User:Bretonbanquet/Talk Archive 5

D-Day

First vs. second. I bet even at the start of the season, Orient were not expecting to be in this position, potentially leading the league into 2014. That said, neither of our teams could lead if Brentford mug MK Dons. Craig(talk) 14:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, complete sell-out. Unreal for a third-tier game. Your team today is: Larkins, Omozusi, Vincelot, Baudry, Cox, James, Lisbie, Odubajo, Clarke, Bartley, Simpson. We've let Griffiths stay on the bench; baffling decision. But yes, may the best team win! Craig(talk) 14:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Our team is similarly okay. We've got Jake Cassidy up front; he's yet to score for us in 22 appearances, but had 16 in 38 at this level over two half-seasons at Tranmere on loan. I'm trying to plan to get down for a game at some point this season; I had been planning to go to Carlisle away (not every so often you get to a Wolves game in 90 minutes not involving a plane!), but it got called off due to internationals. Just have to fit it in around work and other commitments.

Let's see: Redruth to Wolverhampton – 258.9 miles @ 4:15; Glasgow to Wolverhampton – 279 miles @ 4:22. 20 miles, 7 minutes nearer! Didn't realise it was that close. Craig(talk) 14:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Good old Johnny Gorman! Never got a fair crack at Wolves. One sub appearance in the League, and that's all he got in the big time. Shame really! Craig(talk) 15:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

That was so predictable. Craig(talk) 16:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wolves side of the Twit-o-sphere are questioning Jackett's loyalty with Cassidy, how we cannot finish chances and basically stating how lucky Orient were. Complaints about the side, the manager and the fans themselves. All fun! 5 points from 12 for us in December is pretty shocking. Against MK Dons, Crewe, Rotherham and Orient. Not good enough. Craig(talk) 17:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Only just noticed that Orient only took 5 points out of 12 in December as well... Brentford took seven points off both teams in four games. Since drawing 0–0 with us, they've won six straight in the league. A Brentford team with a manager with no managerial experience until this month. Utterly baffling. Craig(talk) 17:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well I hope we're top by the end of the week; a hilariously wonderful scheduling of games on Wednesday and Friday. Craig(talk) 19:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I can handle a straight swap with Brentford. Definitely. Craig(talk) 01:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that festive run of matches did not do a lot of good... One win in 7... Craig(talk) 21:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It's always worse when you lose late on, in a nationally televised game to a team in the bottom third of the league. Mind you; we've only won one of our last four Friday night games, which was against Crawley at the start of the season... and even then, that was a late job too. Well, as for the transfer front; we've signed James Henry permanently from Millwall, and we are still looking to extend the loan of Michael Jacobs. There's talk of Kevin Phillips coming as a player-coach, while Livingston's Stefan Scougall is also being looked at. On the other end, I think Wayne Hennessey is a goner after his apparent comments tonight; we had debutant Aaron McCarey between the sticks, akin to your situation in goals of late. Leigh Griffiths will be a wanted man, along with several other players I bet. I see you lot are at Yeovil, if the game is on of course! Good luck! Craig(talk) 01:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Championship and even Scottish Premiership teams. Have heard that Celtic have been sniffing around Griffiths. As if they need more goals as they win another Premiership title... I remember Ness from his very early days at Rangers; not a bad player, but hardly done himself any favours by going to Stoke... By that reaction, you could do without a replay! Craig(talk) 14:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That's your one gubbing for the season out of the way then! Craig(talk) 18:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Worst thing for us; I'm still expecting ours. All our defeats this season have been one goal affairs...with the exception of MK Dons. Craig(talk) 02:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced on our current form... Craig(talk) 15:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a worrying feeling that we could clinch promotion against you guys on Easter Monday... Can't even believe how the wheels have came off your form in recent weeks, allowing Rotherham into third. One win in seven if memory serves me? Not good. :( Craig(talk) 20:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

All depends on Rotherham's result against Sheffield United on Tuesday. If they lose, we can seal promotion the following weekend if we have the 13-point margin over them, your lot and Preston! Realistically, it may be Good Friday at home to Rotherham. We're at Crewe next weekend, who will be up for a fight especially as they're in the bottom four just now. Seven teams covered by four points at the bottom. Can see a slip up there if I'm honest... Had that at Gillingham too at the start of the year.

Yeah, 77 points would've got you fourth last season; Doncaster won with 84. I think realistically, we're now aiming firstly to break a club record for most points; only two away from tying. Then, I hope, it'll be on towards the third-tier record of 101 points that Fulham and Charlton hold. Four wins from the last five is a tough ask, especially with Rotherham and Orient to play. But this season has been fun!

Rotherham are on fire; sixteen unbeaten (five more than what we've achieved at any point this season!)... which is why I can't see past our game with Rotherham being the big tester. 3–3 on their turf earlier in the season. Still think Brentford have enough to cover Rotherham off at present. Orient-Preston should be a shoe-in for the playoffs. Interestingly, there's a two-day gap between the two second leg matches in the playoffs... 6th–3rd match play 10 & 13 May, while 5th–4th play 10 & 15 May. Craig(talk) 22:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think our win up at Bramall Lane was one of our best performances, apparently... But, compared to where they were at the start of the season, it's a near-miracle that they are top half! Hopefully, all goes well by 5:05 next week (encorporating the 3:07 kick-offs, for obvious reasons). I think that could be the opposite; Orient could still be challenging for something, depending on results, and may want to beat Wolves that way. Still a couple of weeks of twists and turns I predict.

Third time lucky would be a good shout. If Orient didn't go up, I think it would make for a disappointing end to such a promising season... Wolves are equally terrible in play-off matches. Lost to West Brom (semis, 2007), Won (2003), Lost to Norwich (semis, 2002), Lost to Palace (semis, 1997), Lost to Bolton (semis, 1995), Lost to Aldershot (FOURTH division final, 1987 over two legs). Six playoff appearances, one promotion, one losing final and four semis! Craig(talk) 23:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Sheffield United have been a different team under Clough. Semi finals of the FA Cup, charging up the league... Who knows what may have been. Likewise Coventry, without their points deduction. Elvis has not left the building with them yet. I do hope Orient come through the playoffs (I think the gap to Brentford is just too big now). That's why I hate the play-offs. Mind you, the time we won, it was a holiday Monday and of course, with the schools being shut, sitting in the Wolves Admiral Doritos top... Happy days! Craig(talk) 19:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Luckily, I've not seen us at Wembley yet. We won in Cardiff back in the day. Orient in the Championship couldn't be any worse than a Yeovil or a Bournemouth! Craig(talk) 22:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Always bow to my wise words on predictions! ;) Craig(talk) 19:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Good luck in the playoffs; looks like you'll still be playing for a home game over the last few weeks! I apologise for the unnecessary drama at the end of our game! Craig(talk) 16:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

3–3 with them in December, and now a 6–4. A fortunate 6–4 in that another pitch invasion would have resulted in an abandonment. 30,110 at our game, yet a minority of them seem to let the side down. Very little between you lot, Rotherham and Preston. Which order you'll be in in a few weeks time, heaven only knows. Should hopefully be a good game on Monday; but I must say, I'd rather we'd clinch the title of our own accord. So, I just hope Brentford are up to the task against the Dons. Craig(talk) 16:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, very true! Officially, we cannot clinch the title by ourselves on Monday. We'd have to better Brentford's result, who are at MK Dons later in the afternoon. So, the players may well be back in Wolverhampton by the time that result comes in! Craig(talk) 17:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You lot: very hard done by. Should have had a point, at least. Craig(talk) 13:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the beard of Stearman must have distracted Swarbrick. That was a penalty every day of the week. Very impressed with Dean Cox; definitely your player of the match, and it was inevitable that he would score. Yeah, Carl Ikeme had a stormer, especially in that second half. Been through the youth system at Wolves, and has been a first-team member since 2003. Didn't make his début until 2005, and has only ever played the best part of 100 games for us. Played nearly 70 elsewhere during nine distinct loan spells. Very injury-prone, but coming into his own this season. Wayne who? Hopefully, it'll be an Orient-Rotherham final. Definitely the two best teams along with Brentford we've run into this season. Craig(talk) 13:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitely merits the #FeartheBeard hashtag that has been banded about Twitter since the beard has been about. Yeah, pocket dynamo. Very similar in stature to Sebastian Giovinco. Speedy, tricky winger at about 5' 4". Mind you, I haven't had that problem since like 10 years old! Yeah, Ikeme is too good for the third-tier. Kenny Jackett has been the perfect fit for us; as soon as I heard that he had left Millwall, I had been pining for him to be the manager. He did so much for them with not a lot of funds... very similar to Russell Slade at Orient; and now look at the results: 30 wins from 44 games, 99 points and one of the meanest defences in England. Preston doing you no favours at the moment. 2–1 up against Shrewsbury. 82, 80 and 80 as it stands. Orient's GD keeping them fourth. Craig(talk) 15:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Not often a Leyton Orient player can be compared to one of Juventus' players! Jackett was easily the difference: if you consider last season, Solbakken didn't actually do as badly as we first imagined compared to Saunders. But let's face it, we never did enough last season to stay in the league. Players didn't want to be associated with the club. This season, what a refreshing difference. Nearly a complete new bunch of players. We found it difficult at the start; heck, your lot, Peterborough and Brentford were all up there. We've just unleashed since January. Some excellent signings too: McDonald, Dicko and Henry. But... at least we can take the foot off the accelerator now we have that C. :) Craig(talk) 16:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I had a few of those tweets! As you do, when you see teams still unbeaten after 15 games! *cough* *cough*. You lot should go up but it all depends on whether you meet Rotherham. Those could be the ties of the playoffs. In all three leagues. Craig(talk) 17:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, one win in their last four for Rotherham, since their long unbeaten run ended. As it stands, it's Preston for you lot, but by only two goals. Could be a really close fight to see if you'll have the home advantage or not! Craig(talk) 23:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

But isn't all the other teams in the playoffs more northerly than Orient, though? Craig(talk) 00:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm just glad we don't need to worry about the playoffs! Craig(talk) 06:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

We would have to get into them first. Championship is going to be ridiculous next season. Craig(talk) 20:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to think so! Craig(talk) 23:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Third place for the O's. That goal difference at the start has done wonders! Craig(talk) 16:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Over the course of the season, you didn't deserve to finish anywhere outside of the top three... Tremendous season for you guys with very little money. At least with Peterborough, you know it will be a goal-fest. Third highest tally of points in Football League history. 31 wins out of 46. Cannot get much better in a football season than that, because you know you're never going to win every game. I felt quite disappointed with our win today because we relegated another team directly... and having suffered that the last two seasons, it didn't feel quite right to celebrate a win. Craig(talk) 20:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather see you lot in the final rather than Peterborough. Give someone else a chance at Wembley, rather than them getting a second crack there this season! Direct relegations are always the worst. Craig(talk) 22:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

1982?! Blimey, that's quite a while; in fact, a time frame eight years longer than my own age... Craig(talk) 23:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Soccerdatabase.eu

Soccerdatabase.eu is a copyvio website, so please do not use it, as you have done at Steve Massey. We are currently trying to get all links removed and the site banned. GiantSnowman 19:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The website that Soccerdatabase is copying is Playerhistory.com, which is currently down. Try searching for Playerhistory at the Web Archive? GiantSnowman 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

F1

If you have everyone else on board, then ignore me and say so. I won't edit war. I've made no edits on the page during this drama. --Falcadore (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

And to you. --Falcadore (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources

I saw that you edited out the reviews of this music writer several times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Piero_Scaruffi_-_Final_Verdict_on_using_him_as_a_source_in_reviews Could you explain why here? There's a final discussion about this, at the moment. Thanks. Woovee (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Compromise

I did make a concession, perhaps you missed it? It is possible I buried it. --Falcadore (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I apologise, not for the first time, if it looks like I have treated you poorly and thank you for you comments. --Falcadore (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Explaining why I've left the discussion

You questioned my leaving, so here, I will explain. To participate in a discussion, one needs time, ideas, willingness to continue and calmness. Right now, I don't have any time (exam tomorrow afternoon), any new ideas (I cannot improve my idea any further, other stuff below), the discussion isn't going anywhere and I've made all the points I can and I'm not willing to continue discussing (still pro-my idea, anti-WCC) and the discussion's inability to move in my favoured direction is really frustrating me (that ignores which direction it should be going) and I was already threatening to violate WP:POINT and if Joetri had returned in a similar way to his earlier messages, there would be many capitals and potentially swear words. So, to save everyone (including me) a lot of bother, I have left the discussion, at least until tomorrow evening, when all my exams will be done and I can relax.
Please note that if you find a way to put in something that says the table is ordered in 2013 WCC's order, then I will happily go along with it; however, it would mean convincing all those against putting in a note in the article, and as I said, the driver column must proceed the number column in that case because then the numbers take little precedence. I have decided against checking the discussion's progress (the last I saw was just before 11 pm) so I don't get caught up in it again, since I need it to not distract me from my work; feel free to pass anything here onto the discussion. I will not reply to anything until tomorrow evening. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

England, UK, WP:DNR, WP:ANRFC

The discussion at WP:DNR has been archived. I have left a note at User talk:MrScorch6200. Narrow Feint (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Southern League

Hello there! Shouldnt we unite our industry somehow if you have a time to do a selective revertion of my edits? i would like to diskuss my errors (at your point of view-:) and to separate this work between us to make it faster to do. Cheers Martinklavier (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

So, which usertalk we should use to discuss?-) making a different sections for new clubs in division (even is there were only o few) i've wanted them to look like similar sections of the Football League seasons articles. and i guess it is visually more comfort to separate upgrading clubs out from downgrading and transferred. of course, thats not so simple in our occasion cause we have much more divisions and leagues involved, but everything is surmountably. similar to that, i divided teams by
tags, not commas, looking at higher leagues – at my vision thats right decision, it is better NOT to separate clubs name into two rows. talking about 'the' problem you are right, hard thing to understand, glad that you patient. One last thing – if you'll look at any finished season table you'll see "Promotion to..." or "Relegation to..." in the last column, but for transferred teams we write "transferred to", so looks like we have past/present tense problem, shouldnt we use the same tense for all the clubs leaving the league? Martinklavier (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

wow, my fault with verbs is funny) anyway, the question isnt closed yet – if we are talking about promotion zone we mark top teams with tag (for example) 'promotion to conf south/north' or 'promotion to premier division' but time to time it is not right cause there are occasions when promoting teams were transferred between premier divisions of different leagues, and this tag would be wrong. so, the best decision in such cases is to mark teams with tag in past tense showing exact league where the team was promoted for example 'promoted to IL Premier Division' or 'promoted to Conference South', i think thats the best method to show the way of the team through the season for users who interested in learning the history of some team.Martinklavier (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

so, if its ok, i'll change those tags to 'promoted' and add this tag to the play-off promoted teams cause now thats hard to understand where the those teams were transferred looking at final table. cheers Martinklavier (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

ok, lets concentrate on things which we have a similar point of view firstly-) Martinklavier (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Weigh in on discussion?

Hi. Would you care to weigh in on this discussion? It concerns whether a particular review quote should be removed from an article. Dan56 (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Time to go to ANRFC?

I can't handle this column discussion anymore, I think it is time to take this to ANRFC. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe the 9th, since it really is just a continuation of this, which would leave one week of pain to bear. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "2014 Formula One season". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 20:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you are referring to as I have not made any comment yet on the noticeboard. If you're referring to the dispute overview, there's no established practice to sign that separately. It has been done for any of the other posted disputes. Maybe you missed the "listed by TVX1" on the top right of the entry of the dispute. Tvx1 (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Re:DRN

Thank you for informing me of the discussion Tvx1 started there. I am rather unfamiliar with that noticeboard so I'm not sure if I can unilaterally add myself in or not, but I'll thank you again for ensuring myself and the rest of us involved in the debate are represented. Hopefully we might actually get some form of conclusion now...

I do share your view that the F1 WikiProject has become increasingly embattled over the past few months. It's a great shame really, as apart our favourite sock-puppeteers I've always held our little motorsport corner to be above many of the bitter disputes that hit the rest of Wikipedia. It almost makes me want to go back to vandal fighting for a more harmonious environment! QueenCake (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Leahtwosaints

Leahtwosaints has been quite ill, but is able to occasionally access a computer again, and has requested that anyone interested contact her. Please see her talk page for more information, and thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Relegation from Isthmian D1S

The resignation of Vauxhall Motors from the Conference North has reprieved whichever team in the highest relegation spot across the six Step 4 leagues has the most points per game. Three Bridges (22nd in D1S at present) have already achieved a PPG that cannot be overhauled by their rivals in the other leagues even if they lose all their remaining games/other teams win theirs, hence whoever finishes 22nd in the Isthmian D1S is guaranteed to stay up. Cg29692 (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes it was me. Would it not be possible to reference the FA's rulebook on this, pointing out the rules on how PPG determines which teams will be reprieved? Then add an explanation of the PPG situation stating that the PPG of whoever finishes 22nd in Isthmian D1S cannot be overhauled. I feel that it would be misleading to state on the Wiki page that 22nd in D1S will be relegated, as barring a very late and surely highly controversial FA rule change this will not be the case. Cg29692 (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Wakefield resigned from the NPL two weeks ago. See here. Cg29692 (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I've edited 2013–14 Northern Premier League to show that it's a resignation not a relegation. I wasn't aware referencing was required: Vauxhall Motors's resignation isn't referenced on the 2013–14 Football Conference page. With regards to reprieves, the FA's rulebook here states the following: "If vacancies remain, priority will be given to those Clubs other than bottom placed clubs relegated from Step 4 who will be ranked according to the average number of points gained per games played and the Club with the highest average shall be reprieved first". I acknowledge what you say about original research and making assumptions, however that quote from the rules is unambiguous, and no interpretation of that rule would see 22nd in Isthmian D1S relegated. Some aspects of the FA's rules are ambiguous and should different scenarios arise (e.g. another resignation from Northern D1N – what happens to Ossett Albion then?), and in such a scenario original research and making assumptions would come into play, and those would require more cautious editing, but in this case the FA's rulebook is unambiguous. I've haven't edited the page since as I have no desire to get into an edit war, this may be worth taking to WT:FOOTY for further discussion. Regards, Cg29692 (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

F1 DRN

Hey Breton,

I am very happy with the progress of the 2014 F1 DRN so far. However, I have never taken part in a DRN before (insofar as I remember), and I have some concerns that you might be able to address. I am hesitant to raise the issue with Hasteur, for fear of compromising the DRN. It is pretty clear that the solution is to remove the column in question, but I am concerned that the editors opposed to this are now going to stall because it is not the outcome that they want. While we can hardly expect them to sit on the DRN project page and respond to every comment that gets posted as they are posted, I have noticed a pattern from both Tvx1 and Joetri10 – they address everything that gets posted early in a debate, but slow down once the tide turns against them. That might not line up with AGF, but given everything we have seen from them – trying to force a non-consensus, misrepresenting the situation when the DRN was posted, arbitrarily declaring opposing arguments to be unproven (without anything to substantiate it) and the over-reliance on the idea that consensus is not a vote – I am left wondering as to how they might handle a DRN that goes against them, and would not be surprised if they try to prevent it from reaching a resolution. I hope they do continue to take part, but if the worst-case scenario comes to pass and they try to force the DRN to stagnate, is there anything we can do? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright; thanks for that. I doubt either of them will take it much further, but they have been pretty aggressive in the past.

As for the Sirotkin thing, I think it was a pretty legitimate dispute. The problem was that a weak consensus had been formed to include him, given the unusual circumstances. But then a strong consensus was formed to remove him based on an unreliable source and the argument that "it is an open secret he will not drive" and "the team has not talked about it" (a condition that was not applied to any other team). If adding content requires a reliable source, then surely removing reliably-sourced content also requires a reliable source. The question of what to do in that case is certainly something that needed to be considered. But the numbering issue and now this dispute are things that should never have dragged out, because they should have been obvious edits. That is why I am hoping this DRN will help people remember how to go about establishing a consensus and what to do if you disagree with one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Source

The consensus of January is no more. There's a new discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Piero_Scaruffi_as_a_reliable_and_published_source Could you write your point of view? Thanks Woovee (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Bretonbanquet/Callington Town F.C.

Hi,

Under PROD procedures, the request of any editor – including yourself – is sufficient for the article to be restored outright. Given the circumstances that you describe, though, perhaps it would be best if I userfied the article to your userspace, allowing you to move the article to the mainspace once promotion to Level 10 occurs. I shall place it here: User:Bretonbanquet/Callington Town F.C.. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thin Lizzy Discography

OK fair enough i was just trying to clean the page up abit and i didn't no i had been logged out86.19.151.163 (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC) OK i apologize for any inconvenience caused and was not trying to vandalise the page kind regards.86.19.151.163 (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Lukejordan02

Figured as much. Can't say he's helping his cause for unblocking much. NiciVampireHeart 00:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

SORRY

Hi i just want to say i am really sorry for my edits on the thin lizzy page i understand why they were wrong, i hope you forgive me kind regardsLukejordan02 (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC) (Sorry again!)

No worries, I hope your editing will be a bit more successful now you're unblocked again. Don't forget to listen to the advice of more experienced editors. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes i will, thank you and sorry again.Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Gary Moore Discography

Hi I was just wondering what your option is about possibly of combining the video and DVD sections and separating The Gary Moore Band, G-Force, Scars and BBM albums from the rest of the studio albums to make it clear that they are not Gary Moore solo albums.Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

KISS 40

Hi, sorry to bother you but i was just wondering if you could look at this page i've created and help me improve it kind regardsLukejordan02 (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_40

It needs an infobox – look at another Kiss compilation album page (like The Very Best of Kiss) and use the infobox there as a template, just changing the relevant details. You could also use the same categories, and add the big Kiss template at the bottom. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the advise i've done them, do you know how to make the track listing of disc 2 sit in line with disc 1 (so it's not so wide) and is there anything else thank you again.Lukejordan02 (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The reason for that is the track listing for disc 1 is made narrower by the infobox. The best way is to write some text above (like the background to the release, chart information, anything like that), to push the track listing below the infobox. Then it will widen out like disc 2. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have just finally got round to adding more info but still haven't quite got enough, you don't know anything about KISS do you? I've searched all over the web for anything relevant I could add but can't find anything.  :) Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about Kiss, unfortunately. Let's think... normally track listings should have the songwriters for each song, and there should be a personnel section at the bottom, showing band members and who played what. There's a review on Allmusic [1] – it's sometimes good to say "This guy from Allmusic said x, y and z". Particularly the last sentence is quite relevant, i.e. it's good for the major fan but not so great as an introduction for new fans. It shows the album is notable too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, sorry to keep bothering you but I don't know many people on here, plus I know you know what your talking about. I never thought when I created the page there would be so much time and effort needed just for a page about a compilation album. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries. You'll get to know more people as you go. Writing your first article takes ages but when you get the hang of it, you'll find it easier. I wrote Madison Blues a few days ago and it didn't take too long. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, this is my third time creating a page the other 2 pages were for then upcoming UFC events but with them I created the page added the templates and the basics and then other editors came along and did all the rest and I must admit when I created this page I thought it would be the same (with KISS being such a popular band), so when no-one else edited the page I kind of regretted creating it. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, I know that feeling. I wrote a few like that, and later regretted them. But when someone tried to delete one, I got angry and improved it so it could be saved. Kiss 40 is already better than a lot of compilation articles I've seen. Some of the Lizzy ones (not mine!) are pretty basic, like The Definitive Collection (Thin Lizzy album), and this is after a few people have tarted it up. At the beginning it just looked like this [2]... Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, some people on here might think I'm not that good an editor but if I was going to take the time out to create a page I wouldn't leave it as blank as that, the main thing I hate is writing info because I always worry incase I have worded something wrong or not used punctuation properly (English was never my strongpoint at school.) The main problem with creating a KISS album article is the amount of info needed to be included, there is normally a row for which member of the band is singing Lead Vocals as they all sing, then there is the writing credits and they are a band that has always used outside writers such as Desmond Child as well as writing themselves and lastly which members contribute to which songs due to the multiple members the band have had. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. There's almost no point in creating an article and just leaving it like that. It just makes work for others. Don't worry about dodgy grammar or anything though, as there are thousands of editors who just like going around and correcting people's English. Each to their own, I guess! Sounds like Kiss are quite a complicated band in that way. It's not like AC/DC where you have all songs by Young/Young/Scott and bam, that's it. It might be worth asking on the main Kiss talk page if anyone there has any ideas for more info or help. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea thanks. I wish the writing credits were that easy on this it's going to take quite a bit to correctly list all the writing credits,musical contributions,and lead vocalist, but I suppose once it's done it will be worth the time. Yes KISS have a very complicated past and sometimes finding which musicians actually played on which album can take a second look as they often credited musicians on albums that they never even played on (but were secretly covered with session musicians), such as 1979's Dynasty which Peter Criss was credited for the entire album despite only playing on one song due to "substandard drumming" caused through injuries suffered in a car accident and that's just one of the many stories :). I'm suprised you don't listen to KISS, do you only listen to a handful of bands or are you like me listen to more than you can name? Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Just as well there's no deadline for getting an article into shape ;) Some bands are definitely easier to work with than others – AC/DC can often be easy but it's very hard to figure out who played what on the very early albums. Even later on we don't really know who played certain bass parts on stuff like Let There Be Rock and Powerage. Yeah, Kiss were never really on my radar for some reason, although I played "Detroit Rock City" only yesterday. I listen to a huge number of bands, but a lot of the US rock never grabbed me like the British and Irish stuff. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Peterborough can't...

In regards to another trip to Wembley... Party time. Second tier is only 90 minutes away. Craig(talk) 21:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you'll get a ticket for Wembley though... and let's face it... That'll be more than worth it... Perhaps not if there is a loss in it, but at least you'd get to enjoy the earthly closeness that is Wembley... /sarcasm! Craig(talk) 21:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

At least it is Rotherham again, at the final. 2–2 over the two matches this season; Orient win 1–0, Rotherham 2–1. Should be close. Craig(talk) 19:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure if it was Orient in the 95th minute, it would take quite a while to come down from that high! Craig(talk) 00:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

WTF!!

I haven't done anything wrong so why are you threatening me you reverted alist of edits by some user that affected my edits i had done before them so i reverted back to my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.151.163 (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused, i am not reverting over anyone i edited the Fleetwood Mac page yesterday i have just come back to the page (first time since then to see it had been changed so i looked at the edit history to see you reverting and telling some user fugreena or something about him halving the page, so i thought my edits have got caught up in it (by you reverting him it reverted me) so i did my changes again. the next minute i have a message of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.151.163 (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC) OK fine i have now logged in (I normally own log in on my iPad, which i am on pc now) can me and you talk to sort this please, first off forget the other guy for now looking at his history he seems to make disruptive edits, now take a look at my edit and tell me what is wrong with it because i am 100% trying to improve the page (hand on heart) i can name at least 5 things wrong with the version which i changed. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC) if you want me to list the problems with the page to prove to you i am trying to help i will. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC) ok cheers. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I Have wrote a shitload on the page, can you read it please? Kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fleetwood Mac discography. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

About repeated reverts on Fleetwood Mac discography

The article was filled with excessively-using of "style="text-align:center;" on the wikitables. Those lines accounted for over 50-percent of the entire page, and only made the size of the article unnecessarily large. I just intended to simplify it, replacing with style="text-align:center;" border=" on the top of each tables. WHY do I have to be blamed for it? I can't figure it out. I'm so saddened and disappointed with your rudeness. That's all I have to say.　Fugreena 02:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well, Fugreena, if that's all you have to say I do not expect to see you editing that article again. You should make your case on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Discography

Hi I know we don't always see eye to eye but at least your always civil, but User:Piriczki keeps leaving a message on the fleetwood mac talk page about there has been made a report or something about me removing an album from led zeppelin discography which I later (after much research realised I was wrong in doing so and tried to get him to discuss the matter on his talk page about re-adding the album in the box sets section rather than the compilation section.) he is trying to use this fleetwood mac thing against me as well. What shall I do? Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it too much, Piriczki is basically starting a discussion about your edit asking for other editors to give their opinion. That's what the rules say to do if there's a dispute, and they encourage people to use article talk pages instead of user talk pages. He isn't reporting you or anything. But it's important not to remove his comments from article talk pages because that's not allowed – you can get blocked for that. You're only allowed to remove people's comments from your own user talk page. If Pirizcki wants to talk specifically about the Fleetwood Mac discography page then he should use the FM discography talk page. We'll get that one sorted anyway, between you, me and Fugreena, who has calmed down a bit and explained what he wanted to do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you know why Opus Collection was removed? If I'm correct, it was an official release. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why it was removed, and yes, it definitely should be there. Anything that isn't a bootleg goes on the list. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops I'm so sorry. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

AC/DC Discography

Hi now that the Fleetwood Mac page is sorted I wanted to talk to you about the AC/DC page, This is the edit I made which was reverted after. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AC/DC_discography&oldid=608564117 Now the whole page is the same accept for 2 parts first the Live albums section which I removed the 2nd live album from it being the same as the other but 2 discs instead of one, (IMO - most greatest hits and live albums come in 1 or 2 disc releases but they aren't always listed twice so I think this would be a great place to use your re release notes.) And lastly the studio albums section I removed the Dirty Deeds & Let There Be Rock albums from being listed twice due to both albums being the same accept for track listing and artwork and both take you to the same page and thought it made sense to keep the albums only listed once. Kind regards Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC).

The deal with the two versions of the Live album is that they both charted separately as seperate releases, and they have separate certifications as well. So somehow they both have to be listed with their chart/certifications info. I basically agree with you about the Aussie versions of those two albums, but this discography has release dates and labels, which complicates things. Your edit had them released on the Albert label, which was only true in Australia, so somehow we'll have to get around that too. Somebody on the talk page suggested splitting the discographies into Aussie and International until Powerage, but I'm not so sure about that. It's much less of a task than the Mac discography though so I'm sure we'll sort it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, while I don't like it I understand about the live album so that is sorted, the other section if you take another look at the link I posted above I did list both release dates and labels of Australia and internationally. Kind regards Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC).

Yeah, on Wikipedia sometimes we all have to accept stuff we don't really like. That's why it sucks sometimes. Sorry, my mistake on the other thing – I've got two points: 1) That format of two release dates and labels makes the row a bit big, maybe make that info small or something? 2) Some of the other albums have different release dates too, we should probably put those in as well. Off to bed now but we can fix this tomorrow if you want. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, so what do you think of those two points? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree I was never happy with how wide big the row was made but couldn't think of a better way at the time. Do you agree that them 2 albums should only be listed once? Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think they really deserve separate rows. That's probably a throwback to how AC/DC fans look at those albums – they do tend to treat them separately because of the different covers etc. But one row is enough here, I think. How about just showing the earliest release date? And maybe both labels? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I was previewing the changes and accidentally hit save instead of preview (I am on my iPad) rather than me revert it if you take a look and we can change it from that, the only difference is the studio albums (writing needs to be made smaller.) Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I have done what you suggested see what you think I think it looks tidy. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks better already. We should probably reduce "Albert Productions" to just "Albert" – a) to save room, and b) we've already reduced "Atlantic Records" to just "Atlantic" so it'd be consistent. Apart from that it looks OK to me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

That looks so much better I hate it when articles are overly big or long when they don't need to be. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

That's true, as long as they contain everything that's necessary and relevant, nothing else is needed. That guy Fugreena had a point about all the excess formatting, I'll admit that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you think there needs to be any more changes to the article I think the music video section could do with being sourced/sorted. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to bombard you with questions but do you think the Powerage release date should be changed as it is listed as 25/May but it was originally released on the 05/May. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes to Powerage, whatever is the earliest date. The videos all look legit to me, although AC/DC: Let There Be Rock is listed twice for a reason I can't quite see. The sourcing could do with fixing up a bit. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think AC/DC: Let There Be Rock is listed twice because of the re-issue the same with no bull both could be listed just once as both only go to 1 page. What do you think of the music videos section there is loads of directors missing Ect. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say both could be listed once, as long as the information (label/format/certifications) are merged and not deleted. It's important not to delete that stuff. Music videos, yeah, a lot of those with the director missing aren't really videos – they're just live shows recorded, especially everything from 1978. I'll go through them and take those out when I have time. There's more info in this list than the Fleetwood Mac one, so maybe it's OK to keep it. Needs sourcing though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

OK I have done that it looks good I hope you agree. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's cool. Good catch with the Moscow video, you're right, that's several bands on that one. I've put the No Bull chart positions back in as it did chart, and I've reduced "Albert Productions" back to "Albert" like on the albums. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry I didn't realise I forgot to add the chart positions back. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Missing Mac album?

Hi I see you mentioned in the notes in one of the sections about the preaching the blues re release, is this missing or connected?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Preaching-The-Blues-Fleetwood-Mac/dp/B005LTSB9C/ref=pd_sim_m_h__1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0KECYVA3HCGT68DZJNCA

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Crazy-About-Blues-Fleetwood-Mac/dp/B003VXNZJQ/ref=sr_1_77?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1400543459&sr=1-77&keywords=Fleetwood+mac

Both are released by the same company.Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Good spot, that has also been taken from the Madison Blues set. They really cannibalised that one. I'll add it now quickly. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah we will sort AC/DC tommorow like you said there is no deadline on this stuff kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, them 2 Fleetwood Mac albums are borderline bootlegs and there are loads of them most of which are not listed such as.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Live-Fleetwood-Mac/dp/B000092JSR/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1400613362&sr=8-6&keywords=fleetwood+mac+live

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Go-Your-Own-Way-Live/dp/B006ONOUS0/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1400613362&sr=8-13&keywords=fleetwood+mac+live

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fleetwood-Mac-Live/dp/B006Q4LK8A/ref=sr_1_34?ie=UTF8&qid=1400613588&sr=8-34&keywords=fleetwood+mac+live

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fleetwood-Mac-Live/dp/B001FYUSLQ/ref=pd_sim_sbs_dmusic_a_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=0YWNYYAGX3Y5XJP86G22

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Leather-Lace-Live-Fleetwood-Mac/dp/B004YDFOSW/ref=sr_1_50?ie=UTF8&qid=1400613597&sr=8-50&keywords=fleetwood+mac+live

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003XTB2B6/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_2?pf_rd_p=1535524082&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B000001OC1&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=18FCTM18Z22D0ECYK54A

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Live-Fleetwood-Mac/dp/B000025WPS/ref=sr_1_43?ie=UTF8&qid=1400613597&sr=8-43&keywords=fleetwood+mac+live

My point is there are loads and loads of these but they are not listed wikpedia isn't a discography site and shouldnt need to cover every inch like websites such as discogs and allmusic should. and on the second subject the wording is confusing by saying about the last one being released as a single live disc because all of them was. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, revert yourself. You discuss things and then the edits are made, when there's agreement – you don't continue to revert to your version while the discussion is ongoing. I figured you'd learned that by now. That is edit-warring. Secondly, you're not correct on either count. The two live albums are not bootlegs. I don't think you really know what a bootleg is. A bootleg is an illegally released album, and both of these albums have been released by bona fide record companies. There are a lot of bootlegs around, but I know the difference. The recordings of the Marquee '67 show and the London '68 show, along with the Boston '70 shows are not owned by the band. That does not mean they are bootlegged. Sometimes bands don't own their own stuff. The rights are owned by another party and they can release them as they see fit, in these cases, perfectly legitimately. This is a discography, not a selective discography – you don't get to pick and choose what goes in. Regarding the Madison Blues re-releases, no, they are not all live. Crazy About the Blues has about three live tracks on it, and the others are mostly studio demos. Preaching the Blues is entirely live. If you don't know very much about a band's output, you probably shouldn't be editing discographies. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

To start off I didn't say they were bootlegs I said borderline meaning unofficial poor sound quality releases which as I stated there are loads of them with none of them being listed except the 2 I removed and lastly I know that disc is a mixture of studio and live but stating Preaching the Blues is entirely live is not needed as it is just basically disc 2 of the box set. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Borderline bootlegs? What are they? And who says? You? Got a source? Put them back in. You've got to understand the rules here or your stay will be a short one. You cannot just take stuff out because you don't like it. The others you listed are either different versions of albums we already have listed, or they're bootlegs of entirely different gigs. That's why I haven't put them in. I can source the legitimacy of these two albums because they were released by legitimate record companies, both of which have articles on Wikipedia. You can't source that they're "borderline bootlegs". Poor sound quality is irrelevant. Born Again has awful sound quality but that has no bearing on its legitimacy. Regarding the last point, what you say doesn't make sense. The fact that it's live isn't required because it's been released already as part of a box set? And so what? They're already not listed separately because you didn't want them to be, and now the compromise we agreed yesterday isn't good enough for you either? It's starting to look like you flat out don't like contributions by other editors and you basically want everything to look the way you want it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No I don't want everything to look the way i want it, like I said yesterday regarding the live AC/DC album I didn't like that but understood and accepted it, I don't mind accepting something if it is what is best. Borderline bootlegs was just the way I was coining it I know there is no such thing but used that for lack of a better way of putting it, I understand the rules and I am trying to make useful contributions as I know you are, I think there is a misunderstanding what I mean is if they are included why shouldn't the other unsanctioned recordings be included they are that many unsanctioned releases that if we can not provide a thorough list then maybe they shouldn't be included and a note stating something along he lines of only sanctioned recordings are listed and lastly what I meant about the live section is why mention that the disc is entirely live it makes more sense to mention that the one disc serves as a reissue of disc 1 of the box set and the other of disc 2. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a disagreement with you I am sorry for reverting before discussing the edits, I really respect you as an editor if I didn't I wouldn't of asked your opinion on many things (KISS 40/Gary Moore) but I just don't agree with the current discussion but I am more than willing to keep discussing until an agreement is met kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

How are you going to decide what is sanctioned by the band and what isn't? Record companies release material without the permission of the artists all the time. It's impossible to pick and choose what's sanctioned and what isn't. Furthermore, that isn't the job of a discography. Discographies list releases under a particular band name and they're not supposed to pick and choose, and editorialise. Nearly all of those compilations are without the say-so of the band. And yeah, that would make sense if it was true, and you haven't actually edited that anyway. Perfect Days isn't disc 1 of Madison Blues, and nor is Perfect in Every Way. They're a jumble. Crazy About the Blues is disc 1, but there's no description of Madison Blues on the page so it hardly makes any sense to mention it. You were happy with that note yesterday, yet today you change it and don't even bother asking. I change it back and bam, another revert. You say you're sorry for reverting before discussing, but we're still discussing this while the article sits at your version, and that's plain rude. Right now I'm not sensing much willingness to compromise on your part. If I revert you, you'll revert me back, and that is beginning to make you very, very hard to work with. I'll tell you, I won't be warned for edit-warring with you again. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said the other day I think the notes are a great idea my opinion hasn't changed, I mentioned the album to you if I hadn't it would not even be on the page but I did because I know that it should be included you then said you would include it great I just don't like the way you noted it, mentioning 1 to be totally live is a little unnecessary and it makes the page more uniformed like this

1 25 Years – The Chain was released as either a two- or four-disc box set. 2 In 2005, a three-disc set titled Men of the World: The Early Years was released, consisting of material from The Vaudeville Years and Show-Biz Blues. 3 Four single-disc releases of material from the Madison Blues three-disc box set have been released: Perfect Days (2008), Perfect in Every Way (2010), Crazy About the Blues (2010) and Preaching the Blues (2011).

Regarding the other matter I said I am willing to discuss it and I don't mind them albums being included I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT I AGREE THAT EVERY RELEASE SHOULD BE INCLUDED but think that adding 2 and not the others to be a little incomplete, like I said above I don't want to argue with you as I respect you and I want to discuss the matter and do what's best for everyone sorry for any inconvenience kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What you've just put there is your version. Where's the compromise? You don't like the way I noted it. There's a page here for that kind of thing – WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That is not a valid argument. You think mentioning that one disc is live and the others are a mix is unnecessary. I don't think it's unnecessary. You think it makes the page looks more uniformed, but there's less information in it. We're here to impart information, not to look uniformed. That note is already a compromise on my part. Left to me, I'd expand it to explain that the first two are a mix (and are the same) and the other two are directly lifted from the two discs of Madison Blues. But you'd probably revert me.

You think adding those two live albums and not the others is incomplete. What others? The ones you listed are either the self-same gigs with different covers, or bootlegs. One is listed as a Fleetwood Mac release but is actually Stevie Nicks. Amazon won't tell you that. I can strike every other Fleetwood Mac live release as either a bootleg or a copy of something already listed. We don't list bootlegs and there's little point (in my opinion) to list all the names of the various different copies of the same two gigs (Marquee '67 and Central London Poly '68) or all the different copies of the Boston gigs. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, I have re added them 2 live albums I shouldn't of removed without a real valid reason for doing so. I have changed the wording of that note take a look and see what you think sorry again kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, cool. The note looks the same though. I'll change the note, see what you think. If you don't like it, say so, don't revert. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Perfect, that note is really informative (is that a word?) Sorry for not discussing before changing I just don't think sometimes but I hope that you know that I am trying to help not vandalise (if I was trying to vandalise would I have send that album link to you?) I think by the end of all the edits on the discography page it will be worthy of an award. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Cool, so that's sorted. Yes, informative is a word ;) That's OK – I know you're not trying to vandalise or I would have reported you, so no worries. It is becoming a decent discpgraphy, you're right. I'm thinking about the 'Music videos' section though... do we need it? It's unsourced and it's basically just a list of singles, as all singles had videos at that time. What do you think? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It's funny you've mentioned that as I was thinking about the Music videos section the entire page is really informative and sourced and then that section at the bottom is poorly listed and unsourced. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with the video albums, in fact there's one missing, and it could do with some sources. They must have been certified gold or platinum or something, some of those. But I reckon we could take off the Music videos list as unsourced. I don't really think it adds anything. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

That sounds fine with me, I will be honest I don't know anything about there video albums as I have never seen Fleetwood Mac as a visual band if that makes sense and I didn't know there was one missing is it a new one? Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, they haven't released as many videos / DVDs as most bands. The other DVD is an older one, a compilation of the Peter Green era. It was shown on TV way back and it's been re-released a few times, but it's basically the same video. I'll add it in while I take out the other list. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I have renamed the section video albums is that ok? Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense now there's only one section. Looking a lot better. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I have updated the infobox to coincide with you adding that missing video. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Ta, I always forget the infobox. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries, is there anything else you think needs changing or adding? Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing I can think of right now, except that I'd like to unsqueeze the albums table and get it below the infobox. I know a way to do it but it would leave a big empty gap at the top. A bit more text in the intro would do it but I don't know if it's that important really. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If your not busy can we take a look at the AC/DC discography? Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thin Lizzy discography

I didn't just pick out random compilations I used this site http://www.thinlizzy.org/discography.html. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean stuff the bands management are trying to flog when was the last time (Remembering Part 1) was released. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Forget about the, for a minute and let's say they should all be in there, since when do discographies have compilations from all over the world there is releases from Germany and everything in there name one discography on wiki that has all the foreign compilations on there. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

First off what foreign albums did we add on them 2 for mentioned pages (accept the AC/DC Australian albums.) There are no rules on a discography page if you read the proper page regarding them it says rules are not necessary If it doesn't help improve the page the compilations section on the Thin Lizzy page is a MESS and there are so many missing plus some of them are not even Thin Lizzy albums like. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I pasted the wrong thing I meant Inside Thin Lizzy 1971–83 it isn't an album it's a DVD and by foreign I meant foreign language not foreign countries like American/Australia/Canadian and I never said I'll do what ever the hell I want https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discographies/style. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay so it's fine for you to swear on my talk page but not for me to on yours (good to know) notice I never swore once until you did, secondly I never said they were rules as such but it is a good guide to follow, thirdly why include that "Album" in the DVD section it is a unauthorised biography that should not be mentioned on the same page as anything Lizzy did and lastly the foreign albums shouldn't be included this is an english page, no other discography page have them so why should this be any different? Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You just contradicted yourself there is NO RULE to say that foreign language albums shouldn't be included but there is no rule to say they MUST be include either and you didn't answer my question how many discography pages have foreign album releases on? Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

And your happy for the list to be half-complete with loads of releases missing? Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

That's more than a few. Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014 (UTC)

More than a few, yeah, let's have a look at those. #1 can be added. #2 is already on there. #3 is a bootleg. #4 isn't even music. #5 is One Night Only with a different cover. #6 and #7 are already on there. #8 can be added. #9 is already on there (same as #7). #10 is a bootleg. #11 is the same as #3. So by my count, two. Not even a few. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

1. 1/2 Fine.
2. 3 We had this bootleg discussion before where I wanted to remove an album and you said it wasn't a bootleg because it was released by a proper record label well same for these, #5 just because it has a different name and cover it shouldn't be added or at least noted? Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the Thin Lizzy - The Boys Are Back in Town: Live in Australia album. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

That album wasn't released by Warner it was released by Nippon Crown a Japanese record label so if what your saying is true than that should not be included. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually the album was released unofficially by Nippon without permission, warner only ever released the DVD/VHS meaning that the album has and always was a bootleg. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes because the DVD came out after the album I don't think Warner would allow another label to release an album of a video they had yet to release and it a Japanese division of Columbia not actually Columbia. Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

http://www.nolifetilmetal.com/thinlizzy_boots.htm - Read the link. Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

http://rateyourmusic.com/release/unauth/thin_lizzy/the_boys_are_back_in_town__live_in_australia_/ - Once again read the link. Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If you actually read the first link you would see they never called the Peel Sessions a bootleg but a rare recording did you actually read it or just decide you were going to say it was wrong beforehand. Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Another link just in case you find another excuse - http://www.bootlegzone.com/files.php?section=174&pub=&sort=1 Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I produce 4 links that back up what I am saying and yet you don't show 1 to backup what your saying. Lukejordan02 (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────────── 1. There are a lot of notes so I thought a notes section would be too long. I might try one to see what it looks like. 2. Discographies should include record labels, it's basic information. That proposal page recommends it and I think it should be there. I will probably add labels to the other sections, maybe in a separate column. I'll do a video section as well. 3. That was the point with the Peel Sessions / BBC stuff. They are specifically not live. They were recorded in studios, and mixed/overdubbed etc so are studio recordings. 4. I dug out the live albums and they are the titles. The venues aren't really part of the titles in some cases. 5. All those are already listed, some in the notes. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

1 - OK 2 - I Agree and only mentioned that because if the lack of them in the Studio and Live albums sections. 3 - But they are live many live albums are later re dubbed in a studio see KISS - ALIVE! for that but they are live and offer the.listener something that the rest of the compilations don't with the compilations being just re releases of studio songs. 4. Sources/Proof? 5. OK. Lukejordan02 (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Anything recorded in a studio is a studio recording, not live. They were simply recorded for BBC radio shows and there was no live audience, nothing. When I say they were overdubbed etc, I mean they were worked on right there and then, same day, in the same studio, like other studio recordings. Several takes etc. Many of those compilations include BBC session stuff, all the Classic Thin Lizzy, Millennium Editions realeases, all that stuff, it all has BBC stuff on there. 4. Sources are the record sleeves. For example, the Indigo2 one had two covers, one with no venue information on it at all, and one with it as a subtitle. The Hammersmith one had it as a subtitle. We removed (and you did too originally) the subtitle from Still Dangerous so we either have subtitles or we don't. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The live section was fine the way it was. And to say they are not live albums because they wasn't recorded in front of an audience is a load of bollocks, see The Beatles discography they have released 2 BBC sessions albums they are in the live album section same with Zeppelin and many more. Lukejordan02 (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

So you disagree with every edit I made today, and have reverted it to the older version, despite the fact you said earlier you liked my edits. I am very, very close to reporting you now. Explain now very clearly every problem you have with this page. Other discographies do not matter. Remove the swearing from your comment. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I reverted back because unlike the previous discussions this wasn't a calm discussion and it wasn't going anywhere plus you contradicted yourself by state ing to me discuss edits beforehand and then you go and make multiple changes with no discussion, and I am swearing because you are now trying my patience and I could report you just a well as you could me but we're grow ups aren't we?

The problems I have with the page (written in a "very clearly" manner) The lack of continuity in the page - the Studio and Live sections don't have record labels or country of origin but the Compilation section does. You changed the correct live albums names, the compilation section is untidy and just thrown together, and them 2 albums are live albums wether you like it or not just because they are recorded in a studio instead of on a stage with an audience they are still live see the Beatles, Zeppelin discographies . BBC and peel sessions are wilded regarded as live albums. Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't going anywhere because you don't have an argument. I'm trying your patience? Please go ahead and report me. Do it now. I am seeking advice from an admin.

You were absolutely fine just now with my edits, and the idea of introducing labels to the other sections, yet now you revert it all. That is pure disruption. I explained to you about the live albums, I have the discs in front of me. I suspect you don't. You say the compilation section is untify. You will have to be more specific. We disagree about live albums. You think they are recorded in a studio with no live audience. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I can easily revert your compilation edits back, but the live albums edits are just wrong and yes I do have all the live albums thank you. (We disagree about live albums. You think they are recorded in a studio with no live audience. ) what does that mean, I said that them 2 albums are live albums just because they are not recorded on a stage they are still live albums they have been in the live albums section for ages and you only now feel the need to change that and I don't need to report you I'm an adult not a 10 year tick tailing in the school playground. Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

OK I have re added your edits but that doesn't justify any of the others. Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have "all" the live albums (you really do?), how can you not see that the two 2011 live albums are clearly called "Live in London 2011"? And why do you want to have subtitles for some live albums and not others? The BBC sessions albums have been in the live section for ages, I probably put them there myself. I now believe that to be wrong because those albums are not live. Read live album. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes I really do (I have better things to do then lie to someone over the internet) I know that the two 2011 albums are titled Live in London 2011 but I think they need something to make them clear they are two separate albums otherwise we will have everyone removing one of them thinking it is incorrectly been listed twice. I know what a live album is but they are still live albums. Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Those two albums are called Live in London 2011; you cannot get away from that and I simply don't understand why you want to take the '2011' out. Live 2012 is going to need the date, it's the same series as the two 2011 ones. The best compromise I can offer with the BBC albums is a separate section for BBC Sessions albums. They are not live albums according to any definition of "live album" and you haven't offered much in the way of proof otherwise. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Well the only thing I can suggest is to leave the live albums the way they was before yesterday as YOU nor no one was complaining about them before then and you keep slagging me off and putting me down but you haven't done anything much better in terms of proof. Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added 2011 to the albums but the 2012 one does not feature the date in the title. Lukejordan02 (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Right, fine. The 2012 one has a subtitle with the date, like the 2011 ones [3]. No, I wasn't complaining about it before then, but then there's a lot to do on here and I was writing other stuff. After you'd made your edits, I saw that some of them were good edits, and I also saw that other things could do with improvement. I am not "slagging you off", but you are very hard to work with at times. As for proof that the BBC sessions are studio albums, I could give you a list of studios that they were recorded in. Do you have an opinion on a separate section for them? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that is the only way forward. What was you thinking of calling the section Archive albums? and my version which I bought from amazon does not have the date on it I am not lying. http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00BAM7RIK/ref=s9_simh_gw_p15_d0_i3?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1TFS5W488945WFYPHBWD&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=455344027&pf_rd_i=468294 Lukejordan02 (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Either that or just "BBC Sessions albums". It's just those two releases, I think. Hmm, odd. The CD cases were made before the gig even took place, and I think there might have been a template sleeve with no date because I know that initially they weren't sure which gig they were going to record. You might have one of those. Not sure. I bought mine at the actual gig, you could buy them on the way out if you hung around for a few minutes. It has the date on it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Archive albums sounds OK because then if there are any more released in the future the section wouldn't need renaming? I think regarding the live 2012 we were both right but looking at the albums from two different routes (you from the gig and me from a commercial shopping site) but looking at this it seems they recorded 2 gigs but only released 1 commercially . https://www.concertlive.co.uk/product.php?id=158 Lukejordan02 (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

OK sounds good. I'll get on to it. Hmm, right, so there must have been slight differences between the two. Not enough to mention but a slightly different sleeve. We should perhaps add the date to differentiate it from the Bournemouth show. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I will be honest I don't know much about Thin Lizzy's compilation releases, I have all their Studio & Live albums but no compilations because I am a bit of a perfectionist and if I can't see myself buying all of the albums then I won't get any (if that makes sense) but you seem to know about them so are there any albums in the compilation section that is all new material that could be moved to the Archive albums section? Also just wondering have you reported me I am just curious that's all I know I can be hard to work with (and live with) but I am not trying to vandalise the page I love Thin Lizzy and wouldn't be so disrespectful as to vandalise a page about them, by the way what to you think of he band carrying on without Phil? Lukejordan02 (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It makes sense, everybody collects in a different way. Lizzy are my favourite band, so I'll buy anything with the name on it. The vast majority of the compilations are just full of album tracks, although a few of the early ones had one or two unreleased tracks, like Remembering – Part 1. I think the only one that could qualify as archive material is the Hot Press CD with demos from 1970 on it. I'll move that one over. I haven't reported you – if you report someone you have to notify them officially, so don't worry. At first I wasn't sure about Thin Lizzy carrying on without Phil and I refused to go and see them. When they got Downey and Wharton back I thought I'd go along and check it out. They were good, and I met the band and they each explained to me what they were doing and why they were doing it. Ricky Warwick was a really decent, humble guy and explained to me how he understood how people felt about Phil. I was happy with all that, so I've supported them ever since. I've met Robbo and Phil's mum, and they're both cool with it, so that's good enough for me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Can you help me I am being pestered by some IP address on my talk page regarding the AC/DC discography edits we made I have told him to comment to you but hasn't yet (it's really stressing me out) kind regards Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand what the guy wants to do. He needs to explain it better. He does have one small point in that we should have done all the discussion on the article talk pages, not our user pages. What do you think of moving the AC/DC discussion to that talk page? Cover ourselves. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with moving the discussion because I think and I'm sure you will agree we improved the page not made it worse, I just don't like how he seems to be personally attacking me. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's better, let's hope there's no big argument about it. I don't see a big need to revert. I've moved the discussion and apologised for us talking in the wrong place. That should keep him off your talk page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I agree. I don't have much time for people who won't register. I'm cool with an EP section, do you want the PL archive EP in there or the archive section? The Hi Five EP is completely new to me, never knew it existed. Seems legit, but I don't know what the point was! Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking about moving it from the Archive section to the new EP section, there seems to be quite a few of them Hi Five EPs being released by Rhino as of late, I have an handful of them myself including one by Pantera, though they only seem to be available as a download not physically released. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can do the EP section if you want but probably not till Monday. If you want to do it, go ahead. What do you think of adding release dates like the AC/DC discography? We can add the Hi Five one as well then, and should probably note that it's download only. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it could do with release dates and record labels being added, do you agree? We could add Formats as well like on the AC/DC Page LP, CD. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, sounds good. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi I have added the EP section, any comments? If there are any missing could you let me know cheers Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I've added the chart info for the Killers EP and taken it out of the singles table, where it was. The Boys Are Back in Town was a 12" single rather than an EP. I can't think of any missing but will add if I think of any. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the albums tag that keeps all of them in a section as I don't think it needs them check and see what you think cheers. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine. EPs aren't albums anyway really. 12" singles could be simply marked in the singles table, perhaps as a notes section, e.g. something like "these singles were also issued as 12" singles". Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I said before my catalog of Thin Lizzy is rather limited to Studio & Live albums so I don't no but this is the website i used, it is a reliable source in the Heavy metal community and is referenced on multiple pages on wiki but I don't know so see what you think.

http://www.metal-archives.com/albums/Thin_Lizzy/The_Boys_Are_Back_in_Town/111193 Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the 12" version of the 7" single that was issued. I bought them all when they came out, there was a cassette single, a CD and a picture disc as well. There were a few 12" singles, "Dedication", "Cold Sweat" etc, so we either call them EPs or 12" singles. I'd go with the latter. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I've added release dates and record labels for the Studio albums. What do you think? Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, that's how I'd have done it. They can be added for live albums, archive and EPs as well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I've done the live albums but there is some blanks if you could help me fill them in that would be great cheers. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Filled in the blanks. The Concert Live releases were available from the day of the gig, so that's the date I've used. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much I wasn't going to fill them being unsure, it's looking good. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about the idea of combining the Live and Archive album sections into one and calling the section something like Live/Archive albums Because some people could argue that albums like UK Tour 75 are archive albums due to being released years after being recorded cheers. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with it as it is, unless someone says anything. In a way that's why I suggested calling it BBC Sessions albums instead of archive. We don't want to keep changing it around too much. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Ahem. Someone bought Thin Lizzy albums and EPs? *Ahem* <cough>pussy</cough> What's next, Status Quo? At least tell me you have the Japanese import vinyl of UFO's Strangers in the Night. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have put the Compilations in a table (took forever) but there are a few blanks here and there, if you could fill them in that would be great, cheers. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You've removed a few and they're going to have to go back in. Just because some have the same title, they were completely different. Different everything. Other than that, it's fine. I'll add in release dates where they exist. Probably tomorrow, it's been a shit day. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

"Whiskey in the Jar" was released in 1973 in some countries, so it has to be 1972–73. I see you've also changed genres on all the albums. You have to really really watch that as some admins will just block you on sight for that. Genre fiddling is a massive no-no. They all need to be discussed. I can't say I agree with all of them either. Thunder and Lightning blues rock? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't removed any as far as I know if there is any removed it is accidental. If there are any with the same name is it prohaps worth noting them all under the same release but STATE CLEARLY that they are different. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I'll add them back in when I get the chance. No hurry. Yeah, I'll make sure it's clear they're different. I think we can put a little bit more detail in that notes section where it's necessary, just to make it clearer. Some like Whiskey in the Jar were totally different releases, different labels / countries / track listings, everything. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, Sorry to hear you've had a shit day mine hasn't been all that great either (I've got a banging headache), Regarding the details/notes I know there are quite a few blanks but thought it was best left to someone who knows more on the subject (A.K.A. you) and lastly I am fully aware you have to be careful with changing genres the reason I changed them is because some of them were a mess like one of them had ska and reggae as genres and others had rock hard rock and classic rock and classic rock isn't even a genre and some of the compilation albums had simply rock where as the albums the songs are from had hard rock, I personally think that hard rock or just rock should be enough but there should be a debate I agree. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, never give your heart to a football team. No worries, I'll add in any details that are missing but it looks good so far. Ska and reggae... god knows how they got in there. Classic rock is also a definite no as you say. You saw with Rocka Rolla how things get out of hand. I always stuck to rock with Lizzy because it covers all bases and causes no arguments. I'm fine with hard rock. Anything else, I'm less keen on. If someone does revert you, don't fight back in case you get into trouble. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

OK thank you for the advice, I don't want to get banned again. I think working and taking advice from people on here with more experience (you for example) has made me a better editor and I hope to improve even more and I agree with you that rock should be enough or hard rock and it annoys me when people have to keep creating sub-genres for music can't they just call it something and enjoy the music. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries. It's quite a long road to understanding all the ins and outs of Wikipedia, but you'll do it if you put your mind to it. Yeah, I totally agree – some people make it their life's work to put music into little pigeonholes, it's just sad. Luckily Wikipedia doesn't really stand for it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have combined the archive and compilation sections. I didn't think you would have any objections seeing as that's where you had them to begin with, I just didn't see a whole section necessary for just 2 releases that are compilations anyway. I don't no the label for At the BBC and don't no the specific release dates for that and The Peel Sessions. I have also added EPs to the infobox. Lukejordan02 (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I'll fill in the labels etc for those two. Regarding your last edits, what was the 1989 Pickwick release of "Whiskey in the Jar"? I suspect it might be the same as the 1986 one, but I'm not sure. Also the Black Boys on the Corner 1970-74 – never seen it, but I suspect it's not related to the Rocker 1971-74 release. Also you cut one out, probably by accident so I'll put it back in. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi , the track listing for the 1989 release was different

http://www.discogs.com/Thin-Lizzy-Whisky-In-The-Jar/release/1586882

"Black Boys" was the Canadian exclusive Re-release

http://www.discogs.com/Thin-Lizzy-Black-Boys-On-The-Corner-1970-1974/release/1311141

And I removed the greatest hits album as I couldn't find any trace of its existence sorry if it does exist but I can't find it and it not on this page.

http://www.discogs.com/artist/136188-Thin-Lizzy?type=Releases&subtype=Compilations

Kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The Whiskey in the Jar is the same cover and same tracklisting, so either 1989 is a mistake or it's a straight reissue of the 1986 release. The Black Boys CD is new to me and it's got the same cover as the old Rocker 1971-74 LP and everything. Seems odd to rehash a 30 year old compilation, but there ya go! The Greatest Hits is quite rare for some reason, but I wouldn't have put it on there if I wasn't sure about it. It's on Peter Nielsen's page as a cassette [4] but I have the LP with the same tracks and index number. Decca used their Decca Nova arm for so-called Prog Rock, and somehow Lizzy ended up on there as well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. Will you correct any of the changes or do you want me to?, I think the page is looking really good now, I hope you agree. I've just got the EP section to put into a new table. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it is looking good. I'll do those changes now if you like, and I'll add those dates in as well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Is that greatest hits album official or a bootleg? It seems weird that it is so hard to find. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It's Decca so it's legit. It might have been a low volume release. Decca dumped Thin Lizzy in 1974, yet when they started to make it big, they cashed in by releasing all those compilations. Lynott wasn't happy about it, but Decca had all the rights to releasing anything from 1971-73. It wasn't until 1981 and the Adventures compilation that their new label Vertigo was allowed to release any of the old material. Pirated stuff is always on some no-name label like this [5]. Totally not legit. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I noticed after that it was released by Decca but didn't have time to reply, you can't blame me for getting confused though as I don't know any bands that have released as many compilations as Lizzy except for (Beatles and Stones) and having 5 or so albums named the same ("Whiskey in the Jar") is the icing on the cake. I'm glad you agree the page is looking good, do you think it my be a good idea putting a reference or note after that greatest hits album so people don't get confused like me? Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that might be a good idea, it's totally different from the other Greatest Hits. Decca (and others) named so many compilations Whiskey in the Jar because it was their only hit from that era. It must have driven Lynott mad. During the late 70s he refused to sing that song. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting learning all these facts as I am too young to have known about them back in the 70s. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Me too, I got into them as a kid just after Phil died. But I've picked up all the books about them as I've gone along. Fascinating band. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi I've added a reference, is there anything else you think needs doing? Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It could do with a video section. There were a few official videos, Live and Dangerous, Sydney Harbour, Dedication etc. The hard bit is weeding out the bootlegs. I'll work on it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds great, I've just finished fixing the reference (every time you clicked it came up with the full webpage which made the page weird) it took a bit so the last 4 or 5 edits on the page without an edit summary are just that. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Referencing gets easier the more you do it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've just realised the link doesn't work, this is driving me mad any idea on how to fix it. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that's fixed it, does it work for you? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

That's great thanks, what was I doing wrong? When I joined wiki I could not of guessed how much there is to learn about editing. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It was the little polon "|" that was screwing it up. If we just leave a gap there, it's fine. Don't ask me why though! I've been here for years and I think I barely know half of what there is to know. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I see you changed my dates on the "Vagabonds" box set, just to let you know I thought I was correcting the date because that is what it said on that website. Kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries. I looked around and there are a few conflicting dates. Peter Nielsen has 7/12/01 and a few others do too. I thought it was odd because I got it for Christmas in 2001 ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I always thought Allmusic was a reliable website but that's about the 3rd time they've let me down in the past few weeks with release dates. I like the video section you've created but may I suggest changing the name of the section to just Videos rather than Videos and DVD's because in my opinion that is the same as naming the Studio albums section Studio Albums & CD's as Videos is what they are and DVD is a type of format they are available on. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Allmusic sometimes uses US release dates, or maybe dates of a re-release. It's a good site but they make occasional mistakes. I'm cool with renaming the section. It might be a generational thing because I always think of "videos" as VHS. We stopped calling them videos when DVDs came out. But I get your point. If you come across any other videos, let me know – all those got renamed a few times so there are others out there with different names, but there's no point in listing them all if they're exactly the same content. Plus there are loads of bootlegs of course. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding, I think Allmusic is good (but not for release dates), I will let you know if I come across any other video releases. I wish there was more official videos of Thin Lizzy in their heyday. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have been adding loads of notes to the Lizzy discography page including the EP section. I was about to but cancelled at last minute add a note stating the tracks of the New Day EP were later included on the deluxe edition of the Thin Lizzy album. The reason I cancelled is because I wanted to have that info for all the eps before I added it do you know if any of the other eps are included anywhere else cheers. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I've added release dates and labels to those, and clarified where the EP is a 12". The New Day EP was indeed included on the Thin Lizzy album, but the other EPs haven't been included anywhere else, to my knowledge. I will check again, but I don't think so. Most of them were live tracks that didn't appear on either of the two main live albums. One other point, for Hero and the Madman, you've added a note to say it concentrates on their early material – so do many of the others. Seems odd just to say it for one CD. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi thank you very much for adding the info I was going to add record labels and dates myself but after incorrectly listing the release date for the Vagabonds box set the other day I was waiting until I was 100% sure the info was right and the reason why I added that note to Hero and the Madman was because I wanted to add at least one note to each release but couldn't think of one for that, do you know anything that could be added in place of that note? Thanks again. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Hero was only released in the UK according to Nielsen's site, unless you've seen something somewhere else that says it got a release elsewhere? Maybe that would do as a note? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I just changed the note before you commented to only released in Europe based on this

http://www.discogs.com/Thin-Lizzy-The-Hero-And-The-Madman/release/1224219

I am happy for which ever one to be right to be included which do you think is right? Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's go with Discogs in this case. Looks likely. It's not often that CD albums only get released in the UK. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, the note I have used says released only in Europe. The page is looking really good now (hope you agree) is there any other releases or anything missing that you know of? Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing I can think of right now. If I find anything or something new comes out, we can add it. Yeah, it looks good. Glad to have all the extra information on there, for sure. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the help and I hope my edits as of late have proven that I am a fairly decent editor that wasn't originally trying to vandalise the page but made rather stupid decisions. Being a football fan I bet your watching England now ain't you. One last thing if you want to delete any of my comments off your page I won't mind as I have just noticed I might of taken over half of it :). Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries, and I can see you're a decent editor. Good luck with your editing and you can always ask for help or advice from me if you need it. I have got an eye on the match, but I'm still feeling Wembley pain after Sunday! I always archive my talk page instead of deleting. Sometimes it's handy to go back and check what I said to people ;) Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Any thoughts?

Any comment on this type of fluff n cruft ? Mr Pyles (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page. Interesting to see that was Johnny338's first edit... Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• If you think this might be a returning user, so to speak, that would be interesting. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it was very likely. He seems to know plenty about process for someone who has 'just arrived'. Thirteen edits, and they're mostly talk pages, and chat which betrays a considerable understanding of how things work [6]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

a "returnee" is what it looks like ... quack quack. I think Indopug has a request open to review a few users and IPs ... I've posted to his TP for comment. Mr Pyles (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, y'all can say "quack" all you like, but without links and diffs I can't do much. Postings are great, SPIs with good evidence are greater. Also, Breton, do you think Saxon got their "Strangers in the Night" from UFO? And where did they get it from? They weren't that poetic, not even prosaic. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

UFO were never my bag, never clicked with them, but I think Saxon nicked all their good stuff from someone else... Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Indopug already RCU'd it so that process should uncover anything.... if there is anything to uncover. In the meantime ... Go Rangers! Mr Pyles (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know, I had two accounts prior to this one. Both of them are retired. I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia, but I pretty much know my way around. I'm sorry if that makes me a sockpuppet. It certainly wasn't my intention. Did I not follow the procedure correctly? Johnny338 (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh man...

Penalties. Just the worst way to lose. Craig(talk) 16:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for not responding sooner; busy week since Sunday, with family up from down south, work and a trip through to Edinburgh for the Tour Series. Yeah, the money has to be spent in order for Orient to remain up towards the top in 2014/15. Yeah, I heard that story about Baudry. Class. Something not seen in the Premier League, off-field that is. Craig(talk) 15:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article New York Dolls (album)? If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Conflict with user Lukejordan02

Hello Bretonbanquet. I saw that you had problem with that user at Thin Lizzy discography. I'm having similar dispute at Megadeth discography. Can you help me out?--Retrohead (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Level 7 League Table Colors

I believe that the colors should match with the Football Conference and the Football League, where the yellow-green color means playoff and light green means promotion. I would like to know why you think they should be the other colors. Thanks Evertonfc13 (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Just because it was different in the past, that doesn't mean it can't be changed. It should be uniform throughout with what the colors mean. (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be very harsh on the subject, so I will change it back. (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment wanted

Hi, can you make a comment about the genre discussion over at Talk:Youthanasia thank you. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know enough about it to comment, but it looks like you're being overrun there anyway. Wikipedia is a case of picking your battles, and you might have lost that one. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, they clearly disagree with the genre that's fine with me, thanks anyway. Have you been watching the World Cup, I'm shocked at Spain gone already. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Yeah, bit disappointed with them! Chile were pretty good though. I don't fancy England much... Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither do I, I must say if England do get knocked out this week I hope the Netherlands win because being a Manchester United fan it would do my ego good :). Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Haha, take whatever consolation you can! The Netherlands look as good as anyone, but look out for those Germans... Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again but if you could comment at Talk:Damnation (album) I would appreciate it, it's more to do with wether or not its a genre so far 1 person has replied and agrees with me. Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, it looks like people agree with me on this one. P.S - Weren't England a load of crap! Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you lose some, you win some! Unlike England who lose them all! Poor show from them, particularly the last goal. Just really poor. Bring on Euro 2016, I guess! Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Bring on Euro 2016 (but first the Netherlands to win this World Cup), it would look really good if his (Louis van Gaal) last time with the Netherlands squad was winning the World Cup, before taking charge of United. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see the Netherlands win – good side. You might get a few Dutch players truning up for you next season too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep I am personally hoping for Robben and Daley Blind (especially seeing how well Robben and van Persie play together.)

That would make a huge difference to your side. Interesting! Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

A little help?

Hi, could you please explain how to create archives on your talk page as it has been suggest to me that I should start doing it, cheers. Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You can either move your talk page to a different name using the move function, or what I do is just create an archive page and copy and paste all the talk into it. For example, if you created User:Lukejordan02/Talk archive, you could just copy and paste all the discussions you want to keep over to that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, all this stuff is too confusing at first glance. Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it takes time. I learned a lot by being nosey and just literally copying what other people do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

More help (I know)

Sorry to bother you again (I bet you hate me :)), if you get time could you give this page I created a quick check and tell me if it looks ok, cheers Cover Version. Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine! Needs some categories, mainly, and maybe a review or two? Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Per MOS: my misuse of italics in song titles

Thank you. My apology for creating the extra work. BellwetherToday (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello! Would you be interested in this discussion regarding the issues of the Wagnerian rock article? If not, feel free to ignore this message. Thanks! Johnny338 (talk) 02:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Whitesnake

I really don't care what genre Whitesnake is. But would you please add a source to that? It really helps to keep the genre warriors in check. There was an Allmusic source which you did remove. Another: rateyourmusic.com Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Club season articles

Hello, Yes I am trying to keep all clubs from Premier League through to League Two all updated. Not all clubs have the same format. What is your preferred club? Skyblueshaun (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Leyton Orient. Ok I think I have a done quite a bit of work on that season article. I am not a Orient fan but hope it is quite accurate. Skyblueshaun (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I personally think the current one is a reasonable one. If you feel like you want to change I will not object against the revert. Skyblueshaun (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes maybe, but unfortunately your edit was un-soured. I added a complete whole new edit which was sourced. I got warned a few weeks ago about adding results with no reports. Skyblueshaun (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I tried adding "+ result (report later)" in the edit summary but that didn't buy it for me either. I suppose when the official competition matches are played then reports will be available reasonably quick after full time. Skyblueshaun (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose so yeah but Leyton Orient was his last club so that was my reasoning to why. Skyblueshaun (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I have 2 points to point out to you. 1) When adding the goalscorers only show the players surname or given name not the full name. 2) When attendances if on the report adding it says in brackets the away attendance please also add aswell. Thanks Skyblueshaun (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Keatings

Hello, Bretonbanquet. You have new messages at 90.197.49.199's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Bretonbanquet. You have new messages at BaldBoris's talk page.
Message added 13:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BaldBoris 13:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys and Haken Arizona edit war report

Why did you hint at me having personal motives in filing the report on their edit war? That has nothing to do with it. If had conflicting opinions with PM in the past it was because op the contents of the opinions not simply because it were PM's opinions. The only goal I have with filing this report is for both users to ditch their "overenthusiastic reverting" as you so kindly formulated it for once and for all. I should remind you that edit warring led to the 2014 Formula One season being fully protected four times during the last 9 months, do I. Such behavior leads to nothing. That is why report edit warring when I encounter it. Tvx1 (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I've replied there. You're reading too much into my comment that you don't get on with PM. As far as I can see, you don't. I've watched and been involved in massive, massive debates between several of us in the past, and the two common factors in dragging them out are you and PM. The current edit war is tiresome, but hardly a raging inferno, and the discussion is producing results. It seems an odd time to take to the drama boards. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, If it had been a first time or a rare occurrence I would have definitely limited it to a warning on their talk pages. However since this is continuous behavior by one of the users involved I decided to go on and report it. Why do you even downplay this as "over-enthusiastic reverting"? For crying out loud, it has been so serious on occasion that an article was put under full protection more than once. All I wish to become by taking these steps is to prevent that from happening ever again and for all of us to be able to have civil and constructive discussions in the future, instead of the aggressive and disruptive ones we had in recent times. Why is this now all played out against me? Do you actually think Prisonermonkeys attitude in their recent reaction in the report is acceptable by any standard? Tvx1 (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

"All played out against you"? Overreact much? First, nobody's going to say that the season article was protected entirely because of PM. It always takes two to tango, and other editors have always been part of it. Second, the discussions that have dragged on have again not always been PM's fault. At least one was your fault, and others have been the fault of other editors. I've played my own part in dragging the out sometimes. The recent exchange on the report page is exactly why I said you two don't get on. You don't. I'm not picking sides, but I'm equally not going to pretend that there's only one editor at WP:F1 that is occasionally troublesome. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Not played out against me? I overreact?? Did you actually read Prisonermonkeys' rant in that report? He made it look like I was the bad guy and PM's the poor angel that never does anything wrong and is being hunted down for no good reason. I didn't say that PM's caused the full protections on their own. I stated they were involved in edit warring that became serious enough to warrant protection. Do you actually think I enjoy reporting users? I have one golden rule about that: The best edit war report is no report at all! Just like anyone else here I'd wish not to have to report such behavior at all. I was entirely uninvolved in this dispute and had nothing personal to gain whatsoever if action were taken against any of the users reported. The only thing there was to gain was for the edit war to be halted. Again, I have no personal wrath against that user by any means. The only fact is that Prisonermonkeys wrongly believes I do. I would love to get along with one another much and be able to have more civil and constructive discussions. I have no problem to admit that I can be very passionate at times during discussions. But that's not out of bad faith. My only concern is to present things in the best way as possible to our readers while repecting the article guidelines and policies. Prisonermonkeys, however, is convinced that I have no other goal than to cause disruption to the discussions and the articles. I'm totally at loss there. You known why my biggest concern is with the outcome of this report: PM has once again failed to realize that edit warring is banned by policy and is not they way to get things right. Tvx1 (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

None of this suggests to me that you and PM don't have a bit of a problem with each other. Let's be clear, I'm not saying there's bad faith, but you rub each other up the wrong way sometimes. You reported him, and he reacts more strongly than he would if someone else reported him. I think that would work the other way too, i.e. if he reported you for something. Look, let this one go and we'll see what happens next. Let's try and keep the ~dramah~ to a minimum. Maybe next time you see edit-warring involving PM, let me know and I'll try and calm it down without making a report somewhere. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion noted. I'll take it into account.Tvx1 (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

So, three months later we have had another massive edit war between the exact same two users about a similar matter: inclusion of attendance figures. You suggested I could seek your advice on how to deal with it. Well, here I am. By the way, thanks for reporting PM and the IP recently for their edit-warring on the same article. You would have thought the block who had made them have some insight in their behavior. Wishful thinking, unfortunately. PM appealed their block straight away, which was rightfully declined, and edited the disputed content almost instantaneously after their block expired. And as we know PM engaged in another edit war on the same article a week and half later. Tvx1 (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you. I'll have a closer look at it later, and I might ask an admin and see what they think. I'm tired of seeing constant activity (reverts) on the same few articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Tvx1, PM and haken arizona both blocked. No great surprise, to be honest. PM wasn't wise in taking it to DRN while still edit-warring. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed it as well. That's two blocks for PM's in about three week. I think it's really sad it had to come to this.Tvx1 (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. He's a decent editor but he doesn't seem to tell the difference between vandalism and a content dispute (same goes for haken arizona), and that's a recipe for problems. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Awkward BLP case, help wanted

I wonder if you'd care to take a look at Adam Farley while it's quiet? It needs someone who understands the problems of verifying football claims outside top echelons, and I can barely remember who won the World Cup. I only stumbled on it when tracking an IP[7] from a DeFacto SPI[8] but then I managed to get involved. There's material the subject would like to disappear[9], there's claims that might be true and creditable but are unverified and tagged, there's one probably-unverifiable claim with a price that may have been inflated[10], there's been an NLT incident, the editor who seems to be the subject[11] would like to just turn the clock back[12] but doesn't understand Wikipedia processes.... I did wonder if it might all simply fail notability but he came on as a sub in one Everton game. It's a mess and I'm just working off general WP principles. A bit of expertise would help. NebY (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - glad you found it interesting and looked so closely. It's good to know you're seeing the same problems as well as having a clearer view than I on verifiability and plausibility. I'd had this idea that somebody somewhere might be compiling yearbooks for the Northern Premier League or suchlike. So we have material which could generously be left still tagged as citation needed (e.g. player of the year awards), some that's questionable and has long been sitting with a tag (Youth Cup player of the match - but I've just noticed there were two legs to the final, so maybe not so dubious), and some that isn't realistically verifiable at all in that records just won't exist to confirm or deny it however plausible or implausible (e.g. quote from subject, negotiations, price), not all of which has been tagged yet. I suppose I should make a start soon, at least on removing the tagged dubious and unverifiable parts and tagging some more.

It is going to leave a more negative article. I've got a lot of sympathy with the principles of a right to be forgotten, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and of course Wikipedia's own BLP policy. But this subject's notable - in Wikipedia terms - only for football, and the betting is a quite outstanding part of his football career and might even confirm WP notability, even though it doesn't reflect at all well on the person. All rather depressing, so I may not rush back to it! NebY (talk) 09:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Gone but now back..

After 10 months in the hospital, I am back, albeit slowly right for the next couple of weeks, but I'm staying in my father's home until I'm more stabilized and everything in my body doesn't hurt just from standing or sitting! So much has changed since I've been gone; rules that relate to what I do so I'm going to have plenty of questions. Happy to be home though. Missed you and a few more here.. funny. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Orient-Villa

I had noticed that result last night, while having a look at other things. Very busy of late with relatives over, but trying to keep as much looking at the scores as possible. Let's face it; we were out of the competition in round 1, in our only game that hasn't had just one goal in it, all season! Should hopefully beat Sheffield United in the next round, surely? Craig(talk) 18:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Nine points, three wins and three goals. It's the exact opposite of last year as goals go! That said, we've had the relegated teams and Rotherham to start with. Tough tests. Fleetwood are top at the moment aren't they? I know that matters not at this early stage, but there's always time for Orient to charge the league. Craig(talk) 20:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

"We only fielded 5 first-choice players against Villa"... Sounds like Celtic syndrome is working its way around the country. Rest 10 players for their league game at Inverness: Lost. Bring those players back into the European game against Maribor: Lost.

Maybe the reverse will work for Orient! Craig(talk) 20:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Pretty embarrassing for Scottish football, as a whole, of late. Oh well, the international team only has Germany to face next Sunday [stupid week of football shit!] Batter down the Cod Army! Craig(talk) 19:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the barometer for Scotland's result, is if we better Brazil's score from the World Cup. Anything better than 7! Craig(talk) 10:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

We already knew that! Craig(talk) 13:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brian Johnson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Back Street Crawler. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Having spotted this I redirected it to the band. Britmax (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Ta very much, cheers :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No source in lede

Take a look at any GA or FA, no sources in lede. I've read it in the guidlines (it's around somewhere) where it states anything in lede should be substantiated in the body. I concur on nationality btw, checked through google and most sources state Adele is a Brit (your comment about English mother and Welsh father would validate that)...I've seen English but it's not as frequent. A hidden note beside her nationality would suffice I'd say. RyanTQuinn (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 Singapore Grand Prix

In your the edit reports on your recent edits on the 2014 Singapore Grand Prix article you wrote "Retirements per source given". However, there is no source regarding the race result currently in the article. So I was wondering which source you were actually referring to. On a side note, the retirement explanations keep getting changed, so I wonder which are the correct ones. Tvx1 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Bretonbanquet. You have new messages at Tvx1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Adele

Sorry for my late reply, I've had an incredibly busy weekend! Just to clarify--it's not an issue of citizenship, but of nationality. So, it is perfectly acceptable for a person to affirm their nationality is English, and have this included on Wikipedia, even though there is no such thing as English citizenship. The source you have provided infers that Adele prefers to be known as British, and such a statement (unless there are contrary ones) overrides a preference to be known as the nationality of the particular country of the UK you are from (e.g. Shirley Bassey is born in Wales and so can be considered Welsh, if the lead sentence describes her as "Welsh", but she has indicated she was Britis, then "British" would take preference in the lead sentence. You can also see the extensive nationality debates over at J.K. Rowling's page, who is an English-born Scottish resident who is determined to be British). For those reasons, I support your assertion that Adele is British and its inclusion in the article, and, just to clarify, the only reasons I did revert were based on the fact that that there appeared to be an edit war on first glance, it had been "English" for so long and these issues are often contentious. Best, —JennKR | ☎ 18:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

AC/DC

I don't agree with any of your arguments! This idea is to match with the timeline... No need to talk about it much longer... Time for changes has come! Please respect my edit which is simply logical and... much better! HurluGumene (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

To discuss the article with you is pointless since as an "almighty" wiki administrator you already have made up your mind with my edit...! By the way, I didn't start an edit war: you did! HurluGumene (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

dont worry, hes just a prick, i made an edit to the track listings for rock or bust, they were actually true, but he wants to be a little bitch, well, i was right, fuckface— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.123.159 (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2014‎ (UTC)

Who are you talking about? Neither the other bloke above you, nor I, have made any edits there today. The guy who reverted you was someone else. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Plus of course, your edit for the track listing was not even close to the facts. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Track list numbering

Thank you for your comments at Talk:Shades of Deep Purple. A Rfc is currently open at Template talk:Track listing to finally settle the dispute. It would be greatly appreciated if you could give your opinion on the matter one last time. Lewismaster (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"UK" in football articles

There is to be no "UK" in football articles, because the UK does not exist in football. Velociraptor888 04:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It does exist in football. Only two years ago their team competed in the olympics. Hence some current footballers have represented both their Home Nation as well as the UK in football. Furthermore, the infobox does not depend on the career of the individual. When we provide a birthplace in an infobox we provide geographical accurate information. An in geography the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does exist. Tvx1 (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 Japanese Grand Prix

I too saw the helicopter fly, but there may be some sort of liability issue in that while able to fly as seen on TV, it may not have been cleared to carry a patient in hazardous weather. This though is mere speculation. I had also read that the nearest appropriate hospital in Suzuka did not have a helipad, but I found nothing official indicating that was the case.

Twirlypen (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Russian GP

It is vandalism. The IP editor is deliberately removing content and is refusing to let the page develop, even after it has been explained to him. Kapirulin, whoever he is, is nobody; I can't find anything on him, so he's a footnite. And I haven't had the chance to develop the GP2/3 article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys try to pipe two links to same (!) article (instead of one, as always). Also he removed one key (!) foreground man from the photo description, leaving two others. Also he removed Category:Current sports events many times, but it's a current. Also he violated WP:3RR not using content dispute rules. Who is vandal here? 46.200.32.235 (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't call him names, that's a fast track to a block. Right now, I suggest leaving the article alone. Neither of you are helping yourselves. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no other picture. The point of the footnote is to explain his presence without putting undue weight on him, since there no other picture is available. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This guy is on foreground, and no reason to remove him from description. As we can see on photo, he signed agreements with Bernie, not background president. And no reason to pipe two links to the same article about GP2/GP3. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to move the discussion to the article talk page, but I have my doubts about its effectiveness. I went to bed, came back to the article six hours later, and within minutes he was reverting edits. I probably shouldn't have done that, but yesterday he was pretty aggressive, refusing to let the article develop until he got his way. I needed to know if he would continue to sit on the page today and if he would be likely to be disruptive during the race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am only constructive. Bianchi crash has direct impact to Sochi race - only 21 car on the grid now. It's an info for article lead definitely. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ. There's a disagreement and you're not talking. You seem to be planning to revert forever, and we don't allow that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. Where "not talking"?! I have replied to any messages within half an hour. My plan is correct article. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Article talk page. You should have been discussing there first, rather than edit warring all day. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Breton, about that other issue, how about we move it to my page so there is no confusion? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Updated over there. Sorry for the mess. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Check back in regularly if you can, please; hopefully is can be resolved sooner rather than later. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Bretonbanquet, you wrote "at talk page discussion (which the IP seems to have ignored)". Please show link where I ignored something. All my replies at the talk pages was made within 30+ minutes after initial post. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

At the time, you hadn't replied. Hardly matters, since that talk page discussion was several hours overdue. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

His first post was at the talk page was at 21:56 UTC, my replies at 22:18 UTC and 22:33 UTC. What's problems here? 46.200.32.235 (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

And I said what I said at 22:13, before you replied; how hard is that to understand? You didn't say anything new anyway, you just copied-and-pasted from the edit-warring admin board. You edit-warred all day and there's no excuse for it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Understand about 22:13 now. Yes, anything new, all logic arguments were shown before. And I cannot to do the edit war alone. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Attendance

Hey Breton,

Do you mind keeping an eye on 2014 Russian Grand Prix again? There's another issue brewing, and I'm too close to it and don't really know how to refer it to admins.

Yes, it's shaping up as an edit war, but it's different from the above. A user, Haken arizona, insists on adding the attendance figures for the race to the article. I have no problem with this; the problem is that there are issues with his sources. The first was written on the Saturday, but was being used to support the crowd figures for Sunday. I finally convinced him that this was a problem on the the article talk page, but his latest source only quotes "near capacity" as the attendance figure. To my mind, that's not good enough; after all, how near to capacity is "near capacity"? It's essentially a weasel word. I have repeatedly asked him to provide a source that is reliable, verifiable and specific, which he has chosen to ignore, and so if this went to ANI/3RR, I'm confident that I have handled it properly.

I am not trying to canvas for support here. Rather, given the way Haken arizona's latest suggestion is that I go to the Holocaust page and argue the finer points of the death toll, I think we're past the point where he will listen to me. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I basically agree with you, and I see the article has now been protected, so that gives you guys a chance to thrash it out on the talk page. I'll stick my oar in there when I get the chance. Haken Arizona has a tendency to be a bit OTT sometimes, but bear in mind that admins might see the history and just think "edit war", then see you've been blocked for it before, and jump to conclusions. Are we sure Haken Arizona isn't the IP you were dealing with last time? Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Formula 1 / Formula A

I'm a bit worried by the categorical statement in 1949 Grand Prix season that "the formula was called Formula A, but would be renamed to Formula One in 1950". As I misunderstand it, the formula was defined in 1946 and both terms were used for a while - Formula One gradually becoming the most used. Motor Sport in June 1949 is certainly calling it Formula 1 - and the Formula 1 article is clear that Formula One races as such were held from 1947. What do you think? Ian Dalziel (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Scott Kashket

If you're happy then I'm happy - I've unprotected. GiantSnowman 18:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

F1 2015

I just can't do this anymore, man. I can't contribute, apparently. I don't even know how to contribute in this context. I'm losing my mind. Sorry. Eightball (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, I mean, I know we've had our differences in the past, but this has to be the most surreal discussion I've ever had on Wikipedia. Eight years I've been on here, and it's Friday night, and I'm debating with people who need a source to say that the German GP will be held in Germany. Pass that bottle over here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

But we've only had disagreements about things it's POSSIBLE to disagree about! Eightball (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That's true! The F1 wikiproject pushes new boundaries yet again...! Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I do want to apologize for our previous disagreements, though. I know for a fact I acted like a child in many (all?) of them. You're clearly one of the good guys here. Eightball (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries, we've probably all acted badly at times. We live and learn. There are a few good guys, for sure, but I appreciate the sentiment. Cheers! Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I finished the bottle. Sorry about that too. Eightball (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Not surprised though, under the circumstances ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Civility Barnstar
		{{{1}}}

I just wanted to say I wish more often, users I disagreed with, even over tiny minutiae like this was, acted like you did on the DRN page. SPACKlick (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXFLAG

Hi, thanks for the info re flagicons. After having restored icon to J-P Beltoise, I noted that it earlier been removed referring to WP:INFOBOX and looking at the MoS section, thought it had been correctly deleted. I'll restore the couple I've removed and also tip off the other editor. Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, I have to admit I only saw the MoS section, but have now read the discussion with interest. & thanks for the kind words, it's good to know someone has noticed (& not just when I mess up!). Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Good to know! :P Eagleash (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Austrian GP 1964

On what engine was Chris Amon at this GP -- Climax or BRM?--Unikalinho (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) According to Small, Steve (1994). The Complete Guinness Grand Prix Who's Who. Guinness. p. 23. ISBN 0851127029. Amon used the BRM V8 throughout the season. However the Marlboro GP guide (pub 1983) for 1950-1982 says he used the Climax for this race. Amon's and the '64 AUT GP wiki pages both say Climax whereas Reg Parnell's (for whose team he was driving) says BRM. (This isn't much help I'm afraid...) Eagleash (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) formula1.com, ChicaneF1, grandprix.com and FORIX all say "Climax". I'll check Mike Lang's Grand Prix! when I get home. DH85868993 (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And this webpage makes reference to "Chris Amon in the Parnell team's borrowed Lotus-Climax" (which would explain the difference from the rest of the season). DH85868993 (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) update.. MotorSport Magazine October 1964 P825 here, states that Parnell borrowed a spare Lotus 25 from Team Lotus with Climax/ZF drive-train as Hailwood had put a Parnell team car into a lake & it was sent back for repairs. Amon used this car & Hailwood drove Amon's usual BRM engined 25. PS thanks for the "edit conflict" DH!! I never work out how to fix those :P Regards Eagleash (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I see, the sources for Climax are saying more convincingly than the for BRM--Unikalinho (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Gotta love talk page stalkers! Looks like Climax is the way to go :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Grammar edits

Hi! Great to see you helping me with the Southern league seasons again. Do you look after the Isthmian league articles? I'd like you to check one of the recent seasons (from 2004-05 to 2012-13) articles and correct it, i'll correct all other pages by myself in the same style. My biggest concern whether i should use 'was' or 'were' according to the clubs. cheers Martinklavier (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't you know where i can find a results of isthmian league cup 13/14? Also it called Robert Dyas League Cup. Cant find it anywhere-( Martinklavier (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leyton Orient F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Speedway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Then Play On

Do we have any proof that Walter Horton played on the album? I found no harmonica on the album whatsoever. Should I remove him? P.S, I plan on creating a page for Sad Angel, that's why a link was added in the template. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I just created a very rough article of "Sad Angel". If you have any suggestions on improving it, please let me know. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Adele's Nationality

It is not incorrect to say that she is British but it would be more accurate to specify and say that she is English, since she is from the country of England. A British person can either be English (England), Scottish (Scotland), or Welsh (Wales). The United Kingdom is a sovereign state that consists of several countries. A person's nationality, here on Wikipedia, is determined by the country that they're from. Therefore, it is more accurate to say that Adele is English, since Great Britain and the United Kingdom are not actually countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubletoasted01 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Our article on the United Kingdom describes it both as a sovereign state and a country, but generally with articles on UK nationals, we should stick with the default nationality unless there's a good reason to change it. For example, were Adele herself to say that she identified as English rather than British then we'd reflect that in her article. This is Paul (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Paul is correct. Doubletoasted, your ideas about Great Britain and the UK not being countries are pretty wide of the mark, and I can inform you that British people can obviously not simply be English, Welsh or Scottish. Quite apart from the Northern Ireland question, a person can be a mixture, as Adele clearly is. Where there is any doubt, we stick to sovereign nationality. Your nationality is stated on your passport, and Adele's will say British. Not only that, you can see on the article talk page a consensus for British. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

A British person can simply be English, Welsh, or Scottish. It depends on where they are from, and in Adele's case, she is from England. Therefore, she is English. Nearly every British person is referred to as English, Welsh, or Scottish on Wikipedia. How is this any different for Adele? Even though her father is Welsh, she was born and raised in England. Therefore, she is English. A British person whose parents are not from Great Britain or the same British country does not change the fact that they are either English, Scottish, or Welsh, depending on where exactly they are from.

From my understanding, she is referred to as British and not English because her father is from Wales. Ethnically, she is a mixture (English from her mother and Welsh from her father). However, a person's nationality is supposed to be based on where they are from, not their ethnicity. She is from England. Therefore, she is English. Her father being from Wales does not make her not English and only British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perrie101 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Perrie101: – Firstly, your understanding of English / Scottish / Welsh is not correct. There is no hard and fast rule to decide who is English or whatever, as there is no official nationality of English / Scottish / Welsh / Northern Irish. Because these are not sovereign states, it doesn't matter where someone was born, it's just a matter of self-identification. Birthplace is simply not strictly a defining factor. Tony Blair is a good example. I myself was technically born in England, but I am not ethnically nor in any other sense English, and there is no official paperwork or personal documentation which says I am. Adele is referred to as British because she announced that she's proud to be British and it's sourced. She may identify as much with Wales as England, as many, many people with mixed parentage do. If she came out with something like "I'm English" then it can be changed. But Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. You would need to be able to back up your idea about nationality and ethnicity with reliable sources too. Britishness is always 100% verifiable (therefore reliable), and Englishness / Scottishness etc rarely is. Where there is doubt, extra sources are needed. Secondly, it's better to have this out on the relevant talk page, not here. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

???

What the hell do you try to reach by this? Especially since that was from this after noon and no danger of an edit war was present. And the 3RR-rule only applies when identical things are constantly restored. As you can see my text was not always the same and a compromise of it's own. I would like to ask you to withdraw that request since it has no use. --Wester (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You're still doing it! Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you have to look up what an edit war is. A bit sad and a clear indication that you're without arguments. --Wester (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I've been around long enough to know. You're alone, and seemingly incapable of understanding simple things when they're explained to you. Pure disruption. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I have sources, you have not. Also: Wikipedia is no democracy. Since you're 'around long enough' I assume you know that basic fact.--Wester (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, stop right there. Do not post on my talk page again. I hope that gets through to you better than the Verstappen stuff. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

A bit sad that this is taken out of hand. But you can not blame me. I made my edits based on new sources and I do not accept reverts based on erroneous argumentation. I even started a discussion on the talk page. So again: I do not see what you try to reach with that reporting.--Wester (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't accept reverts that you don't like, well boo hoo. Those are the rules, and if you break them, you get reported. You also can't read, apparently, because I told you not to post on my talk page again. I'm not asking you, I'm telling you – stay off my talk page. Next time I'll just remove your post. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Statusletters on league tables

Hi, Since you have been editing statusletters for league table I wanted to inform you about the discussion at Module talk:Sports table#Statusletters on league tables. From what I am aware of, statusletter was not used last season until team actually qualified, but now that edit seems to want them, perhaps using X,Y, and Z with optional wording (see example at Template:2014–15 Eredivisie table) is the best to explain the individual situation, otherwise T might also be used. We can not put Q if teams may qualify for something else. If you have something to say please join the discussion at Module talk:Sports table#Statusletters on league tables or feel free to ask me at my talkpage. QED237 (talk)

Congrats!

Congratulations on Truro's promotion to National League South! :D Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, just a promotion each from playing each other now. Nice to avoid the playoffs this time, we're not very good at them! Now got the opening Broadhurst Park fixture against Benfica to look forward to. Been waiting ten years for a ground of our own. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Poore

Gooday - I returned to this article thinking that I had contributed previously. Turns out that you reverted my deletion of infobox flagicon within an hour (I had missed it at the time). Others of your ilk have done the same, all with priveleges, ie, not mere 'editors'. You used the edit summary "no consensus on this after much discussion" with another individual using words to the effect of they are discouraged, not prohibited. Please could you confirm what the consensus after much discussion was/is? I am winding-down the time I spend on Wikipedia and cannot trawl through archives; do 'you' - as an abstract, wider, entity - intend to overthrow/overwrite this guideline, allegedly decided upon in 2007 by a few individuals? ("Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply".)

I have no opinion either way, but as a simple editor I am required to follow established protocols, in the expectation that others will enforce them, not side against them. I have recently made reference to this flagicon issue (in Talk:Matchless Silver Arrow#Lancia single head V4s) when one editor of 10 years' standing added a WP:SPS blog after I tagged it as unsourced, asserting it had been deemed a reliable source in the past. Really, there should be consistency - it is disheartening when seasoned edit warriors alter things to suit themselves. (The tag I later applied to the blog citation is still in place). Thanks for the benefit of your past experience on this topic.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi @Rocknrollmancer: just quickly adding my twopenny-worth. The "consensus" (for want of a better word) amongst F1 editors is that infobox flagicons are still used for F1 drivers (and possibly thus for MotoGP — I don't know) but not for lesser formulae. There has been much discussion over this, which led to other "Nationality" issues, but 'F1 drivers have a flagicon' seems to be the current standard. Best Eagleash (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, that's been my superficial experience but it's spilling over on to TT Races via one of the inviduals I encountered, basing TT races and MotoGP similarly. Look at this - 2007 Isle of Man TT the first example I guessed at, I didn't have to look far or wide - 14 flags including one nationalistic (British Protectorate domain) from the heavily-partisan specialist editor. I don't care, but there are no nationalistic, averaged-out team results here.--Rocknrollmancer (talk)

Ah well I can't comment on how the motorcycling project might wish to configure infoboxes; the question was initially about an F1 infobox... I suppose the equivalent to the TT might be the Le Mans 24 hour race (as possibly the premier event outside F1) which doesn't have an full infobox for the individual years (that I have seen as yet). Might be best to bring that up on the project page as Motorcycling and F1 may think differently. Eagleash (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: OK, firstly I didn't realise I had an "ilk", and I don't have any specific privileges other than basic tools to make mundane tasks a bit quicker. With that out of the way, there was no consensus (after much lengthy discussion) at the time I made the edit to Poore's article. Subsequently, this discussion here finally decided that flags can be used for F1 drivers. You should also be aware that there have been and are further attempts to rewrite the flag guideline. I am not party to them, but they are ongoing. Guidelines are sometimes drawn up by a very small number of editors, and they do not always reflect common Wikipedia practice. I think the discussions have centred on making the guideline reflect practice, rather than forcing guidelines on people where they are unpopular.
That said, and to echo what @Eagleash: has said, the discussion was solely about F1 drivers, not any other kind of driver. In terms of car racing, I don't consider other series to be top-level enough to warrant flags for drivers, but that's just my opinion. I don't believe there have been discussions about lower formulae, Le Mans or bikes, but I might be wrong about that. Eagleash is right that the best thing to do in those cases would be to contact the relevant WikiProjects and/or the MOSICON people and clarify it with them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both for your input. It seems to me a case of the tail wagging the dog and unwisely allowing a dispensation for F1-only, setting a precedent which could (and maybe had already) cross(ed) over. The individual whom I had encountered in Isle of Man articles (has deleted many - perhaps 20 - of my contributions to IoM articles including a few words with three supporting references in a partisan, non-neutral fashion) had previously alluded to this well before the October 2014 debate in this edit summary containing "***(NB - Moto GP style results box)***", dated 6 June 2014 having 51 infoboxflags with innumerably more in the article. S/he is still warring, spuriously complaining of vandalism and deleting swathes of prose (-13,184, -4,800 and -4,726 bytes); they have priveleges = user rights = reviewer, rollbacker.

The IoM articles come under Wikiproject Motorcycle Racing, A.S.H., not Wikiproject Motorcycling. I have not surveilled project Racing (unlike project Motorcycling - I am not a member and will not be...) so I have no idea how many, or how few, individuals are actively contributing. I am now contributing only a little myself, and occasionally, but will try to remember to comeback to the icon topics suggested and note any developments. I intend to expand a little on Dennis Poore, but need to review the Villiers (engines), Francis Barnett, and James marques closures, firstly. rgds,--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That page you link to certainly looks to be suffering from flag overkill in the infobox. I imagine a word at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons might prompt one or two of those fellows to get involved – worth a shot, I'd say. That editor doesn't have any privileges that would count in his/her favour here; they are simply editing tools that are doled out to anyone who asks for them. Good luck with that, and regards. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You have a new message.

But clearly not on this IP. If you know what I mean. Cordially, --81.157.118.62 (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Understood :) Best, Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Step 5-7 Club Allocations

Hullo. I noticed that 2015–16 South West Peninsula League club allocations have already been completed. May I ask, have the FA confirmed any of the other league constitutions for step 5-7? Thanks. Good888 (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Good888:. The SWPL have indeed confirmed their allocations, but the last time I checked, very few of the other Step 5–6 leagues have confirmed yet. The NCEL have done theirs, and I *think* that's the only one so far. A few clubs have confirmed that they've been promoted or transferred, but the leagues are yet to set it in stone. Step 7 I am less familiar with as very few Step 7 leagues have season articles on Wikipedia. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Baumgartner/Kubica

Hi,

I see you reverted my edits made in Zsolt Baumgartner and Robert Kubica articles. And your reasons are delink country names per WP:OVERLINK, no need for official country name and rv - we don't need full official names here - shouldn't be linked anyway. However, there are many F1 drivers that have links to now defunct countries, such as Michael Schumacher, Nico Rosberg and many other German drivers. Please explain why some drivers have links to defunct countries and others don't. Sabbatino (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Sabbatino: Hi, forgive my butting in, but it is correct to say that per WP:OLINK major geographical locations (countries) are not linked. There are undoubtedly numerous articles where links remain but they will ultimately be removed as editors work on the pages. The Germany situation is a little more complicated due to the country's history in the second half of the twentieth century and some editors feel that the links to East and West Germany should be left just for clarification purposes. But it is not really necessary and links will probably disappear over time. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Eagleash: Hi, we've sorted this out at Sabbatino's talk page but yes, you're basically right. There are definitely a number of F1 driver articles which need a further look as many still display old Wikipedia practices. Many still don't have birthplaces in the infobox either. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, OK good; sorry to intrude :P Eagleash (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries, intruders are welcome here ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Nationality-focused users

Do you think there may be a relationship between Special:Contributions/Doubletoasted01, Special:Contributions/Kellie01 and Special:Contributions/Perrie101? They all seem to have a similarly intense concern about nationality. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 02:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Fleetwood Mac Template

As you've probably noticed, there have been around a dozen Fleetwood Mac articles created this month. I was originally going to create "Say You Will", "World Turning" and "Rattlesnake Shake" but instead intend to work on the plethora of new songs that were recently made. With the addition of these three songs, (they should come in about a month) the Fleetwood Mac template is getting a bit bulky. To make navigating easier, would it be ok if I organized the songs by decade? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

"World Turning" is definitely notable. It's a staple in the Mac's setlist (I think they've played it on every tour since 1975). I do have a bunch of sources to pull from for this song. Mick Fleetwood talks about it a lot in "Then Play On" as well as his talking drum solo and how it has evolved over the years. In America, "World Turning" is up there with the most popular non-singles (along with "The Chain and "Gold Dust Woman) and receives minor AirPlay. "Thoughts on a Grey Day" however is not notable at all. I was thinking about creating the article as an April Fools joke and talk about all the charts it topped. But I can't see the article lasting long. What's he going to create next? "These Strange Times"? Hopefully that user doesn't keep creating that many new articles since I'm having a hard time keeping up with him. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it, and it did provide me a good chuckle. The Ledge (from what I gathered) is a fan made site, so I try to avoid it as much as possible. As for "Sunny Side of Heaven", it seems like he just created the article because he likes the song. While it is a great song, that does not make it notable. If he can find reliable sources for these songs (like you did with "Dragonfly") then we can keep them. As for "Temporary One" and "Tango in the Night", they might pass. I certainly did not know those songs charted until I looked them up. As long as he eventually improves them, they can stay. Someone was able to make it work with "Murrow Turning Over in His Grave", so maybe this editor can do the same with these. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I've done some minor work to the articles, although only Skies the Limit is satisfactory at the moment. On a different note, do you know if Buckingham plays all of the instruments on I Know I'm Not Wrong? I'm almost positive he does the synth riff and the drums, but I'm not completely sure. The bass guitar is probably him too. Let me know.Dobbyelf62 (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Phil Lynott (and improvements to GA thereof)

I remember improving this towards GA a few years back, but it's taking the best part of forever. Still, it looks doable in the short term. The main sticking points are the citations to Philomena's biography which need page numbers (there isn't any preview online, and reviews suggest it's more about her than her son) and there's a bunch of unsourced stuff near the end, which I can probably clean up with Putterford's book. What else? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Making a point

how u got no block rights, i am right anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.5.209 (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right? What, just deleting stuff? Of course. You've been reported. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

if your going to use you stupid scope then why not include art bisch, who died in an F1 compliant car in 1958; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.5.209 (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC) Or lex Davison. and why call me a vandal when you are a known vandal ?

If you're going to question a featured list, do it properly in the right place, don't just vandalise it. Interesting to see how you'd prove I'm a "known vandal". Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Especially since now you're blocked. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IP, you are more than welcome to add driver fatalities to the table if you can reference them. Just don't remove content simply because you disagree with the criteria. Twirlypen (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Go Your Own Way

The past couple of months, Go Your Own Way has been greatly improved, so much so that its due for a reassessment. Would you say the article is worthy of a B class, or do you think it needs a little more work? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say it was a 'B', just about. There's a 'citation needed' that needs sorting, but otherwise it's pretty good. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Lola T370

Hello BB, Just wanted to mention that being unreferenced doesn't necessarily preclude an article from being start class, per scale, here. As it happens I am trying to ref up all these articles that our IP chum started over the weekend. The guy must have got his info from somewhere and to my mind probably showed enough "wikinowse" to know to add refs. All I have really is Small, Guinness Complete Who's Who,1994 which might possibly mean putting a ref at the end of each sentence for the results of each GP in the text, or perhaps putting a sources sub heading in the references section and cite each driver's info from the book. I have nothing about the 'gestation' or design of the car but a search of my (sometime) employer's archive (Motor Sport magazine) might yield something. Any suggestions? Regards, Eagleash (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I have found a ref for the design of the GH1 but not the Lolas. The Andy Smallman that IP guy linked to is a different Mr. Smallman who founded a school of some sort in America. I Have disamb'd by adding 'motorsport designer' to our Smallman cos as of now I can't find him, so there's a load of red-links flying about now. The problem with Small is that all the driver details are on different pages so it could get a bit unwieldy. As for F1 Rejects, the site was badly compromised nearly a year ago now and when I last checked the profiles etc. were still down though the forums have been resurrected under the name GP Rejects. The links are 'dead-links' now. The plan is, hopefully, to reinstate the website content in due course, but I believe there are a number of probs in that direction. I don't contribute as much to that site as I used to so I'm a little out of touch but am in loose contact with the new admins/webmasters. (The two guys running it previously had had enough!) I think there may be some licensing issues also. Eagleash (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

OK if you're going to have a go at it I won't start messing with it. Eagleash (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Well I've had a bit of a tinker with both years and tried to make it a bit more readable. It is just a list of results still but I think it reads a bit better. Maybe not! I've stuck a ref at the end of 1974 which has all the driver pages from Steve Small in it (page No. order = alphabetical order) but can't say I'm particularly happy with that as it stands. Might try and fiddle with it a bit tomorrow after I've double checked the info. Eagleash (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I've had time to go through Small and check the results. The T370 ones check out fine against what's in the page, but Small shows Hill used the T370 in 1975 not the 371 (and an additional DNQ in it at Monaco). I have put a note on the talk page which also includes links to the Motor Sport mag archives for the 1975 GPs...which agree with small. Is it worth keeping the 371 article for just one race or could it be merged with the 370? I suppose it wouldn't be the only one race car article...though I can't think of one at the moment (Brabham 'fan car'? — much more important). Eagleash (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Check the Motor Sport mag link for Monaco I posted on the T371 talk page. It refers to the car Hill used as 'Hill GH1 (T371/HU1)'. (In the DNQs under the grid order bit). In the practice times table he also used a T370. In the Hill GH2 article there is a note that the GH1 was based around the T371. I think it's just a name change! Eagleash (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It was becoming clearer. Motor Sport mag Spain 1975 says Stommelen used the GH2 (supposedly unraced!) but does also say that Migault used the 'first Hill car the GH1 which began life as Lola T371'. Spain was 27 April and S. Africa where Rolf S. used the T371 was 1 March, so the name changed somewhere in the intervening period. This is quite a muddle really. Who said the IP wasn't causing problems!? Small does not bear out the GH2 use by RS. (Just for the record I would normally have great faith in 'Jenks' version). Eagleash (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That most recent page you found does agree that the T371 was debuted in S. Africa, and therefore Graham didn't use it in 1975; also I think it pretty much backs up the case for the T371 and GH1 being the same as it were. & that Stommelen used a GH2 in Spain. But the reference to 1976 in connection with the GH2 confuses the issue a bit. I think the T370 article is pretty good now actually. Eagleash (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense. The GH2 that Stommelen used to have one of the biggest accidents ever was in fact a GH1 chassis given the GH2 desig. which was subsequently 'un-designated' back to a GH1 and the GH2 in the article did not in fact race as it was the proposed '76 car. OK! need to look at the tables a bit, probably, make sure they agree. I'm not sure Spain '75 appears anywhere but not sure without checking. I think it would be an idea to merge the 371 and GH1 pages. Shall I put the merge tags on the pages and start the discussion (refer to these threads) or should it be a WP:BOLD move? I think it was 359 who said the IP editor wasn't causing any probs. He's been around for a while BTW; flooded the Team Lotus page with images back in Feb. QueenCake got that one! Eagleash (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

OK I think we're good now. I'll try to sort out the merge tomorrow. I think best to keep the GH1 page as it's the later name and as you say explain it in the article. Put a note on the 371 talk page after my previous one and linked to these pages so that it's explained if anyone queries it. (As if!) Great stuff! Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Update, merge done and some minor wording/tweaking etc. Although you'll probably want to fettle it up some more... Also T370 page updated etc. (and even the GH1 disamb page!)... Eagleash (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes the GH1 needs a bit more looking at, sometime... I wonder if IP man will strike again this weekend, and if so, where? Eagleash (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Rattlesnake Shake

Sorry for bothering you, but have you changed your mind about Rattlesnake Shake? I believe I have incorporated enough details and sources to make it a standalone article. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Rick Vito

If I made wiki pages for Rick Vito albums would they be deleted? Notable enough? - Visnvoisnvo

Thanks for the response to that. If I made a page for a Buckingham Nicks song, which one(s) would be most notable? Crying in the Night, Don't Let Me Down Again, Long Distance Winner, or Frozen Love? Thanks! - Visnvoisnvo

Nos in results tables

Hi, just a quick one...I am right in thinking we don't include Nos. (I.e. car/driver Nos.) in results tables? Like at Embassy Hill where there is a Nos. column... (and an IP editor has been adding to it). Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ta muchly. Removed. Eagleash (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

IP editor again

Hello BB,

Our old friend is back yet again here and is busy adding every conceivable image to F1 articles. Jim Clark, James Hunt (a few days ago) & others. There really are too many images in most of the articles now and honestly, they don't add a great deal. The text is squeezed between columns of (not top notch) images which makes it less easily read. Th editor commented in one edit summary that "the pictures could cost millions so add them". They can't seem to grasp that it's not a picture book. Like three weeks ago they haven't taken much notice of what's been communicated to them. Anything we can do to try to stem the tide? (Or sooner or later every F1 article will be dominated by images!) Regards, Eagleash (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The Clark page is now a horrible mess and he's left at least one slightly aggressive edit summary here. I don't know how this can be handled as the IP changes from day to day. I could ask one of the admins I 'know' from footy editing I suppose... Eagleash (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I've left a message on the IP talk page — for what it's worth. He took no notice 3 weeks ago (if he even saw the posts). It's absolute sacrilege to vandalise Jimmy's page!! I'll get in touch with one of the footy guys. Eagleash (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Update. Admin help requested (GiantSnowman in case you're interested) :P Eagleash (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I expect you saw the reply from Snowman on my talk page. I do have a list of (so far) a dozen IPs the photo-mad editor is using, for use if necessary. In the meantime I saw that a lot of images had been put into galleries and note that the Clark one has been deleted by another editor, who I don't recall seeing before. The James Hunt one is still there though & is absolutely massive!! Definitely needs to be trimmed down. (& now there are no images in the text). I said to Snowman that in view of the progress you made recently that a 'cautious' approach might be best. (Agree?) Goodness knows what havoc he might wreak if he got properly riled up! Anyways, suggest we see how things progress. I might leave a post on the other editor's page pointing out that it is a known problem and asking him to collaborate with others before taking out numerous images. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Tidied up the Hunt page a bit. Took forever cos of an edit conflict (DH!) and then a server problem. (Probably overloaded with images!) Already left a message on the other page. Eagleash (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

He's back; here. This edit to James Hunt I'm afraid teed me off a bit as it just undid everything I'd done to the page the other day to restore some images to the article, sort out (his?) dodgy grammar and tidy up the gallery, so I reverted it, (oh dear?), out of convenience. Seems he's going to be an ongoing problem & not going to cooperate much. Eagleash (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes all the IPs (according to the geo-locator at the bottom of contrib pages) apart from one (which I thought possibly wasn't him anyway) come from either Salisbury or Andover, which to my mind are pretty close together. So work/study/some other location and home maybe. I think if there's another rash of dodgy edits next weekend, he's had long enough to get the idea really... Eagleash (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. He does seem only to strike at the weekend, but will try to keep an eye out. Eagleash (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, he's back here and here. Spate of particularly unhelpful edits to the Cooper T51 page which Pyrope has left a message on the (his) talk page about (not that he'll take much notice). Snowman is away till later tomorrow but I will leave a message for him, cos I really think it's time to put a stop to this now but I don't know what the best course of action might be.

Well he's gone for an unblock. Can't see that going well. Eagleash (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Driver nationalities

Hi there. An issue has again risen over Max Verstappen's racing nationality. An IP kept changing it to Belgian and an editor subsequently removed the field entirely. There is a discussion over the matter and the editor does not seem to believe that the F1 Driver Infobox nationality field only lists racing nationality. They have asked me for a link to the discussion that achieved that consensus. This practice has been in use for a very long time, in any case much longer than I have been around. I therefore don't know where to search for it. I have found a few discussion over driver nationality in the WikiProject's archives but nothing satisfying. Since you have been around here much longer than me and seem to have participated in most of the discussion I've come across on my search, I was wondering I you might be able to help to point the editor to what they want. Tvx1 14:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Template:Embassy Hill

The restored draft is as above. I tidied it up in-line with other templates I found and Tvx1 did a bit more as I left the Lola cars there (pro-tem). I don't know if it is of any use really but if you get time perhaps you could look at it also & then it could be moved if felt appropriate? Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Of course it took 2 goes to move it as I forgot to delete the word template from the title. :P Eagleash (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Graham Hill

Just noticed that Hill's Tasman results all have the NZ or Aus flagicon in the table cells. (Amazingly, not the obvious suspect!). Offending edit here. This cannot be right. Am away for a few hours now but will fix later...assuming I'm right....? Regards, Eagleash (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, totally right. There should never be flags for races in driver articles. I've saved you the job ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Just done the same for Jimmy, Bruce, Black Jack & The Bear. Eagleash (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Can't believe we didn't notice these before! I'll keep an eye out. Hopefully this guy just did the famous drivers... Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Surtees & Amon are OK so it's just the also-rans now so yep he probably didn't do too many more. But the season articles have flags by the races too (as well as the winning drivers); see 1975 Tasman Series. Eagleash (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't even know those existed...! The flags are barely identifiable anyway. I wonder how many we could get rid of. Do you think anyone would notice or care? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I've taken out the flagicons on all the Tasman season articles. I expect you are right not many people would be too concerned if they went away altogether. Back in the day no-one took much notice of the Tasman series; not in England anyway. Eagleash (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Good work :) Yes, certainly – it was never on the TV or anything and you just read about it a week later in Autosport. On the other hand, if it were brought back now... Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I was always a Motor Sport reader anyways (not just saying that cos of working for them recently). :P Our IP friend has been causing havoc again today...Tvx has got quite cross! (Rather belatedly). Admin. who range-blocked previously has been approached. Eagleash (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think he might need blocking (again), to be honest. The IP, not Tvx, of course ;) If he can't be made to understand about not creating articles in talkspace, he isn't really welcome, I suspect. I disagree with Tvx about not sorting out his mess, because the stuff is basically useful. But the IP can't really be allowed to carry on creating so much work for others. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Well there's another range-block for 2 weeks. Yes I agree, we can make something of his efforts as long as Tvx doesn't slap a deletion notice on them. But he put one on Larrousse LH95 and a page reviewer said..no, move it to mainspace. Also the page created in mainspace comment turned out to be a red herring. Was a diff where IP had copied content from LC90 to create the LC91 page & both seem to be OK. Eagleash (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Going back to flags for a moment. How about this infobox?! Note Dave Walker (F1, Lotus) is red-linked. Eagleash (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Page reviewers worth their salt should always keep articles of that standard – they're not bad quality, they just need sorting and moving. Tvx deleting stuff because he doesn't like the guy who wrote it isn't a good reason. I see Jim Clark got semi-protected; hopefully that will ease the problems there for a while.

I've fixed the Dave Walker links (it's at "David Walker" for some reason), but I'm not sure about the flags. My first instinct was to get rid of them as we're not talking about F1, but I don't know how much harm they're doing really. I'm in two minds whether to keep them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that walker is at 'David', I think I've done something on it in the past. I was going to reduce the drivers, (possibly) to only those that made F1. Hadn't really decided. I hadn't noticed the disruption to Clark in the last couple of days, it's not on my watchlist for some reason...duh! It wasn't our usual IP either as far as I could tell. On the plus side Mr. Rooney has been quiet recently... unless he lives in Andover or Salisbury. :P And yes I agree, Tvx was perhaps a little hasty on the LH95...and the Embassy Hill t/plate. Eagleash (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Semedo

Okay, thanks. I was very stressed out at that time, and I exaggerated with that edit summary. Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 15:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, you too! :) MYS77 ^✉ 01:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

1958 Moroccan Grand Prix

Hello BB, can I ask for your help/opinion etc.? A little while ago, I stumbled on the 58 Morocco page: it was just one line and a results list. I made a lead and took out some bits to restore later; and that is how the page currently stands. Since then I've been working on an expansion in a sandbox here adding a race report, quali times, took Nos. out of tables etc. It's virtually done (I need to find a ref for BCE leaving the sport after the death of Lewis-Evans - not included at the moment). If you have time, would you mind having a look at it. I think it's OK (ish) but i'm a bit concerned about the referencing (it's all "Jenks"!). & I'm going cross-eyed looking at the wikilinks! If you're too busy, please don't feel obliged to - no problem. Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh whilst I remember, there's a discussion at Talk:Jim Clark, which if you haven't seen it already, you might be interested in. Eagleash (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks pretty good! I had no idea it had been such a scrawny article, given that it was a fairly important race in the grand scheme of things. You've told the story pretty well, and any further additions would be greater detail rather than major points. A couple of things I spotted: race report tables do generally include car numbers; first mention of a driver's name should include the first name and surname, and just surname thereafter; there's one example of Lewis Evans' name missing the hyphen, and there's a stray pipe in the quali table at Masten Gregory ("Maserati|"). I wouldn't worry about over-using Jenks' source – it surely must be the best resource on the race that we have. Sourcing Ecclestone abandoning the sport after LE's death shouldn't be too hard; let me know if you have problems. Good work!

Great minds – as you were messaging me I was wading in at Jim Clark. That Halmyre fellow looks to be a useful chap to have around, providing he listens to others. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it now. I'll drop it onto the page tomorrow. I have Tom Bower's book about Bernie (on Kobo) & that provided a ref. That book is a good read if you haven't seen it. No Angel: The Secret Life of Bernie Ecclestone.

Yes, he'll be OK, I expect, once he gets the feel of things a bit more. Eagleash (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, will check that book out! :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

IP guy....

<rant> Our friend has returned after his 2 week lay-off here and here. Started templates in talk pages again. DH moved one for Chris Amon Racing into mainspace (and has also tidied up after him elsewhere). I moved one for Token Racing into draft and there's one out there somewhere for Surtees as well. The first 2 I'm not sure about; as Amon is already in mainspace, guess that's accepted. Token is not really notable enough in my view and I'm tempted to delete it actually. He's also created articles for some pretty non-notable cars; in at least 2 cases undoing earlier re-directs to the team pages (Rebaque HR100 and Token RJ02). Seems he's not going to give up, it's getting past some point or other in my view. Quite a lot of his stuff is OK, but in most cases, as you observed, it's lots of work for others. </rant> Eagleash (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeez. This guy is the perfect problem because he does just enough good work to avoid being blocked forever for being a dick. Ugh. OK, if the Amon one has existed for a while then fair enough. I don't generally think we need templates for teams which only ever produced one F1 car. Likewise we don't need separate articles for cars if that car was the only F1 car made by that team. We can just merge to the team article. I say re-revert the Rebaque and Token car articles. Maybe this could prompt a wider discussion on single-car teams, car articles and templates. Meanwhile there's that profundly annoying German on the Jim Clark article. He's a sock of someone we had blocked in 2006 for doing the same thing, for God's sake. [13] Seriously, why can't some people get a grip on themselves? Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The Amon template was created only 2 days ago and DH moved in into mainspace, but really it's not needed. Amon was such a short-lived and unsuccessful team (CA himself described it as a nightmare), that it's really not needed. I'll tag the Token template for deletion. I've also mentioned the Rebaque and Token articles to DH as he re-directed one or both but I think you're right, should be undone. The Amon AF101 article was created by our boy back in August. I guess it can stay as Amon himself is more notable: could possibly be merged. The Surtees template is here. Surprised there isn't one already...It's very driver heavy. GAH! I was checking Clark a bit yesterday, slipped my mind today. Eagleash (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, well if it's only been around for two days then I say nuke it. I'd merge the AF101 to Chris Amon Racing, not least because the car article is completely unsourced and has been since day one. If he can't source his articles then he can expect them to be merged or deleted. The Surtees template is fair enough - a bit driver-heavy as you say, but then Big John did get through a lot of drivers! Makes me think there aren't many Surtees car articles. I got Clark protected again - it's just one of those articles that should be permanently protected... Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the Rebaque & Token car pages to the re-directs. The Token template has been deleted. The Amon one, Tvx has taken to templates for deletion. Hmmm.. (I used the wrong tag of course!). The Amon article I'm not sure about merging, none of the guy's stuff has been ref'd...you did the Lola T371 & I did the Hill GH1...and I'm doing the Lola LC91...well I will eventually... I suppose as it was the only car produced it should be merged. I don't suppose anyone will object. Eagleash (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed Tvx has tagged the Surtees template for deletion too. I think that one is more use (or would be if there were a couple more car articles). I think rushing to delete it is again a bit hasty. Eagleash (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I've moved the Surtees template to draft (sorry Tvx!). So if it can be used, we can fettle it up, if necessary or if it is decided it's not useful at the moment, it can just be tagged again. Any thoughts on that one? Eagleash (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

More updates. He's back today here He's twice deleted the Amon deletion template and also deleted the discussion from the templates for deletion 'board'. He does either again I will be teed off enough to see about putting him outside in the cold again. :P He's done some work on a BRM page which is OK — why can't he cooperate the rest of the time. (later) OK he deleted the template again and also deleted the disc at TfD. I have asked admin for help again. Eagleash (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: Amon AF101, I suspect nobody will mind either way, whether it's merged or not. If it stays though, we'll have to source it. I've (naturally) left my A-Z of GP Cars book at home, but I can use it when I go home for Xmas. I might do a couple of articles for Surtees cars as well, since we're light on them. I agree with you on the Surtees template, I think deleting it is a bit harsh. The team wasn't exactly a flash in the pan. I don't know what else could be put in the template, what does Tvx want, exactly?

The IP is behaving like an ass, and looks blockable to me. We've been more than patient, don't you think? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

2 week block again. Do we just act bold and merge the Amon article? I'll move the Surtees template to mainspace and yes, I agree a couple more Surtees car articles would be a good thing. The Surtees article itself needs a bit of looking at as well I think....Maybe when I clear all the other (non-f1) bits I'm (slowly) working on... Eagleash (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I say merge, but I don't feel too strongly about it. Maybe DH has an opinion? And yes, we've all got a queue of things we want to do, and not much time to do them! We'll get round to sorting Surtees out before long, I'm sure. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I did mention it to DH a few days ago but he hasn't commented. Just by way of info, in his last batch of edits, IP bloke added quite a bit of text to both BRM P133 & BRM P126. Unsourced and usual style, every race detailed, lots of "saw" X / the (insert nationality) etc... all with his trademark rogue capitals and dodgy tense. I am beginning to feel, as you suggested a while ago, that he's playing games. I can't imagine that the concept of reliable source is one he's going to embrace easily. I only noticed the BRM additions because I started a draft article for Len Terry and went looking for 'containing' pages to help me search for info. Eagleash (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

That kind of thing (the BRM additions) are barely useful. Without sourcing, those articles are looking a bit amateurish. I wonder if it might be time to start reverting the guy's edits if he's adding no sources. I will do that, I think, if I see him adding great chunks like that again. He's had enough explanations of reliable sourcing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm tempted to agree, but I'm not sure how much has been communicated to him about RS. I think we've been too busy shovelling up images/talk-page drafts etc. and the fact that 95% of his stuff is unref'd has rather slipped under the radar. So...I suppose when he returns in about 10 days or so, there'll be another edit warring episode where he just puts back anything we take out before he is blocked again. On the question of RS the other chap mentioned above (Halmyre) can be a bit light on refs where he changes things sometimes and not cross-check race report pages when driver page results tables have been altered (usually car model Nos. or engines) Eagleash (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

BRM Grand Prix results

Hello, still plodding away on my Len Terry article, which has got as far as the BRM P207. This led me to tweak the P207 article and then to C&P a results table from the BRM results article. In checking the results, I noticed that Larry Perkins drove a P201 in the 1977 South African Grand Prix, borne out by Small '94 p.284, Perkins own page and "Jenks" here. I tried for about 2 hours this evening to add another line to the results table, but couldn't make it work, no matter what I did. I still really can't do tables! Can you fix it? Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think this is the edit you were intending to make? Another line wasn't needed as Perkins's Saffer GP entry was already there (classified 15th), all you needed to do was add in the chassis to the correct column. Sorry Bretonb, I'll bugger off again now... Pyrope 03:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Pyrope Yes & no... I was trying to make an additional line for Perkins as only he drove the P201 that year. If it's felt that's not necessary then all's well & good, but I can recall seeing other tables where a driver has used more than one chassis in a season & had an additional line accordingly. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I know what you mean Eagleash, but in those everything-and-the-kitchen-sink stand alone summaries we tend to only list the chassis that each entrant uses in one field rather than making things very complex and splitting it all up. The more detailed type tends to be reserved for driver articles. Pyrope 04:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Pyrope OK, thanks. It makes more sense that way actually... Eagleash (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorted! I claim all the credit in solving this problem. Haha, anyway, Pyrope is on the money as always. Cheers, chaps. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

More 'help' please

Hello,

I think I've finished my Len Terry article, (here). Would you mind having a quick look at it (again) before I move it into mainspace. No worries if you can't. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that's pretty good! I'd forgotten it was he who designed the fantastic Eagle-Weslake. I don't have any particular problems with any of that - it looks ready to "publish". I did spot a typo in the title of reference #6, and there might be a comma to add or take away here and there, but that's nit-picking. Good work, that :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I can't see a typo on ref 6. 4 yes (Westlake) but that's the title misused by the source. Could be my eyesight..rapidly approaching sub-Bernie levels. I had to move the image — used on the Eagle Mk1 page — from Westlake to Weslake over at commons. You'd think someone uploading a pic of a racing car would know...especially as there's an *adjective* great sign in the pic with the right name. Thanks for input, I will look at punc. again and move it later tonight. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It says "Uufulfilled" where I think it means "unfulfilled" ;) Just so long as it's just your eyesight that's reaching Bernie levels!! If I had a penny for every time I'd seen "Westlake"... Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I got it (before I saw your message!) but took a while to see it! Airfix did a beautiful 1:32 Eagle V12 slot racer (1960s). I have one, an unfortunate missing of the braking point at the end of dining table straight, for the sideboard hairpin means that one bank of exhausts has gone missing. :( But I digress... Next question... Mike Pilbeam...should his name where it appears be linked to Pilbeam Racing Designs.. he doesn't have his own page. I've seen one page where it's linked but there are others where it isn't. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC) PS. I actually like Bernie. Eagleash (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Haha, most of my models have lost parts in strikingly similar fashion! I thin the Eagle is the best-looking F1 car ever made, and ever likely to be made, I suspect. Pilbeam, hmm.. I'd say link it to PRD, unless he's likely to have his own article any time soon. Fancy writing one? ;) I don't dislike Bernie, I must say. I do admire the guy, although I'm glad I don't have to do business with him! Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) How about an image? I had a quick look on Google images, maybe the thumb from this webpage? I extracted a suitable size from the main image and it looks suitably low-res. Or your choice, has to be low res, small-ish and can only be used on the bio article. I don't understand this (underlined): "For 1965, Terry was given full control over the design of the Lotus 38, and the car finished first that year, and second in 1966, each time with Clark driving. However, Terry left Lotus before the 1965 race, having already been..." ..before the 1965 race season started? What's this 'Bernie' business? Not Bernie Toleman? Just been looking at a description of one of his bikes (1969).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Rocknrollmancer The car would have been designed well before the race (Indy 500) took place and by the time it did, Terry had left. I don't know who Bernie Toleman is without searching. I do remember Ted Toleman of Toleman F1 fame. Made his money in car transporting. A long time ago I worked for the Company which insured them. His son Gary had a few accidents in their private cars. Gary Toleman was later car-jacked and killed in S Africa. Don't know about the image. Bung it in if you think it's OK. Eagleash (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet Just looked at the Motor Sport article; the title reads Uufulfilled; when Ed Foster gets in touch again, it'll be the first thing I put right; well second actually cos the Terry article which I CE'd earlier in the year has 2 errors in it. GAH! F1 cars Eagle Mk1, 250F, BT52 not necessarily in that order. Yes Bernie's thing is the deal... & he wins. Still it's contradictory...the public &/or fans often dislike him but it's clear that those who have worked with him and for him and even crossed swords with him have great respect bordering on affection for the guy. Viz, that EJ interview a few years back & Brundle's grid interviews. Eagleash (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure what it is about Bernie, what that "thing" he has might be, but he makes it work. He just seems to command respect. The fact that today's F1 is effectively a completely different sport to the F1 of the 1970s and 1980s, even the 1990s really, is basically down to him entirely. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes & love him or hate him, he's held the thing together, competing with some serious egos, more or less single-handedly for decades now. Back on F1R we had long discussion about who might take over. In the end we decided that one of us would have to bite the bullet and marry one of the daughters! :P.... & talking of small nuisances, guess who's back right after the block expired, here. Can't see anything major wrong yet. Well a few things...Fiddled with the table at Bobby Unser took me ages to add the P126. I can see his point but don't know what the convention is. Tables! Bah! I think I'll leave a note on the current talk page about WP:RS and also edit summaries and also a link to his last IP where the admin that blocked him left a message. Eagleash (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Haha, yes, but then you'd have to put up with being married to one of them! Not sure I could handle that ;) Ugh, well, that guy isn't going to go away by the looks of things. That said, he's got Unser's table right. I spent months doing those tables when we originally decided to format them that way, and it took me a long while to get used to the method. I guess we just keep an eye on this guy (again) for the moment, and see if he does anything ridiculous, or just irritating. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

OK I see the reasoning. I think therefore I've got the BRM P138 table wrong then (swap Surtees & Oliver)? (Done that now) I think I copied to a sandbox from another page to edit, so whatever that was might be wrong too. Think the P139 page is OK. IP boy changed my full depth columns on the P138 splitting them into years. I changed it back but again I don't know if that's right or not either? DH hasn't stalked it yet! I can't really recall what the Ecclestone girls look like, but I don't think Brundle's famous beer-goggles would be all that essential. Daddy's billions wouldn't be a problem either. Eagleash (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Both those BRM tables look good to me, although DH might tweak something I haven't spotted. They look the way I would do them myself at least. Haha, I'm sure the Ecclestone girls look fine but I suspect they'd be somewhat high maintenance, and not just financially! There goes your quiet life... Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

OK ta. He's changed something on the BRM tables today. But even though I took screenshots, it made no difference I could see. On another note there's now a page for Surtees TS7 which may or may not please you! All unsourced of course and usual grammar/punc/caps things. Thing is, if you look at the history someone moved it to draft earlier today (which was subsequently deleted) and the next thing it seems to be back in article space and IP is adding stuff to it. If it was in draft, can he move it to article as an IP or has he found some way round the system? I've left yet another message on his today's talk-page re edit summaries and sources but to no effect it seems. Oh another point, driver Nos. in car infoboxes...that can't be right? Eagleash (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC) PS today's edits Eagleash (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi guys. The IP editor was able to "create" Surtees TS7 because it already existed (as a redirect to Surtees). Driver numbers in car infoboxes are quite common (see Ferrari F2001 for example), but I wouldn't recommend it for pre-1973 cars, where the numbers changed from race to race. DH85868993 (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks. Some boxes seem to have them and some not. Don't think I'll get involved in changing them if there's no firm convention. Just to be clear, I'm referring to when Nos. appear in 'notable drivers' next to the name and sometimes with one or more Nos. Eagleash (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Crikey! draft Lola LC87. Is it me (probably is) or has IP boy actually started an article in draft!!? Usual stodgy wording and weird caps/punc of course. Eagleash (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I see that LC87 is going to get deleted unless he comes up with some sources, which of course experience shows he's incapable of doing. It'll be interesting to see how he deals with that. I might copy the article and restore it later (with sources) if it gets deleted, as it's clearly useful, but it might serve as a lesson to this guy. I'm glad I haven't started doing Surtees articles yet as he's clearly interested in doing them himself - again, we'll see how it pans out. I'm with DH on the driver numbers thing; I was never sure of a convention on that myself. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it has been nominated for deletion again here. Another editor has said to keep it, but they are probably unaware of all the probs. we have had with the IP guy over the past 3 months or so. I did want to leave a comment on the submission, but found I couldn't do so without going into too much detail about IP's activities. Maybe you you can make a better job of that than I could!! I've been watching the LC87 drama unfold and could have jumped in at anytime but as you suggest, it doesn't help him get the idea. On another point, after you looked at the BRM P138 and 139 tables and said they looked OK, Pyrope popped up and changed one of them but not the other. He made the same sort of changes on the Surtees TS7 page also. So I am confused as to what is the correct way now. Pyrope also saved me the trouble of finishing the CE on the TS7...good! I keep stumbling on articles where IP has added reams of text. (Unref'd usual grammar). Finally, I expect you saw the anti Joe Saward rants on the project talk-page. PMs, under his Captain Hammer alter ego, (see his user page before he blanked it) used to post incessantly at F1 Rejects about Saward and in Dec. 2011, was requested to reign it in by a moderator (for the second time). Eagleash (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if much input from us might look like bullying the IP, particularly as others don't seem aware of his problematic history. We could possibly look a bit overbearing and you know how some people love to stick up for IPs. I think it'll get deleted anyway and I'd like to see how the IP reacts. I might go have a say there but I shan't go into much detail. I see what Pyrope has done (I assume he hasn't seen the P138 article yet or he would've changed it) and I'm OK with removing the flags, that's fair enough. I'm also OK with expanding the columns to show the same engine being used in different chassis. I'm less OK with using surnames only for the drivers - technically you're not supposed to do that because of some people not having the hover function to enable the first names to be shown; plus in the case of Bickell, now nobody knows what his first name was, because he has no link and he's not mentioned in the article. Thoughts? I really don't know if there's a "standard" for those tables. As for PM and Joe Saward, well, it's way over the top. Seems a little odd to say the least. I'm not Saward's biggest fan either, but I'd still say he's a reliable source. Has PM ever removed a Saward source from an article or is it just talk page chatter? Anything between him and Tvx1 gives me the ache. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's what I felt, it wouldn't be fair to list out his 'previous' (however tempting :P). IP boy hasn't re-surfaced yet this weekend... but I doubt he's gone away just yet. I feel a bit sorry for him in a way. He can't be feeling very happy... Anyway, OK noted about the tables, when you say columns, do you mean extending them downwards when same engines, tyres, entrants etc. are used for multiple rows. Does that also apply to years? I.e. in the BRM P139 table info. has been repeated in the same col. because it's been split by year. I've added some sources to another of IP's articles today, I wonder if we'll ever catch them all.... As for the Capt. and Joe... posting something like 'wilfully misreported' in a publicly accessible area is a bit iffy. You wouldn't put that on an article page and it's been pointed out many times that PMs has just interpreted it to suit his agenda. (JS also has a user account). Eagleash (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, and yes, I feel a bit sorry for him too. I think he has very genuine intentions but can't get to grips with the methodology and requirements. I think we'll be stumbling across his work many years from now... Tables - yes, that's what I mean, and no, it doesn't apply to years. At least it doesn't in driver tables, and I'm sort of assuming these tables should follow the same system. I'm with you on the Joe Saward thing, and I see PM has been blocked again, this time for three months. So that sort of puts the tin lid on that one. In other news, the protection at Jim Clark has expired and, needless to say, it's being vandalised again. So maybe keep an eye on that one. Why it isn't just permanently protected... well, I'll never know. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

He's back here. Still fiddling with the Lola draft but not getting anywhere. He's also removed the deletion template twice so a block might be looming but those involved don't know his history. If Diannaa saw it he'd be already gone I expect... Maybe we should jump in and help him out again...but I suppose he'll just carry on with his previous habits...although he probably won't try draft again. I see the Clark vandal has been blocked and as for PMs well I saw his attack on Speedy and wondered how long it would be...on top of his edit-warring... Tables...OK so even if the entrant, tyres, chassis and engine are the same over 2 seasons (like the BRM P139) we'd conventionally split the tables in to years and repeat the information. Oh got a Pilbeam article on the go (simmer over slow heat until Christmas). Eagleash (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't see that he will get anywhere; call me a man of little faith. Removing the deletion template will eventually get him blocked, and as you say, he's lucky he's not blocked already. If we help him out, we're just sentencing ourselves to helping him out indefinitely. He relies on that to get his work accepted, and that's not sustainable. Especially since we probably haven't even found all the work he's done. Clark has been semi-protected again, as Tvx has said below, so that ought to be over, unless some well-meaning admin unprotects it again... Good luck with Pilbeam; it's about time we had such an article! Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree it just means more probs. but I'm concerned at the direction the deletion discussion has taken. The editor who said 'keep' as noted above has taken it upon himself to try to do something with the draft (but hasn't achieved very much) and, somewhat disingenuously, has also nominated the Lola LC88 article (pre-existing) for deletion citing the same reasons as LC87, which actually don't really apply. Anyways, if you think we should just let it run itself out that's fine. Almost done with Pilbeam as it goes. Eagleash (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You're certainly right that he hasn't achieved very much. Why isn't anyone there capable of adding in-line references? If it's deleted, I'll recreate it with a bunch of references and you and I can make it decent. If it's kept, then we'll have to do the same thing anyway but it will probably mean the IP will keep creating more drafts. I've left a note on Robert McClenon's talkpage regarding his AfD which only mentions the LC87 but also has the LC88 linked to it. I agree with you that that's not what's required. It seems that however this works out, we'll end up mopping it up... Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I left a message on Robert McC's talk-page also, about a week ago, it's a few threads above yours. The LC88 article was nominated by a different editor (the one who said 'keep' and has fiddled with the draft) who I would have thought might have done better, with his experience. I wonder if we should 'speak' to Andy D also? But you are right, whatever happens now, others will end up sweeping up again whilst IP goes merrily on like a cartoon incompetent driver who leaves chaos in their wake. Eagleash (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks for that; I've just corrected myself on that guy's talk page. Either way, the problem is the same - maybe Robert McClenon didn't notice either and he can sort it out. Otherwise we could talk to Andy D. Nice analogy - I shall now think of this IP as the Taki Inoue of Wikipedia; enthusiastic and probably a nice guy, but lacking in the fundamentals. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

My fault...I obviously didn't make it clear in the post above, who it was added the 88. IP has created Lotus 64 out of a re-direct. It's so ungrammatical I was tempted to tag it for speedy. I think he must be using google translate or something... If you want a break from Taki's efforts then Draft:Mike Pilbeam might make for a bit of light relief. I'm not greatly pleased with it, info. is a bit sketchy, some of the referencing is a bit 'meh' and there's a concern that it would overlap with Pilbeam Racing Designs...if that article was a bit better! Also I haven't decided which pic to use. Eagleash (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear things are getting really silly now. Andy keeps putting the deletion template back despite being told not to and is being a bit uppity. Now we've got people outside the F1 project telling us that F1 single season cars cannot be notable. I think we need to put a stop to this somehow, or people are going to start fiddling with F1 articles in a manner we won't like I fear. I've actually commented on the deletion discussion (in very general terms). Eagleash (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Lotus 64... I confess I didn't know anything about it till I read the article. Needs a few sources! It was a basket case until you and DH got to it. Yes, google translate looks likely. I see the LC87 draft has been deleted, but of course I have it saved for future use when I can source it properly. I see there's been a bit of snippy chat here and there over this, but I'm confident that you and I can make any F1 car article pass WP:GNG without too much trouble. I've done similar when people wanted to delete the odd driver article. Xavier Perrot springs to mind [14], and that was seven years ago (where does the time go?). Can't find the discussion you commented on; perhaps it was deleted? I like the Pilbeam draft you wrote, reffing looks fine to me, but I'll take a closer look in due course. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Roger, Wilco. I had to put my glasses on to tweak the image a bit. Bernie Toleman was starting as a bike racer about the time when I was drifting away from bikes for the first time, not returning until 1977, so I don't know what became of him. I reckon I've seen a pic of him on a racing 1000cc Norvin. I'll add it to the list of things to research.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I have requested permanent semi-protection for the Jim Clark page. That article has been protected 23 times and every time such a protection expired it got disrupted straight away. This is beyond ridiculous. Tvx1 22:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It has been granted. While, sifting through the page's protection log, I noticed that it has been indef protected twice before and both occasions the protection was suddenly lifted. How many mored disruption do they need before they realize that's not workable. Tvx1 00:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Good news. It's so tedious to have to chase after vandals when there's a simple solution. This is just one of those articles that can never be unprotected! Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Tranmere

I've finished my work at 2014–15 Tranmere Rovers F.C. season article today and as you've always been nice and patient to me, i'm asking you to look through it to find and fix some weak places in it and maybe to help me to promote it to 'good article' status-) As always, my biggest concern is a text part of an article. Cheers, Martinklavier (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Martinklavier: Done – I went through all the text and fixed any grammar errors I saw. As usual, your text is very easy to understand and is well written – it's mostly just little mistakes with prepositions, singular/plurals, a/the etc, and these are often very difficult to get right. They are the last point of difference between a native speaker and a foreign speaker, and experience will fix them. Good work – I've done season articles myself and this one is better than mine! Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Lola

There are all sorts of problems here. First, another editor, in good-faith mistake, applied an MFD tag to Lola LC88. That isn't applicable because it is in mainspace and its deletion can be discussed at AFD, not at MFD. Also, the tag pointed to the discussion page for deletion of the draft, not the article. Also, the IP has removed the MFD tag from the draft. That was disruptive. I have warned the IP and have taken the unusual action of requesting semi-protection for the draft. That's the situation. There seems to be a combination of a good-faith mistake by an experienced editor and of disruptive editing by an IP. I asked the other editor to discuss at the Help Desk if they have questions about deletion procedures. I hope that this doesn't have to go to WP:ANI, because no one wins at ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Lolas & Lotuses et al

I thought it might be best to start a new thread!! Sorry if that's not to your liking... Yes the lotus 64 was a shambles. I left it as it was and when DH did some minor CE, I did some more and tidied it a bit. Yes..sigh of relief.. The draft has gone. I guarantee it will be back in a talk-page next weekend...if you don't get to it first that it is. The discussion I commented on is here. I tagged the Lola LC88 for refs and I see you've had a do of it too. Tomorrow I'll use Small to add a source row to the table. Hopefully Andy won't carry on trying to get it deleted. He's lucky no-one reported him really; put the notice back three times I think. Thanks for looking at the Pilbeam, did you have any preference for image. Same car different camera 1 year apart. Eagleash (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh FFS Andy has proposed the Lola LC88 at AfD here. Eagleash (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Good idea :) I must archive this page at some point. Lotus 64 is an example of a car I wouldn't necessarily believe has inherent notability, but it's not my particular area of expertise (assuming I have one!) so I am looking forward to how that one turns out. I'll start on LC87 when I get back to Cornwall for Christmas (all my books are there...) and if LC88 hasn't been deleted (sigh) I'll do the same with that one. I don't think Andy will succeed in getting that deleted as he's already 3–1 down in stark "voting" terms and nobody's supported him yet. I'll admit I bristled somewhat at the suggestion that we wanted LC87 deleted as revenge for the IP annoying us. Shame Andy couldn't see just how much time we've had to put in clearing up that IP's crap. I think if Andy was aware of the whole picture, he'd be more sympathetic. Pilbeam - both pictures are decent (could use both?) but I prefer the top one. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I think the 64 is probably not notable really, but when I go to look something up and it's a re-direct to a main-page I feel disappointed, cos I think 'it should be there'. But that's not the way of things... I've moved the Pilbeam to mainspace, thanks again for help. As a result of the Pilbeam article I started one on the BRM P201 he designed but in view of current grumbles I wonder about its notability in the long term. Never mind, I've got 2 footballers and 2 motorbikes in draft. Yes I agree Andy doesn't realise how much work the bloke makes for others. Really, I feel he didn't get his own way on the 87 and this AfD he started is a tad petulant. Eagleash (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm pausing any intentions to create car articles until there's a bit more clarity on what is considered notable (or desirable) and what isn't. I'm not keen on creating things that people who don't write articles are going to bitch about and try to get deleted. That said, I am still aiming to do a Surtees article or two. I agree that the current AfD is a bit pointy; hopefully it'll get nowhere. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I've had a (semi) wiki-break myself over the last few days. I often find editing quite difficult (and a little depressing) and some RL problems are starting to interfere too! I did notice IP return once or twice and see he's had a go at adding refs. Maybe he's beginning to get the idea? Lotus 76 needs looking at I think. On another point if you get a minute can you look at Ford Mustang (fourth generation) where another editor seems confused about the meaning of RHD & LHD...seems to think America is RHD! (Just to make sure it's not me and I've not gone completely wiki-barking!!) I uploaded a Surtees TS11 (in F5000 form) pic to commons recently. It's not very good but there might be a use for it sometime. Eagleash (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

OK it's not me — woken up now! — Provided info for the other editor. Eagleash (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Heads up, Draft:Lola LC87. Here we go again. :P Eagleash (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, real life! I'd forgotten all about that ;) Ugh, so he's recreated the LC87 article; that's going to get short shrift once certain people see it. I don't hold out much hope that it'll be any better than his last attempt, and also it probably means he isn't going away. Ho hum... Lotus 76: I see he can actually add references then! I suspect he copied that from our references at Lola T370. You're right, it still needs some work although you've improved it somewhat already. I see you schooled that other fellow about left- and right-hand drive. No wonder he blanked his talk page; I wouldn't want to look a complete tool on my talk page either! It's the kind of thing that might make you think you were going mad though, haha... I'm sure that Surtees pic will come in handy. I'm hoping to do a fair bit of work over Christmas. Famous last words! Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Taki has gone a bit mad adding refs like he used to add images. Is there such a thing as over-referencing?! The new draft is almost as ungrammatical as the last one. You're right, Robert McL or SwisterTwister (or whoever) will like as not reject it again. IP won't understand why it's wrong and keep on re-submitting it till someone gets tired & tags it I 'spose. Yes, I think he's looked at the GH1 & T370 pages and the penny if not actually dropped is teetering on the edge a bit. He's gone back to some of the other pages too, adding refs. but has a new habit of removing refs tags without actually adding any...

The lad with the RHD etc. was confusing steering position with side of the road, but even after I tried to explain in an edit summary, he still changed it back. Oh, Taki has created a talk page for March 711, currently a re-direct, so we know where he's going to spring up again soon I suppose. Eagleash (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

His referencing is at best hamfisted. It's like he doesn't understand what he's doing, so he's doing as much of it as he can in the hopes that some of it will turn out to be right. The fact that he removes referencing tags without adding references sort of confirms that, I think. March 711, well, I can't wait. There's no beginning to this guy's talents. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh! Tidy-up! Well Taki hasn't reappeared as yet unless he's just not popped up on the watchlist recently. Tomorrow's Saturday usually one of his days for editing. You're right, his editing method is throw stuff, see what sticks. Some of the refs he's done have been OK — think it's right to say he's followed some of the other articles where they've had citations added later. The review of the second LC87 draft seems to be taking a while. My last one a couple of days ago was reviewed in minutes (in mainspace with review tag rather than AfC). Following a lot of BRM editing recently I looked at Louis Stanley and was surprised to find it is only one line... quite an important bloke back in the day... if rather 'blimpish'. Therefore I have re-done it in a sandbox (again) here. Would you mind taking a look at it if you feel so inclined. Thanks...I know I'll have to remove the link to Amazon...it's only there for my own information. He has 6 pages worth of books he wrote listed there! Eagleash (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thought it was about time! That LC87 draft has no chance as it stands. It really shouldn't be given a chance at all after the last debacle. I wonder what it will take to subdue Taki. Your draft of Louis Stanley is miles, miles better than the stub we have right now. I had no idea it was that skimpy. Stanley was, broadly speaking, a good egg. As you've outlined, he made some good strides in F1 safety and we should make a big deal of that in his article, I think. I swear I have a book either by or about him - let me pause for reflection for a second - quite possibly "Strictly Off the Record". I will try to dig it out over Christmas. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Taki returned today here added lots of refs and some other bits and bobs...some of which have been cleaned up. But... then there's this. Another talk-page template!! I was half tempted to CSD it but it could be useful (like the Surtees one) but I think the title's wrong (?) and did Stewie Jackpot actually drive for Matra? I thought it was the Tyrrell run cars only. Stanley had his detractors, after '62 BRM was a bit of a laughing stock really, but as you say, he kicked off the safety stuff. Also I kept away from the lurid allegations in the Bobbie Neale book (his step-daughter). Think Savile..... & her claims to have 'proved' the long-standing rumours that he was fathered by Asquith... I bought one of the Stanley authored year annuals (1968) off Amazon today (3 quid). Just for the hell of it really. Seasons greetings. Don't work too hard on those Lola & Surtees pages... Eagleash (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Taki is a relentless Wiki force that refuses to be tamed. Ugh. He gets around, doesn't he? I agree that the Matra template could be useful (should be "Equipe Matra Sports", no?) I think Sir JYS had two seasons at Matra (68-69) while it was technically Matra (particulary '68), although Ken was running the show. Semantics, I guess. Yeah, Stanley was never able to achieve huge amounts with BRM, and the Stanley-BRM days are best forgotten. P207, anybody? Ooohh, lurid allegations. I guess Wikipedia isn't really in the business of repeating lurid allegations unless they have really amounted to something like a court case or something concrete. Probably best that way. I buy many motor racing books just for the hell of it - some have turned out to be incredibly useful! I'm heading back to Cornwall tomorrow for much merriment and festive alcoholism, but I shall be making time for constructive contributions here. I hope! Have a fine time yourself :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Cornwall....last time I was there, the aforementioned Jackpot won the title... As for Taki oh dear no!. That'll get short shrift too I think. I moved the Matra template (re-named) to mainspace and will eventually add it to the pages. I'm still keeping a note of all his IPs... not sure if it's necessary anymore. He's up to more than forty now and it sometimes changes twice a day. TBH his efforts are (I think) getting better... maybe he'll be useful one day!! We never did anything about the Amon AF101 page either... were going to merge... Happy yuletide editng! Eagleash (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

And this: I wish SanTaki wouldn't keep leaving presents Eagleash (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh God. I see he's made a few edits to driver articles renaming these cars - I'll revert those. He has no idea which names were which, or what to call these articles. That's before we get to deciding whether or not we even need them. The Williams FW could probably use an article, but the FX3? Hmm... I'll merge AF101 while I'm thinking of it. Hope you're having a decent festive period! Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Merged the Amon articles; you might want to check it for repetition and other glaring errors! Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The FX3 and FW articles have been accepted and tidied a bit. The FX3 page could just be merged with a Williams page I think... And yes according to DH's note on the FX3 page the first name for the car should be the page title. This means that after all the hours of research on the Hill GH1 / Lola T371, it possibly should have been merged to T371 not GH1, but to me it makes more sense to call it GH1. Oh someone on the motorsport project picked up on these drafts too. I'll check the Amon ASAP. Eagleash (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Totally with you on the FX3 article - it should just be merged to the Williams page. The FW probably deserves its own page. I also agree with you on the GH1. It was called the T371 for such a short time that it makes sense to go with GH1. I think we should exercise some discretion in these things. On a related note, how do you feel about merging Hill GH2 with the team article? I struggle to see its stand-alone notability. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The Amon looks good to me! Yep FX3 merge... no-one will object (apart from Taki!). Ditto with the GH2. (and the Lotus 64 is a bit of a non-event too). I think at least some of the text on the FW has been copied from somewhere as Swister noted on review. Hadn't really noticed before then but it's a bit above Taki's usual efforts. I have little idea of how to go about checking these things. Eagleash (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Taki has already reverted that merge once but I've changed it back. Clearly he doesn't like the idea! I will start to merge some of those, one by one, and let's hope he acquiesces. As for his copyvio on Williams FW, it looks like chunks of it were copied/pasted from other articles, for example 1973 Canadian Grand Prix. Not ideal. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Good! He is a pest! If he continues he cannot be far away from being blocked again. Re: FW, I thought I recognised some of the text...must have read other pages at sometime... The Lotus 64 just should be deleted really. There's no room for it on the Team page in my view and it's already in the list of cars produced. I see you've been busy on some other pages!! Eagleash (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look at Lotus 64 at some point and see if I've got anything to add. It might well be best to delete it. Yes! I've had a go at the LC88, which you've seen; I hope that makes it a bit better. I might well have a similar go at LC89 etc as well, and no doubt the LC87 too. Taki's also renaming the Williams FW chassis everywhere so that it simply reads "FW" whereas I really think they were known individually as the FW01–03, and collectively as the FW. Taki's a pain in the proverbial. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The 64 was the Indy car that never raced, after Andretti stacked one in practice...Could just turn it back into a re-direct at the point where I was re-catting all the Lotus articles back in October? DH has started a discussion on the FX3 talk-page about the re-naming but I think it probably should be merged. The LC87 still hasn't been reviewed and some others have started tweaking it (as well as raising notability questions again). I changed one of the FW edits too (per Small). If you've got anywhere with your own version of the LC87, could publish that & tag the draft as 'already existing'. Or is that a bit too underhand (yes it is really). Eagleash (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys. I think I may have messed up by claiming that our convention is to always use the car's original name - I had forgotten about cases like Hill GH1. I still think Politoys FX3 is the better name for the Iso-Marlboro FX3B article, but I also think Williams FW is the best name for that article, even though the car started life as the Iso-Marlboro IR. Perhaps I should have said our convention is to use the car's WP:COMMONNAME? There's an interesting article about the convoluted naming of the early Williamses here in case you're interested. Having said all that, I'm cool with the idea of Iso-Marlboro FX3B, Williams FW and Hill GH2 being merged back into their parent articles. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Taki is back here renaming things to FW. I looked Belso up in 'Small' where South Africa '74 is given as Iso-Williams FW01. Then he drove 2 races in 02 then back to 01. Aaargh head explode. Perhaps Forix can help & I should go back to football and motorbikes. Eagleash (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, guys - I think we're starting to get somewhere on this, and Taki is just going to have to go along with it or take a hike. I'm not keen on him reverting us. Firstly, I'm fine with Lotus 64 being a redirect. It can be mentioned at the Lotus article if necessary. Secondly, the Lola LC87 – I can knock out a decent article on this one, à la the LC88, but I'm not keen on faffing about having it reviewed first. I'm an autoreviewer / autopatroller (whatever it's called these days) anyway so I don't know if it's underhand? Hmm, not sure now. I'll have a think about that.

Politoys FX3 is definitely the better name for that car, I think, rather than its current name. That said, I'd be OK with merging it to Frank Williams Racing Cars. It was a fairly awful car that didn't actually race much anyway. I could pad the article out to a fair size, but I'm not sure the car is really notable enough, so I'd go with a merge. I'd keep Williams FW but as it stands it's awful, and needs to be rewritten. I think there's too much info on that car (Iso-Marlboro IR, Iso-Marlboro FW and Williams FW) to merge comfortably. DH's 8W article sums it all up perfectly – it is all a bit complicated and no doubt Taki doesn't really understand it – but the Williams FW was three cars (FW01, FW02 and FW03) that were of the same type, rather than different types like most constructors. The article needs to explain that very clearly in the lead, along with its previous incarnations. Small and FORIX don't agree in some cases about which car was used where, which is awkward, but hopefully we can get it right along the way. Hill GH2 I think we agree can be merged. I'll have a go at that now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

OK good stuff...I've turned the 64 back into a re-direct. (Await Taki undoing it). Where small and Forix disagree I'll happily use up some of my Motor Sport archive articles so as to use Jenks as arbitrator (as he was pretty pedantic about chassis Nos.). Yes the FW followed the early Tyrrell system of giving each individual chassis it's own number. I think 'trumping' the LC87 draft would be a bit sneaky really. Eagleash (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Cool, I hope Taki isn't going to be a pain over it. I know we're "messing" with his work, but hopefully he accepts that improvements are being made. I've rewritten the lead at Williams FW, and I do hope it makes sense. It's not easy wording such a complicated system. As for the rest of that article and the results, we'll use Jenks and every other half-decent source we can find, and try to cobble together "the truth". Point taken on LC87, I'll see how that draft goes. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the Lola draft will be accepted, as the other two were and people have been tweaking it. If one of those who rejected it previously see it, there's a chance of it being rejected. Perhaps your wording can be ready to insert or publish as required? The FW makes sense in the lead (who started the 'lede' fad FFS?) & I've tidied up some more of the trademark caps, commas, grammar etc. but it still needs lots of work. I think that leaves the Politoys to move if we're happy about it? Eagleash (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Just remembered the Larrousse LH95... perhaps another candidate for a merge? Eagleash (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added my weight to the LC87 draft and reduced Taki's meanderings and bits copied and pasted from other articles. I knew my Murray Walker's Grand Prix Yearbooks would come in handy one day! I even received one as a prize at school. Really quite detailed in parts. Anyway, I hope that's enough for that draft; it really ought to be. Glad the FW lead is OK (please shoot me any time I type "lede") and I'll aim to crack on with the body of that one soon. My "stuff to merge" list so far includes the Politoys FX3 and yes, that Larrousse LH95 one can be merged too. Any others you've spotted? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Kemp

Perhaps you'd like to see such featured articles as David Bowie, Laurence Olivier, John Gielgud, Ralph Richardson etc. All have passed feautured article status with the subjects introduced as English, not British, because people born and raised in England are English people. Rodericksilly (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It's odd how this is never a matter of debate for people born and raised in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, only in England. Why is that? No one would even debate that a Wikipedia subject born and raised in Scotland would be introduced as Scottish. Rodericksilly (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that birthplace isn't enough. That's why, for instance, I would agree that Mark Knopfler is British, not Scottish or English, because his background is more complicated. Same with Cliff Richard not being English because he was born in India, or Freddie Mercury, because he was born and raised abroad, or Joe Strummer. They aren't English, completely agree with you there. For me, Noel Gallagher is a complicated one because he is now introduced as English (not my doing I hasten to add) yet he identifies very much with his Irish family background and states "I don't feel English at all". Lindsay Kemp has not said that to my knowledge, what we do know is that he was born in England and raised in England, there doesn't seem to be any evidence he isn't English. As for my taste in music, thanks for the compliment but I can assure you I like a lot of stuff that is widely considered crap. Rodericksilly (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

"It seems odd to me that the UK is the only country in the world where Wikipedia accepts alternatives to citizenship nationality in this way." That is probably a fair point but it would require every British citizen (including Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish) to accept they were British first, which is a bit of an ask, especially nowadays. I have no problem whatsoever with Scots considering themselves Scottish, Welsh considering themselves Welsh and Northern Irish considering themselves Irish. But if an English person isn't a person born and raised in England, I don't really know what one is. There's also a part of me that can't help feeling that if someone like Noel Gallagher considers himself Irish as opposed to English, why doesn't he just move there (he could probably afford to buy most of the country anyway with his riches) and make sure his kids are brought up there so that they are indisputably Irish and it continues the tradition of the Gallaghers being Irish. Rodericksilly (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, I wouldn't have said that Adele saying she was "proud to be British" ever meant that she wasn't English. I would have thought you can be English but still "proud to be British". There doesn't seem to be any inconsistency to me there. Incidentally, an inconsistency I have noticed on Wikipedia which I can't explain is why Queen are a "British rock band" (presumably because Freddie Mercury wasn't English) yet The Police were an "English rock band" despite the fact that Stewart Copeland is American. That makes Queen 3/4 English and The Police 2/3 English. Both bands were formed in London. Shouldn't The Police be a British rock band or - better still - an English-American or British-American rock band? What's that all about? In my view Wikipedia is full of these inconsistencies. Rodericksilly (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible merge and re-direct candidates

Sorry, tidying your talk-page again. How long before you have to return to the 'day-job'? Possible articles for consideration as above Brabham BT51, Coloni C4, Coloni C4B, Dallara 3087, DAMS GD-01, Dome F105, lotus 86, Lotus 88?, Lotus 112, McLaren MP4-18, Toyota TF101 & 110, and Honda RA099, RA270 & RC100. In addition, Taki split off the BRM P67 and Ferguson P99 articles from the F1 4WD article a while ago. I've kept off tidying the Lola draft, so as to let it stand or fall on its own merits. Obviously if you think some or all of those pages should be merged, I'll do what I can in my usual slow way!! Should point out that Taki is not responsible for many of those ( if any). Eagleash (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Haha, someone has to tidy it! I've got roughly another week (the joys of self-employment), so hopefully I can get a few more things done. I've merged the Politoys / Iso-Marlboro FX3/FX3B article into the FWRC article, and the next obvious thing to do is to sort the FW page. I hope Taki can take the pain. Wow, there's a few there! I'm tempted to merge the very short articles, and one or two of the others, but some of those look lengthy and well-sourced, so they could probably stand, at least for the time being. The Brabham one needs to go, and the Honda RA270. The Lotus 86 should be merged to the Lotus 88, and some serious referencing done there if it's going to stay. Lotus 112 could be merged if it can't be properly referenced. I'd merge Toyota TF101 to Toyota TF102, and Toyota TF110 should be merged between the TF109 and the parent Toyota article. The other Hondas, DAMS and Dome articles look better. The Coloni C4 and C4B could be merged together (looks like the kind of fun I like to have, I love awful cars), and that leaves the Dallara one. Interesting car that, but I'm not sure where that info should go. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Your vandal has been blocked!! I might have thought of a few too many articles there. There's a lot of info about the Lotus 86/88 in the Motor Sport archive, but I cannot seem to get going on editing right now. Maybe later. Eagleash (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts in getting that fellow blocked! I have no idea who he was, but I have probably upset a few people over the past few weeks. I'm assuming it wasn't Taki! I had a day off from editing yesterday (didn't even log on) but I hope to do something later, after the football. Happy New Year! Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The vandal was a sock of someone called Discawe (I think). I did spot you reverting him recently...somewhere... Anyways blocked now! I expect you needed a rest after New Years Eve all that merging the day before... Of which, someone needs to close the Team Lotus merger discussion and remove the tags & I don't think editors involved in the discussion are supposed to do so? Another one that keeps cropping up in my suggest-bot messages is the BRM P57 where it's been mooted that the BRM P48/57 be merged. The BRM P578 already re-directs there. I've looked at it a few times but I think the main article (should it become one) might need a bit of work to differentiate the various versions. Talking of football, I don't suppose you know of a source equivalent to the late Neil Brown for pre-war footiers. I'm looking for Stan Charlton ... not the Arsenal & Orient one, but his dad who captained Palace in the 20s. He supposedly played for 5 clubs, but I can only find 3. I too thought I'd not edit on 1 Jan but ended up doing loads of ref errors and tweaks and chasing vandals, without even trying! Happy new year!!!! Eagleash (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, him. One of the holier-than-thou vandals who don't like the album cover of Virgin Killer. I don't like it either (and I own the album) but Wikipedia is not censored etc... Team Lotus merger, yes, I don't think we can do it since we contributed. An "uninvolved" editor will have to do that. I hadn't noticed the BRM issue before - yes, I'd say the P48/57, P57 and P578 should all be dealt with at the same page, with some clarity delivered by a clever fellow who knows about these things. Maybe Pyrope is that fellow, I don't know if he'd be interested. I could have a go at it, failing anything else. Football sources - I have great sources for players who passed through the hallowed portals of Leyton Orient; otherwise I have nothing, unfortunately. I've got Palace, Exeter and Newport for him, but I'm guessing you know that already. I'll let you know if I unearth anything else! Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes those are the three clubs I've also got for him. The reference to 5 was in the younger Charlton's obit in the Independent... not sure that's 100% reliable!! Apart from that my draft is ready. Talking of drafts, Taki has expanded the BRM P180 article today. I've ce'd it for the usual caps etc. and it has refs. You might be able to improve the wording if you feel inclined. But I digress... I suspect his next target will be the P201 for which I've still got a partially completed draft (abandoned around the time of the first LC87 shambles, but worked on a bit yesterday). I don't think I'll ever get around to finishing it, certainly not in time to hold up Taki. Eagleash (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems odd that those other two clubs are apparently never mentioned anywhere. Wonder if they were non-league clubs? The P180... another car that's on the borderline between article-worthy and not so. I might have a look at it at some point but my period of leisure is running out! If Taki gets to the P201 before you, feel free to just paper over whatever rubbish he writes with your own work. I've just seen his "merge" of Coloni C4 and Coloni C4B, which has to be the most hamfisted merge I've ever seen. Take the better of the two articles, copy and paste a little bit of it to the inferior article and delete the rest. With no edit summaries, of course. I'll have a proper go at that soon... Still haven't done the Surtees articles I wanted to do! I'll be taking some of my books back with me though so I should be able to work on those. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The Independent definitely says they were league clubs...could just have got it wrong. Maybe they're starting Hari off again on footy articles. I asked Snowman if he had any info too. Unfortunately I didn't mention my draft and he's created a stub himself, gollocks!! I saw the C4 articles had been merged and I thought you must have done it...didn't look to see if it was right or not...didn't realise it was Taki. It seems odd that he should merge them immediately after we discussed it... bearing in mind his penchant for creating more, not less, content overall. Maybe he's discovered talk-page stalking. I was just thinking about the lack of edit summaries earlier today. I am tempted to delete his edits that lack them in future. I've realised that I've missed 2 of his more recent IPs as well! I don't know whether to continue with the 201, it's taking quite some time, partly cos I'm using the Motor Sport archive...I know I've got hard copies somewhere. I think I may be trying for too much detail. Can you have a look at it here, and see if you think it's worth carrying on with... Ta. Eagleash (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I see your draft was merged into the Stanley Charlton article, so all's well that ends well! I'll keep looking out for any info on him - since his son was a bit of an Orient legend, I might find something at some point. I thought that too about Taki, that he might have spotted our conversation here and merged the Coloni articles. He copied and pasted quite a lot of typos and bad English, but I think I've tidied it somewhat. I still need to do more on that one. I merged some of the old C4B article to the article on Sassetti as well. I do find that Taki annoys me a fair bit with his mute edits (no edit summaries), especially when he undoes something I've done. A rampant IP hopper who creates more work than he achieves; he's lucky he's still here. I think your P201 draft is exactly the kind of thing that F1 car articles should be. With a car that didn't compete for very long, I think the more detail, the better! Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I don't want to upset Snowman :) but my draft was better!! (Had more info & refs) It also appears in my articles created, after he moved it. So it all worked out. Taki... there's been quite an improvement of late... makes me feel pretty sure that he's been reading talk-pages. Right-oh, I'll plod on with the P201, it'll be done by Christmas I'm sure. DH has also been stalking it ...corrected what he saw as a typo, but was in fact me deliberately leaving the "P" out of P201 as it was repetitive. What other 201 could we be talking about!? :P Just a bit of "artistic licence". I've left messages about edit summaries for Taki a few times & I know he's seen some of them cos he's blanked the page. I've seen editors blocked for persistently not completing them. Stumbled on this edit today. I haven't reverted but left a message on the eds t-page explaining re Lola & Larrousse but did say I'd talk to the project about it...which in this case means you!! Eagleash (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

taki has returned today here. Seems to have mainly created a huge table for the BRM P160 and annoyed the people at requests for redirects. And here is a link to Simon Taylor's lunch with John Miles which bears out the changes made recently; apart from the 'daft' bits. Having said that the whole article needs some work for wording, I think. P201 progresses very slowly; when I've done that, probably going to have to pack in editing for a while. (RL/health issues) Eagleash (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

DH does a fair bit of stalking ;) And a good job too, since he spots things nobody else does! I'm certainly glad when he stalks my work. Interesting about leaving the "P" out of the chassis name... I'm sure team members didn't always include the "P" when talking about the car, but then this is an encyclopedia, so maybe we should be fully accurate at all times! *cough* Yes, Taki reads his talk pages at least sometimes for sure; I do wonder what that guy is like in real life. Regarding the Larrousse issue, I guess the best thing is to explain the Lola / Larrousse chassis situation in the text when mentioning "best ever" statistics, so then passing editors won't feel the need to "correct" it.

Taki annoying people? Surely not! Great article, that P160 – all table and no text! Another one that needs work. Glad to see Miles' article is a bit more sorted, and Pyrope has fixed the reference. You're right that it needs more work though – like so many others! Maybe Mr Miles would like to write a bit more! Sorry to hear of your issues; I do hope you won't disappear altogether, but as I always say, RL is always more important. I've just knocked out my latest ramblings at Williams FW04, which I think was the only Williams without an article. And the first Williams to win a race of any kind, which I don't think I knew before tonight! Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Good stuff! Sorry, I can't resist adding conversion factors!! I think I've finished my 201 (sic) draft. Would you mind looking over it if you get a few minutes. See if you think it could be pared down a bit, maybe? I don't think that was Miles himself, :D... maybe a young relative!!? I tidied the P160 slightly, having five model variants above the i/bx looks silly. Also rm'd some 'notable' drivers...pts scorers is a good criterion to start with I agree. Taki I think is probably quite young maybe even a teenager and guessing by some of his phrasing, when he does write things, might be originally from the sub-continent or possibly middle-east. I'm hoping not to disappear permanently just yet! I've tidied my drafts and stuff and I guess Tony Rudd, Keith Greene and the Lotus 88 will have to wait a while. Eagleash (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I never think of technical things like conversion factors! Thanks for that. I like the P201 article; I don't think I'd take anything out of it, to be honest. I'm all for detail, as much as possible, as long as it's relevant to the subject. I see Taki couldn't resist "takifying" it, i.e. ballsing it up a little... I too thought he might be from Asia somewhere and probably quite young. All enthusiasm and not a lot else. I've had a little break lately and a couple of late work nights, but I hope to be back on it this weekend. Hope you're faring well and that real life stuff is being kind to you! Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Cheers. Yep, Taki has been back 2 or 3 times this week. Added a lot of stuff to the BRM P160, which I have gone through for the usual caps, tense etc. Plenty of refs but still needs some work for wording. I am afraid I couldn't be bothered find the time to look through what he'd done to the P201 so I just undid it (twice I think). Suggest-bot sent me the Fittipaldi F5 this week so I've been amusing myself a bit, with that. Could possibly have been merged; it was just one para — and that was wrong — but I did an i/bx and a results table and DH has been stalking it helping out... Going back to the BRM P139 and Werner Bickel, he has a page on Dutch wiki but I guess that as he never even turned up for his sole entry, that he is not notable... RL is being a bit of an ass really so haven't taken on any major(ish) editing... press on... Eagleash (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, forgot... when looking at the F5...the page wrongly said that Ingo Hoffman had driven it. Looked at his page and the history and spotted this edit of yours from 2013 (but still in last few edits)...seemed somehow familiar...!! Checked the IP's location...Yeovil...close enough. Whole load of similar edits all on one day before seemingly vanishing. Eagleash (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

BRM P160 could be decent but right now it seems like a mass of grandprix.com refs, the idea for which Taki got from us, and his P201 edits weren't worth checking. I say that because I checked them and reverting was the only way forward. I think the Fittipaldi F5 article could be a decent one with work; the car had a long life so there should be plenty to say! Plus it looks like I've been reverting Taki for longer than I thought!! Hahaha... I'd say it surprises me, but nothing much surprises me on Wikipedia. Taki is clearly a king IP hopper, and God only knows how many IPs he's used. Bickel... hmmm... normally I can find enough notable achievements for drivers like this to form a sensible article, but not this time. It really looks like he didn't do much to shout about. Sorry to hear RL isn't co-operating; hoping for improvements there. I haven't done much myself – biggest thing was a bit of detail at Coloni C4. God, that was an awful car. It made me feel sorry for Senhor Chaves! Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I see you've noted the 2 most recent drafts. I think they'll probably get accepted... unless whoever reviews realises they're not notable. Takkers has also added tons of refs to BRM P126 and been messing with the '56 & '61 season templates. DH has tidied up after him but I think we can expect articles on the Emeryson cars shortly! I did the required edit summaries for the Coloni merge (hope that's OK?). I might get around to expanding the F5 in a while but I don't fancy it much just at the moment. Trying to keep up with Taki is more than enough just at the moment. Eagleash (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Update. I was wrong! Swister declined both drafts. Eagleash (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You might be interested in this. Funny thing is; Taki originally created it as Draft:Frank Williams racing cars, which subsequently vanished...and I'm sure there were far more edits showing on the IP before it turned up in draft template. I.e. all the creations of the replaced page have disappeared from the contribs. Confused...yes; more than usual! Lola drafts both re-submitted without fixing. I also have a draft for Mike Salmon almost ready if you could possibly take a look ( again) if you're not too busy! Bit concerned about ref 2 used rather a lot and maybe a bit too much detail again? Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad those two drafts were turned down; maybe reviewers are getting wiser to Taki-san. More GP.com sources, I see, for BRM P126... better than nothing, I suppose. Emeryson!!! Lord. This guy's optimism knows no bounds. Good work with the Coloni stuff; you spot tidying up where I can't see it, so I appreciate it.

Those templates: I don't think we need those! The one full of "notable drivers" is a joke; I don't think Jo Vonlanthen was notable in his own house. The cars one overlaps elsewhere, just no point. Taki employs a certain amount of witchcraft in his editing, swapping IPs and creating drafts in ways I have no real knowledge of. I am regularly confused by what he does and how he does it, almost as much as I am frustrated by his persistence. Good work on Mike Salmon; I never worry about there being too much detail. As far as I'm concerned, this is an encyclopedia and detail is where it's at! As for overusing references, I'd only worry if there were one or two sources being used, but you have 17 so using one multiple times is fine in my book. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Sir Terry

Another new section... Thanks, I've moved the Salmon to mainspace...it's a bit lacking in his lesser class races but there it is. Taki has been quite quiet recently, bit too quiet really. Perhaps he's running out of steam at last... no? How do we get those templates deleted like what was it, Embassy Hill, which was later restored and put to use...or was it Surtees... I'm glad I'm not the only one who's confused by what Takkers gets up to...alchemy... I am easily confused anyways by Wiki as you know... I added Salmon to deaths in 2016 and spotted your edit re Wogan. I'm pretty sure he took out dual nationality when he was knighted otherwise he would not have been able to call himself 'Sir' like Milligan and Geldof can't/didn't/don't. See also the NY mayor time of 9/11. Eagleash (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes there it is. Eagleash (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the Salmon article is decent; we're lacking in articles about the top non-F1 drivers and this is the kind of thing we need more of. "Templates for deletion", I guess, is the way to get rid of any templates he creates that escape just being drafts. But it's outside my usual sphere of work- I too find Wikipedia a bit confusing at that level. I wish Taki was keeping quieter, as he just recreated the whole Iso-Marlboro FX3B thing [15]... What a pain in the proverbial he is. As for the dearly departed Mr Wogan (another part of the furniture gone!), yes he had dual citizenship, but that doesn't extend to calling him English or "Anglo-anything" as that editor claimed, as there is no English citizenship (rightly or wrongly). "Irish-British" would be the correct terminology, which I think is what it says now. I always sort of liked Wogan in a way; a seemingly decent chap. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes sorry, that's what I meant...Brit nationality...which it now says... Damn! Taki's sneaked another batch of edits in whilst I was spending 2 hours linking all the pages with Mike Salmon in... What is the point of changing the chassis to 'Gilby 1961' & 'Gilby 1962'?... I have changed it back and also restored the re-direct at Politoys to Williams as constructor. He's relentless... Which other non-f1 drivers might you think be worthy of an article? I did consider Tony Dean... I seem to remember him being annoying with his Carrera 6 at Crystal Palace back in the day... Yes Wogan was OK... Eagleash (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

He's been back today and I spotted another batch of edits sometime last week. March 87B recreated (badly), think it should be turned back into a re-direct? Eagleash (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Done that now. So poor there really was no alternative. Eagleash (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ugh. That March 87B article is awful. Obvious copyvio from some foreign language website, and google translated. Pointless car and no way does it get an article of its own. I'll redirect it shortly. I see you've done it already!!! Well done ;) I have no idea what he meant at Gilby, the guy is really giving me the ache at the moment. Yes, Tony Dean would be a great addition; he showed up here for example, as well as F5000, Aurora F1, Touring Cars, CanAm... well, just about everywhere. There must be others who would make a good article, I will have a root around. Believe it or not, your casual question must have inspired my subconscious, because last night I actually dreamed I was researching possible candidates for new articles. My fertile dreamscape invented a number of fictional racing drivers including a female multiple Le Mans participant from the 1960s, and a German count who took part in four Le Mans races before he was 18. Not sure how he would have managed that, but still! They all had convincing names and everything. I should get out more. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ha ha... You should lay off the blue cheese in the evening... It's weird you should mention Dean at Jarama 1969, cos a couple of days ago I added that entry to the BRM P261 article. It's only a couple of days ago but I cannot remember where I initially saw the info. It wasn't Jenks cos I went looking for his report for reference. He finished 2nd per DSJ (39 laps out of 40) but Gethin broke down on lap 40 and the Wiki page has him 2nd. Somewhere there's a series of articles about 1960s F2 races written by a regular contributor who's now disappeared I think; e.g. 1966 Trophée Craven 'A' probably some names in some of those. I think Dean could make a reasonable article on what I've found so far but not sure I want to start it right now (RL). Taki must run out of things to edit soon surely...he's reduced to tinkering with all sorts of insignificant things. Eagleash (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: He undid the re-direct (with an abusive edit summary) so I re-re-directed and now he's re-done it again as a draft. Still utter drivel and lacking notability. Not submitted as yet. Eagleash (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: Draft submitted; surely it'll get rejected? I've started something on Dean but it may be some time. Others possibly Roy Pike or Bev Bond. Harry Stiller has a page but it's not up to much. Must be some others but minds gone a bit (not blank...just gone!). Eagleash (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

And now there's Draft:Wolf-Williams Racing. DH85868993 (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Well spotted DH! How does Taki know when I doze off!? He's been tinkering with driver results on Wolf/FW cars also. E.g. Ickx and Merzario. THe whole FW thing is confusing enough as it is... The March draft has been rejected as lacking notability. Eagleash (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Whenever I see a 'Taki' edit to an article on my watchlist, I do a "Show contributions" for the IP address to see what else he's been up to... DH85868993 (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly what I do too! & I'm still keeping a note of all his IPs as suggested by admin way back. Eagleash (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Something I hadn't noticed was that he has removed content from Frank Williams Racing Cars in preparation for the creation of the new article. DH85868993 (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Also the Template:Frank Williams Racing Cars draft has been accepted. As above, it's pretty useless. I still find the whole Williams thing pretty confusing. I think we need to put a stop to his activities again really... he clearly is never going to understand how to contribute sensibly. Problem is, with his constant IP hopping, lengthy blocks are tricky because of other people using the ranges. Eagleash (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This edit summary would be enough to get him blocked again. Eagleash (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi guys, I've been hors de combat for a few days, but I see Taki has been busy. I've lost patience with the guy now and I think I'll consider him hostile after that edit summary. I agree that template is basically useless, and as of next week I'm going to get rid of anything he does that isn't helpful. I'll have a look at my watchlist in a while and revert any damage he's done. What do we think about Wolf-Williams being a separate article? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Funny you should say that; I was feeling exactly the same. We've all spent enough time now sorting his stuff out and he's been given a tremendous amount of leeway. I left a message on his today's talk-page but I don't suppose he's seen it. As for Wolf-Williams, I don't think a separate page is justified. As I understand it Walter Wolf bought into FW Racing Cars and then kicked Frank out so really it's just a financial investment at the time they called the cars WW. After Frank had gone, the team became just 'Wolf' IIRC and we have pages for that (I think) as well as one for FWRC which covers it. Does that template duplicate already existing ones or have I got that wrong? Eagleash (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Taki has been back again here. Messing with predecessor etc. and adding his ridiculous t/plate to sundry articles. I really don't think that the Haas Lola cars can be considered successors to the Hill ones? I've undone some but run out of time (and patience of course). Eagleash (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I barely understand what he's done with those templates. Has he created a template for FWRC which contains two sub-templates, one for cars and one for drivers? What the hell for? I'm at a loss with that. I agree with you about Wolf-Williams, it was just a name change for FWRC, and it was served perfectly well at the main article. Taki just wants separate articles for all cars, and all the different incarnations (however subtly different) of every team. Totally agree with you also about Lola; there's no way the Haas Lola cars are successors to the ones that Hill used. That's stretching the word "successor" too far. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the idea of having an FWRC template (since we identify FWRC and WGPE as separate constructors, it makes sense to me for the FWRC cars not to be listed in the WGPE template, and we now have two standalone FWRC car articles - three if you count Wolf-Williams FW05/Hesketh 308C), but I don't think the templates needs two sub-templates, or for every FWRC driver to be listed. DH85868993 (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

What is the 'second' article for FWRC called? Is that the 'FW' one? Eagleash (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Williams FW and Williams FW04 were the two FWRC car articles I was referring to (sorry, I should have been clearer about that). DH85868993 (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: I've had a bit of a go at reducing the template diff. Taken out some drivers.. perhaps more? Removed the mfr lists/names leaving just the car names/models... Maybe one or both of you could take a look when you get the chance. Ta. Eagleash (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I think your changes have improved the template significantly. DH85868993 (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Update again. Taki has restored the mfr names and years. I don't think that's altogether bad actually, but years aren't included in other t/plates AFAICT. Eagleash (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings either way about the years. Although I question whether the Brabham, De Tomaso and March rows should be included - by convention we usually only list cars constructed by the team. DH85868993 (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that's basically the problem – too many cars. If we restrict the cars to those built by the team in question, then there's far more room and the years don't matter too much. The FWRC template really doesn't need to be big. Maybe just drivers who scored points and the cars the team built. As an example of template practice, the Lola T370 isn't in the Hill template; it's in the Lola template. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That was one of the points...I wasn't quite certain that it was constructed cars only. I'll take (taki?) them out. I also had in the back of my mind 'pts only' but wasn't sure which drivers (if any!) that applied to. Eagleash (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ha! Taki them out. By my reckoning, points scorers were Courage, Pescarolo, Pace, Ganley, van Lennep, Merzario and Laffite. Seems like a good number. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Done Now looked up pts scorers! (You are correct) I've left both Wolf-Williams and Williams cars in place (and years). Others may have different ideas. Eagleash (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks much better! I think those are the cars to include. Taki might well decide a separate template is required for Wolf-Williams, but I shall beg to differ. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the Politoys and Iso-Marlboro cars which were constructed by the team (before reading the above comment!). But I won't object if either of you re-delete them. DH85868993 (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought about those cars afterwards; yes they should probably go in as I think the team did actually build them. Eagleash (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, good point, I spoke too soon. Even though they weren't Williams(es), they were built in-house. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Well that's a few more man hours courtesy of Taki... tomorrow we can undo whatever he puts back... Eagleash (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Their activities need to be dealt with urgently. There changes to Frank Williams Racing Cars need to be reverted and the Walter-Wolf draft should be rejected. They were not credited as different constructors and their results were thus all tallied together. I will note that the IP has edited 1976 Formula One season as well. Tvx1 01:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, of course. There'll be no Wolf-Williams article as a spot of research has confirmed that the 1976 team was not a new team. No source treats it as such. I've reverted FWRC but I haven't checked for anything else he might have wrecked. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I have commented on the draft talk page in the hopes that reviewers will see it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Lets hope they spot it. If they don't I suspect it may well get accepted and then it can be CSD'd as a dup. It might be better if it does get accepted otherwise it'll just keep getting re-submitted like the other drafts waiting review at the moment. As an aside I stumbled on this today, completely by accident. Reading it the grammar etc. seemed familiar: yep it's Taki. despite the fact that it is (typically) badly written and duplicates (copies) bits of other articles it was still accepted by Robert McL who was involved in the LC87 debacle. Eagleash (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we can easily get rid of it if it's accepted. I'm starting to wonder about these reviewers - it seems that a complete lack of knowledge of the subject doesn't disqualify one from accepting drafts. I seriously wonder how an article as badly written as that can be accepted. Might as well just allow everything and be done with it. Sigh. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I took out some of the spelling etc. on the BBC page. I've taken on your idea :P and put a note on the March 87P draft talk-page also mentioning the history at 87B. Eagleash (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I think if he removes either of those notes (as is likely) then perhaps we should approach the admin who blocked the last 2 times (Diannaa). Eagleash (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. He does have a habit of reverting stuff he doesn't like, and we should probably have a zero tolerance attitude towards that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Tvx has already done so. Eagleash (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It's Friday it's 5 to 7 it's not crackerjack ... it's you know who. Did a lot of fiddling with Frank Williams Racing Cars, which as far as I could see was not helpful. So I put it back to your last version. Disappointing response from Diannaa to Tvx's request. Eagleash (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that - some of his edits there were pure rubbish. I have detected that he is also nicking wording and sentence structure from the work I did at the FW and FW04 articles. Not against the rules but bloody irritating nonetheless. I saw Dianaa's response to Tvx; not helpful. She clearly didn't look into it too deeply. Let's hope it's a quiet weekend... Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the approach 'jumped the gun' slightly. It would have been better if one of us could have done it as we have probably more knowledge of the disruption the guy has caused. I did have it mind to try to compile a brief history before contacting so it could be seen exactly how much of a pest he has been. As it is, Diannaa is possibly closed as an avenue now, unfortunately and it would probably be seen as canvassing or something if we then took it to someone else. We'll just have to wait till he does something really heinous now and keep tidying up after him. I thought I saw some wording that I recognised in what he did today. Eagleash (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I see we have have another one at Luca Badoer. Clearly not a clue as to the convention and thinks F3000 is more important. Restored it to your last version again and left advice on their t-page. Eagleash (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed: we could've pointed out his disruption in some considerable detail, I'll bet! Never mind, I'm sure Taki will do something obnoxious soon and we can go from there. He's a bit prone to some lairy edit summaries, so maybe that will crop up again.

The fellow at Luca Badoer seems utterly clueless – he makes Taki look like a seasoned veteran. Hopefully your note will hit home. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Takkers is back: re-created March 761 out of a re-direct. Prose looks again like a copy and paste from somewhere but poss. not a foreign language site this time. The car isn't particularly notable but it's not a one race wonder either (33 races: multiple entries - incl WGPE). I've tidied it up a bit pro-tem but it could just as easily be turned back into a re-direct? Eagleash (talk)

Hmm. Looks like nearly all of it comes from March Engineering. There's no way Taki can write like that. I'd say that car merits an article; it was certainly well-used by various teams, and there was Ronnie's win at Monza. I'd say any car that won a GP could probably have an article. Pretty motley crew that drove it in '77 though! Needless to say, we could write a hell of a lot more about it! Typical half-baked Taki effort. I'll add it to my list of stuff to work on. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes that's where I thought it came from. The 'brokered' bit is a direct lift. Ronnie's win slipped my mind! He's been back today here messed with quite a lot of Wolf & Williams things & I will happily admit I've lost the 'plot' with that stuff now. He's also inserted a chassis column in the Fittipaldi F5 table (I.e. F5 or F5A). I was going to undo it but not really sure what the convention is. I don't think I've seen many tables where 'sub' chassis are differentiated? And what's with his crusade to have tables extending off to the right all the time? I think your 85% edit somewhere a while ago was right...but I noted he changed it straightaway. He's really fissing me off at the moment. With RL messing things up — he's not helping my world record hypertension! — and some apparent "semi-stalking', I have nearly given up on Wiki. I wonder what dem good ole boys at Nascar make of him. WTF was he doing here. He'd need satnav to drive Nascar "turn left...turn left...turn left..." :) But enough whining, Dean's article is moving on (very) slowly and a couple of others I thought of... Mike Beckwith, and Allan Rollinson, who surprisingly never got a pop at F1. Eagleash (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

"Chassis" columns are per convention (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One/Tables#With_Chassis_variants), although we usually just list the chassis, without the constructor name (I have updated Fittipaldi F5 accordingly). DH85868993 (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to DH for clearing that up; I wasn't sure. It didn't look quite right but now it does. No idea why Taki loves to have extra-long tables; maybe he has an extra-long screen? Haha... I don't blame you for your wiki-exasperation, especially alongside RL issues, Taki is enough to drive anyone bonkers. I wish the NASCAR boys no ill but I wish he'd switch to NASCAR fulltime. Worse, we now have the Dutch wizard (who once threatened to kill me when I reverted him) creating articles about the worst F1 cars he can find Merzario A2, Merzario A4. The mind boggles. Is he trying to out-Taki Taki? Alan Rollinson... this Alan Rollinson? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You see...I'm going bonkers I was looking for Allan ...with 2 Ls. Right, fuming... see Fittipaldi F8 created out of a re-direct by smeg-for-brains. Ser Amantico (? correct name; you know - the leading No. of edits guy) & I CE'd it and he's just put it back to as it was. And added a lot more rubbish text. I really want to put it back to a re-direct with an edit summary like if you can't write in English and undo it when people correct it for you, please stop editing. That Dutch chap, I stumbled across him somewhere recently. The edit was quite a good one if IRC. Will watch out for him though. Badoer guy also faffed up at Massa I see. Eagleash (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Haha, I've done it myself before. I even created an article way back without realising it already existed under the guy's correct name... Fittipaldi F8 – there's just no end to the rubbish, is there? Why the hell do we have to clean this guy's mess up? I say revert him. Yeah, the Dutch guy (after he gave up the death threats) turned into a decent editor. This isn't his finest hour. I've advised him on his talk page. Badoer guy also needs to lose himself somewhere. Why has F1 suddenly attracted a bunch of idiots? Thanks for fixing my talk page by the way – suddenly I'm popular! Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I was convinced he had 2 Ls... mind you I was also convinced Ken T had been knighted... should have been...and Surtees! Anyway I've reverted the F8 to a redirect with a less (but not much) angry ES. I'm sure someone will grumble at me but no-one who's seen his nonsense could argue too much I guess! I've had to take an extra tablet cos of him! He'll almost certainly undo it tomorrow. I better stay off wiki for a day or two. I have hosp visits anyway... Oh there's also Draft:Template:Fittipaldi Automotive. Also Swister maked F8 as reviewed..do these guys read stuff before clicking OK? Eagleash (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep Taki restored the page complete with terrible grammar etc. I haven't undone that yet cos it will only spark an edit war I 'spose. Eagleash (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

And now we have (had) a March 87P in mainspace created out of a re-direct for it made by another editor altogether. I've asked them how it came about, and also reverted the page to re-direct. Had enough... really... but if I quit he wins. Eagleash (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Haha, I thought Ken was knighted too!! You live and learn. He should have been. And Surtees, obviously. What a farce that is. I see Tvx reverted the F8 – it's not notability on that one I'm concerned about, rather the hideous text. Taki needs to learn that he can't create an article with grammar as poor as that, and just expect someone to come and clean it up. He's not worth that extra tablet! If Taki reverts Tvx, I'll wade in. Likewise 87P. Taki won't win – I think I saw Tvx say somewhere that we can't let him bully us, and he's absolutely right. Meanwhile, Jahn(numbers) has responded on his talk page about the Merzario articles, and he seems relatively amenable, but he's understandably pointed out other articles about cars that plainly aren't notable – articles we haven't got around to dealing with yet... Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

He does so many now I can't remember which one's which. The March 761 is notable but QED has reverted that one now. It was unreferenced. The F8 is probably OK, but yes it's the atrocious wording that is the problem. Taki just doesn't understand it. I left quite a long message on his talk-page today. He blanked it. He never edits after 8PM so he's about 12 then? It seems he's been asking for re-directs for non-notable cars so he can then create articles from them later. Sneaky little twat! That's how the 87P turned up in mainspace. It's been quite a day fighting him off but at least Tvx & QED have lumped on as well. There's still 4 drafts around somewhere but the Fittipaldi template has been accepted. It's going to take a real concerted effort to stop him!! He even deleted messages on Tvx's talk-page today. He makes so much work. I'll have to give a lot of thought as to how we approach admin. cos it can't go on.

I saw the message on the Dutch guy's t-page. Some of those we thought about around Xmas (somewhere in posts above). But it's a bit pointy of him. Eagleash (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

And the IP also has the annoying habit to copy the previous edit summary when being reverted and paste it with the names altered to rerevert, in an attempt to look professional while actually being pathetic. Anyway, I think the best strategy to put a halt to the current barrage would be to make a list of all the disruptive edits over the last few days (maybe even week) and use them to file an ANI report. This report should also include a link to the previous ANI report in order to demonstrate that three blocks have already been issued before. I feel that's the only way we can demonstrate to the administrators how much disruption we are trying to deal with and are actually struggling to cope with. Tvx1 00:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

He copied the ES from the F8 article to the 87P amending it in an ungrammatical fashion. His habit though is to leave no edit summaries at all. Eagleash (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

On another note and going back a bit I came across this article about Williams' early days whilst looking for something else. (If you haven't already finished with that Taki episode!) Eagleash (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I can resurrect March 761 when (!) I work on it (rewrite it), so it's OK as a redirect for now. I think we need to try and keep a track of Taki's 'redirects for creation' activity, as maybe we can circumvent some of this trash being created that way. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Taki is a child – his grammar and prose fits the bill, and that nasty snappy attitude we sometimes see. Really, why on earth does Wikipedia not force people to register so we can do away with these IP-hopping a-holes? We will have to approach an admin at some point with a clearly-detailed case, and it's good to have Tvx on board with it. The plan Tvx has outlined above seems good to me. More work, but the hope is that it will save us extra work in the future. As for that Williams link, I think I used that! Haha, I'm sure it was that which finally helped me understand what on earth was going on chez Williams at that time. Those archives are really invaluable, and I used a few of them as refs as well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

He's got a re-direct created for Fittipaldi F8D despite my noting in the request that the target page (F8) is also a re-direct. Watch out for that one! He'll also like as not go berserk when he sees what we've done to his Fittipaldi drafts! How the heck did LaMona come to accept them, what are these reviewers smoking? If he reverts we could get them protected, the ed. who protected the March 87P, and F8 pages seems sympathetic. Or just put them back and go to ANI. I'm working on a list of 'offences' but it's a job to remember them all. It's only on paper at the mo. Will ask for your assistance in compiling in due course no doubt. Any probs. with referring to the almost the entire contents of this talk-page? Eagleash (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Much more grown-up response to the re-directs. Wants to merge all the Fitt FDs to one article (a la Willy FW?). Not such a terrible idea but he's got no idea how to go about it. Pointed him at WP:MERGE. (As if) Eagleash (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Reviewers... hmmm... I do wonder what makes them think they're qualified to unleash this garbage on to the encyclopedia. There is basically no quality control at all, at least regarding F1 articles. It's always left to us to either clean them up or get rid. Yep, I can help you with compiling info and can wade in when the time comes. Certainly we can use this talk page. Fittipaldi FD – we can merge them to one article providing they're basically the same car. Without checking up on it, I'm assuming they were different designations for what was effectively one design, like the FW. Taki won't have any idea how to do that, of course, so it's us or not at all. I'm not in any hurry to organise that, for sure, plus I'm fighting a particularly belligerent cold at the moment *sniff* Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I was also wondering how similar FD01-FD04 were so I did a little research. Page 65 of Mike Lang's Grand Prix! Volume 3 says "... the Fittipaldi FD(01) ... was distinguished by having all-enclosed bodywork and a single water radiator which was mounted right at the back of the car below the rear aerofoil ... when a second chassis, hurriedly completed for the Brazilian Grand Prix, appeared both of these features were removed. Instead side-mounted water radiators were fitted just ahead of the rear wheels at an angle, while the bodywork as the rear was reduced to little more than just the air-box ... stronger uprights were also used in both the front and rear suspension ... further modifications to chassis and suspension quickly followed ... and similar development work continued on a third chassis used after the Swedish Grand Prix." Pages 107-108 say "the Fittipaldi FD04 was a straightforward development of the FD03, with almost identical suspension and a monocoque that differed mainly by being lighter." So it seems like they were all the same basic design, just subject to continual development. DH85868993 (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the FDs were relatively minor developments of the same chassis and seems DH's research bears this out. A merge/FD page therefore looks appropriate. Glad to see that IP's clumsy attempts at proposing the merge have been tidied up too! There was also a talk-page started for 'FD' but that seems have vanished. Perhaps someone spotted it and deleted as related to a non-existent page. Do we need to put the 'merge-from' tags on the FD04 page (assuming that's the ultimate target page) or not...as it will need to be moved (and the others are re-directs at the mo)? I'm not in any hurry to do it either, funnily enough. Sorry RL is messing you about too. I spent some of Thurs. & Fri. having multiple tests and tablets are causing mayhem! Get well soon! Eagleash (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Update. I've put the merge tag on FD04. If not correct procedure (as above), please rm. Eagleash (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

That's good enough for me, thanks to DH for the research. I wonder if one of us started the page, ol' Taki would cheerfully fill it in for us. We'd then obviously have to redo it though, I guess. Tests and tablets?! Ugh, but may they do you good. I'm fortunate just to be stuck with tablets. Unfortunate to be self-employed though, so today was a very long slog at work. Don't know whether to sneeze or cough, so I can usually be found doing both at the same time. Let's hope we improve! Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

No doubt he would... & then we'd redo it!! Hoping to be a bit better next week and if so will have a go at the merger... might take me a while!! In the meantime Takkers keeps re-submitting the 2 Lola drafts without fixing...someone will get tired of that pretty soon I reckon. Following your lead as above (somewhere) I've put notes on both the talk-pages. On one of them LaMona put citation requests where thought needed; & he just removed them. I've had a couple of unpleasant days but am at least free of Doc & Hosp visits for a week or two! Hope manflu (it exists!) is improving! Eagleash (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

We need someone in a position of authority to take offence at what Taki's doing; he reverts people and removes tags willy-nilly and nobody calls him out on it. Submitting crap drafts time and time again should get someone sanctioned as well. We live in hope. Hope you're feeling better lately – my manflu (you're right it does exist!) has passed, leaving little more than a particularly sore throat. I live again :o) Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I noticed yesterday that he's started messing with contemporary stuff as well. Fiddled with the table for one of the Merc Hybrids and as far as I can see it, just produced a blank space beneath the driver's heading in line with the GP locations. He seems to do that a lot. Could be just me as I've noticed some anomalies with the way tables display. Also another rubbish draft at Draft:Surtees TS16. I'm still a bit out of sorts, maybe back to normal on Weds. this week. Trouble is I stopped meds when they gave me probs. but have little alternative to doing it all over again and getting it right. So am not able to do much of note...just tinkering here and there when I get a moment..to keep my hand in. My Tony Dean draft just a distant memory. Jerome B-W... good luck with that. Makes Rudi Hedman look like Bobby Moore! Eagleash (talk) 23:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually reasonably glad he's messing with contemporary stuff if it means he leaves the histroic stuff alone. There are more editors who watch the contemporary stuff and they can deal with him. That's my theory anyway! Yes, that draft is rubbish. Serves me right for not doing it myself over Christmas as I had planned. Sorry to hear you're still under the weather; it really must put a dampener on your enthusiasm. I am feeling right as rain now but all my vehicles (there are a few and work depends on them) decided to break down within a week, so I have a great deal on my plate. Tony Dean will still be around when you're fit and healthy again ;) JBW... yes, haha, I know, he's not pulling up any trees at the moment. We needed cover and, well, any port in a storm. Palace fan, by any chance? Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

He'll no doubt get short shrift from some other editors less tolerant than us! I've completely lost the 'thread' as it were with the idea of going to ANI... get back to that eventually too I suppose. You're absolutely right about a 'dampener' although better today (finally!); feeling a bit PTSD at the moment. I might have a go at the FD mergers on Thurs or Fri. I think it would be OK to be 'bold' ... no-one from within the F1 editing group is likely to object. Would it be best to move the FD04 page to Fittipaldi FD before attempting the mergers? Yes Palace fan... back as far as Vic Rouse and Johnny Byrne, but haven't attended a match since they built a stand on the Holmesdale End. In fact my first article was Byrne's strike partner Roy Summersby. There's a fair number of connections between CPFC & Orient. Petchey, Brian Wood, Whitehouse, P Burridge, Peter Taylor, Whittle, Holton, Queen, Werge, Payne, J Jackson, Lazarus. Out of the 50 articles I've created, over 40 are Palace players you've never heard of!! Eagleash (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: The Wolf-Williams draft has been tagged for speedy as copy-vio. Result. Sort of. Eagleash (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Further update: Using the same tool I tagged the Fitti F6 and F9 pages for copyvio too. F6 and Wolf-Williams both deleted now! Have we got him...dare to hope? Eagleash (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

And again. Both the Lola drafts are also copy-vio (tagged) as is the Fittipaldi FD04 (not tagged as yet). Eagleash (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

TS16 also copy-vio. Gone to ANI. Eagleash (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... developments! Finally some apparent movement, and rightly so, as copyvio is a pretty big deal. I didn't realise just how much he was stealing from elsewhere, although I should've realised as he can barely string a sentence together of his own. All of this stuff that's been deleted was rubbish so we're not going to miss it, and I guess we could wait until the fallout from this has settled before deciding what to do with what's left of the Fittipaldi stuff. I'll make a comment at ANI.

Ah, a long-suffering Palace fan ;) My brother is also one of your lot, so I'm kept abreast of their exploits. Now your username makes perfect sense! I should have realised. Yes, Palace and Orient are quite similar clubs in a way, although Palace have enjoyed more success over the years. Queen, Jackson, Lazarus et al... Orient legends and no mistake, even though they were all before my time. I have mirrored your exploits and created a number of articles about Orient players whom nobody has ever heard of... Mark Blackhall, David Cass, Steve Bowtell and the legendary Wim Wallcharts who seems to be heading off into dodgy politics. The rich tapestry of the ex-footballer life. We suffer for out football clubs, but we wouldn't have it any other way. Hope your lot don't get any closer to the drop ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, huge amounts have been stolen from other sites. I looked just now at the copy-vio report on the Surtees and the 'original' contains all his trademark prose/grammar/punc/caps/tense nonsense. So all those reams of text we copy-edited on pre-existing articles for that sort of thing were thieved too! He could land Wiki in a whole heap of trouble. ANI don't seem very interested at the moment. Give it a bit longer I guess. Might be a bit daunting for whoever takes it on. I don't seem able to edit anything at all at the moment...people keep asking me to do things!! And trolls at the help-desk! As it's Friday I suppose Taki will show up sometime in the next 24 hours. He won't be able to find his drafts of course. This could be fun (not). If the Surtees hasn't been deleted he can be relied upon to remove the speedy tag. The Crystal Palace area (not just the club, which is elsewhere) has been quite important to me over the years. Partic. the circuit. Would not have seen Jackpot, Jochen, Regga, Bruce, Jimmy etc. etc. race otherwise! First race I saw there was Ickx winning F2 with Graham and Bruce in the field. As a result I always think of him Sevoz-G and JPB altogether (as they all were in matras on the day). Now only Jacky remains. So it goes. Super Al has got some work to do. I can see us going down (again) (yo-yo much). Eagleash (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Update. The speedy of TS16 was turned down as 'not much seems to have been copied' despite 93.4% violation suspected and reams of pink-higlighted text in both the article and source columns. It was subsq. accepted by Swister despite the rubbish writing. Once again WTF are these admins and reviewers on? I have asked for clarification from the ed who declined speedy. Eagleash (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Oops! Seems he copied from Polish wiki (without attribution of course!) My bad! I hope all the others that were tagged (not just by me) were actually proper copy-vios. Still they were deleted by an admin who's pretty thorough I believe, so guess they might have been OK. If not, well I only 'suggested' they might be vios and we'd only have to remove them another way anyway! Eagleash (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:De Tomaso F1. Here we go again. Eagleash (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I see he's been nosing around today, I wonder what he thought of all the deletions. How the TS16 wasn't deleted as well, I have no idea. Tempted to make it a redirect just to be awkward. I really object to someone "reviewing" a draft or an article, seeing that it is utter shite, then accepting it and making no attempt whatsoever to clean it up. I don't mind too much if they were proper copyvios or just copied from the Polish Wikipedia (which in my experience isn't very good), just so long as they're deleted. It would make life easier if they were proper copyvios, but one way or the other, they're unencyclopedic rubbish. And yes, we'd only have had to get rid of them another way. De Tomaso... another pointless article. These reviewers know nothing about notability, so I imagine it will be accepted. Ugh.

I'm officially jealous that you got to see racing at CP. It seems amazing to me that there was ever a circuit there. What a fantastic time it must have been. Growing up in Cornwall I was nowhere near anything as exciting as that, although CP had long gone before I was aware it had ever existed. Super Al will save your lot, and there are far worse clubs down there than Palace. Orient lose at home today - much as I'd like to blame JBW, it wasn't his fault... Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Well I've put comments re both notability and wording on the talk-page but I don't suppose the reviewers will take any notice. Why isn't there a notability guide for F1 cars I wonder? Minimum number of races, &/or race winning cars or something. Taki has been messing with de Tomaso driver- and the '62 season- articles, changing desigs to de Tomaso F1. I can't follow what he's up to there really. He commented on the FD04 talk-page yesterday too "when are 'we' going to merge"? WE?! he goes anywhere near the merge I'll knock it straight back... also signed with one IP...history shows another... he's cleverer than we thought!

There's some great stuff on youtube of the Palace circuit especially the clip "full version 1971 BSCC". Was I there? funny you should ask...yep.... also was at South Tower when Hunt punted off Dave Morgan and had the temerity to punch him. If you're anywhere near Sth London at the Spring Bank Hols (end of May) then Motorsport at the Palace is a nice day out. Uses part of the Pre-war link and the main circuit to make a half-mile sprint event. Start line is right by the concert bowl (AKA the rusty laptop). Saw Wakeman in his pomp there...and Santana... somehow missed the Floyd (and Eric).

Liverpool today. Have Dwight Gayle constantly warming up I reckon.... "who put the ball in the scouser's net? Aaallllll, Super Alan Pardew..." Super Al was more 'ironic' back in the day though... but he had a habit of being just where he was needed. Eagleash (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

On another note, I stumbled across this user page recently. I was intrigued enough to leave a message on the eds talk-page and inviting them to join the project, but no reply. I think they've also started one for 2017 similarly. That's all the editing they seem to have done. Curious... may be they're using Wiki as a sort of 'web-host' for some reason. Eagleash (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Damn, just realised that Taki's request for another re-direct this time for 'Wolf Williams Racing ' will just enable him to create another sub-standard copy-vio article. Asked the ed. at req. re-directs who knows the problem, for help. Eagleash (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence that reviewers actually listen to anyone. They seem to be of a certain type of Wikipedian, that just does his/her own thing in a pseudo-intellectual fashion, relying entirely on an over-inflated idea of their own expertise. Then when you challenge them on something, they're really snooty about it. Sadly, Wikipedia relies on them. I wonder if we'd ever decide on a notability guide for cars! We should certainly have one though. I have zero faith in Taki's exploits with the De Tomaso, and not much more understanding of it. I don't really know where he gets his ideas for renaming those cars. Nice to see him trying to hurry us along with the FD too! Jeez.

Bad luck on the Liverpool front... but I'm still confident there'll be three worse sides than you come the end of the season! You can't argue with a confident man. Speaking of which, you saw Hunt punch Morgan? Wow! That was well out of order, as was the punch on the marshal on another occasion. Hunt could be such an ass. And you saw Wakeman and Santana?! This is where I seriously envy those slightly older than me. When I was a teen, I was sighing, hands on hips and shaking my head, faced with Rick Astley and Kylie Minogue. I'd really fancy a visit to the Palace in the summer, that's not a bad idea at all.

That name Pch187 rings a bell, I'm sure I've seen him around. I'm not sure how some of the regulars would take to his coverage of testing, but he would probably be a useful editor. And we do lack those. Which leads me to Taki again - if he creates another load of guff about Wolf-Williams, I will personally turn it back into a redirect. I wonder if he bores his friends at school with badly constructed tales of Frank and Co circa 1976? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Well the de Tomaso draft was accepted by Swister who according to the editor I contacted re the copy-vio on the Surtees TS16 is "one for deletions". Completely ignored the notes on the talk-page, placed a wrong banner etc. *grumble*. I've turned it into a re-direct. No doubt young Takkers will edit-war it again. As for the car re-naming I think he's right; from what I can make out, the early cars were, like the FDs & FWs, basically same model different chassis a la Tyrrell.

The Liverpool result was disappointing, to give away a lead however it occurred against 10 men at home shows a lack of something or other. Can't really argue with penalty decision, despite some high-profile CPFC fans ranting on Twitter etc. (yes you Kevin Day).

I never had much time for Hunt... customer from hell for company I worked for too!

Pch seems only to have been around since December, but I agree there's something familiar about the name. The huge majority of his edits are to his own userpages but I note he's re-directed all the 2016 individual GP articles to the 2016 season page. See the point but don't know the convention.

As for music...did you know Quo played (music not football!) at Selhurst Park? Well they did.

I expect Taki's classmates know to give him a wide berth. I still feel a bit sorry for him in a way. I think we're probably right to think he's very young and for all we know given the sporadic bursts of editing there may be some other factors we are completely unaware of. (Just a hunch). I've asked him a few times to sign up and join the project and then we can help him to edit constructively, but it hasn't happened. Eagleash (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I've merged all the Fitt FD cars to Fittipaldi FD. It needs a bit of refining still. Please have a look for major c*ck-ups, before UKW starts fiddling with it, as he is bound to do. Eagleash (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

While looking at a recent string of edits by the IP, I noticed the IP sumbitting a draft, despite it not being in the area of interest of the IP we are aware of and despite them not having contributed anything to the draft at all. I was wondering wether one of the users that did contribute to the draft might be our IP? Tvx1 22:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I saw that name in the contribs from yesterday but never got around to checking it out. It's not impossible that he's one of the editors. I can't think it's very likely but you never know. Eagleash (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Whilst not quite the mighty Quo, my weekend has been severely affected by drunkeness and general debauchery at the hands of The Amorettes, so apologies for not replying sooner. It's been a while since I stumbled home at 6am much the worse for wear. I see Taki has left the De Tomaso redirect you created. Maybe he's starting to get the message? Hmm, even as I typed that it sounded stupid. It would be very helpful if he registered, let alone join the Project, but I fear both are unlikely. I note also that Swister doesn't revert the creation of redirects either, which is good. The FD article looks free of major problems to me, it just needs a few cites and more detail. I might have a go at it at some point, if I ever completely sober up (I've just done my round of editing Non League football tables after Saturday's matches - man, it took three times as long as usual). At least your lot are still in the Cup!

I think that Tvx's hunch is interesting, as that IP has edited other drafts related to F1, and it seems odd that he made just one edit to that Alex Gilbert one. But I'm not sure any of those other named editors is our Taki. Worth keeping an eye out for similar instances though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

That IP is definitley Taki (Salisbury). No idea how he would have stumbled on that draft unless he's found a list of drafts somewhere and just decided to throw some more mud at the wall... who knows... On the de Tomaso page I put 'hidden' advice that it should not be created without reference to the F1 project. Did the same with the Fittipaldis when they were re-directs...I temporarily restored them before merging... That was a lot of work and I found several different ways to spell Puddlefooti. (DH missed that, so well spotted..in fact he left a 'nice work' message on my talk-page!). Took me all morning to merge the tables in a sandbox...and the lead was constructed in a word processor... I basically just tried to merge it in a sensible fashion (sic) but like all Taki's efforts, cites could be better. He's been disturbingly quiet recently unless he's just not shown up in my watchlist! It's taking some time to sort out the wikidata entries also.

I'm not familiar with The Amorettes, I'm afraid. I rarely get to see a band these days. I think the last was The Lightning Seeds at a 'free' in the park across the road about 6 years ago. Days of schlepping round London pub-rock venues with a former sound-engineer work colleague, who worked with Green and Bowie and knew a few people are long gone! Took in a few majors too. Knebworth etc.

Yes still in the cup: softish pen though (what goes around). Lucky to get 2. Rely on Fraizer Campbell to miss that from 2 inches! Eagleash (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Plus Taki's edit on that draft seems rather technical for him. Bit odd all round. Good idea about the hidden advice; anyone ignoring that without discussion can be seen as disruptive. The FD page looked like a lot of work and I didn't fancy it much myself, so I was glad when you did it! Damned good job. Merging is always harder than it seems at first. I spotted a typo that DH missed?!! Must be the first time! I'm glad Taki's quiet, although I agree it's somewhat disconcerting.

The Amorettes are very loud and very lovely, although a slightly corrupting influence. My editing their article is not far from a COI so I hope I can remain neutral. I'm shamelessly trying to hang on to my youth by seeing as many bands as I can, although I think my festival days might be behind me. Green as in Peter Green? One of my particular favourites, and one of my very few claims to fame is that I used to live with his niece. Very personable chap, was PG.

Another defeat for Newcastle tonight does your boys a small favour, although I still think you'll be OK. A day at Wembley would be rather fun too, but let's not tempt fate just yet. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Considering all the disruption caused by all the IP hopping, would a WP:SPI be any help for us? Tvx1 17:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know that an SPI would be useful. Personally, I can't really see any evidence that would justify it. On that draft I could only see his presumptuous submission. The rest of the edits...the majority are by the creator...who reverted Taki's submission... and several by Maproom and RichFarmborough, neither of whom are likely candidates for sock-puppetry! Taki did get the submission t/plate in the right place... which is probably a first... but he likely just copied it from an earlier submission. As the Channel 4 draft was a bit better than usual I did wonder if he'd got someone to help him...but it's probably just nicked from somewhere.

Yes green as in Peter... though for me, Mick was a bit special too (& inspired Wilko!). I'd put Green & Beck ahead of Eric if it came to it. As for Wembley, already there due to the FA milking / diluting the semis by playing them there.

Have you got the March 761 on your to do list? I think you said you would look at it in due course. If so, I'll look at the Fittipaldi F8 (notable but terrible wording) when I get the chance.

Heads up. There's another editor doing the same thing to Luca Badoer as that other guy. I've reverted and left a similar message on his talk-page. Eagleash (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Taki alert rushing to go out so haven't been able to look at it (all). I did spot something with the FD page though. Eagleash (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure an SPI would be useful either; generally it helps if the user has been blocked under one identity, then admins are happier to block the other identities. They have to accept first that Taki is doing something wrong, and we're struggling to convince them of that. I agree that he nicked the Channel 4 draft from somewhere – has to be, surely. His latest masterpiece is Draft:Template:Iso-Marlboro in Formula One, which is completely pointless. I wonder if Taki might be behind the new F1 qualifying system, as it seems cack-handed enough to have come from him. The most dismal qualifying session I've ever seen.

Mick Green was certainly pretty handy, no doubt about that, and I'd definitely put Peter and Jeff Beck ahead of Clapton. Eric had his moments, but nothing since he cleaned himself up. I see Palace lost out to Amazing Leicester, which under current circumstances is no disgrace.

Surely those two Badoer editors are the same guy? There can't be two idiots out there doing the same thing, please no. I will look at March 761, but I don't know when at the moment. Soon, I hope. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Taki returned today here. Unfortunately due to a bit of a misunderstanding there is now a re-direct for Wolf-Williams Racing. He's gone through a goodly number of 1976 season articles plus drivers etc. changing the team name. I expect you've spotted some of them already. No doubt he'll try to create a Wolf-Williams page shortly. That Iso-Marlboro template is, I agree, completely useless I think maybe Tvx would like to take it to MfD! Our submission to ANI has now been archived for a second time without any action. Feel we're a bit stymied really. He'll just go rolling on and we'll clear up his rubbish I suppose... There's also Draft:Surtees TS9.

Lucky enough to see the pirates in their late 70s re-emergence, plus I noticed a mention of Jonathan Kelly's outside on your page; saw them sometime mid 70s! Got the tab for Albatross in the week, that should keep me busy for a while...

Yes the Badoer editors have to be the same. I'll try to do the Fitti F8, just as soon as RL gives me a break...so never then. Oh! here's another example of him WP:TE submitting a rejected draft which isn't even his. Eagleash (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: I've nominated the ISO template at MfD Eagleash (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm properly fed up with this guy, to be honest. I've just reverted or deleted a load of his crap and that's how we ought to treat him, I think. We tried the admin assistance route and nobody was interested, so maybe that will at least mean nobody will be interested if we're a little heavy with ol' Takkers. If he creates a Wolf-Williams page, I'll get rid of it. We've explained why we don't need one, and the guy just keeps coming back. Same with these bloody ridiculous templates. If any reviewer has the lack of sense to accept these templates, then we'll just clean up afterwards. I haven't looked at his Surtees efforts: if they're clean-up-able, then we can do that, otherwise they can be turned into redirects.

Ha! The Pirates were great in the late 70s, now there's a gig I wish I could go back and see... Yes, I created a Jonathan Kelly's Outside article waaay back, one of my first I think, and it has since been moved to Jonathan Kelly and the Outside album got a page of its own. I'm a huge fan of Snowy White and that was how I discovered Kelly. Good luck with Albatross: I've seen Peter play that a couple of times, although not at his peak! Hope RL will look upon you more fondly in due course :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to nominate the draft:template:Wolf-Williams Racing for MfD too but my laptop's playing up and I've faffed it up somehow. I'm sure I did the same as ISO but it won't work and now I've saved it by mistake. F**k. Eagleash (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Now done here Eagleash (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Commented. Let's hope that someone actually reads that... Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And now there's Draft:Surtees TS20. (P.S. Do we need another section break?) DH85868993 (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm considering documenting the consensus regarding Politoys/Iso-Marlboro/Wolf-Williams (i.e. that they should be convered at Frank Williams Racing Cars and Template:Frank Williams Racing Cars and don't require their own separate articles/navboxes), so we have somewhere to "point to" when reverting Taki's edits. An alternative would be to document it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Conventions, but I'm concerned that if I add it there, someone might claim it's just my opinion and not an actual consensus. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

As long as you provide a link to the discussion that demonstrates that consensus I think it should be ok. Tvx1 16:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Policy discussion in progress

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of Fly Like an Eagle, a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 16:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@thanks: you're welcome! It's pretty common for people to fight out issues talk page by talk page and miss out on the times when policy decisions come up; glad it's appreciated. — LlywelynII 02:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Definitely appreciated – I'm keeping an eye on that MOS debate. Cheers! Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

We need to talk....

@Shawn in Montreal:@Bretonbanquet: OK so as I'm currently in a rather large discussion on such things, about various music article's I'm working on, I formally request you reinstate my links, not the location one's as that fine and good for the over link statement, but the cite's you removed, as I do consider them quite fine as a source material and we will have to have a review about it.

Morwenna Banks

Thanks for your edit and your message on my Talk page. I don't want to get into a big argument either and "British" is acceptable as an intro given the contention over the status of people from Cornwall. My main objection was introducing her as "Cornish" since Cornwall is still not a country in in its own right yet (though I suspect it probably will become one the way things are going). When it does, she can become a Cornish comedy actress. Rodericksilly (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

James Hunt

Hi,

Thanks for the clarification on Surrey and Belmont. However, why should UK be left in the infobox? If you look at Lewis Hamilton, Jenson Button, Nigel Mansell and others – every driver's infobox use different format for listing birth/death place. I believe there's no consensus regarding this matter? – Sabbatino (talk) 11:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)