it yet again, then I will just have to report him. Thanks. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mattdocbrown|Mattdocbrown]] ([[User talk:Mattdocbrown|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mattdocbrown|contribs]]) 05:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> Ok cool, thanks [[User:HoldenV8|HoldenV8]] ([[User talk:HoldenV8|talk]]) 02:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC) == Sidecarcross World Championship == Hello Falcadore, would you like to come of your high horse and first talk to us mortals rather then deleting massive amounts of stuff out of articles you never contributed a single bit to? You seem to think you kind of rule the motorsport project and therefore everything you do is right, its not! [[User:Calistemon|Calistemon]] ([[User talk:Calistemon|talk]]) 12:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC) :I'm aware that Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, but editing should be constructive, not massive deletions, especially when an editor never contributed to an article before. Like I said, aI rewrite is most welcome, but deleting 17k in one go as your only edit as you did is just vandalism, nothing else. If I was unresonably pasionate about the article, I would have reverted your edit. I didn't. [[User:Calistemon|Calistemon]] ([[User talk:Calistemon|talk]]) 12:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC) ::You could have moved it to [[List of Sidecarcross World Championship records and statistics]] instead of being confrontational about it and just delete it altogether. [[User:Calistemon|Calistemon]] ([[User talk:Calistemon|talk]]) 12:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC) ==Rollback== Hey. I noticed that you are reverting vandalism with the undo feature. Would you be interested in the [[WP:ROLL|rollback]]? It would make it a lot easier. [[User:Prolog|Prolog]] ([[User talk:Prolog|talk]]) 22:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC) :Any method of making things easier would be interesting. --~~ ::You should now have "[rollback]" links everywhere. [[User:Prolog|Prolog]] ([[User talk:Prolog|talk]]) 23:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC) ==Thanks== Hi, thanks for picking up on the fact that I'd left categories in an article that was in my sandbox, I totally forgot to remove them and hadn't worked on that little project in a while. Good spotting! [[User:Scanbus|scanbus]] ([[User talk:Scanbus|talk]]) 11:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC) == revertion of Korean Grand Prix == You did revert the Koran Grand Prix by the reason that the qualifying result existed already in 2010 Grand Prix. Then why on earth you did not make any notice, the explanation of revertion, on the edit line??? :Because I used Rollback which does not allow a reason line addition, and upon realising that, added the reason to your talk page specifically. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 12:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC) ==Stock car racing Production car racing merger == Hi, after your comments for the above topic, I am now totally confused on types of auto Racing. Can you tell me difference between : a) 'Street Stock' /'Showroom Stock' Stock car racing and Production car racing ? b) 'NASCAR' Stock car racing and Touring car racing given that there are 2 road courses on the schedule of Sprint Cup? c) Seems to me that Brand names of tournaments have hijacked the terms so that now, that currently article are heavily biased towards particular events . Add to this the devotion of fans in different countries and the articles lose their value for an encyclopedia [[User:Vinay84|Vinay84]] ([[User talk:Vinay84|talk]]) 07:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC) :Stock car racing is a term that has always been applied to NASCAR racing. It is reflective that a long time ago, in a galaxy far away, NASCAR's racing cars had its roots in cars that were based on "Showroom stock". But that was decades ago. Many decades ago. I suspect Stock Cars continued to be used in NASCAR as even as the modification moved further and further from road going cars, they were still much closer to road cars than Indycars. For the average American fan these were the only two categories that existed in bitumen surface racing, Indycars and Stock cars. Essentially Stock Car as a term is archaic and misrepresentative of modern NASCAR racing. But try getting Americans to call Soccer Football and you will fail too. It's just familiarity. :Showroom stock is presumably a recent term, I've not come across it before, but used obvious to represent the gulf between Stock Car as the US knowns it and showroom specification racing cars which is known in much of the world as Production cars. :It is perhaps worth nothing some history. Once upon a time in the 1890s and 1900s they were racing cars. All racing cars were production cars back then. Over time as Grand Prix racing evolved, specialist racing cars began to evolve that had less and less in common with showrrom cars available to the public. In a back to basics move, Sports Car racing was created to allow showroom cars to compete separately to racing cars, this was about the 1910/1920s. :Over time Sports Cars continued evolve on their own moving further and further away from showroom cars available to the public. So Touring Car racing was created for showroom specification cars to race separately from Sports Cars. Sports cars became the Le Mans warriors and ALMS and Grand-Am type cars we know today. Touring cars flourished. This was about the 1950s/60s. :Over time Touring Cars continued evolve on their own moving further and further away from showroom cars available to the public. So Production Car racing was created for showroom specification cars to race separately from Touring Cars. Touring cars became DTM, World Rally Cars, Super 2000 and V8 Supercar type cars we know today. Production cars flourished. This was about the 1990s/2000s. Silhouette cars is a further divergence from Touring Cars, much like Sports Protoype Sports cars branched away from Grand Touring cars. :So in about another 20 years Production cars will need to split away again, probably, and there will be another back to showroom basics revolution. But that is the future. :Production cars is best represented by categories like Group N and Group E and to a lesser extent Super 2000 which is sort of somewhere between Touring cars and Production cars. :So does that help, or have I just caused you a headache? --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 07:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC) :: <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">[[Image:Smiley.svg|left|62px]] '''Hello Falcadore''', Vinay84 has smiled at you! Smiles promote [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|WikiLove]] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|WikiLove]] by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! <br /> <small>''Smile at others by adding {{tls|Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.''</small></div><!-- Template:Smile --> Thanks for the full History lesson.Given that Asia and Oceania will also enter the Auto sports and add to the confusion which was well managed by Europe and Americas. :: I believe that if the above history can be added to the [[Auto racing]] article. A lot of people will benefit from this knowledge of yours. So I request you to improve the History section of the article.[[User:Vinay84|Vinay84]] ([[User talk:Vinay84|talk]]) 03:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC) :::Thanks for the thoughts, but I'd be resistant as that's an opinionated over-simplification, and it's unreferenced, amybe un-referencable. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 05:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Ok[[User:HoldenV8|HoldenV8]] ([[User talk:HoldenV8|talk]]) 11:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC) == Licence to flip? == The question was perfectly clear. You chose to be flip off your own bat. That you took the header as a question, I can't help. That it might have been ill-chosen, I will concede. [[User:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><small>TREKphiler</small></font>]] [[User talk:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6">^{<small>any time you're ready, Uhura</small>}]]</font> 02:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC) == Silverstone == I have stated it is for a production car. Also as far as I am aware it does count as a track record for that car class and not just a record for [[Fifth Gear]]. [[User:Ar558|Ar558]] ([[User talk:Ar558|talk]]) 11:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC) :Stating it was for a production car does not highlight the relative lack of importance of a lap staged for a television show. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 11:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Yeah I agree with that but I never actually made that change to John Bowe page.....[[User:HoldenV8|HoldenV8]] ([[User talk:HoldenV8|talk]]) 14:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC) ==SS Group A SV== HSV might but Holden themselves don't see it that way. They see the VN SS Group A as a Holden, not a HSV or an SV. The VL yes (to a point), but not the VN[[User:HoldenV8|HoldenV8]] ([[User talk:HoldenV8|talk]]) 10:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC) :And the way it is written says it's a Holden. Holden Commodore SS Group A SV. You don't put the constructor last. SV is part of the model name. It doesn't say it isn't a Holden. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 10:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC) ==Congratulations!== {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |rowspan="2" valign="top" | [[Image:Barnstar-goldrun7.png|100px]] |rowspan="2" | |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Running Man Barnstar''' |- |style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Your hard work towards Auto Racing in general has often gone unnoticed, and you deserve every part of this award. Great job! [[User:RomeEonBmbo|RomeEonBmbo]] ([[User talk:RomeEonBmbo|talk]]) 22:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC) |} == 2003 Australian Grand Prix == Hi Falcadore. You rolled back a substantial amount of new content recently added by 2.97.234.217 to [[2003 Australian Grand Prix]]. You did not make an edit summary that explained why you deleted this substantial amount of text, nor have you left an explanation on the IP's Talk page. I have looked at the text you deleted. It appears to me to be legitimate material, all added in good faith, so I am puzzled why you rolled it back. Is this vandalism, or do you have a reason. I am curious. [[User:Dolphin51|<font color="green">''Dolphin''</font>]] ''([[User talk:Dolphin51|<font color="blue">t</font>]])'' 04:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC) :I provided no explanation because Rollback does not provide an option to do that. I used rollback because of repition. It is information that has been deleted three times previously, with explanation given, and also added to the Talk page. The IP editor is either ignoring the explanation or believes their opinion to be superior. This data was deleted because it is already in the article. What the IP user is doing is separating the lap times listed in Q1 Time and Q2 time in the original tabler into two separate tables. Making the article longer for zero additional benefit. :All Formula One Grands Prix have qualifying results in a single table regardless of which qualifying format in use at the time, for the simple reason that all qualifying times are merged together to form a single grid in any case. It's nuisance, unneccessary editting. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 04:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC) ::And with your additional reversion - that triggers a 3R violation against this IP user. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 04:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC) :::Thanks for leaving a message on the IP's Talk page. :::Newbies have never heard of the 3R Rule. (This IP has only made four edits - two on Australian GP and two on Malaysian GP.) [[User:Dolphin51|<font color="green">''Dolphin''</font>]] ''([[User talk:Dolphin51|<font color="blue">t</font>]])'' 04:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC) ::::Fair point - but the IP is not that new. Exactly the same edit has been made previously by [[User:89.243.43.95]] and [[User:92.24.45.68]]. Would be a remarkable co-incidence if this was not the same editor. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 04:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC) :::::I agree. It looks like one User with three IPs. [[User:Dolphin51|<font color="green">''Dolphin''</font>]] ''([[User talk:Dolphin51|<font color="blue">t</font>]])'' 04:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC) == 2011 V8 Supercar Championship == Then somebody needs to fix the infobox containing links to the 2010 series, because all of the links are dead and I have no idea how to do it. [[User:Prisonermonkeys|Prisonermonkeys]] ([[User talk:Prisonermonkeys|talk]]) 22:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC) :A very simple redirect will fix it easily. That how the change from Shell Championship Series to V8 Supercar Championship Series was done, and before it the change from Australian Touring Car Championship to Shell Championship Series. No need to overthink it. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 23:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC) :Which infobox are you referring to? Can't find a problem that you mention. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 23:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC) ::Don't worry, I inadvertently fixed the infobox myself. I was referring to the one in the top-right corner that contains links to the previous and next seasons. [[User:Prisonermonkeys|Prisonermonkeys]] ([[User talk:Prisonermonkeys|talk]]) 00:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC) == Separating vehicles by generation rather than powertrain or trim level == Hi, I am just dropping a note to inform you of a discussion currently taking place '''[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Mass article merger|here]]''' ([[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Mass article merger]]). In summary, WikiProject Automobiles is soliciting opinions based on the separation of automobile articles by generation, as opposed to other means such as powertrain or trim level. For example, rather than having an article on the [[Audi S3]], the [[Audi A3]] article would be split into two sub-articles (one for each generation), and the S3 content would be moved to the appropriate location. This would place automobiles with common engineering in the same place, as opposed to grouping by a mere marketing term. Since separate articles are always provided to detail the powertrain (engine and transmission, et cetera), the partitioning of articles based on this principle is superfluous (the powertrain is only briefly discussed in the article about the car). The reason for giving the actual powertrain a separate article is to cut down on overlap: engines and transmissions are almost universally used in more than one model. This message will be/has been posted on the talk page of all editors who contributed to the previous discussion at [[Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid]]. Regards, <small>[[User:OSX|OSX]] ([[User talk:OSX|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OSX|contributions]])</small> 23:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC) == Limited Technical ability == Falcadore your experience with wikipedia is impressive and i note your recent discussion of Denis Horley's page. This is a self promotional page aiming to convince readers of his abilities as a "qualified engineer" and "qualified project manager" of which he is neither. I have tried to alter the wikipedia page but have to only have it revert quickly back to its original article. Through adding the 2 references below and by highlighting his criminal past so easily being deleted and reverted back to a puff piece about this person and promoting his "abilities" and "qualifications" i am unsure of how to alter the page, have it deleted or at least have it modified to reflect some truth about this convicted fraudster. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/vendetta-claims-by-conman-20101213-18vjg.html http://newsstore.theage.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac?page=1&sy=age&kw=horley&pb=all_ffx&dt=selectRange&dr=10years&so=relevance&sf=text&sf=headline&rc=200&rm=200&sp=nrm&clsPage=1&docID=AGE0602025C49979UFO9 <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:J1a1m1e1s|J1a1m1e1s]] ([[User talk:J1a1m1e1s|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/J1a1m1e1s|contribs]]) 00:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> :[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]] - start here - it's a bit complicated but on the basis of notability it should be deleteable. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 00:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC) == Merger discussion == As a follow up to the above message this is a note to let you know that there is merger discussion taking place [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Case_by_Case here] regrading the Civic and Accord Hybrids, the Ford Escape Hybrid and the Renault 5 Turbo, just in case you want to participate. <small>[[User:OSX|OSX]] ([[User talk:OSX|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OSX|contributions]])</small> 23:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC) ==SS Group A== That might not be a bad idea actually[[User:HoldenV8|HoldenV8]] ([[User talk:HoldenV8|talk]]) 17:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC) ==Various== Falcadore, Here are a few things. *[[1979 Dino Ferrari Grand Prix]] I'm wrong. *Tyrrell It was ment to be the results before they were disqualified but as you say I'm wrong. *[[Tony Brooks]] I'm right if a person finishes in six't or higher then it is green seven't or lower blue because he finished in seven't place it is blue it is a point finish but he din't finished higer than six't. Greetings Kevin. :I didn't raise these points, just agreed with them. Yes the Tyrrells did finish in those race positions, but the whole point of disqualification is that you are removed completely from the results. In effect because your car was illegal it is as though you did not take part in the race. That is the effect of disqualification or exclusion as a penalty. So to include the former race position in the results matrix is fundamentally wrong. :It is a good idea to record the Tyrrell's original race position, but only as a note in the individual race articles. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 22:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC) ==Audi A4== Please stop editing the article, if editing, i will block you. <small>[[User:Luph25|Luph25]] ([[User talk:Luph25|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Luph25|contributions]])</small> 23:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC) == Talkback == {{Talkback|The359}} == Random Smiley Award == <div style="background-color:#f9f0C9; border:1px solid #888850; padding:2px; width:300px;"> [[image:smiley.svg|left|90px]]<small>For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted <b>[[User:Elipongo/SmileyAward|Random Smiley Award]].</b><br />([[User:Elipongo/SmileyAward|Explanation and Disclaimer]])</small> </div> <font color="purple">♠</font>[[User:TomasBat|<font face="Old English Text MT"><font color="green">TomasBat</font></font>]] 02:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC) == Steve Owen's number == Would you mind pointing out that particular reference that shows his number being changed? Because last time I checked, putting a reference in the edit summary doesn't qualify it as a valid reference. Certainly not in comparison to putting it in the actual article. [[User:Prisonermonkeys|Prisonermonkeys]] ([[User talk:Prisonermonkeys|talk]]) 07:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC) :I felt it unneccessary to provide a reference for such a minor detail as race number in the race number column. We've never referenced a race number in these articles before. I included the reference in the edit summary to prove I got the new numbers from somewhere. The same reference was used for the change to Fabian Coulthard's number, why aren't you disputing that? --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 07:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC) == 2010 Season == Thank you for pointing that out for me, a link is now on the talk page. Unfortunately, in my absence from Wikipedia, I seem to have forgotten how to put links in edit summaries correctly! Cheers [[User:QueenCake|QueenCake]] ([[User talk:QueenCake|talk]]) 16:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC) == [[2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series]] == {{talkback|Talk:2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series}} --'''<span style="border: 2px grey solid;background:silver;font-family: Arial">[[User:Nascar1996|<font color="black">Nascar</font>]][[User talk:Nascar1996|<font color=" #1234aa">1996</font>]]</span>''' 02:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC) == AfD == {{wb|GorillaWarfare}} == Endurance racing == Please see the article for how team and circuit funding from videogames companies has changed the Le Mans race. Also, I'm on the search for a source that states the race audience numbers in real life are up as a result of enthusiasm due to games (this contrasts well with the reports elsewhere in the article of failed endurance championships in both Europe and Japan). <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.141.22.25|81.141.22.25]] ([[User talk:81.141.22.25|talk]]) 00:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> == Renault Drivers == What I added was not rumour nor speculation, it was announced by a representative of Lotus Renault GP. I have read in the past many articles on Wikipedia that includes list of possibilities between which the final decision has not been made. Why it this one any different? [[User:Nichosnz|Nichosnz]] ([[User talk:Nichosnz|talk]]) 04:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC) :It is rumour and speculation to suggest that they will replace Kubica. One of them *might* replace Kubica if they impress at the test session, equally Renault could choose some one else. But that word *might* places it into speculation which we don't do at all. It has long been the practice of Wikipedia Formula One edittors to only add confirmed details. Even if it is Renault themselves doing the speculating over who it might be in the seat, that merely makes it official speculation. :While you may have read lists of possibilities of Wikipedia before, they probably should not have been there. Wikinews exists specifically for this kind of content. It is not Wikipedia's role to perform what Wikinews was created for. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 05:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC) ::Ok Falcadore thanks for making that a little clearer, I see what you are saying, I will endeavour to do better in the future. In fact I think I will stick to editing historic articles, where the diferences between fact and speculation is a lot clearer. With that in mind, Wikipedia contains a lot of *information* that should be in Wikinews. [[User:Nichosnz|Nichosnz]] ([[User talk:Nichosnz|talk]]) 05:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC) :::My apologies is I got a bit shouty with the edit summary - you weren't the first to list all the drivers Renault were auditioning. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 05:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC) == Red Bull: Renault or Infiniti == I saw that you had undone an edit which had changed the name of red bulls engine manufacturer from Renault to Infiniti. There has been an announcement made which says that their engines will be named Infiniti - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/9409120.stm Is this not what should be put in the article then?? [[User:Colinmotox11|Colinmotox11]] ([[User talk:Colinmotox11|talk]]) 23:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC) :Why not reference it then? --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 00:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC) :: The link includes the sentence ''"The engines will still be called Renault, contrary to an earlier story on this site."'' Rather answers Colin's question. [[User:Britmax|Britmax]] ([[User talk:Britmax|talk]]) 07:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC) == Thanks == for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Garyvdm&diff=419436265&oldid=410497960 this]. I had intended to do it myself but forgot. [[User:DH85868993|DH85868993]] ([[User talk:DH85868993|talk]]) 20:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC) ==Oz GP== OK, point taken re blank sections. I am adding info to the article atm. Background done, P1 and P2 to come. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 08:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC) == Re: 2011 Chinese Grand Prix == Sorry, i don't want to caught edit conflict which is frustrated to everyone i believe. Adding piecemeal will solve this. I don't see anything wrong here while i know in soccer, in-progress score added too. --[[User:Aleenf1|Aleen]][[User talk:Aleenf1|<font color="black">f</font><font color="red">1</font>]] 07:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC) :You are missing the point entirely. It affects the readability of the article to add qualify bit-by-bit. And edit conflicts only occur if you do your editting on-line. There are very easy solutions around edit conflicts with only minimal effort expended. Additrional what occurs in football articles has no bearing what-so-ever. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 16:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC) ::I can't change my style of editing for this. I think getting all done is already a big deal, because adding all this could cost much time and a lot of database. Important point is, get the things done first rather than think the others. --[[User:Aleenf1|Aleen]][[User talk:Aleenf1|<font color="black">f</font><font color="red">1</font>]] 00:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC) :::Of course you can change, you just don't want to. You need to understand that it is not Wikipedia role to perform as a news service, it is fundamentally against what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not a News website ([[WP:NOTNEWS]]), it is an encyclopedia. Getting the information right is far more important than getting the information up first. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 02:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC) == 24 Hours of Le Mans == A while back you took the trouble to type out a proposed expanded lede on [[Talk:24 Hours of Le Mans]]. Did you want to go ahead and insert that? [[User:ENeville|ENeville]] ([[User talk:ENeville|talk]]) 01:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC) == Revert == Please would you be so kind to inform me of your reverts : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Team_IntaRacing&diff=next&oldid=424512093 ? Somebody was so kind to rerevert you, but i thought it was wise to inform you of this. I allways take a look of a record of an editor before reverting. Please feel free to do this. no hardship, plz think before acting. [[User:Aleichem|Aleichem]] ([[User talk:Aleichem|talk]]) 03:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC) == ''The Signpost'' interview == {{tmbox|image=[[File:WikipediaSignpostIcon.svg|50px]]|text="WikiProject Report" would like to focus on '''WikiProject Formula One''' for an upcoming edition of ''The Signpost''. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview questions '''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk/Interviews3|here]]'''. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. I look forward to your participation. – '''[[User:SMasters|SMasters]]''' ([[User talk:SMasters#top|talk]]) 15:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)}} == does that solve the grid question problem? == I think not. I just looked at my recording, as Brundle wanders down the grid. There is '''no''' blank space, Lewis is on the right side (odd numbers) directly behind Rosburg in Grid 7. Official results say the same http://www.formula1.com/results/season/2011/855/. '''[[User:Ronhjones|<span style="border:1px solid black;color:black; padding:1px;background:yellow"><font color="green">&nbsp;Ron<font color="red">h</font>jones&nbsp;</font></span>]]'''^{[[User talk:Ronhjones|&nbsp;(Talk)]]} 23:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC) ==Excuse me== The race was advertised and billed as the 100th Indy 500. Are you saying the promoters and Indycar are liars? [[User:B-Machine|B-Machine]] ([[User talk:B-Machine|talk]]) 17:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC) :The race was advertised as the 100th anniversary of the Indy 500. Not the same thing. Why don't you go and count them all? They are listed in Wikipedia, try [[List of Indianapolis 500 winners]]. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 20:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC) ==FYI== You might be interested to know that two of the people we're arguing with at the 2011 Monaco GP talk page, namely [[User:66.190.31.229]] and [[User:Whatzinaname]] are exceedingly likely to be the same person, having revert-warred to help each other at [[Tony Ferguson (fighter)]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Ferguson_%28fighter%29&action=historysubmit&diff=432400464&oldid=432353795], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Ferguson_%28fighter%29&action=historysubmit&diff=432414323&oldid=432406718] He may try this on motorsport articles as well. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet|talk]]) 20:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC) == Flagicons: Part 2 == I do not understand! I don't see what the problem was to stand flagicons, as for most athletes and personalities. They just complete article and provide additional information. --[[User:Aca Srbin|Aca Srbin]] ([[User talk:Aca Srbin|talk]]) 18:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC+01) :Flagicons are very much overused and abused, and are generally not used for such items as succession boxes. While if used as you have used them in those succession bars it does add some information, it is not information relevant to the content of the succession bar. You could add the name of the athlete's mother, age, driving glove size and age and it would be additional information, but still not important information when it is indicating who has won a championship. If you look at the Manual of Style for flags - [[WP:MOSFLAGS]], a gives you a guideline of where they should be used. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 16:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC) ::I think it is in interantional sport very important to emphasize for which state athletes compete. During a sports competition, on the graphics on TV flag stands next to the competitors. Here, in most articles about the sport are also stand flagicons. And in succession bars are mostly used flagicons. It doesn't take a lot of places, gives more information, succession bars looks nicer and more controlled. I do not understand why this is suddenly a problem when we are already frequent practice with that. ''P. S. Sorry for maybe bad english!'' :) --[[User:Aca Srbin|Aca Srbin]] ([[User talk:Aca Srbin|talk]]) 13:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC+01) :::It is not the function of flagicons to make things look nicer. The manual of styler says at several points, flags should not be used in infoboxes. Succession box is a form of infobox. Additionally, the nationality of the athlete concerned did not have a bearing on the result thus it is not really relevant to the achievement, and brushes against Wikipedias rules against [[WP:NPOV|article bias]]. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 11:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC) == World Series by Renault == Thanks for reverting the edit. I guess the list of alumni on the WSbR page looks better with phrases like "Wilson is an IndyCar Series rookie in 2008" in the year 2011. Sorry I visited YOUR website. [[Special:Contributions/65.100.1.135|65.100.1.135]] ([[User talk:65.100.1.135|talk]]) 17:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC) == Rollback removed == Hi Falcadore, I've removed your access to rollback because you have been misusing it. Rollback should only be used to revert [[WP:VAND|vandalism]], and in some other very specific conditions. However, you appear to be using it to revert a lot of good faith edits, such as users adding flagicons in good faith. I also see that you use rollback as an excuse for not providing a reason in your edit summary, which very clearly indicates to me that you do not understand it's proper use. In future, please provide informative and friendly edit summaries, ''especially'' when you are reverting another users work. Even better, don't just revert it outright, and discuss with them first. - [[User:Kingpin13|Kingpin]]^{[[Special:Contributions/Kingpin13|13]]} ([[User talk:Kingpin13|talk]]) 18:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC) :Fair enough, I guess I didn't understand that. When it was conferred upon me that was not explained to me, it was presented to me as a faster version of reversion. If I got that wrong then this was the right thing to do. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 23:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC) ::Yeah, it is only really intended for vandalism. Since with vandalism you don't need to worry so much about upsetting the user, or making it clear why the edit was reverted. Whereas both of these can be problems where time and effort when in, and the user was genuinely trying to help. In any case, if you want it back, feel free to ask at [[WP:RFPERM]], but obviously it'll only be any use to you if you actually work at anti-vandalism :) - [[User:Kingpin13|Kingpin]]^{[[Special:Contributions/Kingpin13|13]]} ([[User talk:Kingpin13|talk]]) 01:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC) == Vehicle redirects == In the case you mention, there are several appearances of [[Holden Commodore SS]] and [[Holden Commodore S]] in the table, and I didn't notice that they each have a piped link to different Holden models (VN, VP, VY). Certainly I should have noticed that, and I apologise for missing it, but the real problem is that this doesn't make sense. A reader is bound to be confused by the same visible text unexpectedly linking to different articles. Is there not some way of using different descriptive texts to indicate that these are in fact different models? (or, in the case of the first occurrence of [[Holden Commodore SS]] and [[Holden Commodore S]], apparently the same model (VN) despite the different description). [[User:Colonies Chris|Colonies Chris]] ([[User talk:Colonies Chris|talk]]) 16:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC) :The confusion seems to stem from your lack of understanding of the subject. The SS model of the Commodore for example indicates a sporty trim level of the Commodore and could possibly link correctly to the following generational versions of the Holden Commodore.[[Holden VH Commodore]], [[Holden VK Commodore]], [[Holden VL Commodore]], [[Holden VN Commodore]], [[Holden VP Commodore]], [[Holden VR Commodore]], [[Holden VS Commodore]], [[Holden VT Commodore]], [[Holden VX Commodore]], [[Holden VY Commodore]], [[Holden VZ Commodore]] and [[Holden VE Commodore]]. By restoring those links you are perpetuating your own confusion over a wider audience. Since you do not seem to be able to tell the difference between a vehicle generation and a vehicle trim level I ask again that you cease all alterring of piped links to redirects until you gain a greater understanding of the subject. You are just creating more work needing to be undone. :People create piped links for a variety of reasons. By hardwiring that link reducing the possibility to a single link and denying that possibility to other users who may not be as diligent in creating links. You would not do this with a persons name. For example what you have done is not dissimilar to say if some has taken a sentence which includes a list of brothers - say.. [Mark Ella|Mark], [Paul Ella|Paul] and [Steve Ella]. You would not hardwire Paul as a redirect to Paul Ella would you? Changing the link from Holden Commodore SS from Holden VE Commodore to Holden VN Commodore is not helpful. It is just as wrong as the first error. Can you please stop converting piped links into redirects? You don't seem to understand very well how it is supposed to work. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 21:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC) ::I fully accept that there is no one target to which Holden Commodore SS can be redirected. You don't have to convince me of that - I've acknowledged that error on my part. Your example doesn't match the situation here because what's actually in the table is something like [Mark Ella|Ella], [Paul Ella|Ella] and [Steve Ella|Ella] - the same text is displayed on several different lines in the table, but it is invisibly - and confusingly - piped to several different destinations. Why not simply use the actual model name (Holden VN Commodore, Holden VP Commodore etc) as the displayed text? The current approach seems to be giving the fact that they are all the 'SS' variant more prominence than the more significant fact that they are actually different models. [[User:Colonies Chris|Colonies Chris]] ([[User talk:Colonies Chris|talk]]) 08:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC) :::The example was not a precise match, it was merely intended to demonstrate that piping links serves a distinctly different purpose from redirects and are not always interchangeable. :::Speaking specifically as to the Commodore example, it is because Holden VN Commodore is not a model name, it is indicative of a specific generation of Holden Commodore - a particular time period. Holden Commodore SS is the model and what the car is known to the general public. In the example of the motor race you selected, several distinctly different versions of the Holden Commodore raced in that particular motor race, but they all belonged to the specific VN generation of Commodore. The various V- tags are roughly - but not completely - comparable to the year the car was built. The S or SS or SS Group A refers to trim levels. Wikipedia car articles are generally organised along generational lines - the S version of the VN Commodore has much more in common with the SS version of the VN Commodore than the S version of the preceeding VL series of Commodore. :::If you like VN as comparable to the 2010 in Microsoft Excel 2010 or Microsoft Word 2010, where as S or SS corresponds to Excel or Word or Powerpoint. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 09:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC) ::::Would it be clearer to the reader to make the visible text read something like "Holden Commodore SS (VN)" or "Holden Commodore SS (VP)"? Then it would be immediately obvious that they are all SS's but are not identical, which is how it looks right now. [[User:Colonies Chris|Colonies Chris]] ([[User talk:Colonies Chris|talk]]) 18:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC) ==Brisbane meetup invitation== {{Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane/Invite}} Hi there! You are cordially invited to a barbeque and meetup at Southbank this Sunday (26 June). Details and an attendee list are at [[Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane]]. Hope to see you there! [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] ^{([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])} 11:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC) <small>(this automated message was delivered using [[Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser]] to all users in [[:Category:Wikipedians in Brisbane]])</small> == Women's motorsport in Australia == Hi. Awesome addition. :) I have at least one book source in my personal library. (Stell's book that I've cited in a bunch of other Australian women's sport articles is a fantastic resource. If you can get your hands on it, very useful and interesting.) I'm not at home for a bit so I can't easily access it but I can check some sport databases to see if there is anything I can find and try to add a bit to the article later today. :) --[[User:LauraHale|LauraHale]] ([[User talk:LauraHale|talk]]) 10:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC) :There was briefly a women's only one-make series of Mazda 121s, also the women's Castrol Cougars program. [[Leanne Tander]] is the mos t successful driver in a couple of decades but there were a few notable drivers in the 60s and 70s. Christine Gibson (nee Cole) and Sue Ransom as examples. Also several women have won Australian championships in rallying as co-drivers, Kate Officer, Sue Evans and multiple-champ Coral Taylor, whose daughter Molly is now racing internationally as a rally driver. There are also a two or three women in the forthcoming Shannons Supercar Showdown, a Masterchef style TV show for racing drivers. Samantha Reid is one. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 16:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC) == PL == Hi Falcadore. I think "PL" is supposed to indicate that the driver started from the '''P'''it '''L'''ane. I've reverted a few instances of it myself. Regards. [[User:DH85868993|DH85868993]] ([[User talk:DH85868993|talk]]) 02:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC) :I know it does. I wanted the edittor concerned to know it was not easily understood. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 11:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC) ::It's not the best way to display that information, although I think that information should be somewhere. Currently we have drivers showing grid positions when they were not present on the grid, which is misleading. Maybe we should have a discussion on it at WP:F1? [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet|talk]]) 21:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC) :::Use sentences. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 23:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC) ::::Clearly, but in the tables themselves, we should not be saying that Driver X was 24th on the grid if he never appeared on the grid or started from it. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet|talk]]) 00:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC) :::::The grid position is allocated even if they do not use it. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 01:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC) ::::::And it's clearly misleading to suggest that they did use it, particularly if it's a high grid slot. Showing a driver as 5th on the grid when they in fact started stone last is obviously not very sensible. There needs to be something in the table that makes it clear, there's no sense in showing a nominal grid position that means nothing. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet|talk]]) 08:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC) :::::::Not if you use sentences in the report to explain it. Don't get Mr.X-ish and get too hooked up on the tables. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 12:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC) ::::::::You know I'm not generally bothered about tables, but I am bothered about them displaying something that's not true. Showing a driver with a grid position when he started from the pitlane is simply incorrect, regardless of how clear it is in the text, not that anyone '''ever''' puts it in the text. If it is in the text that a driver started from the pitlane and the table shows him on the grid, then there's a contradiction. Simple common sense. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet|talk]]) 13:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC) :::::::::I'm bothered by unexplained jargon that is not simply and easy to understand. An unexplained 'PL' does not achieve that because it assumed that the reader knows what PL is. I'm not going to revert something that actually achieves a correct understanding. It's the same with my current thing on article leads. There are several article leads in 2011 season motor racing article which do not even make it clear that these articles are about motor racing, an utterly absurd situation. If the meaning is clear why would I revert to grid numbers? --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 13:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC) ::::::::::So am I, and I'm not advocating the use of the "PL" indicator. However, it is marginally preferable to what we currently have at [[2010 Bahrain Grand Prix]], which is precisely no mention of the pitlane starts whatsoever. Is that a good thing? I've started a discussion at the WPF1 talk page, rather than us talking about it here where nobody else can see it. I agree with you about article leads. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet|talk]]) 13:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC) == Templating == I've noticed you replaced the template on the [[2011 Sidecarcross World Championship]] article and at least now provided an edit summary with suggestions as to what you think needs improving. Personally, I suggest, rather then just blanket-templating articles, which is easy but unproductive, to provide a bit of an idea as what needs to be improved and whats missing. A constructive attitude is always better then just critisising without any ideas as to how something can be fixed. I noticed you placed the templates on many articles, and I see their justification, but if you are really interessted in improvement and not just want to be a know-it-all you need to do a bit more then that. [[User:Calistemon|Calistemon]] ([[User talk:Calistemon|talk]]) 13:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC) :An explanation ''was'' provided when the templates were originally added. Additionally the templates themselves link to guidelines about good writing of article leads. It all should have been entirely self-explanatory. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 13:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC) ::What may be self-explanatory to you may not be self-explanatory to me, just like the context or introduction of an article may be clear to me but not to you or vis-versa. If you want to make yourself clear, provide some explanations on the talk page and you are less likely to be misunderstood. As to the guidlines, the tend to be long-winded, general and unlikely to provide specific enough guidance to be of much help for a specific case. [[User:Calistemon|Calistemon]] ([[User talk:Calistemon|talk]]) 13:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC) :::Did you read the links provided? Was there a problem with understanding sentences like ''This article's introduction section may not adequately summarize its contents''? Surely that should indicate that an article about say a 2011 motorsport season should carry some information about how the 2011 season is progressing? Is that not sufficient for clear understanding and needs to have the wording of the template adjusted? --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 13:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC) ::::All I requested was a clear statement as to what you think is required to improve the intro/article. Once more your know-it-all, I-own-this-project attitude rubbs people up the wrong way. Get of you high horse, Falcadore, let me know what else you think needs adding to the intro of this specific article and I will happyly add it, if possible, and we both be done with it and we don't have to engage in further conversation. What about that approach? [[User:Calistemon|Calistemon]] ([[User talk:Calistemon|talk]]) 14:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC) :::::Clear statements were provided. I am sorry you seem to find this conversation offensive. Do you have a problem with the concept of how wikipedia works? I'm happy to provide you with assistance towards understanding some of the procedures and concepts, or are you suggesting you should be allowed to write what you want, however you want and no-one else should provide you with any input at all? Because that is as much [[WP:OWNERSHIP]] as what you have suggested is my problem. If there is a problem with my editting behavior I am happy to allow the third opinion process to provide a clarification. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 14:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC) If I had a problem with ownership, as you suggested, I would have removed your templates and made no efforts to improve the article. I have not, instead I have asked you for guidance as how to improve the article, and still do. I don't enjoy conversations with you, that's unfortunatley so because of previous once I had with you and that won't really change. I see no need to involve third parties with that. All I'm requesting is a bit more guidance as how to improve the one specific [[2011 Sidecarcross World Championship]] article. If you are willing to provide that, thank you. If not, I be on my way to do something else and we can consider this conversation closed. Thanks, [[User:Calistemon|Calistemon]] ([[User talk:Calistemon|talk]]) 14:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC) :My apologies for the obvious offense I have given, and for problems with my tone of language. It was not my intent to sound superior in any way. It is my natural language to talk in that manner. I should also add that I am happy with the article as it stands now, with the improvements you have made. :There has been a wide ranging problem across motorsport articles for current seasons where many articles had short or very short introductions, many of which barely explained that these articles were even related to a form of motor racing. Rather than only including a link to the series about which the article is written, it is better to have a brief explanation of the series so that someone can gain an understanding of the series without having to click away from the article at all. This is the context half. :Inadequate lead means that the introduction, or lead, of an article should summarise the contents. IE, for a 2011 motorsport season that most important fact is not simply that it occurred, or that it took place in a particular region. It is about a sporting contest, so the winners are the most important aspects of these articles and should be front and centre. Even a series in progress should carry this information up front, bearing in mind of course that the season is yet to be concluded. A good idea for an introduction in a current season is to say that rider X is currently leading the points standings, rider Y is second in the standings and what the points gap is between them. :I have not singled you out as a target, rather I have been performing these same sorts of edits on pages contributed to or originated by many authors. I hope this eases your mind if you feel I have been unfairly targeting you, and hopefully this is the sort of clarity you are asking for. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 15:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC) ::Thank you for your advice and my appologies if I have upset you, which, I think, I may have. The wide-ranging problem of a lack of information and explanation on motorsport season articles is certainly obvious, and became obvious to me once you placed the templates, too. I certainly have never questioned that placing those templates was justified, it just takes somebody else to point out flaws with an article at times that the person who wrote it or most of it can't see. The specific problem with Sidecarcross is the lack of online sources beyond results and the complete absence of coverage in the print media in Australia, which is unsurprising given the lack of Australian riders and events. Have you contemplate a ''motorsport manual of style'' after the above mentioned guide lines to tackle the problem of season articles with limited, insufficent or no prose/introductions? [[User:Calistemon|Calistemon]] ([[User talk:Calistemon|talk]]) 15:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC) ==2011 International V8 Supercars Championship== For the new drivers for Gold Coast 600 I learned from the Touring car Times article. [[User:Ivaneurope|Ivaneurope]] ([[User talk:Ivaneurope|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 13:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> http://www.touringcartimes.com/article.php?id=6499 [[User talk:Ivaneurope|talk]] 29 July 2011 1:20 (UTC+2:00) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 22:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> == 1975 F1 race reports == Nice work. [[User:DH85868993|DH85868993]] ([[User talk:DH85868993|talk]]) 02:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC) :If I am to criticise others for very poor article leads, the least I can do is make some effort to demonstrate an example. Thanks for the kind words :) --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 03:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC) ==Red Bull Ring== [Question] Hi, I added a link to an external site on the Red Bull Ring page to a site which i'd found useful on the subject and you removed it. Why? Thanks - Adrian. :Because, referring to the note you added with the link [[WP:NOTTRAVEL|Wikipedia is not a travel guide]]. When adding links to other websites it is best to use it to link to something specific to the Wikipedia article. For example: in [[Red Bull Ring#Redevelopment]], a reference links could be added about the circuit re-opening, one of the list portions of the article, using the [[Cite Web]] template. If you feel uncofortable using Cite Web there are easier methods of adding references. :Apart from the above, Wikipedia articles should not be used to create a list of websites without specific context. Being a Formula One motor racing circuit there is over 100 websites with pieces about it. You could go on adding external links until it was longer than the Wikipedia article, and it would not improve the Wikipedia article itself. The best kind of external link is one the confirms a specific point raised in the Wikipedia article. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 21:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Really appreciate your detailed answer! That's cool, i'd seen a link to this site http://www.trackpedia.com/wiki/A1-Ring which is a travel guide and thought it was okay to share . I appreciate your help on the matter and i will review the links to that site on race track pages where i do not feel they are at all relevant. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/90.207.164.102|90.207.164.102]] ([[User talk:90.207.164.102|talk]]) 21:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> ==unanswered questions== Anyone doing research is going to find those posts. What do you think we should do, remove them unanswered? [[User:-oo0(GoldTrader)0oo-|-oo0(GoldTrader)0oo-]] ([[User talk:-oo0(GoldTrader)0oo-|talk]]) 03:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC) ==Sockpuppetry== It would a lot more helpful if you'd actually help out when this editor persistently comes back again and again and again and again and again with new accounts every time he is blocked. Regardless of the nature of his edit, the guy should not be allowed to edit - next time consider making an edit summary that doesn't imply that he's a legitimate editor making legitimate edits. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet|talk]]) 21:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC) :I think you need analyse what you've just written. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 21:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC) ::You're going to have to explain that more clearly. What's not to understand? [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet|talk]]) 21:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC) :::That you've placed administrative functions above maintaining edittorial quality. And perhaps getting a little too personally involved - which does happen to all of us, but I'd expect to be called on it, and have been, when I've done so. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 22:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC) ::::After I made that edit, an admin reverted all of that IP's recent edits for the same reasons that I did. It has nothing to do with editorial quality - that IP's edits do not stand. If any of his edits are worth restoring, they should be checked first and restored with a proper edit summary, not just "undone". I allowed the IP to keep editing, despite his opening another account, until I viewed his edits as problematic. That's a lot more leeway than we are supposed to give, and we've been more than fair with him. I just won't tolerate persistent rule-breakers. He's been blocked for the third time, this time for three months, according to the blocking admin, whom incidentally, I did not contact personally. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet|talk]]) 23:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC) :::::I ''DID'' give a proper edit summary. And I quote ''nevertheless it is long established practice to NOT show TD''. Wikipedia truncated the full response which additionally stated ''in season result matrices''. :::::If you did not notice this, should I ask why? --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 23:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC) ::::::In my last comment I wasn't specifically referring to the edit you restored, but since you have referred to it and since you appear to be implying some degree of bad faith, I was not aware of any long established practice to not show TD in results tables where that driver had subsequently taken part in races. I knew that test drivers who have not raced are not shown in the tables, but not the other. I'll assume, probably incorrectly, that this practice has been followed in the past as a result of a consensus and discussion. Had you just left an edit summary without publicising the undoing of my own edit, it wouldn't have seemed quite as much like you were on his side. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet|talk]]) 23:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC) :::::::I was not on a 'side'. There is almost ten years worth of Formula One season articles to use as comparison. The TDs are only used on drivers pages, not on season pages as Friday TD role does not contribute to the season results, which is what the matrix tabulates. Consensus on this issue was achieved, although I'll admit not without fierce debate. This is not the only edit that has been incorrectly reverted. Looks like someone will have to go through FelipeMassa's recent round of edits to find the one with merit and restore them. At least one of these edits were genuine factual corrections. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 00:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC) ::::::::Why not? It seems that far too many people think this guy's editing behaviour is just fine and he doesn't need to follow the same rules that the rest of us follow. This is supposed to be a community that works together. I appreciate the reasoning behind your revert, as I say, I was not aware of it. I assumed, not incomprehensibly, that the season article results tables might follow the driver article results tables. Yes, some of his edits might well be restored, but they have to be checked first. The guy has never left a reference in his life, rarely left an edit summary, and was rather prone to making things up, so checking is important. Such is the work that results when a known problem editor is allowed to just edit with impunity. [[User:Bretonbanquet|Bretonbanquet]] ([[User talk:Bretonbanquet|talk]]) 00:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC) :::::::::Which is exactly what I was saying. I was not suggesting to revert without confirming. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 01:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC) == Sponsors == Well, my reasoning for it is consistency across articles. I checked the season pages for the last five seasons (and 2012), and they all link to sponsors separately. 2011 was the only season page that didn't do it, and I don't recall there ever being a consensus on the subject. [[User:Prisonermonkeys|Prisonermonkeys]] ([[User talk:Prisonermonkeys|talk]]) 01:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC) :Then I'd suggest bringing it up at WP:F1 and waiting for a consensus. [[User:Prisonermonkeys|Prisonermonkeys]] ([[User talk:Prisonermonkeys|talk]]) 03:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC) ::It's your ball game - but whatever the outcome, I'd make sure all the articles are consistent. [[User:Prisonermonkeys|Prisonermonkeys]] ([[User talk:Prisonermonkeys|talk]]) 04:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC) There were some already in place so I thought why not the others? It hasn't changed anything and all the links are in place still.[[User:HoldenV8|HoldenV8]] ([[User talk:HoldenV8|talk]]) 14:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Fair enough. If you wish to remove them, go ahead.[[User:HoldenV8|HoldenV8]] ([[User talk:HoldenV8|talk]]) 15:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC) == What == You just posted something about editing the article of Jim Clark on my User talk page. I have never even seen his article (well, until now). <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/93.204.247.76|93.204.247.76]] ([[User talk:93.204.247.76|talk]]) 15:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> ::If you check the date stamp, I made the comment in March. So no I didn't just make the comment. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 01:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC) That's generally why I left them alone along with the Venezuela 1930 icons. If I missed some and used GER instead of FRG for West Germany then apologies, no malice was intended[[User:HoldenV8|HoldenV8]] ([[User talk:HoldenV8|talk]]) 11:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC) No probs at all and I didn't take it the wrong way. Was more just saying that I'm not one of those people who put false info into Wikipedia just to be a pain. I just know in future to either leave as West Germany of if using the abbreviations then FRG[[User:HoldenV8|HoldenV8]] ([[User talk:HoldenV8|talk]]) 11:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC) == Sports portal == [[Image:Panoramic view of Ohio Stadium.jpg|thumb|right|100,000 people gather for a college football game at Ohio Stadium.|300px]] Please refrain from trying to change long-standing practice on the sports news portal without a consensus on its talk page. I know college sports is not a big deal in your country but anyone familiar with American sports can tell you college football is orders of magnitude bigger in attendance, TV audience, media attention and amount of money involved than many of the other events on the page. If we are to remove the biggest college football games from the page, we should remove everything else which is not as big of a deal, which would be just about everything from this weekend except the NFL and the Rugby World Cup. Thanks -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] ([[User talk:Mwalcoff|talk]]) 22:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC) :The long standing consensus was to only include senior domestic leagues in the play-off stages and to not include second or third tier series at all. A college league by definition is not a senior league because of the presense of the NFL, so I'm not sure to what you are referring too. If you can find where it says second or thir tier sports series can be included then I'd like to nominate for inclusion the ''first'' tier domestic football leagues of 160 odd countries around the world. Bearing in mind that some countries have as many as four different forms of football, you can see how very quickly the Sports Portal would quickly be reduced to meaninglessness. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 23:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC) ::We have had NCAA football on the sports news portal for probably five years. So I don't know what you're talking about by "long-standing consensus." Please wait until there is a consensus on the talk page to change this before unilaterally making changes. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] ([[User talk:Mwalcoff|talk]]) 23:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC) :::Not sure what you mean the issue of second-tier competitions has been discussed several times - it was why NASCAR Nationwide was removed. This is merely an extension of that. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 23:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC) ::::In truth the Sports events portal has drifted a long way from where it is supposed to be, now it is just a collective scoreboard which has this strange habit of putting in events a day or so ahead of time at the top despite [[WP:Speculation]] and [[WP:NOTGUIDE]]. It should be following what the main Current events portal does, but just focussed on Sport, so it is a little strange to defend its current format. This is just one of many pages which has been left to its own devices too long. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 00:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC) :::::Are you sure you're not confused with another page? Nationwide Series races have been posted all year. So are the ICC Intercontinental Cup (how many Canadians even know they have a national cricket team?), a junior figure skating event, the Europa League in soccer, etc. Certainly any basketball event other than the NBA can be considered "second-tier," and yet here we have the seventh-place EuroBasket game and a game between Malaysia and Iran. As I said before, if a college football game between two top five teams isn't big enough for the page, neither are 90% of the other events on it, as judged by public interest and economic impact. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] ([[User talk:Mwalcoff|talk]]) 00:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC) ::::::(Edit conflict) I agree that the sports current events portal page probably needs a reassessment. It's not really in line with what the rest of Wikipedia is. Perhaps we should end the project and simply include any sports event big enough on the regular current events page. Until then, however, we should not mess with long-standing practice without a consensus. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] ([[User talk:Mwalcoff|talk]]) 00:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC) :::::::''Are you sure you're not confused with another page? Nationwide Series races have been posted all year. So are the ICC Intercontinental Cup (how many Canadians even know they have a national cricket team?), a junior figure skating event, the Europa League in soccer, etc.'' - No I'm not, it merely strengthens my opinion this page is out of any real form of control and that personal agendas rule without oversight. When I used to contribute to this page more regularly a couple of years ago it certainly was not this bad. As mentioned, the model of what it should be is linked right there at the top of the page. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 00:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC) ==Formula One Notes== From inspection of the individual F1 Grand Prix report pages a note section stating driving debuts, last drives and driving milestones seems to be standard practice, albeit with huge holes in the data. Having written many pages for individual sporting events within a series, such as The Grand National and the F A cup final such segments are the norm and not the exception and are generally regarded as acceptable in the context of the article as writing in sentence form often takes up only a small element of such articles. F1 however is not my bag and I was just generally interested in the fact that driving debuts etc were covered extensively [in notes sections] in almost all the GrandPrix post 1965 and not done in the Pre 1965 races, I felt this should be corrected and added the final drives for those who took part in the 1950 British Grand Prix. I wish you a great deal of luck in removing the many hundreds of notes sections that have been added to each Grand Prix post 1965 by other users and suspect that you will encounter a backlash from racing enthusiasts when you do. As a sports historian myself I would suggest that you view such sections in a different way. You descibe them as trivia but I personally would disagree with this description. A series of statements saying things like "Driver A wore a new green helmet" in this race is trivia, pointless and worthy of deletion but "This was the Debut race for driver A" is a milestone, a fact of that race. From the vast number of users who have added debuts and last drives prior to myself, I belive many racing enthusiasts share this belief. [[User:Captainbeecher|Captainbeecher]] ([[User talk:Captainbeecher|talk]]) 10:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC) :There are many hundreds it is true, which is why it has been a slow and very incomplete process. A continuing project of the Formula One wikiproject is the deletion of all 'Notes' sections with their contents ''moved'' into race reports where appropriate. It isn't necessarily about deleting information but relocating and writing it in the manner wikipedia prefers. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 11:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC) ==1967 German Grand Prix== Sorry about that - quite embarassing, I do apologise. I think it's about time I went to bed to be honest, thanks for pointing it out. [[User:Bigdon128|Bigdon128]] ([[User talk:Bigdon128|talk]]) 02:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC) == Circuit Park Zandvoort == You seem to have a lot more grasp than me on what counts as a major event for Zandvoort, I didn't know the infobox required the major events listed to be relative to the circuit's history. Thanks for leaving that info in the Revision History. [[User:Yosef1987|Yosef1987]] ([[User talk:Yosef1987|talk]]) 04:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC) ==Talkback== {{talkback|Talk:Adam Carroll|ts=14:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)}} [[User:Mo ainm|<span style="color:#B22222;font-family:serif;text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''''Mo ainm'''''</span>]][[User talk:Mo ainm|<span style="color:black;font-family:cursive;font-size:80%">~Talk</span>]] 14:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC) ==New Page Patrol survey== {| style="background-color: #dfeff3; border: 4px solid #bddff2; width:100%" cellpadding="5" | [[Image:NPPbarnstar.jpg|right|70px]] <big>'''New page patrol – ''Survey Invitation'''''</big> ---- Hello {{PAGENAME}}! The [[WP:WMF|WMF]] is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. *If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. *If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. '''Please click [https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/9RSKYC9 HERE] to take part.'''<br> Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. ---- <small>You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Survey|NPP Survey]]</small> |} == Silverstone == Hi, The point of that fact was that this was the first time it appeared in a game. Check out Mt Fuji - it's notable because it's such an early crossover - you noted yourself that it's about 20 years. Look up [[Cavern club]] or [[Wembley stadium]]. Racing circuits are no different to soccer or music. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.175.34.82|86.175.34.82]] ([[User talk:86.175.34.82|talk]]) 20:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> :What goes on in other articles is not completely relevant, it could be that arguement instead means that information should be removed from Mount Fuji. If you look across other circuit articles issues of gaming is not considered that important. The article is about Silverstone, does Silverstone itself acknowledge this game as being important in the circuits history? Do we also detail the first time the circuit was photographed in a magazine, or was depicted in a fictional novel or appeared in a motion picture? Or perhaps most importantly, the first time it appeared in a telecast of a race? :The first time Silverstone appeared in a game might be improtant fact to the game, is it really important to the circuit, or is it just trivia? --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 20:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC) == 1RR restrictions == All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, '''Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland''' falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty. '''Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.''' Editors may be subject to discretionary sanctions. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. You may also wish to review the arbitration case page. When in doubt, don't revert! You have now made three reverts [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Carroll&diff=458110345&oldid=458104921 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Carroll&diff=next&oldid=458140877 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Carroll&diff=next&oldid=458179552 here]. I would suggest that you self revert. Thanks, --<font face="Celtic">[[User:Domer48|<span style="color:#009900"><strong>Domer48</strong></span>]]_{''[[User talk:Domer48|<span style="color:#006600">'fenian'</span>]]''}</font> 21:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC) :Two questions - is this sanction also being threatened with ''all'' editors concerned, and secondly, where can I find more information on this policy. There is no information anywhere on the Adam Carroll article or on the talk page that this article is covered by The Troubles. If there is a specific policy on certain articles that should be highlighted at the very least on the talk page concerned. I will withhold on self-reversion for the moment while I explore this. As someone familiar with the subject of Troubles issues might you be able to provide a link to an appropriate place with which I might ask further questions? In the interests of good faith some links towards policy would be of great assistance, particularly since there is no indication anywhere on this article about this. Your above warning provides no such links. The opposing editor I would additionally note that my most recent reversion is at least partially correct, so under those circumstances perhaps there might be some leeway? --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 21:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC) ::Hi Falcadore, here is a link [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case to the Remedies section on the Troubles Arbcom]. I highlighted the notice for you to let you know how it is relevant to this issue on "Nationality." I have no intention of reporting it, as you were unaware of it so I hope the link is useful and that you consider self reverting. You might read this talk page discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#AE_case_and_Adam_Carroll here] which might also help. Sorry if the template came of as sounding harsh, I just did a copy and paste. --<font face="Celtic">[[User:Domer48|<span style="color:#009900"><strong>Domer48</strong></span>]]_{''[[User talk:Domer48|<span style="color:#006600">'fenian'</span>]]''}</font> 22:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC) :::Wasn't so much the harsh, but the lack of links which the language seemed to refer to which made things more confusing than it could have been. I'll assess when I have time later today. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 03:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC) :::I also sought some editorial assistance from [[Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests]] and their advice was actually that the Troubles 1RR does not include sports articles and that I should not be concerned about the warning you've given. So perhaps there is an over-reaction occurring here and you should enquire further? --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 03:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC) ::::Hi Falcadore, you are obviously entitled to take advice from whom ever you wish no problem here with that. I would suggest however that advice should be based on experience and in this case on the issues involved in "Troubles" related topics. "Nationality" is one such topic, and "Flags" are another. Both of which are covered by the criteria outlined above. The advice you have been given by one uninvolved editor will not deflect from the 1RR restriction. I hope the links I've provided were useful? Having been at the bad end of these restrictions I would like to consider myself informed enough to offer an opinion, and I hope you accept it in the spirit in which it was intended. --<font face="Celtic">[[User:Domer48|<span style="color:#009900"><strong>Domer48</strong></span>]]_{''[[User talk:Domer48|<span style="color:#006600">'fenian'</span>]]''}</font> 14:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC) == Young driver tests == Hey, I noticed you undid some revisions to the [[2012 Formula One season]] page about the young driver tests. I've sicne added that information back in (though I wasn't aware you had removed it until after I had put it in). I'm modelling it on the [[2011 Formula One season#Pre-season|2011 page]], where we had a limited recap of the fastest driver in the YDT - mentioning the fastest driver in the tests, and any significant details, but nothing more. In this case, the fastesst driver is Verge, and the significant details are Pirelli giving their tyre compounds an overhaul and teams testing 2012 parts. That's about as much as the section should have. [[User:Prisonermonkeys|Prisonermonkeys]] ([[User talk:Prisonermonkeys|talk]]) 13:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC) :Yeah.... 2011 season hasn't finished yet. Just thought I'd point that out. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 13:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC) == sports talk page == Hi -- In preparation for an RfC on the matter, can you please look at [[Portal_talk:Current_events/Sports]] to see if you can provide your side of the story or help craft a neutral introduction to the matter? Thanks -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] ([[User talk:Mwalcoff|talk]]) 00:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC) == Speedway drivers categories == Not sure of your thinking on the speedway drivers categories. Drivers usually compete in multiple categories. To pigeon hole someone like Max Dumsney only in Sprintcars would not be correct. And to have a category of every class in Australia would be an over-kill. And is it just for dirt or do we add Auscar & Australian Nascar in that? Your thoughts?--[[User:Greg Nail|Greg Nail]] ([[User talk:Greg Nail|talk]]) 09:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC) :One categroy completely duplicates the other. Alan Jones for example is not listed as both a Formula One driver and an Australian Formula One driver. If a category is a complete subset of the other you don't stack them side-by-side. :Also - AUSCAR and Australian NASCAR were generally locally refered to as Superspeedways. --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 09:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC) ::Fair enough.--[[User:Greg Nail|Greg Nail]] ([[User talk:Greg Nail|talk]]) 21:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC) == Triple F / DJR == Does the article that desribes DJR and Triple F as an "alliance" speciically call Triple F a satellite team of DJR? Because nothing that I have read describes them as such, and all of those articles point to Triple F being shut down entirely. [[User:Prisonermonkeys|Prisonermonkeys]] ([[User talk:Prisonermonkeys|talk]]) 09:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC) :Then chose another term! It's the same level of relationship as James Rosenberg has with Stone Brothers, as Jason Bright has with Brad Jones Racing over the #21 Britek franchise, the same as Rod Nash has with Ford Performance Racing. It should be shown in exactly the same manner. It's why these cars have been grouped together in the table even though when they get to the track they operate differently. The Rod Nash car actually shares it's pit boom with the James Rosenberg team did you know? Two cars only per pitboom, so the third cars, satellite teams, additional franchises, whichever terminology you chose to prefer shares booms. They also score points in the team's championship separetly. Kelly Racing is another multiple franchise entry. Cars #7 and #15 should probably be separated from cars #11 and #16 (the Perkins Engineering franchises). --[[User:Falcadore|Falcadore]] ([[User talk:Falcadore#top|talk]]) 12:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC) == A barnstar for you! == {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Editors Barnstar Hires.png|100px]] |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Editor's Barnstar''' |- |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For being the voice of reason in a sea of general calamity. This one is long overdue. ~~~~ |}'