Jump to content

User talk:The359/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Darren Turner

Hi there,

I hope I'm doing this right but wikipedia isn't so easy to work out!

I got your note about Darren Turner and CRS Racing's wikipedia pages. I'll just deal with Darren for the minute. I edited his page as it was almost two years out of date and contained lots of errors, including his place of birth. I fully appreciate that I am not impartial as I work for Darren but I made sure the text was biographical, not promotional. My version showed a clear history and a clear description of what Darren is doing right now. From an encyclopaedic (real word?) point of view, my version was correct. Also the photo I uploaded was indeed copyright free.

I appreciate that I need to learn how to format text and add links etc. but I don't stand much of a chance if the updates I make are instantly reverted to the old incorrect information. I'm happy to keep learning and adding to the page but it's pretty soul destroying when your work is reverted.

Please can we go back to the text I added and I will endeavour to do all the additional bits and bobs....

Look forward to hearing from you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsaymorle (talk • contribs) 18:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


Sorry, didn't sign my name! Lindsaymorle (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for CRS Racing

Updated DYK query On September 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article CRS Racing, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

FIA GT?

I've answered the questions you made at my talk. --NaBUru38 (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Campos Meta/Manor F1

lol Eightball (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

On the same topic - the temper line was not aimed at you, but I did not want to appear to be singling anybody out. --Falcadore (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (September)

--Midgrid(talk) 10:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Talk:2010 Formula One season, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. IIIVIX (Talk) 20:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In short, no. My edit inconvenienced nobody, and was reverted by myself. The edit was useful to me and may even prove to be useful somehow to Wikipedians in the future. Your message was basically a waste of time and energy. --86.12.24.209 (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not a matter of inconvenience. It simply did not belong there, and quite frankly it's useful to no one since it's just a copy of the chart already on the article fantasy drivers filled in. Article talk pages are not places for tests, even if you revert them. We also have Wikipedia:Sandbox for a reason. Please use it in the future for all your tests. IIIVIX (Talk) 21:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, no. I removed it. Had I felt it belonged there, I would have left it there. As for it being 'fantasy drivers', I consider it more a series of educated guesses. Please stop wasting my, and your own, time. --86.12.24.209 (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
It does not matter if you removed it, the talk page is NOT a testing ground for fantasy edits. Use Wikipedia:Sandbox. I don't give a damn how much time is being wasted, it doesn't excuse your edits. Take the advice and heed the warning and everything would be over with. IIIVIX (Talk) 22:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Once again, no. Take my advice and stop wasting both yours, and my time with this irrelevant rubbish. And once again, I remind you that it was not so much a "fantasy", but rather a series of educated guesses - are you deliberately trying to provoke me? As for giving a damn - I don't give a damn how many times you attempt to 'warn' me - my response remains the same. I'm sure you do some sterling work on this site. Might I suggest you go and give out warnings to those more deserving of it.. like actual vandals etc. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you do not respond again. --86.12.24.209 (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
If it were irrelevant, you would have read the warning, listened to it, and not started this arguement. And it is a fantasy. I don't even give a crap if it was a real list, because what was on the list is clearly not the point of this discussion. You were the one who claimed it was "helpful" in some fashion, when in fact there is nothing helpful there at all, because it's fantasy.
If your continued attitude is that you can do what you want because you think it was a minor infraction, then you're not likely to last long on Wikipedia. And I'm just fine with having to deal with someone who seems adament to not admit that he's made a minor mistake and will do the correct thing (go to Wikipedia:Sandbox) in the future because that's general policy around here. Because really, your response is completely childish and yes, I would not have a need to respond if this attitude had not been thrown in, and continue to be thrown in. The ball has been in your court the entire time. IIIVIX (Talk) 04:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Once again, it wasn't a fantasy, it was a series of educated guesses. How many times have you to be told, and how many times will you attempt to provoke me with your childish and patronising attitude?
I didn't claim it was helpful. If you could read properly, you would have seen that I claimed it could be useful somehow.
If your continued attitude is that you think you can go around accusing people of 'vandalism' and of claiming to revert edits that you didn't, in fact, revert, then you are not likely to attract many people to Wikipedia. I am just fine with continuing to respond to your petty, wasteful and needless bullying. If you wish to continue wasting your time with your own childish attitude, then I'm happy to deal with you - the ball is in your court. And you started the argument, with your useless accusation. A less anal person would have perhaps noticed the edits, thought "Oh, that's interesting" and just moved on.
It appears though, that you like to indulge in attempting to wind people up. And to what end? Think about it. If you want to continue this discussion, or argument, about a non-disruptive, self-reverted edit to a talk page, then you know what to do. --86.12.24.209 (talk) 09:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The initial warning is a template. See Template:uw-test2. Your test edit was not vandalism but was still a test edit, and the test edit warning template was used. The fact that I did not take the time to write out my own warning rather than use the already created template doesn't change the fact that it was a test edit in the first place, even if it was not vandalism. Hence why I have, repeatedly, told you how to have your little tests properly so that it is not a problem in the future.
Further, if you take warnings that you've done something in an improper manner and advice for how to do things in a proper manner as bullying or as starting an argument, then that's through no fault of my own. You clearly has misinterpreted things. If you think you have been mistreated, then I suggest you take it up with the Administrator's Noticeboard, and they will tell you their view.
Finally, no, the appearance of a fantasy/guesses/whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it driver and team list on 2010 Formula One season is not something which is "interesting" and will simply be moved on from. You are only the latest in a long line of users, especially from an unregistered IP accounts, to have attempted to be helpful/useful/whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it by adding a list of drivers to that specific article either within the chart or in some other fashion, for kicks and giggles or based simply on their belief that they are correct, only for it to have to be reverted every time. And it is certainly not limited to 2010 Formula One season, because it is something that has occurred in every previous season article as the years have progressed. So you were warned just like every other random IP address who attempts to add their driver and team lists to the Formula One articles. And the preset warning template was used solely based on the fact that most of the random unregistered IP users who do this don't tend to come back.
I'd also suggest not throwing around the terms irrelevant and anal while at the same time debating the meanings of the words useful and helpful. IIIVIX (Talk) 10:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
My "little test" could easily have turned into discussion, had I wished it to. The fact is that I decided against it and reverted my edit.
Once again, it was not "fantasy" - that is not what I wish to call it because that is not what it was. Had I wished to indulge in fantasy then a) I wouldn't have edited a talk page or probably any page on Wikipedia and b) I would most likely have included past drivers and deceased drivers. I am not a part of a group of people conspiring against you personally and I didn't edit the article itself. Nor did I add the speculative table to the talk page for giggles or because I believed I was correct. Again - I reverted the edit myself. As for it being of interest, that is something which is subjective. You are, of course, entitled to your wrong opinion.
You continue to debate this non-issue when you could be getting on with other tasks and with actual vandalism and well-intentioned but incorrect edits. My edit could yet prove useful to someone for any number of reasons not even imagined. However, I never claimed my edit was useful (or helpful) to anyone. I merely speculated that it could prove to be. So I'm quite clear on the meanings of the words anal and irrelevant as well as the words useful and helpful, and the word bureaucracy.
Had I left the edit intact on the talk page, without some kind of explanatory introduction for a discussion, then I could certainly understand your taking the time to leave a warning template here. The fact is though, I didn't. I reverted. It was unnecessary and overly bureaucratic to leave a template after the fact. --86.12.24.209 (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow, what discussion would you have turned it into? "Hey, I'm pretty sure these guys will be driving for these teams next year." To which the response would have been "Good for you, but there's no sources, so it's not much use to Wikipedia." And if by discussion you mean editors offering their opinions of your educated guesses, well that's not what an article talk page is for either, Wikipedia is not a forum. But hey, you're so certain that something good could come of it, so why not show what elusive discussion would have developed. Feel free to post what your full thought out idea would have been at WikiProject Talk:Formula One.
No one's stated anything about a conspiracy, least of all against myself. 2010 Formula One season, just like every other "Next season" article on Wikipedia, is heavily abused by random IP users who want to put every rumor they want onto the page as well as use it for some fantasy needs. Whether or not you edited the actual article does not ignore the fact that you followed the trend set by numerous other random IP users who have been using the pages in the incorrect way. And the fact that you removed your list does not negate the fact that you used a talk page for a test edit, which is why you were given the warning about test edits in the first place. A vandal who reverts his vandalism is still a vandal, the edits are still on record and still viewable. So a test edit is still a test edit even if you reverted it. And if a vandal claimed his vandalism "might be useful in some way not yet imagined", he clearly would get nowhere with that concept, because it's an utter joke, so what makes you think your test edit of guesses is any different?
I continue to debate this issue because you had a little tantrum when you were legitimately given a warning for something you had done incorrectly. Simply attempting to pass fault off for your inability to accept your error or by claiming that you did not deserve it is not going to work. And how I want to divide up my time on Wikipedia is not only of no concern to you, but is of no concern to this discussion. IIIVIX (Talk) 03:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


I fail to see what continued discussion is going to achieve. As for how discussion on the talk page in question could have progressed, what's the point in speculating? The fact is that I decided against carrying on a discussion and reverted my edit, as I've now reminded you several times.
As for what a talk page is for, discussion about an article is relevant and guidelines are merely that: guidelines.
Once again, I never said I was "certain" that "something good could come of it", I merely suggested that something useful could have stemmed from it. You apparently have trouble with comprehension skills.
As for your continuation of discussion regarding my statement about a conspiracy, again, you seem to have a problem with comprehension. You basically lumped me in with other editors who have either vandalised the article, or added non-encyclopaedic or un-cited information to it, and spilled your "woe is me" speech. I didn't "follow a trend", as I acted independently. Also, once again, my edit had nothing to do with "fantasy", which is a word you seem particularly fond of. I created the table from educated guesses.
As for your rationale behind your attempt at warning, again I must point out that common sense is a useful thing. Pointing out things after they have been fixed is often quite pointless, other than as an exercise in power. If that's your bag though, then have at it, by all means.
I don't recall any "tantrum" having been had. Certainly not by myself, despite your provocative language of which this is just the latest example. If you feel you must complain in some way about this, by taking it further along the bureaucratic route and therefore wasting more time, then feel free. How you divide up your time in Wikipedia is of concern to me when it does concern me. I would again advise you not to continue to waste your time, or mine, on this matter, and cease this pointless discussion. --86.12.24.209 (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
An edit to a talk page under the heading of "test" with absolutely no text and a simple copy and paste of a chart already on our article with guessed drivers filled in is not a prelude to discussion. It is clearly a test edit. Who reverted it carries zero weight on whether or not it was a test edit. The talk page is not a discussion forum for educated guesses, it is for the improvement or correction of the article, of which you offered neither, and whether or not you were or were not planning to in the future mattered little at the time of the warning.
Since the article talk page is not the proper place for test edits, you were given a warning to not do it again, and a suggestion of where to properly post test edits (WP:SANDBOX). Whether you like this warning matters little, you did something you were not supposed and were warned not to do it again. I do not think you will find anyone who will argue against the fact that you did something you were not supposed to do.
The warning is further justified by the fact that your edit is yet another in a long line of edits to this article and other articles to put guesses and fantasies into the article. Such to the point that 2010 Formula One season was semi-protected a week prior to your edits, and is in fact still semi-protected, in order to prevent IP users such as yourself from continuing to add these fantasies and guesses. I cannot help but guess that you were forced to move your test to the talk page solely because you were blocked from editing the article itself due to semi-protection.
If you have a problem with being warned for creating a test edit in an improper place and instructed where to proper place such edits, then please take it up with the Administrators Noticeboard. Any other complaint is moot. IIIVIX (Talk) 22:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe how much time and energy you are wasting on this non-issue! Let's see what ways you've attempted to provoke me now...

It's clearly a test edit, you say. And that is indeed how I labelled it in the edit comment. As for improvement of the article, as I said - my edit, which I subsequently reverted, may well prove useful.

Whether you accept common sense or not matters little to you obviously.

The fact that other people have made "a long line of edits" to the article is not relevant to my edit of the article's talk page. I was not involved in a conspiracy against you. Again, the protection of the article is irrelevant to my edit of the article's talk page. If you like, you can suggest to an admin that the talk page should be protected. It's hardly necessary of course, but if you feel you want to go by the letter of the law as such, then feel free.

Once again, my edit had nothing to do with fantasy. How many times do you have to be told?

As for your guess about my editing the talk page instead of the article, you are completely out. Here's why: I didn't contemplate editing the article. Instead, I headed straight to the talk page. I can't even remember if the article was protected at the time or not, however, I do recall reading the hidden text suggesting that people not change the table in information without a reliable source citation. Even besides that, common sense suggested to me that editing the article with mere guesses would not have been encyclopaedic. It's a shame that you are making these assumptions.

Your continued discussion and condescension is moot. I've asked you once before, I believe, to stop. --86.12.24.209 (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You made a test edit, you were warned for a test edit. Your postulations and excuses and "what might have beens" has done absolutely nothing to address the fact that you did something you weren't supposed to, and that your edit did not carry the slightest hint of being of any use or of starting any discussion. The fact that it was on the talk page and not the article itself is wholly irrelevant as well, since this is hardly the first time these sort of things have not taken place specifically on the 2010 Formula One season article. Any other irrational concepts of conspiracies or your so called common sense or beauracracy or anything against, for, or even involving me is moot to the fact that you were warned for doing something you shouldn't have. Accept that you did you something you shouldn't have, and move on.
If you cannot grasp these concepts, then I have no problem having to attempt to continue to explain them to you, but your silly arguing for the sake of arguing has really dragged on much too long. IIIVIX (Talk) 01:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
As I said - I reverted my test edit, and your warning was nothing more than an exercise in bureaucracy. Your postulations about vandalism and who has done what has done absolutely nothing to address the fact that your 'warning' was a needless waste of time, as is your continued discussion.
It is not my irrational concept of conspiracy, but your own, by the way.
Your continued useless attempts at continued argument just for argument's sake, despite my asking you to desist, really has dragged on much too long.
Accept that this is a useless and wasteful exercise, and move on. --86.12.24.209 (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Reverting your test edit does not negate that it was a test edit. What you think of my warning for your admitted test edit is moot, it's not your decision. You can think it's the most beaucratic motion in the world, it doesn't matter, accept that you were warned for something you shouldn't have done and move on. If it were a waste of time I wouldn't have given you a warning in the first place. I certainly did not feel it was a waste of time and I'm sure others would feel the same.
I don't recall ever putting forward a conspiracy in the slightest. You wanted explanation for your warning, you were told why you were warned for not only your test edit, but your test edit to that particular article. And I don't think someone who resurrects this over two weeks later has any room to be discussing "arguments just for argument's sake" or "dragging on much too long." The359 (Talk) 21:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
And here you are again, ignoring my wish that you cease and desist from this useless exercise and repeating yourself ad nauseam.
What you feel (and what you think others may feel) doesn't matter. The fact is that your continued pursuit of this non-argument is, like your initial 'warning', a colossal waste of time.
With regard the conspiracy theory, I suggested that you considered there to be a conspiracy of vandals.
As for "resurrecting", you left a message on this user page and I am responding in kind. When I choose to do it is of no relevance.
Once more for the record: please stop leaving me messages about this drivel. Thank you. --86.12.24.209 (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Block a User

Hi The359, i am not here to blame you for something, but can you teach me how to block a user? (No offence) Please Reply me back at my talk page.Blazenature 06:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Judging by the amount of vandalism reverting you seem to be doing at the moment, you might be interested in the rollback feature, which can be requested here. I use it fairly often to revert the crap that gets put on so many F1 pages, and it's especially useful when that crap is added over multiple edits. I'm looking forward to the off-season if it means there will be less vandalism (although with the driver market the way it is...) Apterygial 07:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous IP vandalism

Can you prevent the vandalism by User:202.164.150.2 Special:Contributions/202.164.150.2 ? Axxn (talk) 08:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h for disruption. Nja247 08:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 Formula One Season 'vandalism'

Sorry for the confusion. As I was viewing the article, someone had very recently, in fact, was in the process of changing all the 'Hungary' flags to the flag of Hungary circa 1940-45. No idea why, so I went through and changed them back. If anything, I was undoing the vandalism. 62.172.74.16 (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I plan on signing up to this properly soon. I'm a big fan of all Wikipedia's motorsport pages. I had considered making some driver helmet designs for the pages. it's one glaring omission I feel that driver pages need. 62.172.74.16 (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

2009 Formula One Season graphs

I think its pretty arrogant of you to undo my contributions. Although technically you are right that the graphs are redundant in that they do not add any original information but they present the existing information in a far superior format for human digestion. The graphs give a good summery of the progression of the season showing when drivers/teams had good and bad runs as well as showing the championship 'chase' during the season. This kind of information would be extremely difficult or even impossible for a human to see from the existing tables and in that sense I believe they add to the article. But anyway I'll leave it up to the 'experts'. --F1Graphs (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Maserati MC12 Corsa

Hi, I've been inactive for the past year but in June you asked what I thought about Maserati MC12 Corsa. It contains no info that isn't in the parent Maserati MC12 article and the section in MC12 isn't bloated so I don't see the need for a separate article. I think changing it back to a redirect is fine. James086Talk | Email 17:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (October)

– Cs-wolves(talk) 15:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 day for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Mjroots (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|I can understand warnings for edit warring and 3RR and such but to me a block, even for 24 hours, seems a bit excessive for something like this, especially when both were involved in a discussion (granted, not on the 2009 Formula One season talk page, but rather Talk:2010 Formula One season). My intent was to revert what seemed more like a "proof of concept" test edit to another article in order to promote his opinion in discussion, rather than a constructive edit to the article, which is why my first edit summary stated that this was something that was still under discussion and had not been approved by consensus. I certainly had no intention of continuing to revert and had begun to take things back to the discussion page after my 3rd revert. Which makes me think that a warning that yeah, I was getting close to a 4th revert and that discussion was needed would have easily sufficed. I'm also slightly confused as to why this was brought to WP:ANI only after the blocks? I'm not really contesting the fact that I did something wrong, I'm just contesting that I think the block is a bit heavy handed for this incident.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I believe that the block has served its purpose, and that the offence will not be repeated in future.

Request handled by: Mjroots (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

The 24h block was within policy and suggested in the guide for admins at WP:3rr. I don't like having to block productive editors, but I couldn't block one side without blocking the other. I appreciate that there was discussion going on, but it was not obvious that this was occurring as it was being held at a different talk page to the article being warred over. I posted the ANI report because I wasn't 100% sure that the block length was right, and am open to suggestions from other admins and editors over any administrative action I take. If consensus was that the block was wrong, or too long, then I would have taken that into consideration. The general feeling expressed was that the block was correct, and that it should be left to expire naturally. As you have requested an unblock, I've unblocked you a little before the block expired. I do not believe you will get involved in another edit war, and hope that you will remember that you don't have to do everything yourself, especially in a case where the overwhelming consensus is for your view. There are other editors about who can deal with repeated re-insertion of material that has no consensus, and there's always ANI as a venue to flag up a problem. I hope that you can put this episode behind you and look forward to your positive contributions to Wikipeda. Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
OK I'm putting my hands up here to not checking your contribs or OMrX's either. As a rule, I do not watch articles (except for a select few), and therefore I do not watch talk pages either. My method of keeping track of changes to articles I'm interested in is via my articles sub-page. On my user page there is a samll table headed "See here for" If you click on the words "or worked upon" you will see how I track changes to the 2,000+ articles I've been involved with.
That said, if I had checked your contributions and discovered the discussion on the 2010 season article, I may still have ended up blocking the pair of you for edit warring. I'm still learning the ropes admin-wise, and in future I will check the contributions of editors involved in an edit war before taking any administrative action. Mjroots (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, The359. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. As you are blocked, you may comment here and your comments may then be copied over the ANI. Mjroots (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (November)

– Cs-wolves(talk) 23:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Le Mans Intercontinental Cup

So I was right... or did I just get lucky this time? :) Good news for us, anyway. See you! --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Lotus

Do you think that its a rumour that Trulli and Kovalainen are going to Lotus?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.90.110 (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please Stop Using my Page for Fun

I do not know what you are doing User:The359, but quit using my talk page to rack up your # of edits. I'm assuming that is what you are doing, but if you want to do that by yourself. Visit User:MDesjardinss/Sandbox Thank you.(MDesjardinss (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

The above user is obviously a sockpuppet/troll account as it has participated in various hoaxes and has filed several false vandalism reports, despite just being created yesterday and has already made several hundred edits. It participated in a hoax on the George Michael page by using an article about the 70 year old sportscaster to claim that the 46 singer had died. I gave him a vandalism warning and he claimed that he was actually removing my vandalism. If you have a guess at who owns the sockpuppet, I suggest you report it to the Wikipedia admins. 68.45.109.136 (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Socks

Please explain this edit. Materialscientist (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw your SPI application and agree that the user behaves really odd, but, if I were you, I would collect a better factual evidence (diffs rather than gut feeling) and make a stronger SPI case. Tagging a user page (+ copy/pasting a note by an admin) doesn't help your case, perhaps otherwise. You linked two users separated by more than a year gap .. Materialscientist (talk) 04:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you're right and the case is obvious enough. My comment was of the sort "being accurate only helps SPI". Happy editing. Materialscientist (talk) 05:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes and I apologized for my mistake on giving him the warnings. Removal of content without a reason constitutes vandalism. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. Thank you, but my name is Mike and I want you to call me Mike, not this Zaxby stuff, do you comprehend?(MDesjardinss (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

A better way to handle things

Your edit here was not very helpful. A better way to have handled it would have been to add the reference. Given that the syntax was not well written either, I rewrote it as well. --However whatever (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (December)

– Cs-wolves(talk) 10:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

THE FERRARI CHASSIS IS NOT CALLED THE 281

The headline says it all —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brody59 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (January)

--Midgrid(talk) 19:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIA GT1 World Championship season

No immediate comments, although here's a link for content announcing the format of the Surfers Paradise street race weekend for 2010 with no mention of GTs [5]. --Falcadore (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (February)

– Cs-wolves(talk) 18:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thought I'd better ask...

As you know, there already is an ALMS drivers category. Is there a plan to do a similar listing for the pan-European series? I just thought that I could spend some time going through that to save you some time in the long-run. Yes, I had to ask to make sure! Ha. Regards. Cs-wolves(talk) 20:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, neither you did. My apologies. I just wanted to get some thoughts about it, in case another user thought it was a bad idea, putting up for CfD, etc. OK, cheers. Cs-wolves(talk) 20:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GT1WorldChampionshipLogo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:GT1WorldChampionshipLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.
  • If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No

There is an entry list with a name on it. Done. Eightball (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

NASCAR Spoiler image?

I know we're flickr friends and I saw that you took pictures at Daytona. Did you happen to photograph NASCAR's new spoiler when you were there? Someone asked me on my talk page to upload a picture of the new spoiler. You could respond on my talk page in that section if you'd like. Royalbroil 00:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hexis Racing

Updated DYK query On March 24, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hexis Racing, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Cirt (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I have tried to insert a logo of Matra company in Matra article but I do not know how to insert pictures into wiki articles. Could you help me and make article about Matra better ? Thank you. The logo may comes from web pages: http://auta5p.eu/katalog/matra/matra.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.40.240.88 (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (March)

– Cs-wolves(talk) 12:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

User behaviour

Thanks for helping to clear this up, but you may like to see his edits on the deletion nomination that he has started (while failing to notify the project discussion). He is clearly still turning this into an attack on me I'm afraid. It's not that I want you to sort out my problems, just that you might want to know more about his behaviour. Thanks - mspete93 16:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Your behavior, motorsportpete93, is a striking example of paranoia. I think all in project understood that article will be deleted, but i notified the project discussion. And please stop slandering. Cybervoron (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (April)

– Cs-wolves(talk) 19:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

BMS Scuderia Italia's 2010 Le Mans line-up

I noticed your note on the edit history of the LM2010 page; in short, the teams can replace their nominated driver, but that driver is not allowed to drive for any other entry in the race. Or, if teams have two entries, they can swap designated drivers between them. 188.24.90.40 (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (May)

– Cs-wolves(talk) 16:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (June)

– Cs-wolves(talk) 17:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The359/Archive_6&oldid=1136134902"