User talk:Pyrope/Archive 2007

template:former F1 constructor

Hi Pyrope. I noticed your creation template:former F1 constructor. Are you happy for me to start converting all the former constructors which currently use template:F1 team to use template:former F1 constructor instead, and promote the usage of template:former F1 constructor on WP:F1? DH85868993 11:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Alta in Category:Formula One entrants

Hi Pyrope. Yes, Alta was one of those constructors I wasn't sure whether or not to include in the Entrants category. I'd appreciate it if you could cast your eye over the other articles in the category and remove any that shouldn't be there. Thanks. DH85868993 09:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of Alta, do you think it's worth changing all the links which currently point to Alta auto racing team (which is a redirect to Alta Car and Engineering Company) to point directly to Alta Car and Engineering Company, so that the redirect can be deleted, to reinforce the fact that Alta were never an entrant/team? DH85868993 14:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

F1 car

We've done it again! See template:Racing car. (Racing car not F1 car because I think it can be a common template for any racing car, the info's essentially the same). It's already been used on a number, but by no means all, of the F1 car articles: Brabham BT46, Brabham BT55, unsurprisingly! Some others have, I think gotten confused about templates and copied the code of the template (and then modified it) rather than using it correctly (Sauber C20 for example). This one I think we probably do only need one template for - my suggestion would be that you edit template:Racing car to make any necessary change, but what do you think? 4u1e 08:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, but I feel vaguely guilty because although I went to great lengths to publicise it on the talk pages of every racing car article I could find (at the time) I didn't add it (or the team one) to the WP:F1 page. Hangs head in shame. 4u1e 10:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Blimey - fast work! Sorry about the confusion. 4u1e 15:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Driver career summary tables

Hi Pyrope. I'm looking to update some driver career summary tables to "John Surtees format" soon. I believe you've done several (many?) in the past. In the interests of minimising my effort, is there some easy way to get the right colour in each square? Or is it just a matter of copying and pasting the right colour string from the key template each time? (Or do you remember them?) And how do you construct the list of races for each year in the table? Do you construct them by hand each time? Or do you find another table which has the same year and copy and paste? Or do you have a list of them somewhere? Thanks DH85868993 10:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've updated Michele Alboreto's summary table to "John Surtees format". Can you confirm that the following features of John Surtees' table (which I have copied into Alboreto's) are deliberate?:

• the contents of the Entrant, Chassis and Engine columns are bold
• the contents of the Year column are not bold
• the contents of the WDC and Points columns are not bold, except when the driver finished 1st or 2nd (or presumably 3rd) in the WDC.

Thanks. DH85868993 15:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of using the entrant name as registered on the start list (i.e. "Benetton Team Tyrrell" in your example). What do you use as your source for entrant names? I have found that entrant names can vary widely between sources! DH85868993 16:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me the key to unlock www.gpracing.net192.com. I was aware of the site's existence but could never work out how to get useful data out of it. Some trivia I noticed while looking at Alboreto's results: In the middle of 1992, he finished 7th (i.e. one place outside the points) in 6 races out of 8, including 4 in a row. That's heartbreaking! DH85868993 02:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Pages on Wainwrights- Green Crag

Firstly, my apologies for reverting without leaving a comment, not intentional, just ham-fisted

I note your interest in Birker Fell, but please observe that we are attempting to apply a standard treatment to all 214 of Wainwrights Fells, and that they are 'fells' regardless of height or name. To simply state that we cannot call Green Crag a fell would be inconsistent. If you want to propose changes to such a large number of articles then perhaps you should initiate a discussion on the WP:BIHILLS talk page.

I'd suggest we leave 'Green Crag' as a Wainwright page and 'Birker Fell' as a page on the upland area as a whole. They are linked to one another and serve different purposes, fitting different templates. What do you think? Bobble Hat 21:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Borough/Town

You deleted the whole thing because I got Borough and Town mixed up (Re: Wandsworth article)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frankmoon (talk • contribs) 13:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC). (sorry, was unaware about the whole signing thing)

Re: Wandsworth

Thanks for the message! Much appreciated. I'll get my source for it, and if i can't find the original source, i'll get business listings as evidence. Much appreciated again! ~~ Frank moon

Thanks!!!

Thanks a lot for the template - it looks much better to understand. I wouldn't mind if you could update some from the mid 1990's - early 2000's - that would be helpful.

Again, many thanks Davnel03 21:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I;ve put the template on the 1994 Brazilian Grand Prix race that I have previously edited - can you quickly check to see if nothings wrong.

Many thanks - the template has helped me a lot!!! Davnel03 16:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Pages That Are Blank

Sorry about creating so many pages at blank, but at least I know for future only to create them one at a time. Anyway, I've put the warning at the top of each individual page so no one that doesn't know much about F1 doesn't go editing it. However, I do not mind people like yourselfs or other people from the Wikipedia F1 project editing it. I would be very happy if people did that. Thanks for co-operating with me. Davnel03 18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Monaco Grand Prix

Good work. Only mistake was adding in mutiple links in the same table. Overwise it was fine. Buc 18:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a basic Wikipedia guidelines really that there shouldn't be link to the same article really close together. Buc 19:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

How's that not a reason? Buc 19:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I read somewhere that mutiple links to an article that are fairly close together should be removed. If you you can put me right your welcome to rv my changes. Buc 20:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you but I've that before. Nothing about links to the same article in there. I have left a querry in the help desk to try a resolve this issue. Buc 23:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok so after further enquerry this seems to be a bit of a gray area. Some feel it's ok unless the entries are all right next to each other. But someone eles said though linking at only the first occurrence can make it clearer and easier to read. So my conclusion would that it doesn't really matter. Change it back if you want. Buc 09:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can do anything eles to improve Monaco Grand Prix please do. You may or may not be aware that it's currently a FAC. Buc 11:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Tyrrell 019

Thanks for fixing that, Pyrope. DH85868993 01:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Eagle Mk1 article

Congratulations on the Eagle Mk1 article. It's beautiful. If only all F1 car articles were like that... One tiny query - would it be appropriate to link "American National Championship" to United States Automobile Club? I think it would, but I didn't want to defile the article by adding an incorrect link. DH85868993 04:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ratings

Taken from the assessment page, top rating means "Article is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for articles that have achieved international notability within its subject or field." I'd say all F1 champions have achieved international notability, so they must all have "top" importance. High is for articles that do not have international notability, so this is clearly not high enough for F1 champions. I get your point, but I assessed the articles according to the definitions laid out on the assessment page. There might be an argument for changing the assessment page however, as it is a bit ambiguous at the moment. Readro 20:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, regarding Surtees, I'd argue that as the only man to win world championships on 2 and 4 wheels he is most certainly of top importance. Readro 20:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Clay Regazzoni

Another editor made the comment on peer review that you can't collide head on from the rear. Doesn't a head on collision mean both parties collide from the front? :S 4u1e 21:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - looks like I don't understand the English language as well as I think I do. Most references give something like; "with or involving the front of a vehicle", although much more rarely a definition is given like "a head-on collision direct, front-to-front" (both from various OED publications). I still think that using 'head on into the rear of a lorry' is likely to cause confusion, though as it has for me and at least one other editor. I'll re-write to try and make it clearer, based on what the sources said - which I think was just 'head on' with no mention of 'from the rear'. Cheers. 4u1e, 6 March 2007 09:46

Your note re 'tense'

Hi Pyrope, there was some discussion about this issue on the main Talk page (search for 'tense'), and on the dedicated guideline's Talk page. I am not saying that the 'debate' was very intensive or exhaustive - it was mostly the point that we needed to standardize (as we have both past and present tenses), and my own opinion that in the unfolding chronology of aviation events, having the present tense gives a dynamic news-like effect, which I believe makes it a more engaging and interesting style for a reader, and creates a more flowing structure, as opposed to a more disjointed list. Again, I don't think this was debated at any depth, but it was included in the guideline, which was accepted as a whole by consensus, and is the current standard for the list format. If you strongly feel this tense is unacceptable, then by all means present your case and try to create a consensus for change. I think the proper venue is the guideline's Talk page, where format related issues should be discussed, followed (if consensus is reached) by changes to the guideline. Thanks, Crum375 22:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Maserati 4CL(T)

I like it! I appreciate how difficult it is to track down info for these earlier cars, but you've managed to get quite a lot of info together. I'm by no means an expert on the era - in fact it's more of a keen interest - so as far as facts go, I don't really know enough to be able to judge. Reagrding images, I've had a look but I can't find anything free-use. My "stash" is actually more of a list of free-use pictures I've found. You can see the current stash here. I know how difficult these images are to find, so I thought it might be better to keep a record of them so that I have them ready to use when the time comes. Readro 21:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Best of luck with the article - it's looking good so far. And it'd be nice if we got paid for this - I'd probably enjoy working a lot more! Readro 22:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Rob Walker Racing Team

Thanks for pointing out, I had almost forgotten it was there. Blame the procrastinator in me, I guess :-) . Anyway, I've written the two final paragraphs and added everything to the page. I think it still needs some clean-up, lots of details, and most important of all, references. I took most of it from the websites I've listed at the end of the article, and even then it's mostly a textual representation of results tables. But I feel I've created enough of a skeleton that can easily evolve into a GA. --Pc13 20:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

County Palatine of Lancaster

Well, I originally addded that paragraph to highlight that there are two quite different areas described in two different sources!

The Duchy's website [1] says: "Nowadays the County Palatine comprises the modern administrative counties of Lancashire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Furness in Cumbria." Not parts of modern Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Merseyside but all of them, which is a very different area to the pre-1974 county cited in 1992, and includes bits of what was Cheshire and Yorkshire.

As those were the only two sources I could find, and as they don't agree with each other I believe "however" points out that they don't agree.

They can't both be right of course, but in the absence of anything else they will have to do until we can find a definitive source. Lozleader 21:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Templates

Hi, we never came to a decision over the propose template changes over on WPMotorsport; the discussion is here. Davnel03 16:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Maserati 4CL and 4CLT

I found you a picture! I've put it in the relevant section, feel free to move it if you like. Readro 00:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Alan Ball, Jr.

You're confusing me with another editor. I didn't give the inherent justification. As for my reason for leaving out the county, it's in line with other footballer infoboxes. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides, the infobox template doesn't ask for countyofbirth. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

They're the guidelines we've been sticking to. I don't see why it should be different for Alan Ball. If people are that interested in a village or town - as someone else said, I think - they'll click the necessary link. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not following convention is the reason flags are all over the show. Another reason to follow convention. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion link. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is what's keeping you from your wikibreak, I'm all for your putting the county back in. - Dudesleeper · Talk 20:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sportscar Photos

Sorry, have been a bit busy keeping an eye on Imola '94 while it's been on the front page. I've uploaded the pictures but haven't categorised them on Commons yet. You can view them on my sandbox to get the file name (and please feel free to add categories to them on commons). I'll be importing more photos when I get time (there's hundreds on flickr). AlexJ 15:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Message on Commons

Just saw your message on Commons! I should really check there more often.

You're probably right about the image. I was just going on the description of the image on flickr, but it could well be that the photographer has got it wrong. According to my sources, Ascari was a Ferrari driver in 1949 so that means it must be 1948.

Sorry to take so long to reply. Readro 23:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:De Tomaso Logo.jpg

Hello, Pyrope. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:De Tomaso Logo.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Pyrope/Sandbox 3. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 00:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Davnel03

Hi Pyrope,

Thanks for backing me up on the Davnel sockpuppet. I think he might be back again though. If you've got a spare moment, could you check out User:Daviiid including contributions and let me know what you think? I could be getting paranoid now but it seems more than a coincidence to me. Readro 17:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the way I see it is that if he has really changed for the better, then there are procedures in place for him to be able to prove that. Creating a new account at another location just suggests he is trying to beat the system. My problem is that he was abusive as Davnel and was abusive enough to get himself banned indefinitely. I have no desire to have to deal with him again. He showed complete comtempt for Wikipedia's rules and flamed entire WikiProjects. Readro 20:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

CP of Lancaster

Hi. Are you sure it was me? I haven't edited that page for months AFAIK. Got bored with the argument. Life's too short. :-)Lozleader 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

I suggest we keep an eye on User:F1Fanaticsz. Seems another savvy newbie, who despite saying "Adding myself - hope I've done it right!", was then able to go on and install Davnel's favourite JS peer review script. I could be wrong but to me it doesn't add up. I'm going to observe carefully. Readro 11:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink

I saw that you recently joined the Wikiproject Food and Drink and I wanted to welcome you. Looking forward to reading your contributions.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 16:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007 Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2007

This edit summary

Hi. "late night sarcasm" would be OK. But "wine fuelled"?? On what basis are you making that judgement? Mark83 22:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I'm 100% wrong. I was under the impression you were reverting and making that judgement. I see it was your own comment. I'm really sorry for my mistake. Perhaps I should review my own intoxication!! Sorry again. Mark83 22:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Alain Prost

I've suggested what looks like the middle ground at the Alain Prost talk page (regarding team mate comparisons). I'd be grateful if you could comment on whether you're willing to accept it. Cheers. 4u1e 14:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2007--Christopher Tanner, CCC 19:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Uploading material

That's one thing that I probably won't do - upload material, after what happened before. If I do find myself getting into arguments, I will take a few days break to let the situation cool down. Thanks, and I hope we can put my previous edits behind us. Davnel03 10:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to complain about Spartaz, go to the incidents page. Davnel03 10:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Davnel issue

No problem, I've signed the page. Also I corrected the bit about Davnel's most recent vandalism, because we're in July now! Readro 19:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to add this to your conversation with Readro, but I figured it wasn't worth adding another category. In your RfC page, there was another Davnel sockpuppet that you missed, it's listed in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Davnel03: User talk:TheReferencingGod. The359 19:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to say sorry to see how the Davnel03 issue has made you feel, though I totally understand. How people can decide that he's worthy of editing here, I'll never understand. But I wanted to say I'll miss your input, and Wikipedia will be much the poorer for your absence. I hope someday when the situation is resolved you might have another look at things, but until then, all the very best. Bretonbanquet 22:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to second Bretonbanquet's comments about your retirement, and I hope that you will return someday. Best wishes!--Diniz (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. We'll really miss your contributions. Hope you feel you can come back at some point. 4u1e 13:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fourthed. I'm really sorry you felt you needed to retire. I understand your frustration and I am also annoyed, but if we let it get to us then Davnel wins. It's one negative thing, but when weighed up against the many thousands of positive things about Wikipedia it makes me realise just how small it really is. I really hope you rethink this, because you're a good editor and Wikipedia will be poorer without you. Readro 14:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I echo what's been said above. I'd ask you to reconsider when the inevitable happens and the block is reinstated however I realise that it may be the system as much as the user that you're fed up with. It's sad to lose one of the best F1 & motorsport editors on here, but thank you for all that you've contributed and best wishes for the future. AlexJ 16:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Bye Keke ;-). We'll miss 'ya. --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 09:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your contributions have been valued so very much. Sad to hear you're retiring. We'll all miss you.  :'-) Lradrama 16:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that you won't see this belated comment, Pyrope, and I wouldn't blame you if you never view this or any WP page again. It upsets me to see good, intelligent editors driven away by the ill-advised decisions of others who apparently believe that leopards can change their spots (or give up wearing so many "masks"). I remain unconvinced. I was amazed to see a certain signature for the first time in months today, and it was from a bit of detective work that I saw a comment about your decision. I hope that time changes your mind and you return one day. Being akin to Keke is alright by me! Regards, Adrian M. H. 16:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed something interesting yesterday - I hope it isn't a one-off. ;)--Diniz (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am with Diniz on this one. I had noticed your article on JW Automotive in your sandbox when you left, and had recently considered finishing it as I think it'd be a great addition (everyone just seems to link to John Wyer). Noticing some of your recent edits, if you are coming back, I'd much rather leave it in your capable hands. The359 23:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pyrope. I was delighted to see your username when I checked my watchlist this morning. BTW, your userpage still carries the {{User EX-WP}} template (I realise that might be intentional). -- DH85868993 02:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

August 2007 Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter August 2007

--Christopher Tanner, CCC 16:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello Pyrope, good to see you again! I'd never really worked with you on anything before you temporarily quit Wikipedia due to the Davnel03 issue, although we're both part of the F1 Wikiproject. I hadn't realised you were back. Happy editing! Lradrama 11:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!

It's good to see that you've returned! Readro 11:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you're back. AlexJ 12:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Even though me and you have had our differences in the past (mostly my fault), its good to see you back, and hopfully we can put the past behind us. Davnel03 16:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wotcha

Good to see you back! I'd be grateful if you could cast your eyes over Brabham BT19 and make any comments you can think of in its current peer review. I realise there's a Davnel connection, which may be a sensitive point! If it makes any difference, he's only pre-empting what I vaguely had in mind to do anyway. And he did ask first. Cheers. 4u1e 10:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

September 2007 WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter September 2007
--Christopher Tanner, CCC 15:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

2007 Candian GP FA

Hi. I too think this article is well off FA, however I think I've hammered it enough and have decided to become an editor rather than a voter. I also agree with you that the ticks/check marks are really annoying, just yesterday I saw a check mark next to something that wasn't done, very annoying! However that's not why I chose to leave a comment here. It's because of this edit. Censored or not there's no need for "For ****'s sake". The rest of that particular edit was valid, but I don't see how the quote I mentioned added to it!!. Mark83 21:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

2007 Canadian Grand Prix PR

Please give feedback here Buc 21:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Renault Alpine A442/A443?

These images (1, 2, 3) were found by me (thanks to a link to a gallery from WP:British Motorsport), and I figured they'd be helpful for your Renault Alpine A442 article, since they are licensed under CC-BY-2.0. I'm not positive as to what specific model it is, but I believe it may be the later A443?

There's also several Renault F1 machinery as well, which I'm not the best at identifying as well. The359 07:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Nagitty nag nag...

At the risk of becoming a bore (becoming...?): Any chance you could cast a critical eye over Brabham BT19? It's a tad on the short side, but I think it makes a nice coherent article (something which I now think I probably failed with on Brabham, but I'm not going to take the star away if no-one else is.....). Would really appreciate your thoughts. Cheers. 4u1e 10:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Good peer review and coaching work, by the way, even if it's not always appreciated! 4u1e 10:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Crotalus mitchellii angelensis

Hi Pyrope! How come you keep making Crotalus mitchellii angelensis as a stub? According to the definition, "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information." This article may not yet contain much information about the animal itself, but it does include complete taxonomic, geographic and conservation status info, along with internal and external links. I would call that useful information. (PS -- You can answer here as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). --Jwinius 13:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A difference in definition I guess. My reference states that a stub is "either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level", and that the next step up (Start class) requires a "meaningful amount of good content", which the article currently does not have. There is no stigma in writing a stub article; stubbing an article merely highlights the fact that it is a very short article in need of significant expansion. That way, as long as an appropriate stub category has been chosen, those with a common interest can easily see which articles might benefitfrom some collaborative attention. Hope that answers you question? Pyrope 13:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, then define "meaningful amount of good content." Perhaps you can supply one or two examples of what you think is barely enough to raise an article above the stub category. You know, the way I've been doing this, these obscure subspecies articles may never satisfy everyone. That's because they're not meant to give you a complete picture of the animal; only very specific information that sets them apart from the species. You're only meant to get the complete picture if you read all the other articles in the hierarchy: the species article, the one for the genus, the subfamily, the family, the order, etc. --Jwinius 14:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case they may ever remain as stubs. As for "meaningful content" if the article can not stand on its own feet without needing a reader to skip back and forth to other articles to get a full appreciation of its subject then it is, by the vast majority of definitions, a stub. For instance, the description section is pathetic. The length is remarkably precise (I suggest that this would be better phrased as "the longest specimen yet recorded was...") and gives no information about the general length. And how wide it it? Colour? Patternation? Head shape? Does it taper? As for the rest, Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia, not a snake-spotters' data book. Read WP:NOT. Every article ought to be readable and informative on its own merits. If you can't create such an article without having to repeat information from another page, then you really ought to consider making the information you are adding a subsection of the main page, and not a page in and of itself. I'm not saying that there isn't a place for stubs, and that a stub can't grow into a decent Wikipedia article in time, but what you have written is distinctly stubby at present. Pyrope 14:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Skipping back and forth between articles such as these will always be necessary to some degree, and more so for subspecies articles than any others. The problem is that if your goal is to avoid this as much as possible, you'll be repeating way too much information in almost every article. That kind of repetition has a number of drawbacks. First, it can become very tiring to always have to wade through all the general information simply to find the specific information you require. For example, why is C. m. angelensis different from C. m. mitchellii? I've also seen plenty of articles that give lots of general information, but no specific information at all. Very frustrating and definitely not good. Second, repeating the description of common characteristics over and over again breeds inconsistency and inaccuracy. I'm not trying to make Wikipedia a "snake-spotters' data book" (that would be different), but you're heading for big problems if you don't work systematically and hierarchically in collections of articles like these. For example, if we want to explain the venom apparatus of a viperid snake, we should aim to do that just once, but do it really well. People will find that information relevant article, in this case Viperidae. Third, many articles would become far too long if we were always to include the descriptions of general characteristics. That way, Animalia would be the smallest, and ones like C. m. angelensis would be huge! Anyway, many snake articles are already big enough without doing that; e.g. Daboia is already over 30K.

Yes, I admit that the description section is currently very concise, to put it mildly. I often mentioned only the maximum length in first versions like this one just to give readers a general idea of whether they're dealing with a monster or a midget until I or someone else has the time to add more information. I think it's obvious that there's a lot more that can be said about this or any subspecies. My only question is, when is an article like this not a stub? Whether the information is "meaningful" or not will always be subjective. That's why I think "useful" is a more appropriate term (I got that stub definition information from Wikipedia:Stub). By that measure, I think this article offers considerably more value than the average stub. --Jwinius 15:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The first half of your reply emphasises my point about keeping very closely related species together in one article. Just because they have a different trinomial (even binomial in some cases) does not automatically mean that they require their own page. I actually believe that splitting such articles down too far reduces the power of an encyclopedia, rather than enhancing it. Quite why this page can't just be a subsection in Crotalus mitchellii I do not know. It is already considered in a table there, so why does it need a separate article? As for the general descriptions, then yes, they need to be in every time. Sorry if that seems like a lot of work, but this is a general interest encyclopedia which ought to be readable, not a data store. We simply do not need articles for every single individual subspecies that has ever been. That way lies cruft. If you find yourself repeating general information then you need to combine pages and create a redirect, not create incomplete stubs. As for what constitutes a stub, well, it will always remain subjective to some extent and I think this ought to be a case of agreeing to differ. I still do not see where the problem lies with leaving a stub tag on a marginal article; "stub" is not a derogatory term, merely an editorial one, and arguably is of more use than shunting an article up to start class, where many editors may be content to let it lie. Pyrope 15:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I don't think we're going to agree on this issue. We may have some interests in common, such as F1 (I hope Hamilton wins the championship!), but not biology. I always go a little way to towards your ideal, such as with the lead section where I describe what kind of a snake it is and whether it is venomous or not, and that rattlesnakes like this one give birth to live young and eat small mammals, but I know for a fact that including much more than that leads to increasingly poor articles. It would be like describing common internal combustion engine technology and rubber compounds in the articles for every single model of automobile. Obviously, you want to keep articles like that as much to the point as possible and the applies to articles on species and subspecies.
As for why we should bother to create articles for subspecies, that's usually because they all have something unique about them. In this case, C. m. angelensis is not only an island dwarf form of the more common speckled rattlesnake C. mitchellii, it is also listed separately on the IUCN Red List of threatened species (as a species). Also, keeping such articles separate prevents the species articles from eventually becoming too large and makes it easier to set up the necessary redirects for synonyms and common names.
Cruft?? You're obviously not much of a biologist. It's one thing not to understand the value of another's work, but to devalue it is rather unkind of you. Here I am, doing my level best to make sure WP's snake articles make sense and are all taxonomically correct, and along comes a motorsport fan to tell me I'm doing it all wrong. No hard feelings, but I respectfully suggest you stick to judging content you know more about. --Jwinius 17:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I said that that way lies cruft, not that your article was. And as for taxonomy, I do have professional training in palaeontology and paleobiology, I just leave that at work! Pyrope 17:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What a surprise! But, you could have fooled me. On the other hand, I had once had an argument with a biology student who favored using common names for article titles, so anything's possible (okay, maybe he was first year). Perhaps I am guilty of making a mountain out of a molehill on this issue. Oh, perhaps I do feel that there is some stigma associated with the stub tag. The snake-stub tag is ugly to say the least. It's just that I consider that I really go out of my way to create the best starter articles I possibly can without investing too much time in it (I'm currently busy processing new IUCN information. In the last few weeks they published a new update that has almost tripled the number of species on their Red List of threatened species. I just noticed. FYI: they always list subspecies as species), thinking that mine surly rated better than the usual "one line and a taxobox stub", and along comes this petrolhead who tacks a wretched stub tag onto it faster than you can say wikimania. Aargh!! :-)) You just can't please anyone these days. --Jwinius 19:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Four-wheel drive in Formula One

Many thanks for the photos. Spiderlounge 18:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

2007 Malaysian Grand Prix - PR

Hi Pyrope, I was wondering if you could at some point re-review the Malaysian PR for us. If you can, that would be be very greatful, thanks. (Discussion PR) Davnel03 18:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

BT19

Ta very much - I've done some thinking out loud on the talk page and addressed some of your points. Others may take more time. 4u1e 16:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Renaming of Category:Race report infoboxes

How do you want to handle this? - {{Cfr}} (which will take about a week), or should one of us just create the new category and transfer the articles, then you can {{db-author}} the old one? DH85868993 15:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've included it as part of a proposed rename for all the motorsport infobox template categories. DH85868993 09:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Misnomer

Re the misnomer: DH is right in a way, you know. The championship season was run to F2 rules, not F1, so under the current title we shouldn't really have the WDC results in the article at all! I suspect that in period it was not referred to as the 1952/3 F1 world championship. 4u1e 11:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be. I know he's raised the question of how we handle that issue before (don't ask me where, it's somewhere in the WPF1 archive!). I think the point would be that in the 1952/3 context, it's a misnomer: The 1953 Formula One season had nothing to do with the completely separate 1952/3 World Drivers' Championships. On the other hand it would be hopelessly complicated to call those pages by any other name! 4u1e 11:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify further, I suppose it's only a partial misnomer - what we currently have is an article which gives the results of the WDC, run mainly to F2 rules, but with one AAA/USAC race, together with a list of non-championship F1 races. I know exactly why we've got that, although I admit I might find it a bit hard to explain to a third party! 4u1e 11:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well exactly, but I wouldn't suggest going down that route - far too confusing! I agree that it's best not to start off an article by telling the reader that it's called the wrong thing anyway - that won't inspire too much trust. All I meant was that the use of misnomer wasn't really 'nonsense', but rather a wrong approach to handling a definite problem with those two articles. I'm a diplomatic soul at heart :) 4u1e 12:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. But if you're Keke, who does that make me? Diplomatic drivers don't exactly leap to mind :D 4u1e 12:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hardly an honour I feel I can live up to, but I shall do my best ;-) 4u1e 12:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Aston Martin DBR4

Beautiful work. DH85868993 02:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Drat it! 4u1e 11:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Image for PHASE 2

Per your suggestion I uploaded an image that shows a Phase 2 graffiti tag in the bubble letter style. I'm unsure of the copyright status, and the image might get deleted later, though at least it is there for now. If you have any knowledge about image copyrights, fair use, etc. and could help that would be much appreciated. This is the first image I have uploaded and I have little or no understanding of copyright issues at this point. I've posted a question on the media help page so hopefully someone will be able to help out.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, hopefully someone who knows copyright will get back to me, but as you said at least it's in the article now while it's featured on the main page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nifty templates

You mean I spent all that time with a calculator and table of conversions for nothing?! Remarkably handy templates, thanks for adding them. Does the expanded race history do what you wanted? 4u1e 11:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I bet they don't cover bmep psi either - it took me a while to figure out that one! Regarding BT19, it is more comprehensive, but I'd have to say your stuff is rather more engagingly written. I've got a strong tendency to produce overly complex sentences, which I can only partly eliminate by lengthy revision: Me write too long. Bad. :D You've got better pictures too :( I'm not having much luck over at Flickr with that one. 4u1e 11:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds a lot healthier than hanging around here all the time (although given the way the summer turned out, I'm surprised the cars didn't float off before you caught them). If I've not mentioned it before, thanks for the extra Brabham pics, by the way. Re the Lotus 16, is the engine tilted over and skewed from one side to the other? (Rotated about both the, er, X and Y axes?) 4u1e 15:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I must learn to stop trying to find the origins of things. It never stops! The 16 has been suggested as a sort of conceptual ancestor to the Brabham BT55, along with a couple of mid-century Indycars. I suppose that's still the case, but looking at the picture, it's not hugely convincing! 4u1e 15:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As you say, it looks like most of the reduction in height is down to tucking the propshaft alongside the driver. Although even the small tilt does keep the front end cross section to the minimum - there's no wasted space under there! I guess inconvenient things like feet just get stuck in where they fit. The Aston looks like you had to sit almost side saddle to drive it! Modern drivers, don't know they're born. Cue Coulthard's comment about sitting a Williams being like sitting in bath with your feet up. :D 4u1e 16:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 29 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aston Martin DBR4, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

dyk

• ...that an essential component for Hillclimbing cars is named after Patsy Burt who was once said to be a "waste of a beautiful motor car"? by user:Pyrope nom by Victuallers 14:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I bet you did ...

Results tables

Can you help me on the WP talk page? Some anonymous guy has come along saying the new expanded driver tables are no good, he wants to go back to the simple ones, and someone even backed him up. We've spent a lot of time doing them and I am going to go mental if it's all been for nothing... Bretonbanquet 00:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your weight to that. I was oddly traumatised by it... I've noted your comment about rowspanning the engine entries, I'd be glad to know if everyone agrees with you, I have no problem doing it the other way. Bretonbanquet 09:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hyphenation

Morning. Right at the bottom of WP:HYPHEN - last bullet of section 3. Seems fairly unambiguous, although I've never noticed it before. I've just re-worded in a couple of places to avoid it, because it clashes with the templates - you'd need two different Auto templates for each unit (hyphenated and non) to make this work. :( 4u1e 10:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The other thing I've done is to knock one decimal place off the in>mm conversions (by setting the parameter to -1 not 0). My reasoning is that inches are 25.4 times larger than mm, so matching dps is sort of misleading in terms of accuracy. Happy? 4u1e 10:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget you need two versions: A 3-litre (183 cu in) engine was produced after the engine capacity limit was raised to 3 litres (183 cu in). Hmm, interesting - that's why it's sometimes litres. Shrug. 4u1e 10:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

From the MoS: "Many compound adjectives that are hyphenated when used attributively (before the noun they qualify—a light-blue handbag), are not hyphenated when used predicatively (after the noun—the handbag was light blue). Where there would be a loss of clarity, the hyphen may also be used in the predicative case (hand-fed turkeys, “the turkeys were hand-fed”)." Hmm, may be we need some clarification from someone who knows what they're talking about! 4u1e 10:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll try the help desk, I think. I'll let you know when/if I find anything. 4u1e 10:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

See here. That would mean having two versions of the template; one for when the units are being used as adjectives (3-litre engine, 12-inch wheels etc) and one for when they are being used as nouns (the engine capacity was doubled to 3 litres, the size of the rear wing was reduced to 1800 mm etc). Live and learn, as someone no doubt once said. What do you think? 4u1e 12:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 2 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Patsy Burt, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, D_arkF_alls ^talk 08:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

TVM

Phew! All went smoothly in the end - thanks to several people taking the time to pick it apart on the way. Thanks for your contribution. If I can just find a decent (free!) pic of the whole car I'll nom it for the front page as well. It's a while since WPF1 had one up there. Cheers. 4u1e 21:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Hall

Why have you taged this page. I have only just realeased the Edit, You will see that I Have Left the Ref Chapter, ready to Ref the article but you have really jumped the GunStavros1 22:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I Had not Taken it Personel it is just the fact that you Tagged it, I Was interested to Know why you tagged it only 2 mins after I Had Realeased It!Stavros1 22:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I Have to strongly disagree with you! I have researched this article after visiting the hall and sat and wrote the article using my experiances of my visit and from research which included using websites and a book. If you bothered to take the time to read the ref's and there links you will find that they are all rellivant to the article. As for your comments on Peacock wording, I could quiet easly say the same of some of your motor racing contributions which I have taken the time to read and found very interesting. I However will not be so inpolite as to critisie somthing that you oboviusly have a passion and a knoledge off. So pleses treat me the sameStavros1 08:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see my response at your talk page. You most certainly did not write the article yourself, it is shot through with copyvio sentences and paragraphs. Pyrope 10:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I no longer have any interest in communicating with you over this subject. you are welcome to do as you please with this article seen as it bothers you so much. It is editors like you that take the enjoyment out of doing somthing constructive on the web. I Hope Your Move goes well!!!!!212.219.243.179 07:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Violating the copyright of others is not constructive. It is editors like me who maintain the integrity and legality of Wikipedia. If you do not feel that you can also uphold those aims then I seriously question your motivation for contributing. I openly applaud any contribution made with originality and insight. Yours, however, were stolen. Pyrope 13:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have taken it on your self to stalk me I feel that you are trying to intimidate me, I was tempted to place the same tag on some of your work, which of course would only be my opion, but resited the temptation to get into some petty editing war with you, but this seems to be your intention. I have no problem with people putting right erros I have made , But you seem to be following me around like some demented school master I.E. the High kelling article. The Tag you placed on the A149 is only your opion. I Disagree with you. the Article is a fair dicription of this road, one I know and use on a very regular basis and I have resarched the facts that are mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stavros1 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have studyed the history of my Wikipidia activitys you will see that I have made a lot of positive contributions. I have only seemed to have got into some sort of niggly communications with you because of your attitude. As for Hostility to other editors this has happened only once before because I completly disagreed with the editor in question who rather had an attitude like yours.Stavros1 10:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop removing the bot

Do you know what the bot is? Raymond Giggs 08:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry. I could not get your meaning. Now I know what's problem is it. What I wanna to do is to archive the talk page into 250k, sorry for anything. Raymond Giggs 09:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting

Discussions are so much better than trying to start an edit war. violet/riga (t) 09:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Spyker issue

The person that seems to be making all the changes to the Force India name is Shellene. I've left two comments on his/her talkpage, but have no response. Thanks for your intervention. Davnel03 14:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If you can, I think we should also try and keep an eye on 2008 Formula One season as IP's will undoubtedly try and revert our edits. Davnel03 15:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pyrop
Thanks for the InformationStavros1 17:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Melbourne Grandprix

Thanks for stepping in on the Melbourne Grand Prix and Ferrari issue. As its something that keeps on getting repeated I figured it would be there, was quite suprised to find it was not. Added it in, for now. I am sure even the tifosi won't mind it being in there. Oh well, at least this season is over with. Hopefully next season Honda will have a decent car, or the FIA will let Rubens and Jenson simply walk around the track (Should improve the times a bit) Narson 14:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suspect they will start to want to have it on record that the FIA did find them guilty of something (even if no penalty was applied) as this season's saga continues into the winter. I do have to wonder if McLaren arn't appealing purely to make a point to the FIA that they are still going to fight for things (And maybe to unsettle Kimi or as a warning to Alonso about contract disputes) Narson 14:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Mansell's taxi image

Yes that will be fine by Me. Just for your info, I was very lucky to be stood on the right bank at just at the right time to get this shot. it is in an album of photo's that I took that Glorious day, Just a pity the focus was not a little bit sharper, but as i'm sure you know to catch a good photo of one of these cars, even on a parade lap, you have to have a good camera. Its still one my favorite photos though!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stavros1 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:All American Racers logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:All American Racers logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerns addressed and tag removed. Pyrope 12:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Alpine logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Alpine logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerns addressed and tag removed. Pyrope 12:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Alta logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Alta logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerns addressed and tag removed. Pyrope 12:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Kimi

Can you look over Raikkonen's 2007 section? It seems unnecessarily detailed and POV to me (Stuff about Hamilton snatching pole, how Raikkonen dominated the weekend etc along with blow by blow accounts of almost every race of the season. Just want a second opinion to confirm I'm not nuts Narson 11:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter November 2007

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter November 2007
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 04:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

F1 revert

Not only POV, but "McClarren"!!!! <sighs>: 1 for the POV, and 1 for the fact that they don't know how to spell the team name correctly. Nice revert. Mark83 23:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:24hLM

Hi, just to ask, what do you think of changing the template name to a less ambiguous Template:LM as I was in the process of creating one myself until I discovered this. Please let me know what do you think. Willirennen 16:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

F1 season car templates

Good work! DH85868993 06:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Brawn

First Brawn isn't taken back into the Ferrari fold, now Todt gets taken away from the race team, plus the whole incident with Stepney. I wonder if this isn't somewhat of a purge of non-italians from the Ferrari team so it can truely be an Italian team again (rather than one run by the Brits and French). Narson 13:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sadly I think they assume the team is successful and will be regardless, so they can change things. While I am not a Ferrari fan, them as a top team is good for the sport. oh well, these days there are so many front runners. If Honda get back up to form and the other teams keep on improving like they did up to last season we are likely to have McLaren, Renault, Ferrari, BMW Sauber, Williams, Red Bull and Honda competing for podiums. God I hope Honda get back up to form. (Can you tell where my sympathies lie yet? ;) ) Narson 14:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

1948 British Grand Prix

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 1948 British Grand Prix, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: User:Pyrope/Sandbox 1. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 01:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly sorry about that— the bot is supposed to ignore duplicates coming from User space. It's a persistent bug I'm still trying to ferret out; thankfully it happens relatively rarely since it's not often that an article-to-be stays in a sandbox long enough to get spidered by search engines. — Coren ^(talk) 01:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Well, I try my best. Thanks. — Coren ^(talk) 01:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Added: Actually in first place if you look for it in quotes. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 01:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

Ah, the days of 4 channels and little to do as a child on saturday night has alot to answer for, I'm afraid. Narson 16:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

BT20 > BT19

Obsessive, moi? ;-) 4u1e 17:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 17 November, 2007, a fact from the article 1948 British Grand Prix, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Force India logo.jpg

Hello Pyrope!

Do you also have an bigger version of this logo? I would need one for German Wikipedia. If not, I´ll take the small one. ;) Chaddy (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

R.S. Drury

I am as sure as I can be that this article is a hoax. There is no author on Google by the name shown, there is one book called "A Brief Historyy of Alaska" but it is not by Drury, and there is no book on Google entitled "Wow, I Guess I am an Anthropologist". His mother was a whaler and his father, with 4 names, the head os the Seamstresses' Union? This is a joke. Is there any reason why the Speedy tag should not be put back on? Thanks Bielle (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI The article has now been deleted for the second time. So, we aren't mad, after all. :-) Bielle (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the AN/I section you did on the originator. You are having a good day. Have you bought a lottery ticket? It seems like a good time to do it! :-) Bielle (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like your thoughts

Hi Pyrope. I'm proposing some updates to the F1 season summary articles for years when there were non-championship races. I'd appreciate your thoughts on my proposal at my talk page. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter December 2007

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter Decemberr 2007
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 22:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

You got a Christmas card! → → →

Wishing you and yours the very best of the holiday season. May the coming year bring you peace, joy, health and happiness. God bless us, every one! Davnel03 15:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)