User talk:Pyrope/Archive 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter January 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter January 2008
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:All American Racers logo.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Save_Us † 15:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm... orphaned? It was uploaded for, and has been in continuous use in, Eagle Mk1. I suspect that your bot needs a little more guidance! Pyrope 22:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It was orphaned for about 10 hours on 2008-01-21. User:Save Us 229 removed the image from Eagle Mk1 on the basis that it didn't have a fair use rationale for that specific article. I noticed the change, added a fair use rationale to the image, then readded the image back into the article. I meant to leave a message here telling you what I'd done, but forgot. DH85868993 (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've checked back through a load of Save_Us's edits... Decency prevents me from putting a name to their actions. Rather than contact the creators of the pages, or making a general note at the WP page associated with the article, they just deleted and altered. Then they went through and said "whoops, all these images seem to be orphaned/non-FU... better delete them. Save us from officious, arrogant editors. Pyrope 13:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Lancia D50

Hi you seem to have D50 in ur sandbox, I started a stub Lancia D50, just a note that maybe merging those. You seem to have more text already made so maybe just pick something and swap whole thing... --— Typ932^{T | C}  21:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pyrope. The article contains the statement "During their competition lifespan D50s were entered into 14 Formula One Grands Prix, of which they won five.". Do you know whether that means 14 WDC F1 GPs, or 14 F1 GPs in total? If it's 14 WDC F1 GPs, that should probably be clarified. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Howmet TX

Thank you much, I've been itching to rip off an article of it since I managed to take those pictures in January. Now going to toss it to PR and get it up to GA. The359 (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Confusion

User Guinness2702 did not break the 3rr as you sugested in your remark on history page, assume good faith on his part, i don't bother to logon. Although naturally you can choose to disbelieve me! I usually find that disagrements from two people that have an intrest in making the artice better usually balances out and succceds in making for a better read in the long run! I am not sure you are correct about the Wikipedia:LEAD but happy to be proved wrong 89.240.206.155 (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if I don't believe a word. You use phrases such as "I usually find" and you seem to be very conversant with the MoS (I assume that you will know what that stands for) yet your only edits are those made to the page in question and my talk page in the last couple of days. Hardly the record of a seasoned anon editor. I accept that there may be a dynamic IP at work, but your method and habit quoting of Wiki scripture is identical to Guinness's use, and is pretty characteristic. Pyrope 19:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your forgiven (grin), but you are quite wrong. Haven't looked at all your gravances with the chap so I can't really comment, however i would ask that you don't add breaking the 3rr to your list, I have blundered into an argument I didn't intend too. You are quite right I only bother to log on if I need to I make tiny edits that aren't like to be challanged and this is often from multiple locations which often have dynamic IP address, mistake on my part in this case. This message and my orginal one on your talk page are both meant to be friendly. 89.240.206.155 (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And were taken as such. I suggest that you get an identity of your own fairly soon though, or you are bound to run into similar problems in the future. Logging in is the work of 10 seconds. Pyrope 22:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on further consideration, I still say "cobblers". You are Guinness and if you would like to disprove sockpupeteering then it is up to you to go through the hassle of getting an IP check. You appear as of nowehere, support a ludicrous and ill-informed argument about a page edit then disappear again, nevr to return, as soon as the consensus goes against you. Hmm... Pyrope 11:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry thats what you think, where did i say i was supporting anyone's argument? All I said is that information in the lead should be a summary of the article, am i wrong? My understanding is that it has all been resoloved to everyones satifaction which is a good thing. I will leave you to have the last word, if you think its worth it!! 89.240.206.155 (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Formula One constructors

Hi Pyrope. Thanks for your recent work on List of Formula One constructors (I promise I will help soon!). I was wondering: what source are you using for "number of drivers" information? Obviously for some of the lesser marques, you can just count them from the constructor's "Complete Formula One results" table, but what about ones like Cooper? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on your rewording of List of Formula One constructors - it's been on my "things to get around to eventually" list for a long time. I notice that there's currently some inconsistency in the table: some constructors (like AFM) just have the acronym; others (like ATS) are written "acronym (expansion)"; whereas others (like ENB) are written "expansion (acronym)" - I'd like to make them all consistent - do you have a preference for which format we use? (Or are there perhaps valid reasons why we should use different formats for different constructors?) DH85868993 (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the names per your suggestion. Something else which occurred to me: if we information like number of races/poles/points/fastest laps, etc for all the defunct constructors, shouldn't we also have it for the current constructors? The drawback being that we'd need to update the table after every race. DH85868993 (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy with your response re current constructors. Another question (there's always one more!): What do you think we should put in the "Races entered" column?: the number of different races the constructor entered, or the total number of entries in those races? DH85868993 (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re "Races entered": that's a tricky one. Both numbers can be meaningful under various circumstances. I always think back to 1988, when McLaren won 15 of the 16 races - writing it as 15 wins from 32 entries makes it sound less impressive than it actually was (IMHO). If I had to pick one, I'd probably go for number of races, primarily for consistency with other Wikipedia articles (e.g. List of Formula One records) and external sources (e.g. FORIX). An alternative would be to include both numbers in the table, either in separate columns (although the table already has a lot of columns) or in a single column, i.e. "Races (entries)". Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: F1 WikiProject Assessments

You're right, Coppa Acerbo is definitely no stub. Not sure what happened there.

I tagged almost everything between 1980 Formula One season to 1990 Formula One season as a stub because it only has a standardized blurb plus a results table, when it needs more to it to escape that class, I believe. This includes individual Grand Prix pages about the races that have a similar set up.

Likewise, a lot of articles I rated at Start could definitely be B-class or A-Class, but I did not feel comfortable in doing so.

You can see what got tagged by mining my Contributions list, and if you see anything that is incorrect, feel free to re-assess or call me on it. Guroadrunner (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Grand Prix race report infobox

Hi Pyrope. The rationale behind listing the lap number on which fastest lap was set next to the driver's name rather than next to the lap time was to cater for the case where multiple drivers set the same fastest lap time on different laps, e.g. 1961 Monaco Grand Prix. I've changed it so that it now puts the lap number next to the lap time (thereby fixing the formatting issue) unless there are multiple fastest lap drivers, in which case it goes next to the drivers' names as before. I don't know why I didn't think of that in the first place! DH85868993 (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:GP Manager Pro: No - why do you ask? DH85868993 (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Rosberg has 7 points…

Thanks for your edit, fixing my typo & following sorting error on the 2008 Formula One season. Well spotted :-) –Fred Bradstadt (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm game

Per your comments in the wikiquette alert, which of my comments went beyond the pale, and which of those were you planning on using in the future (I kinda laughed out loud at that, nearly making me nose-boot my tea, ya bastidge! :) )?
Btw, I thought I would pint out that the anon who seconded the alert is very likely one of at least four different socks operating int he article. I wa compiling the SSP when I received notice of the complaint. The article is a ripe mess; socks don't help matters, and I likely lost a bit of my cool after being accused of just about everything but spitting on the flag. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I pare down my responses? I don't mind doing that, but am a bit concerned that an admn might not verify the anon's and Kapowow's accusations. Considering the likelihood that all are probably related sockpuppets, I am thinkng that response might be the voice of sanity there. How would you suggest I trim it down? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have raised the issue on an admin page and they will doubtless take a look soon Take a breather for now, I think you have both expressed your viewpoints adequately already, across a number of talk pages. I think what you are seeing as multiple socks are actually the product of a dynamic IP, and the user concerned has not denied that they are one and the same. It is deeply odd that someone so obviously experienced chooses to operate as an anon IP, it is also very strange that they are so vindictive as regards whipping up support for their point of view on the Wikiquette discussion. And if you are reading this Mr/Mrs Anon IP 75...whatever, your posts themselves may well have bee neutral, but your choice of who to notify certainly wasn't. Anyway, time for you to sit back and wait to see what happens with the checkuser request. Pyrope 15:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do on that sitting back thing. My post to the AN/I was to request semi-protection, and to get some calig influence inthe article discussion. I wasn't really prepared for the vehemence of opinion which greeted me there. I had not considered the idea of the dynamic IP, as one of the IPs suggested closing out a discussion as resolved and then another IP address shortly thereafter closed it as resolved (it bears pointing out that the discussion had not been resolved). At that point, I began to suspect puppetry, anons supporting each other's actions. And Kapowow's recent edits in the wikiquette were identical in format to those of any of the anons (bold text for emphasis, incorrect usage of Latin, no indenting but line breaks betwixt paragraphs). It dawned on me that they might all be related. brrrr. Its like an episode of Lost. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am having some trouble interpreting the checkuser results. Is it saying that all of the anons are connected, and that Kapowow is also part of the same range? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure that Kapowow was part of this mess until his posting similarities became apparent in the wikiquette complaint. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I sent the clarification to Seicer (here). Seem about right? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your excellent work completing List of Formula One constructors. DH85868993 (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ta eversomuch. I'm never one to shirk a challenge. Pyrope 00:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean like this? Unbelievable... DH85868993 (talk)

Me or them... :-( Pyrope 02:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Them! DH85868993 (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Phew... ;-) Pyrope 02:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ferrari fastest laps

Hi Pyrope. I was using FORIX's number, which I'm quite willing to accept may be incorrect. I agree it would be good to identify what the actual number really is. (And once we've sorted out Ferrari, we can work on McLaren, which has similar discrepancies between various sources) DH85868993 (talk) 12:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I've solved the Ferrari conundrum. ChicaneF1's list of 207 Ferrari fastest laps (to the end of 2007 - it would be 208 including Räikkönen's achievement in Spain) includes two races which are listed twice: the 1954 British GP (where both González and Hawthorn set the equal fastest lap time in a Ferrari) and the 1970 Austrian GP (where both Ickx and Regazzoni set the equal fastest lap time in a Ferrari). So I guess it depends how we want to define "number of fastest laps": We can say that 208 different Ferrari cars have set the fastest lap time in 206 different races. (Or, if you prefer, 207 different cars entered by Scuderia Ferrari have set the fastest lap time in 205 different races). Interestingly, FORIX doesn't list Ickx as setting fastest lap in the 1970 Austrian GP (but Mike Lang's Grand Prix! Vol 2 does). I had never really thought about Baghetti's non-works achievements in 1961. Strictly speaking, I guess we should have two infoboxes in the Scuderia Ferrari article - one documenting the team's achievements, and another with the numbers for "Ferrari as a F1 constructor" (as we have in Team Lotus and Tyrrell Racing). But I wonder how much confusion that would cause...

The story with McLaren is: ChicaneF1 says 136 fastest laps, FORIX says 135. The point of difference is the 1970 South African GP, where both ChicaneF1 and Mike Lang indicate that Surtees set (equal) fastest lap in a non-works McLaren (so I guess that's another case where we should have two infoboxes). But www.mclaren.com claims 136 fastest laps "correct after the 2008 Malaysian Grand Prix", which would suggest the total would be 137 now (following Kovalainen's efort in Bahrain) - but since they just list the total, there's no indication of what the "extra" race is. DH85868993 (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

The Roman aquadux in china.

Motofan

Don't take this badly but explain what Motofan has done that's vandalism? Chubbennaitor 19:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I can understand why he did that since he is a South African and he has strong "beleif"s in Formula One but I understand your reason. Chubbennaitor 17:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I was harsh with my edits and I am sorry. I just dont like Nelson Piquet junior and if you only knew how the crime figures went up in South Africa since democracy in 1994 you would also be a racist. I am really sorry and I will think twice before I edit next time. Just let me know if you are not satisfied with my edits.Motofan 19:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2008

--Chef Tanner (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Jamie Hamilton (motorcycle racer)

I helped get the article restored in an AFD review. Would you help wikify and expand the article? My knowledge of British circuits and culture is not in-depth like yours. Royalbroil 13:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008

--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Cast chassis

That sounds like a completely mad way of building a car! Nice bit of obscuriana from the days when technical innovation was allowed. Sigh. 4u1e (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Image:Renault logo 1972-1992.gif)

You've uploaded Image:Image:Renault logo 1972-1992.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Alta logo.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:McLaren logo (original).gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Geki table

Hi there, just to say that any differences I made in formatting etc in the table on Geki's page were just due to me saving my edits after an edit conflict, which included the table I expanded at the same time you did. I wasn't "improving" your table in any way. You're welcome to change anything back to your version if you want. Cheers! Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! I was pretty surprised to get an edit conflict there at all, let alone with someone doing the same thing as me! And you're right of course, there's no need for all that bumph, it's not as if poor Geki is going to go back in time and compete in those races. At least he now has a proper table - twice over! Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Mosley

What a perk that a couple of weeks ago in law class we learnt how to read judgements, eh? --Narson ~ Talk • 08:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for editing my section on Ferrari, the "2008 Pit system". I'm glad you thought it was a good add-on to the page. Darth Newdar (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:RSM60.jpg

Image:RSM60.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Royal School of Mines entrance.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Royal School of Mines entrance.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

2008 Brazilian Grand Prix

Hi. I noticed that you've done a couple of race report PRs before, and I was wondering if you have a moment could you do a quick skim of the above article and let me know your impressions at the peer review here? This is the first article of the year that I want to really push on, and I would like to know if I'm on the right track. If you can't, could you let me know, otherwise I'll keep the PR active. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 11:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know how active you were, but I archived the PR and listed the article for GA. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 14:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

NC

The information comes from various contemporary sources, and these tables are also now more in line with FORIX, which does not include non-scoring drivers in the WDC classification. Rather than remove them altogether, I thought listing them as "not classified" was best. With regard to the drivers who didn't finish a race, I'm not sure what you mean. I haven't listed them as classified, but "not classified", which is accurate. Properly speaking, non-scorers shouldn't be on the list at all, because that's how championship tables were compiled at the time. Inclusion of non-scorers in WDC tables appeared to start in 2000, according to FORIX, but later according to other sources. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, you made perfect sense. It's a complicated little thing, this - I understand what you mean by applying an official-looking designation to drivers who shouldn't really have any kind of designation at all, but then in that case, they shouldn't be on the list. A dash doesn't really denote anything - it's not on the key and it's not self-explanatory. I thought about leaving them blank, but "not classified" is still technically correct, since officially they weren't listed, i.e. not classified. I basically figured that if they had been listed in those days, they'd have been given an "NC" designation, but the fact is that nobody ever seemed to bother to list non-scorers at all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)