User:Bretonbanquet/Talk Archive 3

For previous episodes of Talk Page hilarity, see User:Bretonbanquet/Talk Archive / 2

Karun Chandhok
Hi Bretonbanquet, the article at Grande Prêmio says José Carabante himself confirmed Chandhok has been signed to Campos. The site qualifies as a reliable source and is reporting the news coming not from "a source" but from the team boss himself. This, in my opinion, is confirmation enough to warrant inclusion in the article. X X X antiuser eh? 21:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Peter Green page
Hello Bretonbanquet, I take your point about headings a per WP Layout. However, this page is not in my opinion, a long one and the way it is written is chronologically sound. As you have mentioned Green's life, as written in WP, has had three distinct phases. These are clear in the unheaded text.

I have a big issue with this heading thing of WPs, as they want text to be encyclopedic but headings often make the text look very "Upper sixth" school level and not of high reference caliber. Secondly if an article is well or reasonably well written, then chronology should be apparent and can be broken up with quotes and images. Green's page could do with a few images and this would make the page more approchable to younger and less sophisticated readers.

In my experience of WP headings, they encourage lazy writting and lumpy prose NOT in chronologial order. WP guide lines are usually flexible and I am not trying to create "a new way" beyond them. It is important that we all try to keep the layout encyclopedic.

Incidentally the entry for London in WP is London, this should surely be linked as London not "County of London|London"?

Best wishes--Tunebroker (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I think that wiki links, such as for London, should refer to the latest WP page reflecting the subject. Hopefully our discussion is in the spirit og Wikipedia and will also help forward the credibility of WP rock muisc articles. I will be interested to read the Peter Green page when there has been more information added.

Wishing you happy editing, all good wishes and maybe we will have another interesting interaction in the future! --Tunebroker (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nivram


The article Nivram has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Article about an unnotable tribute band, searches fail to turn up the significant coverage required. Only reference given is that of their agents.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Nivram
I have nominated Nivram, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Nivram. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

2010 result tables
Nice to see someone with so much enthusiasm to enter the tables. ;) Cs-wolves  (talk)  13:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Too true. No wonder with all the IP edits that occur and baffle beyond belief! Cs-wolves  (talk)  13:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, we all make mistakes. Even the experienced users like us two! At least they don't bother so much with the GP2 ones, which I can do pretty freely! Haha, no problem. Likewise for sorting the car name on Senna and Chandhok...I completely forgot about the split! Cs-wolves  (talk)  13:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to keep my pre-season rustiness on the current sports portal! No way I want to see all those errors on the season pages/driver pages. Haha! Cs-wolves  (talk)  14:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"Need Your Love So Bad"
To answer your question, I altered the songwriting credit where I found it to be in error (not just on Fleetwood Mac based articles). Perhaps that was a little hasty, but it also seems daft to me to perpetuate the error. Actually, I have little doubt, unless this is handled consistently throughout, there are likely to be editing wars a-plenty.

Blimey, another can of worms !?!

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of rare AC/DC songs
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of rare AC/DC songs. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of rare AC/DC songs. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Isthmian League - congrats
You're doing a great job keeping the Isthmian League up to date. You probably deserve some kind of award, but you'll have to make do with my thanks. Ranmore (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Need Your Love So Bad
Before all this editing gets completely out of hand, could you have a look at the message I've left at User talk:Tunebroker. This is now a four-way conversation - you, me, Derek, Tunebroker - plus, recognising the discussion at WT:SONGS, and the fact that the article is in the queue for WP:DYK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Subject to the couple of tweaks I've made (BMI is not a record label), I'm OK with your last version. But it would be a shame if Derek loses a WP:DYK credit, either because the article is now too short, or because the info on Mertis John necessary to his hook has been taken out. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

DNS

 * Hi i am sorry last year there was talk about being taken out i guessd it was sorry.--WrcF1(Talk) 08:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Alex Chilton
Unless you have the citation to back up the claim, do not re-add unsourced material.-- F-22 Raptör Aces High ♠ 20:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
F-22 Raptör Aces High ♠ 20:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Weymouth relegation
Thanks for correcting me, I was thinking of five games to play rather than three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifore2010 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Felipe Massa
The page has now been semi protected, so that should hold him at bay. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Scott Gorham
Actually, I am not 100% about that very thing. (BTW are you considering any of the Thin Lizzy articles- or god save us-- cleaning up Scott Gorham's article in particular?) The reason I switched Scott over to solo singer is because he A) Provided backing vocals on nearly every Thin Lizzy song he played on, and because B) With the re-emergence of Thin Lizzy with him as (sort of) a frontman, Scott has begun singing some of the songs Phil Lynott wrote- sometimes with Gorham as well. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm 100% in favour of any decision you might find. I was just.. stunned.. to find a guitarist of Scott's caliber overlooked. He's not the only one, obviously. I discovered the Rory Gallagher article to be little more than urban myths, guitar info, and trivia- truly hadn't really been touched with any real effort since 2005; most North Americans who are young have no idea who he, or Phil Lynnott were, and yet, they are on the stamps of Ireland! I've been adding some to his piece, but there's so much involved, with a half-dozen other articles I also edit as well as looking for photographs for musician's biographies. Thanks for your help and interest! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Travesty isn't even the word!
I'd LOVE your help with Rory Gallagher, Phil Lynott, and the Thin Lizzy band and individuals' pages! After seeing your Fleetwood Mac discography, I'd like to 'beg you to assist with help organizing the Gallagher separate discography and album pages. PRETTY PLEASE? Album pages also would help!! Two kind editors created that separate Discography article although you can see where it still needs help:
 * Live albums
 * DVDs, (including a movie length DVD)- Irish Tour, performances at Rockpalast and the The Old Grey Whistle Stop,
 * collaborations like with Muddy Waters- if only I knew where to look to research such album pages it would really help both Gallagher AND Muddy Waters' discographies! Also, I hate trying to sort out
 * posthumous compilation albums, but in his case, they're important since Rory died with a ton of stuff only now released & remastered by his brother Donal Gallagher (his manager). I have found a few editors willing to help *some*. The separate Discography page was a real blessing from two people. If you are inclined, with album pages, I left sources to use next to his solo albums on the main article page. My personal strength is in writing, copyediting, and I actually recruit copyrighted photos from pro-photographers -check my Userpage for the list of nearly 350-400 pics I've uploaded and placed after finding so few on the musicians's bio pages.

Help out?
If you might help with Rory Gallagher, I'll look for Thin Lizzy photos and try to expand the text and reference to Phil Lynott specifically, as well as the others. I just ask that with Gallagher, please leave the quotes left on Rory's article. I have plans to integrate them and they are sourced. In fact, someone put an "external link" that has all kinds of Guitar World and Melody Maker and similar publications while Rory was alive to be used for the article with reference info on it thank God, and I've got two You Tube playlists full of Gallagher video and radio interviews as well as his brother's email address to clarify things. There's a book by Gerry McAvoy, his bassist and closest friend, 35 Years of Riding Shotgun with Rory Gallagher that would help too. Last, my computer is having trouble connecting online and I may be off the internet for the next couple of days till I know what the problem is. I can't connect at all! But please do not let that stop you-- I'll catch up! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't know how glad I am that you understand what's needed on the record album articles- rankings, information, etc! I haven't done album page work in three years here! Your suggested sources are what I had in mind. Several of Rory's albums don't have pages, esp. Wheels Within Wheels, and some of his work when he was in the band, Taste. When he went solo, he had two different drummers, neither of which are in the Wikipedia yet; but his bass guitarist was Gerry McAvoy, and he often played with Mark Feltham (harmonica)--both of whom play with Nine Below Zero now. Their articles are puny, but there, and I put photos on them. For the album pages, many of the songs Gallagher covered were by Delta blues and Chicago blues players like Willie Dixon, Louisiana Red (he sings "Ride on Red" by him) and Muddy Waters (who'd be credited as McKinley Morganfield), B.B. King, Buddy Guy, Blind Boy Fuller, and some others. If you like, my You Tube account username is "4rainbowed". Here are a couple video accounts of Gallagher:  (Part I and II of "From a Whisper to a Scream: The Rory Gallagher Story". Here: My Rory playlist of interviews and biography mostly I have on video:  This one has a reference to him not wanting 45 rpm singles, and also his being sought by The Rolling Stones to replace Mick Taylor, as well as this one:  Also, there's a bunch of sources I put on his talk page. Hopefully, I'll be able to sneak in and get some work done later, and my computer will be fixed this week? Thanks again for helping with this! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-league relegation pool
You're right, the lack of a source is a problem at the moment. You can be sure though that as soon as I find something I'll update all three articles. May I also take this opportunity to congratulate you on your fantastically diligent work in updating these tables! Woolwich (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the note. Yep it looks like a persistent edit warrior. I will help in the limited ways that I can. I may not be online for much longer though as I have somewhere to head to. Thanks again and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 19:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whew. You've probably already seen that Nawlinswiki has blocked our problem editor. I was trying to put a three revert warning on its page but the block got doen before I could finish. It is always nice when problems get taken care of so quickly. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday. MarnetteD | Talk 19:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just saw your user page and I am glad to meet someone else that likes F1. I've been watching since the races first started being shown live here in the US in the early 80's. In that time I have enjoyed getting up early to see the races. But I gotta tell ya - being able to DVR the race and watch it later is a good thing for my old body. Cheers again MarnetteD | Talk 19:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion on Candian GP requested
Hi, I've noted before that your an experienced user. And that you've been pretty helpful to me. Even though during my early days I hardly discussed edited and then attempted to defend. Anyway I'm havnig a bit of an issue with the Candian GP. A person called Falcadore is undoing the year by year results in which I show 2009 as not held. When I undid his edit I wrote "Is it wrong to give information" and he replied "Yes!". I just got confused and annoyed. But I'd like to know you're opinion and whether you think my argument of displaying at the 2009 year by year column not held is good. He claims that it shouldn't be there because it should come one after the 2010 race. That doesn't make any sense! Yours sincerely (Wiki id2 (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC))

2010 Formula One season
Thanks for sorting it out. I did a revert in Huggle, then saw the references, and rolled it back to have a better look - huggle then crashed (as it sometimes does on a rolling back a revert), and as the page is so big it took a while to load up again, and you had sorted it.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Groove metal
I have no personal issues with the term "groove metal", the issue is notability. If only last.fm writes about something, well then frankly it isn't notable. RG (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ouch. Rough criticism, though some I admit was deserved. Getting back to the subject at hand if no one writes about a subject then how is it notable? (You don't have to continue writing back, if you want want to. I don't wish to bore you by dragging this out for days.) RG (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on sources, saying you want to keep an article just because fans want to believe in something isn't a valid argument. Even if "groove metal" is real that doesn't mean we should keep it's article when it clearly fails notability. Wikipedia isn't about truth, it's about verifiability. Regardless, have a nice night (or whatever time it is on your side of the pond.) RG (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Candian GP Discussion
Hi, I'd like to tell you that a discussion on the Candian GP has re-opened about the not held row. Your participation will be welcome. Please spread the message to fellow wikipedians ( Wiki id2  (talk)  18:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC))

Formula one categories
I blocked 217.123.215.92 temporarily because of the lack of communication. I haven't gone and reverted all of the edits because I don't know the subject. I was thinking that perhaps the IP was removing the categories from articles that they didn't belong on. Is there some special criteria that makes one a Formula One driver? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Newman/Haas Racing
Hello Bretonbanquet. Are you able to move the article Newman/Haas/Laningan Racing (and its history) to Newman/Haas Racing. I tried it, but it does not work. I am a User from the German Wikipedia, so I does not know, how to move articles in this Wikipedia. --Gamma127 (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your efforts. --Gamma127 (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thin Lizzy and Irish bands
I found a great source for a LOT of Irish bands' photographs, thankfully finding one recent one of Brian Downey, and I already placed one photo from another source on the Thin Lizzy band page halfway down. Are you aware of the documentary about Phil Lynott named Renegade? You can find it here: -that's part 1 of 5 parts beginning with interviews from 1967 when Phil joined the Black Eagles in school. You can find the other 4 parts because it's all on one guy's channel in You Tube. I have some other good references both for Thin Lizzy ("TL") and two playlists of interviews for the Rory Gallagher article too. My username on You Tube is 4rainbowed-- you can find them alphabetized. What's yours? Probably it's best to focus on Gallagher, Lynott, and the Thin Lizzy band page first since they get more hits before too much on the individual band member's articles, however, in the Community portal, there are increasing numbers of editors now willing to just remove BLP articles without enough referencing, so that's urgent, (esp. for Scott Gorham) and obviously still some stuff should be added to Brian Robertson, Gary Moore, etc. Also the same is true regarding trivia-- so it needs to be merged on the Gallagher article swiftly. I'm going to make up a list of editors willing to work on Rory's article- I think 5 for sure. Let's kick some ass and see these articles improved for good!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sauber this year
"FYI, we are still showing the team as BMW Sauber, as that is what they are called, regardless of the lack of input from BMW. Links should direct to Sauber, but show as BMW Sauber until the team name is changed. This should either be achieved by BMW Sauber or BMW Sauber." – FYI, no, it should not. For 2010 it should only link to Sauber. For 2006-2009, there is at present a discussion going on at the project talk page. If you have any ideas about it, I suggest you make an input there. John Anderson  (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I read what you write, and I don't agree. As far as I recall, there was a consensus on the project talk page in January or so to write it as Sauber this year when giving it a short form. Again: please take it up at the project talk page if you want to discuss this principle. John Anderson   (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We all know the formal name of the team is BMW Sauber-Ferrari, but that is not what is under discussion here so you don't have to give any sources for this. The question is how Wikipedia should show the information. I don't think we should continue this discussion just between us, again I urge you to take your idea up at the project talk page. Please. John Anderson   (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course we have a choice, and of course the question is about how to display the name. The link is still the same. Wikipedia is not obliged to follow any ruling by FIA, if that is what you mean. John Anderson   (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Who says anything about changing the team's name? I'm sorry, but you are starting to sound ridiculus. The question is not about the formal name of the team but about what short form of it we use in our lists. John Anderson   (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * How come the links in the articles on Pedro de la Rosa and Kamui Kobayashi says Sauber and not BMW Sauber? How come you don't want to discuss the subject in a wider range of people, which I have asked you to do? John Anderson   (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, at the project talk page; I thought I had already said that. I can't see anyone has opposed my suggestion of short form for BMW Sauber at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Formula One from 16:30, 7 March. I don't know if you will agree that's a consensus, but at least noone has opposed it (until today). John Anderson   (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If noone opposes a serious suggestion, it can be seen as a form of consenus. Come on, where's the consensus for your view then? John Anderson   (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So you started a discussion yesterday, got support in some hours from a number of people, and then you think the matter is closed? Give people some time, will you? I don't have time right now, I'll come back to this, perhaps in a couple of days. I think you shouldn't really revert the changes just based on some hours of discussing your idea. John Anderson   (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not urged you to build a consensus, but I have asked you to show me the consensus which you think exists. John Anderson   (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I still kindly ask you to show me that previous consensus. Don't hide behind the term status quo when you can't find it. John Anderson   (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "A discussion to build consensus is only required when there's a disagreement about something", you say. I agree, but you did not seem to be of this opinion when we discussed this the other day. It's nice to see that you have come to this conclussion now, in stead of just saying things should be as they always were. I didn't ask you before, but I suppose you don't agree with Wikipedia's boldness princliple either. John Anderson   (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * But there was a consensus. That's at least how I interpreted it, can't you get that into your head? And if there is a consensus, it's the one who are reverting away from that consensus who is on the way to an edit war. In this case, you. John Anderson   (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you could not know there was no consensus, since you asked me about it. You may have concluded it later, but don't tell me you knew it from the start. Many people took part in the specific thread where I made my sugestion and if noone opposes a publicly made proposition, can't they be said to agree to it? Qui tacet consentire videtur. However, I believe you are trying to be civil about this too, even if you seem to have a hard time showing it. I'll leave the matter now. Peace. John Anderson   (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Phil Lynott/Thin Lizzy/Rory
I agree with you; I think that, while Thin Lizzy's bandmembers are really important-- I mean, the classic lineup to me, is the Lynott-Downey-Robertson-Gorham, and Bad Reputation. However, each person was fundamental, especially Gary Moore, Brian Robertson, John Sykes, Scott Gorham. With that all said, though, here's MY proposal


 * I think that the top priority should go to both Phil Lynott and Rory Gallagher
 * Because of their songwriting, showmanship, charisma, and position as frontman of their bands.
 * Also, both had obstacles to overcome early on and both again, died and it was a shock to all.
 * Then, along with them the primary band article for Thin Lizzy should have more priority than the bandmates. Don't you agree? AND at the same time, Rory Gallagher's band had only a few primary members (most of the time). They were legends in their own time, especially in war-torn Belfast. Only U2 and Van Morrison have gained as much fame as they did as Irish rockers.
 * Now, here's Part 1 of another great documentary from VH-1 It is part one of Thin Lizzy, Behind the Music. Enjoyable listening, and the first of (I think) 6 parts which you can find there next to this part 1. I know of two more Lizzy documentaries on You Tube, which are really good, especially for the Phil Lynott article! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Snowy White
So - why do we have Goldtop: Groups & Sessions '74–'94 in the discography, and Goldtop in the text ? A minor point, and I will not fail to fall to sleep tonight over this - but there is surely a need for consistency; whatever the seemingly 'preferred' naming.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Old Truronians
Hi,

Just letting you know I've finally got round to sorting, referencing and moving the Truro School alumni into List of Old Truronians. I've used the Truro School Reunited site for a lot of the dates and cited it in the normal way, but it does require the registration (presumably you have, or could get, access). Unfortunately, many of the links are clicking through as errors, but I can't find a way around that at the moment. Hopefully it doesn't matter too much.

Best wishes,

&mdash;User:MDCollins (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

2010-11 Northern Premier League
I should have known most of the info would be "Wikipediad" within hours. Good work on the new season article; I'm a happy Burscough fan knowing I'll not to have travel too far this season ;) doktorb wordsdeeds 09:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Organizing and enlisting help
Hi, I thought I'd contact the people who may be willing to edit/contribute to the Thin Lizzy articles, and the ones for Rory Gallagher and Phil Lynott. These are the people who have shown interest that I've thought might be involved, including yourself:
 * Bretonbanquet talk
 * DISEman (talk
 * NotoriousTF (talk
 * Discographer (talk
 * Kohoutek1138 (talk
 * Agadant (talk
 * BNutzer (talk
 * Leahtwosaints (talk

Would you consider making a banner for all the Thin Lizzy articles if they are not already in existance? I've begun to add photos to some of them, and more will follow! This will necessarily involve expanding the band page, and should flow into the individual members pages as well. Can you help make one for the Rory Gallagher Band? My computer talents aren't so great. It would be a big help!

About the people I listed, after you, DISEman and Discographer both are willing to help with discography and album pages, and some has been done already for Rory Gallagher. Kohoutek1138, and BNutzer may help with editing if asked nicely- I already did in advance for Rory Gallagher, but they may be prodded into helping with the Thin Lizzy articles. Also, Agadant just brought Van Morrison's article to GA-status-- in fact, I gave her a barnstar for it; it was that impressive. That leaves myself and you! I suggest you join the Wikiproject:Belfast if you haven't done so... it should help in making articles on people like Phil Lynott, Brian Downey, and Gerry McAvoy more of a priority. Maybe we can enlist the help of others on the Wikiprojects for Irish music?

I sent to the UK and got a hardback book by Gerry McAvoy: Riding Shotgun 35 Years on the Road With Rory Gallagher and Nine Below Zero. I suspect that it's more about McAvoy than Gallagher, but it should help somewhat as a solid reference and I've got two playlists in You Tube with live interviews with Rory Gallagher. I've also begun another playlist of documentaries and special documentaries for Thin Lizzy and Phil Lynott. I've only given you the first part of two of them-- there are more. '''My You Tube playlist site name is 4rainbowed there. What is your You Tube site?''' If we connect there as friends, you can see all the Lizzy and Rory stuff I've gathered. Let me know what you think about all of this. Please ask other editors who may have an interest in these Irish bands to join us, and we might possibly have a Wikiproject we can list so others might find us! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fleetwood Mac
Hi there, I know you edit a lot on the Classic Rock articles, I recall with Thin Lizzy some years back! I just wanted to say that I never gave my reverts that much thought, it just appeared to me than an IP was being facesious in removing Buckingham who I know to be a longstanding member of FM. That's what happens when anons made removals without adding comments to the summary. Thanks for setting me straight. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 16:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Barrichello's crash
FIA says a lot of things, i see no reason why we should always follow them blindly. Please read this:. Dr. Loosmark 19:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I know about the manhole cover - it was me who edited that into the article, using the Autosport reference when Williams discovered the cause. I've started a discussion on the Monaco GP talk page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Alumni
Hi, What's the next move? Shall we bring it up at WP:SCHOOLS and see if anyone there wants to comment? Who's in danger of fouling 3RR? Is it us or Corbynz? &mdash;User:MDCollins (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've posted at WT:WPSCH if you want to comment or keep an eye.&mdash;User:MDCollins (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Your note
Hello Bretonbanquet. Thanks for your note. This situation is a bit involved so I will try and keep this as short as possible. Several of us have been dealing with a persistent sockpuppet who has been adding unencyclopedic info to George Harrison's page for quite some time. An early track down of some of the socks can be seen here Sockpuppet investigations/Dmerkurev/Archive. Since this one was closed the editor has created at least ten new named socks (there were new ones almost daily this week) and has also edited from a number of IP's. My concerns over the editor adding can be seen here User_talk:Prhartcom. So part of the reason that I am removing them is wikipedia's policy regarding edits by socks. The second part of my concern is that the list seems a bit like spam to me. I thought that this edit summary summed it up pretty well "Nonsensical list that once again says nothing about Blackmore's greatness. You don't list an actor's Razzie in the opening text of their bio, so why not save the space for a more worthy honour?" I would also like to add that I am not the only editor that has removed this list due to some of the same concerns. Lastly, since you have this artists page on you watchlist I would certainly defer to your knowledge of the subject and if you felt the item was important I would not edit war over it. I hope that this makes sense for you but if there is anything else that I can add please let me know and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 22:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

An apology
Hi again Bretonbanquet. I wanted to make you aware that I started a new section here User_talk:Wawzenek wherein I apologize for my sockpuppet assumptions. I have also added my thoughts regarding the Gibson.com edits in question. I know that you were only tangentially involved in this but some of the information that I gave you was in error and it would be remiss of me to not correct that. Thank you for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 03:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice edit - improved mine
Your edit to mine was sweet - Ima watch you - you're good :) - Markdask (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Fleetwood Mac Live in Boston
Hi Bretonbanquet! I have reverted some of your recent edits on the Fleetwood Mac Live in Boston album article. I just wanted to explain my reasons for doing this.

I felt that the article was misleading and inaccurate because it gave the impression that the Live in Boston album had been first released in 1998, which is incorrect. It first appeared in February 1985, and as per WP:ALBUM, only the earliest release of an album should be listed in the article infobox. The three volume Live in Boston: Remastered set is essentially an expanded re-release and therefore should not be mentioned in the infobox at all. For a comparison, look at the article for The Allman Brothers Band album At Fillmore East, which includes details pertaining to the expanded The Fillmore Concerts release, but treats the original release as the main version of the album, as per WP:ALBUM. Personally, I would say that the three-volume Live at Boston: Remastered (aka Live at the Boston Tea Party) could actually be considered an entirely different and separate release to Live in Boston, but since its almost certainly not notable enough to warrant its own article (as per WP:NM), I think that it's right to include it within the Live in Boston article. Additionally, I removed the links to album reviews because they should now not be used in the infobox under any circumstances, as per WP:ALBUM. This is not a new thing, it was decided six months ago or more; all links to professional reviews should now be deleted from the infoboxes and either relocated to a dedicated "Reception" section or discarded. Since the article is barely Start-class, there is no "Reception" section and thus, these reviews are surplus to requirements as per WP:ALBUM. If you are a Fleetwood Mac fan and like to edit their album articles, it might be an idea for you to go through them all one by one and remove the reviews from the infoboxes and either relocate them to the Reception section (using the Album ratings template) or delete them.

I also removed some overlinking in the article, as per WP:OVERLINK and MOS:UNLINKDATES. As for the album chronology, that's fine if you only want to list studio albums...I was unaware of consensus among editors working on the Fleetwood Mac-related articles. I hope that this explanation makes the reasons for my edits clear. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your reply! First of all, let me just say that the reason I didn't create a reception section myself was because in an article of this size, I didn't think it warranted it. I also subscribe to the notion that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not Rotten Tomatoes or some such, and therefore album review ratings are largely irrelevant. As for suggesting that you remove the links to reviews yourself, I only said that because I guessed that you had been heavily involved in the FM album articles and I was just trying to be nice.


 * Anyway, as for the 1985 release of Live in Boston being of dubious legality, that's true but there's a world of difference between an unofficial release, a pirate record and a bootleg. The 1985 release may not have been officially sanctioned by the band but that doesn't mean that it's a bootleg and the use of the world pirate is questionable in this case. The album was legitimately available in mainstream UK record stores like Our Price and HMV...stores that don't stock bootlegs. Likewise the 1989 Castle version was legitimately available in mainstream record shops. In addition, the Fleetwood Mac: The Complete Guide to Their Music book and the Allmusic website both list the 1985 version of the album as a legitimate compilation release and not a bootleg or pirate record.


 * To strike a comparison, The Boston Tea Party tapes are somewhat similar to the Donovan Rising recordings, or the Jefferson Airplane Live at the Monterey Festival release, or Bob Marley & The Wailers' pre-Island recordings. All of these three examples have been repackaged numerous times and made available in multiple editions by loads of different Record labels because the copyright holder of the recordings has allowed them to be licensed at a rock bottom price. Indeed, there are bona fide record companies out there who specialise in licensing these easily obtainable and cheap works...I know, I used to work for one!


 * I worked for a label called Going For A Song, based in Hertfordshire and their entire catalogue of CDs consisted of these type of recordings that the bands/artists themselves had no control over. These releases were not illegal, bootleg or pirated, they were 100% legal and were likewise available in Supermarkets, garages and record stores. It's the same deal with the FM Boston tapes, the band themselves may have no control over their release but that doesn't make these releases pirated records in any way. Therefore, I think that it's entirely appropriate that the original Live in Boston release should be covered on Wikipedia. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, perhaps the Live in Boston article should be more of an overview of all the various releases of this material, with the emphasis being on the seven-track 1985 release and the Snapper 3CD version because they are by far the most famous releases (I don't really feel we need to include any other track listing variations for example). However, I would disagree that the 3CD version is any more famous than the bog standard seven track version. This was a reasonably popular release back in the day for those interested in Peter Green era Fleetwood Mac. Whether or not the original 1985 version is hard to find nowadays is not too relevant because plenty of albums are deleted and currently out of print.


 * I must admit that I didn't know that there were other releases of this material prior to the Shanghai release...I was going by Roger Dopson's sleeve notes for the 3CD version, which states that the February 1985 release was the first release. However, even if that's true, I maintain that the Shanghai release was the first legitimate and widely available release of this material (and I use the word "legitimate" in the loosest possible sense here). What I mean is that Shanghai were a proper record label, and by that I mean that they released other archival albums by the likes of the Nashville Teens, Felt and Mother Gong...plus, as I've already said, the Shanghai release was widely available in high-street record shops back in 1985 and again 1989 with the Castle release.


 * So, I guess what I'm saying is that I feel that listing the 1985 release in the infobox is the right thing to do but perhaps if you've got some good references, you might like to write a little bit about the various releases and how the band themselves didn’t sanction them. This could also lead into prose expanding on the Snapper release, with mention of its remixing and digital remastering. I would refrain from using words like "bootleg" and "pirate" in the article though because I think that these terms would give the wrong impression and they don't appear to be supported by many third-party sources that I can see. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think adding the cover of the Snapper release to the alternate cover field in the infobox would be a very good idea, especially if you put a caption under it explaining that it's the Snapper reissue. I suppose the cover of volume one would be the one to use, there’s no need to have all three covers, since they're essentially all the same. Actually, while we're on the subject of covers, the cover that's currently being used in the infobox, is that the European or perhaps American cover? I only ask because I've seen this cover a lot online but the original UK cover was actually different and in fact, similar to the Snapper artwork. Not that it matters, I'm not suggesting we change it...this cover was definitely used for the Shanghai release in sopme parts of the world...I'm just curious and thought you might know.


 * I definitely think it would be good to go into why Live in Boston (in its many guises) was unofficial and not sanctioned by the band but only if you can find good refs. Dopson does touch on it briefly in his sleeve notes to the Snapper release, so I'll have a re-read of those and see if I can add anything...but I notice that he's careful not to call the three-volume set an official release. Myself, I'm not convinced that the Snapper release is actually any more "official" than the earlier releases. The only major difference is that Snapper managed to track down the original 8-track master tapes and remix them for improved fidelity. But I definitely think it would be good to expand the info about the Snapper release, if you can find decent refs. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, well that’s fine if you want to expand the info and add the alternate cover...there's no rush, just do it whenever you get the time. That's kind of interesting what you're saying about Clifford Davis possibly being the source for these tapes...the thing is, the band may not be happy about it but actually, whoever let these tapes out has done a great service to Fleetwood Mac fans and music lovers generally. Let's face it, the Boston Tea Party recordings are absolutely awesome and show the Peter Green era band firing on all cylinders. I think that's particularly true of the original seven track album, which distills the highlights and as a result is all killer, no filler. The Snapper re-issue is definitely essential for lovers of the Peter Green era band, but I can't help feeling that with 3 CDs of it, the impact is somewhat diluted when compared to the single disc version.


 * As for the cover presently being used, I think that it must be the American & European version and you're quite right about the original UK Shanghai cover looking more like the Snapper cover. I have seen the cover currently in the infobox on a yellow vinyl edition of the album originating from Germany. If you look online, most mentions of the Shanghai album feature this cover, rather than the UK one, so it’s probably fair to say that globally it’s the most common cover for this album. Like you, I only have the UK Shanghai release and the 3 CD Snapper reissues...oh, and a CD of the 1989 Castle release, with the weird glowing shapes on the cover (terrible album cover!). --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Stupid vandalism accustaions
you fucker what kind of warning are you giving me? you see my edit. It is clearly NOT vandalism. all you are doin is that you are falsely and ridiculously accusing me. BoomBamChuk (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen your edits, and they're definitelyvandalism. dffgd (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Fangio's results
Just wanted to confirm here the info you so sparsely provided in your comments for undo action. Would you be so kind as to point out what the wikiproject's consensus on this is, and where one can find the relevant discussion? I couldn't find it on either WikiProject_Formula_One or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One. cherkash (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Continuing discussion from my talk page, let me say that you didn't quite get your facts right. Quintessential example is 1955 Argentine Grand Prix: both Farina and Trintignant received points for more than one shared drive, and all those points did count towards the Drivers Championship.
 * With respect to fixing just a few instances at a time —- it's quite impossible to update at once all the results where the shared drives were present. This would include individual Grands Prix, individual drivers' tables, teams' tables, engines' tables, etc. — basically whatever else someone fancied to create which refers to the particular result. Unfortunately, this is a fundamental deficiency of Wikipedia: you have to go and fix all the individual tables one by one, instead of fixing it in one spot and letting the changes propagate. So in this sense the Wikipedia's model (of not having any database-like data structures at all behind individual data tables) is not suitable for fixing errors on data-heavy pages. Thus the process of rooting out errors becomes tedious and too labor-intensive, and as a result there is actually a very high likelihood of producing more inconsistencies, like you pointed out, than one can easily fix. So no, I disagree that fixing one result at a time is not good enough and it should be reverted. If it bothered you, and you spotted few other inconsistencies as a result, you should probably go and fix them (like I do when I spot them). And yes, I agree that having a consensus about shared drives, etc. probably makes more sense, but realistically speaking, you can't hope that all people would agree on everything, and, more importantly, even if there's a consensus, that all editors of Wikipedia would be aware of it (like I obviously wasn't, and if I were I would have pointed out Argentina-55 long time ago).
 * So as a summary, I think shared drives should be indicated as such everywhere, with multiple results shown for individual drivers. As I said, there are examples where it matters! And I also think it's ok to fix just few results at a time, even if it produces inconsistencies in the tables affected. In fact, it would be prudent for whomever notices inconsistencies to try and fix them in a best way — and not necessarily the easiest way like you did (by just reverting the latest change).
 * I welcome any further discussion on the subject. Feel free to copy and paste this discussion to the F1 wikiproject or wherever you feel it's appropriate to have it. But as a proper fundamental solution, I advocate database-driven approach to cross-checking and fixing the data: fix/edit the primary results only (e.g. individual Grand Prix results in case of Formula 1), and then propagate the data to the individual 'derived' pages (like drivers, teams, etc.) on-the-fly. This is the model successfully employed e.g. by Forix, and it avoids all the obvious pitfalls of potentially having forever-inconsistent data tables: if there's an error it's propagated everywhere, and so wherever you spot it you just go to one primary table to fix it. Voila. I hope that Wikipedia will at some point have such data model, since it does not contradict any of its principles (you just have to apply those principles to the underlying primary data) — but maybe it's too much to ask...
 * cherkash (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Photos!
Hi, I uploaded a bunch of new photos-- check the length of the Thin Lizzy band page, Phil Lynott, The Rolling Stones (and the individual members and former members of the Stones, including Brian Jones, and Mick Taylor-- matter of fact, ALL the Mick Taylor photos are my uploads! Also, if you're a fan of The Who, ditto- plus another of John Entwistle. Finally, my personal favorites, John Sykes photo and Rory Gallagher. Whoopie! Anyway, wanted to keep you in the loop. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! By the way, the photographer who gave us the photo of Brian Downey told me he got an email from Downey asking him to remove the photo, saying it made him look older, etc. And the photographer said no, that's absurd. I asked the photographer- his name is Daraugh --to email Downey and ask if he has a photo he'd be willing to release to the public instead, or something like that. But, too, when I went to check his article, the photo I'd placed there was GONE. Any idea why? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it works for me! Of all the musicians, the hardest photos to get are those of: famous people died young like {Jimi Hendrix|Jimi]], or Brian Jones; then comes band photos covering the entire band clearly; then those of drummers! Shoot, the drummers half the time have their kit like a fortress-- a miracle they can see through it, much less us! I think, (this is only from what I've seen on those You Tube interviews and such, that Downey would probably be approachable, and if you want to email via Flickr the guy who took the photo, the pic is here: and I'll mention you might contact him since you're the lead editor for the Thin Lizzy articles. I really am proud also of the new John Sykes photo I got for his page, and I'm trying to show either a photo of each changing band member of Thin Lizzy, or else the band lineup best as I can. I too, LOVE the Phil Lynott photo. It was so good I didn't want it in the infobox because I wanted to show the detail better in a slightly larger view of the photo. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Band members new and old
I think the list in the infobox of band members should be changed. Obviously, John Sykes has taken over the position now of frontman, vocalist, and guitarist. Scott Gorham, on guitar, backing vocals, Brian Downey, drums and backing vocals (BTW the photographer I spoke to just confirmed that.) But I am not sure of the rest! Can you see to it that the list reflects the currect band with Thin Lizzy? Also, some websites who have prominent members who died, like Weather Report's Josef Zawinul, the editors write deceased, and that might be proper for Lynott. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Importance scale for F1 Grands Prix
It looks that your statement about only current season's GP's being high-importance is an arbitrary one. If you look at the relevant lists: there are plenty non-current seasons GP's in both "Top" and "High" categories combined. So if you insist on being consistent, you should remove them all from those lists as well. On the other hand, I don't quite see how raising questions about integrity or correctness of primary results (i.e. individual GP results) can be classified as low importance — these questions are in search of clarification and since they relate to primary results they are of high importance. cherkash (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I have a different kind of misunderstanding of the rating system: after your comments I figured I don't fundamentally understand what the meaning of "importance" is as it's used here. Importance to someone (or a group) as in "this subject raises my level of interest more than the other subjects"? Importance from the fact-finding and/or getting-the-facts-right perspective (which is what encyclopedias are usually about)? Some other meaning of "importance"? Because I can't see how from the second meaning (which I assumed is more closely aligned with Wikipedia's goals) the inclusion of Britain-50 or San Marino-94 in the list of high importance articles is warranted. I understand San Marino-94 was one of the races in modern F1 history that eventually caused a lot of changes, and it was also the race that many people naturally had some personal interest in, but so were many others which didn't make that list. So what's the meaning of "importance" here?
 * cherkash (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So you are saying the "importance" is a semi-subjective way of classifying articles based on page access statistics? Where can these statistics be seen? Isn't it reasonable then to create a bot that will regularly update those importance lists based on the statistics in an objective manner, instead of relying on individual editors judgment? There should also be a way to flag/rank the articles with certain crucial facts missing or pending verification (as e.g. the two articles that started this discussion), to draw more attention to them from the editors and to facilitate quality improvement. Does such system exists and if not does it make sense then to create this ranking?
 * cherkash (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand. Thanks for your explanations. There exist, by the way, systematic approaches to maintaining, cleaning, and verifying integrity of F1 data, e.g. as was showcased by Forix back when it was created in the late 90's (the project to which I contributed to some extent in its early days, when we were just among a very few people on the net who pioneered integrated approach to F1 results and statistics). That's why from the data perspective it seems to me that Wiki's emerged approach to the maintaining and verifying data (or rather the lack of such systematic approach) seems to be a nightmare. The statistical and historical data (especially derived data) inherently has some internal structure that allows to verify integrity and root out inconsistencies (which is not the same as correctness of the data), so that using that structure and clearly separating data into primary data and derived data set helps make editors' work a much simpler one. That's one of the reasons there's too much boring work for editors (as you described it), as most of this work could be done in automated fashion, creating and populating infoboxes, result tables, etc. automatically from databases. Then after automating all this, the only task remaining is the fact-checking work (the reasonable task for editors) that needs to be done to verify the primary data, properly document and cite sources - and as a by-product you always get self-consistent (and hopefully correct and properly referenced) Wikipedia pages. E.g. if you want to have a full list of F1 results for McLaren, it's a simple data extraction query which would get formatted into a table and get shown alongside the article's narrative, instead of painstakingly creating and verifying data table by hand on a cell-by-call basis. This is just one example. If you know of any tools or effort targeted at creating something like this for Wikipedia, do let me know, because I think it's a worthwhile effort and will make the main mission of Wiki of creating a wealth of fact-based and verifiable knowledge much more achievable, at least with respect to the subject we are discussing.
 * cherkash (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions where to post this on Wikiproject and/or which members you'd suggest for me to contact directly?
 * cherkash (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Question
Thoughts?? I know nothing about the subject and the link goes to an nn band and not an album. Is their some posthumous release pending? Wiki libs (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thin Lizzy parodies
I don't know if you have seen one of these- not sure what to make of them, but here's one that's funny: Enjoy! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Where's the alonso discussion?
Hi, where can I find this discussion about Fernando Alonso. Wiki id2 (talk)  17:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you noticed that rather than discuss this the editor above has started an article about the subject? Britmax (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for use of your admin status
Hi, Ged I don't have admin status so I can't do this job. But if I give you this job which isn't that big do you think you can do it for me?

The job is about cricket. And basically for a cricket team you have a flag next to it so in cricket article rather than writing "Flagicon|West Indies" you would write "cr|WIN". So if you don't mind the link you have to edit is here and the flag you will need is "File: West indies cricket board flag.png". In the country data the flag has disappeared so using the second link you need to put that flag into the Country data West indies.

Sounds a bit unusual for a request. But can you please do it as I'm not admin and I can't edit that article. It's causing a real pain for the cricket editors. Cheers, Wiki id2 (talk)  11:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin either ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Birth date and age
Don't know if this was what you were thinking, but Jim Clark has the DoB and DoD on it. Regards. Cs-wolves (talk)  23:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Superb! I still need to update the documentation, as I made a slight change to your original documentation. I capitalised the D in Date of birth and Date of death, and I think was about it. DF and MF needs to be sorted, whether it should be date first or month first. Cs-wolves  (talk)  23:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Trust me, templating skills aren't worth the effort! I'll change the Clark one to df, and help out with some of the drivers, seeing as I have nothing better to do! Yep, seems fair to me! Cs-wolves  (talk)  23:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't take too long to get everyone done, I think! Cs-wolves  (talk)  00:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't know if your screen is making the dates wrap, so I added in the nowrap template, to stop it from doing so. Don't know how it looks because I have a widescreen monitor... Doesn't work out at all! So, I just undid it. It can wrap the dates in the input on the driver page, rather than the template itself. Hence why templating skills aren't suitable for us two! Cs-wolves  (talk)  00:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha, I'm still getting used to it. Indy 500 ('50-'60) are to be included also? Cs-wolves  (talk)  00:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of them don't even have infoboxes on their articles! Johnnie Parsons and Bill Holland to name two. Cs-wolves  (talk)  00:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a fair few racing driver articles need a hell of an improvement. Many recent ones from a certain lower formulae from a certain user springs to mind! Cs-wolves  (talk)  00:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to think bare URLs are a great reference, also in different languages as well! Unbelievable! Cs-wolves  (talk)  00:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Think we're approaching halfway with the list. I have the drivers we've done listed in an Excel document and it's around 400 cells down so far. Cs-wolves  (talk)  14:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, I've done mostly deceased drivers from the early years of the Championship. I think it could be completed late this evening. Cs-wolves  (talk)  18:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we were hopeful about that! According to the list page, there are 819 drivers listed. We have managed to add birthdates to nearly 800. Nearly there! Cs-wolves  (talk)  04:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indy ones were completed in the early hours, with Lloyd Ruby and Jim Hurtubise being amongst the last few. I'll update the spreadsheet, see how many approximately are left. Cs-wolves  (talk)  11:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Think that might be everyone covered, at long last! Cs-wolves  (talk)  16:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

May as well give one back. I wasn't going to put them in originally, but just did so anyway. Maybe that'll spur me on to complete them F3000 drivers eventually. That'll just be as arduous! Cs-wolves (talk)  17:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we'd have to rope in a lot more users to help out with that task, judging the amount of drivers that had such lack of detail. The F3000 drivers would probably take up some time, might start on them after a while, and then there's the current drivers with just one line full stop, created by several users... I think busy rather than quiet would sum that up! Cs-wolves  (talk)  17:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well when we consider the number of Formula One drivers over the years, only around 50-100 will be expanded to the fine quality that it should be subjected to. Editing articles vastly is almost like moodswings; some days I want to, some days I just think, "Nah, I'll put it off a few days." and it continues time after time. With relatives over for the vast amount of August, time on here for me will be slightly limited compared to normal. I remember when Jaime Alguersuari won the British F3 title in '08, and he hadn't had an article created, and yours truly's first edit for the article was this peach of laziness! Just hope we can get rid of a few of those such articles. Cs-wolves  (talk)  18:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The craziest 9 months between the title and F1 debut. Must be absolute torture for Brendon Hartley now; dropped by Red Bull for hardly winning for years. Plus the fact that Alguersuari is younger than the reserve driver Daniel Ricciardo and only just older than the new star Jean-Éric Vergne. Not everyone can win from seventh on the grid in eight laps at Spa, as he proved today. I've got dibs on Valtteri Bottas also if he gets to Formula One, and hopefully a few more several years down the line! ;) Rigon, eh? Might be a while yet! Nice choice of dinner there! Haha! Cs-wolves  (talk)  18:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Very few drivers that have been dropped by the RBJT have found solace elsewhere. I still don't know why they got rid of Wickens; very talented driver who has driven in most single-seater series in the past three seasons, and still only 21. Vernay's flying in the States. I know that Red Bull have their drivers tied into Tech 1, but Hartley still could have completed the season. Then again, Vergne could have the F3 title wrapped up by the time Formula Renault 3.5 returns in September, as he is 66 points clear. He was a bit erratic in Eurocup last year but has completely gelled to Carlin, as per Ricciardo and Alguersuari before him. It took long enough for Bottas to win in Euro Series, he's won the Zandvoort Masters twice to just one Euro win. Can't see Williams putting him before 2012. That or the "13th or maybe not available team", whose entrants continue to tumble after the Cypher/Summerton deal falling apart due to a lack of budget. Cs-wolves  (talk)  20:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, very true. Renault and Toyota had similar programmes but all they unleashed were Kovalainen, Grosjean and Di Grassi (Renault) and Kobayashi, Briscoe or dare I say it, Nakajima (Toyota). Buemi looked a handy driver when he first came on, but I think Alguersuari is ever so slowly getting the measure of him. I know STR have them both lined up in 2011, but if Buemi doesn't step it up, I'm sure Ricciardo will jump into the seat. Ricciardo and Vergne will both do the rookie tests in Abu Dhabi, one with each of the Red Bull teams, and Ricciardo will hope that he doesn't get "Hartley-ed". Bottas will end up on the Grand Prix bill next year, but whether it will be GP2 or GP3 is another matter. Bianchi-Bird is a perfect combo for ART this year, and will likely stay in 2011 to get the title, as Maldonado (the one that crashed for fun years ago) has won four successive Saturday races and looks strong. Bottas should've gone for GP3 this year rather than the Euro Series, as the way that has turned out has been remarkable. 12 cars for the last race at Norisring, with only five teams represented.
 * Epsilon have to be odds-on now, as Durango are hardly financially stable after GP2 last year. Lotus get a lot of bumming - I really cannot think of a better word for the situation - by the media and senior officials. OK, it has the Lotus name, but has no direct resemblance to the original Lotus. No "Lotus for the present" team will ever match the commitment that Colin Chapman and the likes put towards the cause through the middle times of Formula One. Of the three, none really stand out. Lotus were always going to be the strongest, but after being pretty close to Q2 earlier on, they've fallen back. Virgin's faux pas over the fuel tank was a big sacre bleu, and reliability has been atrocious. HRT Hispania did well to even get two cars to the first race, but are a walking bank for Yamamoto to stick the money in. I know there's talk of Klien doing a few races, but he won't bring as much to the kitty as Yamamoto. You could throw Sauber into the underachievers pool too, but Kobayashi is maturing well. Cs-wolves  (talk)  21:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really, alas Briscoe has had to go to the States to portray some talent, but then again Will Power is smoking him and Castroneves off the long injury layoff. Grosjean started GP2 last year so well, as soon as the Piquet replacement role came up, his season fell off a cliff and died a painful death. He still ended up top five in the championship standings despite missing the final two rounds. He has been breathtaking in GT1, especially in Abu Dhabi. One of the drives of the season in any championship; utterly mind-blowing stint, in which he pulled around 20 seconds on the field in his first race stint. He's now ended up with a former Red Bull Junior in Jani at Matech. Di Grassi isn't going to get far up the grid in the Virgin, and I doubt any of the bigger teams would plump for him. Especially with Glock, even though he has a 2011 Virgin deal, being linked to replace Petrov; another who hasn't set the world alight - never was that great in GP2 but fluked a runner-up with one of the big teams, Addax. I was channel-hopping on Tuesday late night, and on the RT channel was an interview by Al Gurnov with Petrov and Eric Boullier. Quite bizarre it was, but there was a lot of talk about a Russian Grand Prix and more so that than the Renault campaign, even though Boullier was there. Kobayashi was irratic in GP2, not half as bad as Nakajima, but was dangerous. As is Vettel to an extent, the startline moves in the past two races hasn't helped his popularity a jot. Let's say if he kept a straight line to the first corner on both occasions, he could easily be second in the championship rather than lying in fourth, behind Webber on countback. Toro Rosso have got rid of Speed and Bourdais in the past, in unceremonious circumstances of course, but they weren't really given a fair shot. Many fans would've expected a lot better from them, but Toro Rosso are still a small team. You have your Top 3 (RBR, McL and Fer), mid 3 (Mer, Ren, Wil), low 3 (FI, Sau, STR) and back 3 (Lot, Vir, HRT). Unless Mateschitz ploughs more money into the budget, it'll be at best, a stepping stone for the top team, even though a slot may not open for a while. Maldonado would be one on the Epsilon radar, but I can see Perez being taken ahead of him. Loads of money coming up from Telmex, which may also end up putting Gutierrez in at Sauber in the future - hell, he can wrap up the GP3 title this weekend - as a replacement for PDLR. JV is getting stuck into his NASCAR career, making the field at Indy, so he should stick to driving in that rather than a "return" in F1. Who would drive the cars also? Would drivers want to risk a Forti situation and pulling out mid-season? Reminds me of those Malaysia adverts on television, "Malaysia, Truly Asia." Er, what? Malaysia is not the first country that springs to mind in relation to Asia. It seems strange that Chandhok is out of the car; he has backing from that company behind the Indian Grand Prix circuit, and surely one of the biggest countries in the world could fund a driver through a season. Karthikeyan had backing from Tata if I remember rightly, all the way from his Formula Three days (circa the Chequered Flag programme on Channel 4 in the early 2000s, or even further back). I don't know how he ended up so close to Senna this afternoon, I think Bruno had traffic on his main runs [well, he must have, surely!] Klien probably wouldn't want to, but I'm sure the team could use some experience in that tank of a car! I wonder if Peter Sauber is regretting not taking Heidfeld over de la Rosa. Sure, Quick Nick is getting old quick, but he'd be quicker than PDLR surely! Epic reply, much! Cs-wolves (talk)  23:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Very impressed by Petrov today, outqualifying Kubica on a favoured circuit for him. I think Grosjean is a good driver, but was just thrust into the team at the worst possible reason, and was hardly getting favourable reports from the media about the number of incidents he had in a short period, especially at Piquet corner in Singapore. Had really bad luck last weekend on a one-off GP2 return, and I have sneaky suspicion that he may end up on the Gravity programme in place of D'Ambrosio next year, which may get him into a Renault return in the future. Glock did really well and Kobayashi was hopeless; his snafu at scrutineering might see him start plum last, but that'll get looked over later. Consistent laps from Pedro got him, while Button, who has been poor all weekend, didn't.
 * The only main sponsor for Senna I can think of is Embratel, which is one of the main reasons why Senna stuck with #21. Chandhok was never that great in GP2, but Senna challenged Pantano for the title, and even Pantano's red mist at Spa didn't stop him getting the title. If Ricardo Teixeira turns up at Spa, all faith in that team is gone completely. Such is Red Bull's pace, we might end up with just them on the lead lap, if all goes well. Hopefully, the team doesn't get involved in an orchestrated switching of positions like last Sunday. Cs-wolves  (talk)  14:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Even though he's been doing GT1, he's took in two Auto GP meetings, and finished top driver on both occasions, and has earned himself €160k in the process. Not much money on its own to a Formula One driver, but builds up a bit in relation to sponsorship. Kobayashi is definitely on the back row, as he was a naughty boy. Yep, wouldn't mind Webber winning if he can avoid his team-mate squeezing him into the wall. Cs-wolves  (talk)  14:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thin Lizzy/Tim Hinkley
I see you removed the Tim Hinkley keyboard credit from the Jailbreak article. I don't disagree with the edit, but wanted to just let you know that Tim Hinkley's site lists the album as one he has performed on. See http://www.timhinkley.com/Music.html. It needs a better citation than that, probably, to warrant being put back in the article, but if you're super-motivated and if that gives you a starting point, have fun. And if not, well, thanks for improving the article. SlubGlub (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian GP vandalism
Hi... I see we have both been removing the IP editors changes from the 2010 Hungarian GP article, but some changes got through (like the entry for Massa in qualifying). Is there a way to get rid of all the junk? Undoing one edit I know how to do, but going back several versions I'm not sure how to do, and I'd prefer not to try to do it manually. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

New ubox and top-icon for WikiGryphons

 * Please forgive the talk page spam. There are new userbox and topicon selections for editors who identify themselves as Wikigryphons; see User:Ling.Nut/Gryphontopicon2 and Template:User wikipedia/Gryphon2. Cheers! &bull; Ling.Nut 02:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

F1 driver articles
I accept that some articles look a little bit far too long, and the Hamilton article look OK wven after reverting my edits. But the Webber article certainly needs improvement, as it does not mention many results, and not even the fact that he leads the championship. Normally, the race reports are added by IP's, and the established editors just make it into paragraphs etc, and I'd say that is why the pages on Hamilton and Alonso are edited a lot. The Webber article has been semi-protected for 3 months, and so is not edited that much, and frankly the 2010 section looks ridiculous. I have kept the pages in the same way as it was after my edits have been endid, with the exception of Webber. M-R-Schumacher (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The 2010 section on Mark Webber looks very small - it certainly needs a bit of editing. Maybe you should try and lift the semi-protection? M-R-Schumacher (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This article, as was Fernando Alonso, Robert Kubica, and Sebastian Vettel was protected by the same user over that sockpuppetry case, and Felipe Massa was protected because of vandalism. That vandalism had nothing to do with badly written IP reports, neither did the others. M-R-Schumacher (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think the IP race reports are bad, most of them are helpful. Of course it is better when pages of drivers are semi-protected after controversial races, like protecting Webber and Vettel's pages after the 2010 Turkish Grand Prix is good, and and same can be said of Alonso and Massa at the 2010 German Grand Prix, as then a lot of trash and biased stuff can be added. But otherwise the page is fine as it is. M-R-Schumacher (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark Webber
I've fully protected the article for 12h due to the edit war that's going on. Once the protection expires, further edit warring will lead to administrative sanctions being applied. Mjroots (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, let's hope it doesn't come to that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't like having to block editors if it can be avoided. But, if it has to be done, I will do it. Mjroots (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Belli-dancer
This guy has been blocked and his edits deleted. Sorry you had to have that shit thrown at you. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem - I managed to miss it :) Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Fleetwood
Well Breton, one peek at Mosbio..., Nationality: the country of which the person was a citizen when the person became notable. Furthermore, British-born infers started his career elsewhere...he did not. London is the birth/origin (have live '68 in collection). The inclusion of the Mosbio footnote in article clears any grey area in future. Rise before Zod, Kneel before Zod (talk) 21:36 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed it wasn't the first, (year later) London '68 was an iconic concert of notability as you will be aware. As regards British-born usage, Jerry Springer is appropriate in that regard. Rise before Zod, Kneel before Zod (talk) 22:10 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Springer was (under Jus soli). I've added a qualifier to Fleetwood. Rise before Zod, Kneel before Zod (talk) 22:30 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:92.26.164.112
Well, hopefully, they'll now read the MOS. Will watch their talk page and contribs. Dloh cierekim  00:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

F1 nationality
Hi Bretonbanquet. In light of this edit to Nico Rosberg and frequent similar edits to Jochen Rindt, do you think it would help if we moved the Nationality field in Template:Infobox F1 driver beneath the "Formula One World Championship" banner, i.e. to reinforce that it's the nationality relevant to their F1 participation, not just their "general" nationality? DH85868993 (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Bretonbanquet. I've sent you an email. I apologise in advance for any accidental discourtesy, I'm absolutely brand new to this wiki stuff. I've got some extra info for an article you seem to be the main author of.Randommoment (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)randommoment

IP crap
Seems like a series of IP address with similar editing patterns. ;) Cs-wolves  (talk)  23:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He'd certainly be trundling around the track if he was competing in 1996! Cs-wolves  (talk)  23:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember one comment that James Hunt made during the Monaco Grand Prix one year (1989 I think). Humorous to say the least. Cs-wolves  (talk)  23:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He didn't half give him stick after the events of Monza '78, even though the controversial circumstances seem to provide conflicting reports on what actually happened. As someone not old enough to remember Grand Prix racing in the early 1990s with Hunt commentating, I've only ever had videos, DVDs and television coverage of how popular and vocal a commentator, and of course a driver, he was. I noticed when buying Ben Collins' book during the week there that a new book has been published. £20 for 600+ pages is a bargain there. Might be something worth buying. Cs-wolves  (talk)  00:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good old Murray would try and change the subject any time James said something untoward. Raised a chuckle from time to time. Brundle is a great summariser but as you say, doesn't say anything out of the ordinary. I doubt he would universally liked as much by the fans if he was in a similar role to what Hunt was. That said, since Murray retired, he hasn't had an excelling commentator beside him. James Allen, great journalist on Formula One, but not the most...how can I put it...open commentator in the world. Whereas Legard, he's still trying to improve; but with the rumours of Charlie "Nightmare in a bubble car" Cox coming in from MotoGP, it looks as if Legard needs to get the finger out what with only three races left.
 * Put it this way, you cannot miss the book the size of it! Can't say I've seen the Hilton book in the shops, but I'll probably have another little look for it. I do have the Senna memorial stuff that Hilton had published last year if I remember correctly. Cs-wolves  (talk)  00:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Cox was alright with Murray in touring cars and then with John Watson but he has started to grate on me in the years he has done MotoGP. I will probably end up buying the Hunt book as well. Well worth the price tag for the expansive detail. Just wish there was more written on someone like Bellof. Died at 27 but had a truly astonishing couple of years in sportscars. Tried to expand the article where I could through the Google sources. That's the first of hopefully many expanded articles to which we conferred about a few months back. Nothing wrong with sleeping through the morning...knowing what Saturday TV is like! Cs-wolves  (talk)  00:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It was something that I originally wanted to have done for the 25th anniversary of his death, but I got delayed by other things. There is a book in German which I found out about via the German-language site and this is it. It was quite hard to expand it without the proper materials so Google always helped out with that. Especially with the books, giving previews of certain pages and it was pretty damn helpful. Still thinking it is a little short but I don't know what else could have been put in, knowing how short the career was.
 * Ah yes, there would be a lot to tell in such a book. Both gallant and tragic sides to racing, especially with the Roger Williamson accident all those years ago. As well as that crash of nearly 180g at Silverstone, for many years the highest g-force survived until a Mr. K. Brack took it to a new level, and boy was he lucky to survive that one. Cs-wolves  (talk)  01:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Not IP crap so to speak, but have you seen the new improvements on the Schumacher article...cleaner? easier? hmm... Cs-wolves (talk)  16:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's like the consensus has no meaning to her...if they are already have been set out like that, surely that constitutes some form of consensus that has been reached on every driver page. It's her that needs the knock to the head. I shall do; hopefully it goes down quicker than a balloon. Cs-wolves  (talk)  17:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Take Stirling Moss for instance. One season, the great man used four different chassis for two makes. Imagine trying to work out which car he drove when without bypassing to the main article for the race. If I was completely and utterly honest, her reasoning is complete and utter bollocks. Cs-wolves  (talk)  17:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't wait for how quickly it'll get shot down...but then again, she'll persist like a bad rash until she hopes to get her way...My patience has finally wore thin, what with the previous flags issue. Ugh is also a perfect way of putting it! Cs-wolves  (talk)  18:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * She needed unless her "point" would be more fruitless than what it should be. But luckily for us, it's only one and not 900 she has weeded her way into. Hopefully, that number will not swell. Cs-wolves  (talk)  18:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't remember seeing any when doing the date of births, but then again, I may have missed it during the long labour intensive! Bastardised? I like it! Shoot it all down and we can be spared of such crap ever being asked again! Cs-wolves  (talk)  18:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I imagine Falcadore and Midgrid will side with us if they respond on the talk page, so I'm sure it'll be sorted soon enough! Cs-wolves  (talk)  23:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally cannot wait. :) Cs-wolves  (talk)  23:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Alonso/Vettel
Crap. Thanks for pointing that out. I keep forgetting that number of wins comes before countback. Also, I miscounted the number of wins Alonso had. I suppose this is what I get for editing pages at midnight ... Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't usually make mistakes like that ... thanks again. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Korean GP
I was not vandalising, I was removing the second table which was hidden. I think you misunderstood me. Fernando-the-King (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't know it at first; and I only removed the Flop-Bull stuff at the end. Fernando-the-King (talk) 10:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Understood the Webber's retirement, seen pics of it - and he wouldn't have continued even if he wasn't hit byRosberg, so 'Accident' is fine. Fernando-the-King (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi
hello man, - I remember you from a swift and constructive edit some months ago - was just passing :). Mark  Dask 17:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Juan Jover


The article Juan Jover has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * A search for references did not find published (gBooks) support for a "Juan Jover" born in 1903 meeting WP:N, fails WP:V. There are several articles in other languages most are unreferenced, one has a link to photo and one looks like it has references, but none of the reference contain "Jover"

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Bouncing on through
Thought I'd let you know it was me recently rewording a bit on the Phil Lynott article. I know you try not to WP:OWN, but I myself get feeling weird when someone treads through a place where I'm the usual caretaker, so I just thought I'd mention it. I think we should check the lead paragraphs on all the biographies of musicians, (including all the Lizzy bandmates's articles) and compared to the WP:MOS and "Your first article", (remember that stuff?) just to see we are formatting what is written with the near-beyond-human goal of one day seeing an FA or even a GA rating on the biographies. So please don't mind my tinkering! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Great! However, I do not think you should use the phrase "frontman" or "fronted" twice in the same few sentences in the lead. You should fix that, since it's redundant, even if true. Also, there should be a citation after mentioning that he wrote three books of poetry, too, now that I think of it. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...
Clearly Orient should play with nine men in every match. ;) Cs-wolves  (talk)  22:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was keeping an eye on it after the Champions League games finished and it was just goal after goal after goal. Six goals in extra time is a new one to me...I can't even put an explanation on how two level-men teams can be SO far apart in such a short period. I imagine you might be able to give it a go, seeing as you were nearer to the vicinity of Brisbane Road to me! Cs-wolves  (talk)  23:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Most non-league teams are really cocky when they go into a big tie such as that. I had watched the FC United of Manchester game with Rochdale in the first round and what a game that was and they were already dreaming of getting to round three and a possible game with Man U. As it turns out, they got knocked out by Brighton in a replay. Put it this way, I'd prefer your game with Norwich to our game with Doncaster. Not. Looking. Forward. To. That. :( Cs-wolves  (talk)  00:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hell, even us lot got taken to a replay with Kidderminster a few years back...bottom of the barrel with that scraping through. I would have said you may have had a chance until Norwich annihilated Ipswich the other week there. Mighty me, that was a performance of style and grace. Too many early goals conceded leaves us on the back feet immediately. We went 1, 1, 3 minutes for goals conceded against Arsenal (lost 2-0), Bolton (lost 3-2) and Blackpool (lost 2-1). Then the inconsistency struck...Sunderland victory and then hammered off Blackburn. Looking at our next few matches, it's derby (Brum), derby (WBA), battle (Wigan), Liverpool and battle (West Ham). We will be in deep trouble if we do not do very well out of those games. Four very vital games. Cs-wolves  (talk)  00:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Of late, they are the best team in the Championship. I can say that now as QPR looked distinctly average against Watford tonight. One player in particular was invisible all evening and he's meant to be the best player outside the Premier League...a certain Adel Taarabt. Hopeless he was. Four points out the derbies would be lovely. Does any London team actually like West Ham apart from West Ham fans? ;) The stupidity of the fixture list is that we play Liverpool in December and then again in January. Explain that... Yep, I'm keeping myself positive...unlike some of the other folk on Facebook, Twitter, 606 and the like! Cs-wolves  (talk)  01:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Only time I seem to see Taarabt playing well was when was walking off the park. Far too greedy a player. Well, we appear to have jinxed Norwich seeing as they are losing to the mighty Portsmouth. I'd be happy with a loan player from the top clubs, thank you! Cs-wolves  (talk)  16:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's alright then! Even better for us that many of the teams around us failed to win. A win tomorrow takes us to a point behind Wigan and three ahead of the "doomed Hammers". Must-win now. :) Cs-wolves  (talk)  17:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe if the O's can get a run together, a trip to Wembley might be realistic! Haha! Cs-wolves  (talk)  17:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Like us in the late 90s then! What I meant was the playoffs! Cs-wolves  (talk)  17:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

One good thing about the Football Leagues. A few good results and you'll be right up there. Didn't think it was that tight until looking at the table. Cs-wolves (talk)  17:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 *  YESSSSSSSSSSSSS!  Now that is what I call positive thinking. :) Cs-wolves  (talk)  01:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologise for the size of the previous reply. Had been to see Arcade Fire in the evening and hadn't replied with the good news about the result! Ha! Unlucky with your game getting called off; can't escape the snow it seems! Cs-wolves  (talk)  00:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a fair point. Especially with the hazardous conditions around London which put pay to Arsenal and Chelsea's games today and tomorrow. Looks like our game is on at present so we can take advantage of those around not playing. Cs-wolves  (talk)  14:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As soon as the Brum game went, I had an inkling that it would go. You'd better leave now, as you might get to London by tomorrow evening! ;) Cs-wolves  (talk)  00:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * At least there was some football to fall back on...then there's the NFL. I'll probably get pelters for saying that but not often do you see teams blowing a big lead in 8 minutes. Probably best to take every precaution available. When we got a bit of a large snowstorm...three weeks ago now...I had to walk five miles home from Glasgow city centre while my dad, who works a similar distance to the north of the city, it took him over 7 hours to get home. Crazy. Cs-wolves  (talk)  00:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow on the ground for three weeks, ice has still hung around for a month...never ever remember conditions this bad. Yet, as a nation, we still slip and slide about as if we are unprepared. Sleep well, good luck with the journey, and yes I hope so too! Cs-wolves  (talk)  00:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ferrari template
Hi. I saw that you made this revert to the Luca Badoer article. You might also be interested in this edit by one of the same IPs, which removed the Ferrari template from Giancarlo Fisichella. I would revert it myself, but I'm not sure whether it's supposed to be on all of the former drivers' articles (Badoer is listed on the template as staff, whereas Fisichella isn't). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That I am not sure about - I'll raise it at the F1 wikiproject. Thanks for letting me know! Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Colinmotox11
Hey, is there something we can do about Colinmotox11 on the F1 2011 page? He's had his edits reverted at least a dozen times, and has been told by half a dozen users to stop editing the page. Someone warned him the other day about the 3RR warning, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in. He keeps promising that he won't edit pages in, yet here I see him updating again and again. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * From what I can gather, he seems to think that the page is incomplete, but he definately comes across as racing to get the information onto the page. He told me that he would put them in "as soon as" the information was released. Anyway, I've added a note on the WikiProject F1 page for everyone to see, so they'll at least be aware of it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The only reason why I ever visited GP Update was because Autosport used to make my browser go into a non-responsive modde when it was set as my homepage. Then I switched to Firefox. I think we need more sources on the Formula 1 pages in general; right now, Autosport and F1 Fanatic make up about 75% of the references. But GP Update shouldn't be one of them. They're way too late in updating anything, for one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

For Those About to Rock We Salute You
According to Fair Use Criteria, which is a Wikipedia legal policy not just a guideline, it states "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." The little template that allows one to add a second image to the infobox also says something along those lines, as you can see here. The second image fails both policies, it's the exact same cover, only a different color. That's why I removed it. — Gabe 19  ( talk contribs) 04:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see, you're one of those who remove an image because it fails some minutiae of semi-legal drivel ... you could just leave it as it is because it shows a different cover, one which is a comparatively rare sight and a point of interest not fully displayed by text, and is doing no harm whatsoever. You know best. For being here on Wikipedia for many years, I would expect one to talk to other editors with respect. I was alerted to this legal policy by other editors, I'm not just one of those editors. Just because its been over a year and no other editor has ever raised an eyebrow at it doesn't mean it should stay, the image fails Wikipedia's legal policy, because it's basically the same image with a different color. Don't get hasty just because I'm following rules. — Gabe 19  ( talk contribs) 01:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ForthoseSpain.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:ForthoseSpain.jpg. 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As you're on holiday...
You'll be aware of a Leyton Orient record (sorry, I jest!) win over Sheffield Wednesday...Must have been smoking the optimistic pipe! Haha! Cs-wolves (talk)  00:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm...terrible result against Liverpool, but still got the Cup to get knocked out of! You lot play on the Saturday so I can sit back and follow that game! Haha! Cs-wolves  (talk)  16:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You might want to have a few after this! Cs-wolves  (talk)  16:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1982 was the last time in Round 5, I'm led to believe? Hell, you're only two victories from Wembley! Haha! We'll see you hopefully, although I'm not counting my chickens just yet! Cs-wolves  (talk)  02:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Always the glory runs! ;) If there was a way to get a year-by-year division history for the O's, I could have a quick check to see when it was. Cs-wolves  (talk)  02:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, meant to reply to you about that Statto site last night but was way too tired! League is the only aim now that Milijas missed that bloody penalty! Cs-wolves  (talk)  17:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Those jammy Gooners once again! Cs-wolves  (talk)  17:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If Huddersfield can give them a good going over, then Orient...surely...can...? Cs-wolves  (talk)  17:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Stranger things have happened! Cs-wolves (talk)  18:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I never...Amazing result! Cs-wolves  (talk)  19:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

re:careful
I was adding the fixture. I copied and pasted and altered the box and I clearly forgot to remove the scorers. There was no need to remove it as it would have been much easier to remove the bits I missed. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I can apologize for the mistake as I'm used to the fixtures and results being in the same column as in other football pages. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Times and days change of course, but the fixtures itself are usually remain the same. That's why I didn't add the date because the times haven't been released (although I imagine it as a London derby may get TV which would change the time). I think that it is just the Premier League fixtures which are copyrighted but not the other matches as they are freely shown on other clubs season pages (I know the Arsenal and Crawley 2010-11 season pages have them down). The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:Haven't recovered yet
At least you know the replay will be first Wednesday in March. Just gotta hope they go to extra time in the Cup final next Sunday. Might have a chance if Birmingham take them all the way. Hell, you might force a lower-league defeat on Mr Wenger...something that has never happened in the FA Cup. Cs-wolves (talk)  00:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The very Man U that stuttered to the QFs over Crawley? Fancy your chances again! Cs-wolves  (talk)  00:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wembley dream is closer than you think! Cs-wolves  (talk)  01:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alas, it wasn't meant to be... Cs-wolves  (talk)  21:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't say I've been watching it...Celtic-Rangers easily took precedence. It's a bit lively! Cs-wolves  (talk)  21:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, they flat out failed against Birmingham on Sunday! It's only the fourth Old Firm game of the season. Still three more to come until May! Cs-wolves  (talk)  21:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That said, none will be as lively as that one there! Rangers had two off in the game and Diouf off after the whistle. Wild. Cs-wolves  (talk)  22:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It was always on the cards, especially after winding up Neil Lennon in the first half and got his first booking. It was like Gattuso and Jordan without the butt. Cs-wolves  (talk)  00:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Notabloodychance! Never ever. Our team from the Blackpool victory every day of the week, haha! Cs-wolves  (talk)  00:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Most confident I've been this season amazingly; hopefully we can beat Spurs Sunday (2 of the last three we've beaten them) and continue our steady climb. Really don't know who will go down as yet. Last-day decider on the cards! Cs-wolves (talk)  00:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just hope that the "stone" team hasn't had their drop, which would be Blackpool. WBA have nosedived as well. As well as you, I think Wigan will probably go; probably wouldn't be missed as they can't seem to fill a ground even against the big teams. Worried for Blackpool as well; they started off really well and just fallen. Holloway is hilarious so that'd be a miss, although Warnock will be coming up with QPR, so one character replaced by another. Third team I have no idea of yet; only six points between us and 10th-placed Stoke. Madness. Cs-wolves  (talk)  00:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Even Reading beat Everton, alas that was in the Cup. Fulham need to improve their away record (as do we!) and Hughes should really concentrate on team matters rather than a stroppy feud with Mancini. The hilarity of it though...! Cs-wolves  (talk)  00:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hodgson has a miserable away record also! WBA could go too! Cs-wolves  (talk)  00:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Lucky we're not bottom then! That'd be true alphabetical order...oh and Arsenal would be top...may happen after last night's result from the Bridge! Cs-wolves  (talk)  01:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You can always seek solace in it a footballing masterclass dealt to Arsenal by Barcelona next week! Cs-wolves  (talk)  01:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * More likely to put money on that, than the relegation battle! Cs-wolves  (talk)  01:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, the only way to seek solace from not beating them but beating each of the other big lot. Buggers. Cs-wolves  (talk)  01:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was more uncomfortable than one would have liked! Cs-wolves (talk)  17:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of all the days to go 3–0 was my thinking at half-time, and I was hoping for other scores to save us. But my oh my, did we pull it out when it mattered most. I have never cheered a defeat so much, but I kept my calm as I thought something else could go wrong, but as soon as the other games finished, a few cheers were let out. The worst thing for Blackpool is that they have been relegated and they will be playing in Europe via Fair Play. They've lucked in one way, but lucked out on another. Holloway is still a bloody legend though! Cs-wolves  (talk)  17:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Especially, a five-teamer like today was. Apparently so, Gera's red card + two yellows for Fulham compared to a yellow for Blackpool meant that a two-point advantage for Fulham turned into a deficit. But, I don't think it gets confirmed until later in the week...but man alive, two of the four Europa League spots outside the Premier League. Money-spinners, no doubt. Cs-wolves  (talk)  18:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I had the BBC Predictor up, tracking the scores and with every goal, the fluctuations were incredible. If there is ever going to be a more dramatic final-day battle, I hope to God we are not involved in it. I suppose it'd be a bit harder, now they would be playing 46 games rather than 38...I seem to remember Millwall getting to the first round or something and lose to Ferencvaros a few seasons back. Cs-wolves  (talk)  18:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd rather we weren't, haha! Think we've had the complete set in ten years. Playoff anguish, then promotion, relegation, champions of the Championship, surviving prior to the final day and now on the final day. Can't beat that over a period! Haha.

Leyton F.C.
Hi, since you edit the Isthmian League season article, I thought I'd drop this past you. It doesn't actually say that all matches with Leyton are void, but can we expect that they are? — Half  Price  14:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

<nauseef biography
Hi Bretonbanquet, I am the website author for the site of Mark Nauseef. At Mark's request we had included a more extensive bio in your page. The information that you have edited out is accurate and was written by us. If it's not a problem for you, we kindly request that you again include this additional information. Thank you Eddysquid (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Black Ice
I see you're one of the top contributors to Black Ice. Well, I've rewrote the article recently aiming for the GA - can you take a look at it, clean up the prose and such, to help before it gets reviewed? Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 03:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ayrton Senna birth and death places
Hi, I couldn't find any discussion between you and Bcperson89 in spite of the recent edit war, so I guess I'll ask you about Senna's birth and death places here. You cited WP:OPENPARA and wrote "notable places" when you undid my edit, so can you please provide some evidence of the places' relevance to Senna's notability? — LOL T/C 19:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: . Well, given that the birth and death places were removed from the opening sentence and immediately undone on more than one occasion, it does meet Wikipedia's definition of an edit war (though, of course, this case is small).  Anyway, any reliable sources that emphasize the birth/death places being relevant to Senna's notability could work.  However, I don't believe that a death being high-profile or having an article makes the place of death relevant to the subject's notability, nor do I believe that a large turnout at a funeral or being the most notable person born in a particular city makes the place of birth relevant; for example, Gary, Indiana, and Holmby Hills, California, aren't relevant to Michael Jackson's notability.  Senna was one of the most notable people to be killed at a racing circuit, so that would make the Italian Grand Prix worthy of mention in the lead, since that was the race in which he was killed.  The fact that he was transported to a hospital in Bologna doesn't make the city relevant to Senna's notability.  In other words, Senna became more notable for his fatal crash at the Italian Grand Prix, and not for his death at Bologna. — LOL T/C 01:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't provide reasons for believing that the birth and death places aren't relevant in Senna's case specifically because the reasons aren't very surprising (similar to the most common reason for believing that a subject isn't notable): we haven't found anything that would convince me otherwise. Circumstances where a place of death would be relevant enough to appear in the lead would be high-profile assassinations, such as that of JFK.  As for place of birth, I can't think of the best example off the top of my head, but Al Capone's should work because of its ties to what Capone became notable for.  The dispute over Senna's place of death is certainly relevant to his death, but I doubt Senna is known for having a disputed place of death.  The history of the Tamburello corner is arguably worth a mention, but I believe it's much more relevant to San Marino than to Bologna. — LOL T/C 03:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It "could have [happened] anywhere" doesn't make a place of birth/death irrelevant. When a crime/accident takes place, the scene of the crime/accident is of utmost importance.  Being too specific, such as mentioning the lesser known Dealay Plaza, doesn't help the reader very much, in the same way that mentioning that Senna was pronounced dead at Bologna doesn't seem important to me because it's the San Marino crash that he's known for.  As for Al Capone—not the best example like I said, but Brooklyn's ties with the mafia were very strong at the time.  It's not like São Paulo, at any point in history, was known for being a city populated by many Formula One drivers.  It's not the guideline itself that I object to but rather your application because, as I've explained, I don't believe that Senna's birth and death places are relevant to his notability, i.e., I'm not saying that birth and death places should never be in the lead.  Seeking further opinion could work, but I was actually planning to attempt a compromise if you were to keep insisting on keeping the places in the lead, since a topic's relevancy isn't always easy to determine.  WP:OPENPARA says the birth and death places should be "in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability", but it doesn't say anything about the opening paragraph, and especially not the opening sentence, so I propose the following sentence: "He was killed in a crash while leading the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix, was pronounced dead at a hospital in Bologna, Italy, and remains the last Grand Prix driver to die at the wheel of a Formula One car."  As for São Paulo, I really don't see what's so special about it. — LOL T/C 14:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Senna's death may have been initially treated as a crime, but Bologna isn't where the accident took place; it was in San Marino. Anyway, I'm fine with "fatally injured" and tuning up the rest of the lead to remove some of the redundancies.  If you think his funeral was so important that it belongs to the lead, then it would make sense to mention São Paulo; I'm thinking something along the lines of "His funeral was held in his hometown of São Paulo ..." plus additional details that are especially notable. — LOL T/C 17:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've modified the lead, but left out the funeral bit for you to add with the appropriate details. — LOL T/C 19:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Thanks and happy editing. — LOL T/C 01:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter Green edit revert: "peacock" sentence
I observe your reversion of my edit to the opening lines of the article.

Thank you, I must be obtuse. Being inducted into the Hall of Fame, being cited in the very next lines as a major figure, ranked 38th in the top 100 guitarists, nicknamed "Green God", hailed by BB King, Clapton; all of these clearly contradict acclaim and influence. Pzzp (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

replying

I'd characterize my intent more as "facetious" than "sarcastic". Be that as it may (and I have looked at the "rules"), many article opening paragraphs tend to be brittle, dry, and fall short of a meaningful introduction. I agree that my wording extrapolated, albeit mildly, and I stand corrected. Nevertheless IMHO, there is nothing objectionable in opening an article with a general statement supported by the body of the article and the citations therein. Such a statement cannot carry a citation, unless the article itself is cited.Pzzp (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Revert
I accidentally hit a rollback button while checking my watchlist from my cellphone, I did not realize I had hit it. Its an annoying mistake Ive made a couple times, the page layout sometimes shift unannounced when Im intending to click on something else. No harm meant. The359 ( Talk ) 02:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:217.27.231.238
Bretonbanquet Its funny that you called me kevin on this page. But I don't have to say why you called me so? But I will leave a summarie from now on. Kevin

Icons
Could you understand what Gnevin was trying to say here? It left me flummoxed and seems to have stopped the discussion dead in its tracks. Everyone is too polite to ask what he's talking about. Daicaregos (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Jim Clark
It's Pflanzgarten again, isn't it? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Eric Bell
Check him out! :) --Leahtwosaints (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes! Ir makes a big difference to have the photo! Here's an OUTSTANDING one-- should you decide to expand Eric Bell's article: I never in LIFE thought I'd see that one, with the company he kept-- Bo Diddley! Who'd have thunk it? Big happy hugs, Leah --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want the photo, you must promise me to add more info to Bell's article, it is really scant and we meed the photo I just placed in the infobox, since it is fairly up to date. The most recent photo must be placed in the infobox, unless it's really crappy, or hard for readers to recognize the person with how they remember them like Brian Downey. Finding good photos of drummers is hard! Downey complained to the photographer saying the pic makes him look too old. I want one from the Live and Dangerous period...!! I'm 99& sure I can get it and remove the watermark for ourn the photo and allow us to use it, since I've uploaded 3 of the photographer's pics already. Bo Diddley has far more photos, and would be harder to explain his interest in Bell, rather than the other way around. See who loves you?! :) It's just as fun to bestow gifts like this as it is getting them. You know, nobody notices the wikignomes. Frankly, the only reasons we'd care about barnstars would be either because they were really earned, or, sadly, so some newbie editors see them on a userpage, and are less likely to challenge our edits, you know? So, if you want to put at least another paragraph into Bell, shall I contact the photographer about that photo? :) --Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Feeling the wikignome love! La! It is a shame though that I've worked on over 3,500 articles in some capacity, and spend maybe 50% of my "wikipedia time" either soliciting photos, teaching those photographers Creative Commons and international photo use law, as well as editing articles in other language Wikipedias, but when I do some copyediting, I see some editors just totally reverting everything I'd done on an article in one day with no edit summary. SIGH. OK, so I'll ask the photographer for the photo with Bo Diddley. Sometimes, people post some of their pics on Flickr, but keep a stash of extras, or the really good stuff elsewhere, so he may have an even better one. Text needs expansion so the photo doesn't crowd the whole article, and also, the pics should reflect what is in the text. The photographer is a nice guy, and I think he'll be OK with the upload. I wouldn't make a huge discography page just for Bell, though, although if they recorded together on any albums, maybe doing an album page just to benefit both biography articles. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Fresh eyes, fresh opinions
Your participation at the talk pages of List of living supercentenarians and List of oldest living people by nation might be helpful. Please look at the edit histories of the pages, the arguments on the talk pages, and, if so moved, join in. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Bo Diddley and Eric Bell
OK! I am amazed with this photographer! He is from the former Yugoslavia, and not only speaks the languages of that entire region (though Serbian is likely the most often used-- but goes beyond that, to all kinds of languages in Europe! Most do not use our alphabet- closest after English (which he speaks at an en-4 level) would be French, (because of Portuguese being my first language, they are a little bit the same. Funny thing-- this man is bright- I went to ask him for this photo-- and he'd already begun following our discussion about it on our talk pages here! Anyway, I am happy that he knows we really do think well of him and his photography! I put the photo here on your talk page and then you can move it to Eric Bell's article after you add more text. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, forgot to tell you that there is a lot of information about the photo on it's page in Wikimedia Commons too.
 * I am increasingly concerned about the Wikibooks being made. The majority include my uploads of photos. These photographers are usually professionals and give up some of their rights when they agree to allow some photos to be shared. I spoke at length with a couple Administrators- one from Germany, the other from the U.K.--- both had come to me with photo questions! I have begun incorporating the photographers' names into the actual file name I create when I upload their photos. This way, no matter what, no honest Wikipedian can dispute the photographer. I am also beginning a new Category in Wikimedia Commons for photographers who share more than a dozen photos- like (Category:Photos by Kirk Stauffer) to try to pin things down and reduce the possibility of copyright violations, since Creative Commons licenses are still permits, not permanent gifts! Again, I see far too many new editors encouraged by others to make those books, but the work is not their work. It's OK with the text as you know, we senior editors see right below the box I'm typing into now, there is the same CC-BY-SA Creative Commons license, and it requires others to know it came from the Wikipedia. But the photographers need protection. Just an FYI of MY ideas, I know nothing of the Village Pump- it was intimidating the last time I looked. Maybe User:Ruhrfisch will place it up for some rap. Last, but not least, where do I go to discuss the Thin Lizzy article, if it's up for GA Status? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Would you please either email me or open your email option here? (Just go to "My preferences" at the top screen to enable it). I don't want to use up this space, but prefer to talk just for us, there, hopefully? OK. About Thin Lizzy. I know you try not to WP:OWN, but I think I may be able to help a little proofreading. As it stands, IMHO, I wouldn't pass it for GA status, because I believe it could use more referencing: technical proof beginning from the lead all the way. Sources proving how many records, etc. Wouldn't hurt to put a couple sound bites into it, too to show the progression of the band, like from Eric Bell to Live and Dangerous, with the new "twin guitar sound". I hope you see where I'm going with that. Please take a look at Derek Trucks; I'm the "lead editor" of that one, as you are with the Lizzy ones. I asked User:Wasted Time R to look at Derek Trucks, and he's rated it at Start! I worked with him to bring the Natalie Maines article to GA status only to have himself shoot it down this year! He believes we limit ourselves, I think. One great editor here is User:Kohoutek1138; he's helpful too. I put the names of people who are strong in certain areas that I interact with- they are at the bottom of my userpage, should you ever be interested. Honestly, other than those names and maybe 10 more, those are the only editors of any kind on the en.wiki who know I exist at all! IOW, the names on that userpage of mine have my blue ribbon! Oh, and last, I know how the eval. starts after nomination; somehow I thought it had been moved from the talk page to some new strange place. I am a reviewer on this wiki, too :0  --Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent Pasty change
Please see this discussion Talk:Pasty, and add your thoughts, if so inclined. Thanks JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like I missed the fun there! I got a bit bothered for a minute but I see it's all been sorted out now :) Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Would this help?
I noticed the list of band members for Thin Lizzy, and wondered if it would help the article by placing the members in two columns-- the way some articles now do for their discography sections. Ideally, a graph showing the ebb and flow of members, (since Gary Moore appears more than one time) might be a help but if so, only for an FA article, and even then, it isn't like one of those bands with multiple people coming and going all the time. It was just a thought. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thin Lizzy
The article Thin Lizzy you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Thin Lizzy for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Truro congrats!
Hey, just to say congrats to you for the promotion to Conference South! :D Lost count of the number of promotions Truro have had in recent years. First Cornish team into the Conference? Delusion23 (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the first Cornish team in the Football Conference and five promotions in six seasons. It's a bit surreal thinking that they're two promotions from the Football League when they finished behind the mighty Blaise for the first half of the decade. Argyle 4 Life  talk  21:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if you would like me to assist maintaining non-league articles in the future then I'd be glad to help. Doing leagues and competitions higher up isn't really my thing. I added the knockout phase of the Champions League to my watchlist a while ago as a favour to another user and the amount of vandalism/edit-warring drove me nuts. Seeing Madron get hammered must have been an experience! Argyle 4 Life  talk  21:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Truro were nothing to shout about back in the SW League, never really anywhere near St Blazey! But money gets you a long way, it seems! And yes, absolutely - the more the merrier. Non-league is a much more pleasant place to edit, not many arguments and always plenty to do! My thing is usually updating the tables, and Delusion23 does quite a bit more besides that, but anything you feel like doing, just go for it. And yeah, I don't suppose I'll ever see another 55–0 in my lifetime - it was a pretty surreal day. I nearly ended up in the team, but I sensibly turned down that kind offer ;) Good luck to the Argyle - it's never over till it's over! Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's true. It's sad that more Cornish clubs haven't progressed to at least the Southern League, but it's a big ask without external financing. I've seen the stick City get and it's pathetic really. At the end of the day, it's great for the region and jealousy shouldn't come into it. When you signed Barry, and with Hodgey at the helm, I was pretty sure you'd do it. I'm not sure where I'll start yet, but I've been thinking about making Peninsula League seasons. The way things are going we might play each other soon! If this county stadium they're talking about gets built then I don't see why Truro couldn't reach the Football League - would be fantastic. I plan to see Argyle in the First Division (old money is the best) before I die so hopefully we'll sort ourselves out in the next 50 years! Argyle 4 Life  talk  22:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is sad, but the distances involved must be crippling to small clubs. In the 70s Falmouth Town couldn't even cope with the costs involved in the Western League... I agree that however it's done, it's great for Cornwall and the South West in general - we're sorely under-represented in the top leagues. Yeah, Barry was a different class yesterday, despite his age, and Les Afful too - Southern League sides never knew what to do with players like that. It might well depend on the stadium though - Treyew Road isn't going to get the club any further. With that sorted, the sky's the limit! 50 years is a long time, and anything can happen - maybe Plymouth and Truro in the Premier League together? We can dream! Peninsula League seasons would be great! I did a few Western League seasons, going back to the Truro domination (!) but I struggled to find stats for much before that. There's a huge amount to do though :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Pointless shiny stuff
Here you go! Put it someplace nice!! You deserve it, after all your attention to this article in particular:

NPL 2011–12
Hey, I've created the beginnings of the article for the next NPL season here. Hoping it can "go live" as soon as all the info is made official. Quite a bit in the article is crystal balling at the moment so I decided not to start it up yet, though many other leagues have their 2011–12 season articles already created e.g. 2011–12 Football League Two. Think it shouldn't be too long before the info is released, it was mid-May last year after all. Delusion23 (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * True there are still many things undecided but will hopefully be cleared up next month! There's still the complication of Ilkeston Town's liquidation which may mean an NPL team may be reprieved. Plus the many resignations in the Southern and Isthmian leagues my cause transfers. Plus level 9 teams may be declined promotion due to ground grading standards. A lots of guesswork at the moment! Delusion23 (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, yeah will do. So many permutations but it'll be interesting to see who gets promoted and relegated eventually and to which league. Never get that kind of thing with the Football League, all so concrete :P . Looking forward to the play-offs in all the leagues too. I'm off to Bradford on Thursday after a disappointing last day of the season slip up down to 4th. Bradford are the in-form team of the NPL right now so it'll be a big test, especially with our top scorer banned. Should be Bradford's record crowd of the season though, we always bring a good following! :D Delusion23 (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: message
Sorry about that. I didn't wished to anger you. If you don't like anything else that I have done to the Fleetwood Mac pages. I guess you can change them back if you want. 96.60.123.137 (talk) 16:16 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Photos
What do you think? Since you only got to GA-status, (haha), should I keep shopping for both band and individual photos? I truly just BUMPED into this one: and more are possible. Still want an improvement on Brian Downey!! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Rfa for Catfish Jim and the Soapdish
There's an Rfa for Catfish Jim, one of the handful of editors who, like you, have consistently been a help and inspiration. I hope you'll take a look and vote if possible: Requests for adminship/Catfish Jim and the soapdish Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't normally get involved with RfAs, but he answered the questions very well, and he should make a great admin (and of course yours is a great recommendation!), so I supported his nomination :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Heck, I'm just a lowly Wikignome, though I've clocked in serious hours over the years. There's maybe a dozen editors that I have any contact with, including yourself- they're even listed at the bottom of my userpage. So I avoid Rfa stuff since I wouldn't have a clue half the time (or more) as to who is being considered. Thus, this is my 3rd time being willing to voice an opinion.. couldn't do it for a better candidate, IMHO. Some of those questions are brutally ridiculous. Like the questions about trees, etc. Oh, and to "Catfish's" credit, he never mentioned his Rfa to me, and we were in contact on a daily basis. I just thought the two of you had crossed paths!


 * Also, the pics: I found some great ones, but have no idea if I can get them. Also, found this: It's use really depends on how far you want to cover the Thin Lizzy tours. Cool that he was on the bill with Jeff Beck! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

F1 1975
Bugger, you just beat me to it. Seems like he is having a field day on here! ;) Cs-wolves  (talk)  17:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, I've been keeping an eye on the discussion! He's been reintroducing the clunky boxes adding unnecessary bulk to the pages on the WTCC drivers pages which Pyrope flagged up on WPMS. WP:ANI would probably enjoy the situation, I think? Cs-wolves  (talk)  18:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah, I forgot about socking! Yeah, I think his patience has been tested more than ours, so the honours should definitely go to him! Cs-wolves  (talk)  18:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness but, it has to be stopped. It was a joke to start off with, but now it is a nuisance and a right pain in the arse to put it mildly! Cs-wolves  (talk)  18:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I had forgotten about that time...there was a time when his editing style was mature...not now. Really, not now. Cs-wolves  (talk)  18:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, thought I had responded. Yeah, hopefully sooner rather than later. :) Cs-wolves  (talk)  21:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypnotized (Fleetwood Mac song)
Regarding your closure of this AfD as 'keep', I was looking for some kind of rationale or reasoning behind it and found none. I don't much see the point in having an AfD if it is then closed with no explanation given. Presumably you didn't just do a head-count, so you must have found notability. Can you enlighten me as to that notability and how it corresponds to the notablility guidelines? Thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Bretonbanquet,
 * I'm not sure an additional explanation is needed for the 'keep' closure at Articles for deletion/Hypnotized (Fleetwood Mac song); I could leave a long, detailed explanation for the reason behind each AFD closure, but the reasons are always the same: the arguments for one side were more convincing than the others, or most people felt/demonstrated that there were/were not legitimate sources. In the case of this Fleetwood Mac song, which you correctly noted is not even a single, the song has received attention in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (like the All-Music Guide) and at least three other print books listed as references in this article, in addition to others listed in the discussion. I specifically look for ISBNs when looking for printed references for books, and I look for more than a passing mention.
 * You stated during the deletion discussion that the subject of the article doesn't meet the guideline at WP:NSONGS; however, WP:NSONGS states, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." The article clearly states, with reference, that it's been covered by the Pointer Sisters; user:Rlendog stated in the discussion that it was covered by FM and "possibly others" (with a link), and the article states, with reference, that the song's author "received an award from ASCAP recognizing 25 consecutive years of airplay for his compositions Hypnotized and Sentimental Lady."; ASCAP is a major music industry organization.
 * The article has greatly improved since your deletion nomination, but it doesn't appear that many people supported deletion (though these deletion discussions aren't about head counts, as you correctly point out). Best, Firsfron of Ronchester  11:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response, I appreciate you explaining your rationale. I can't help but disagree, as you might expect(!), with the interpretation of WP:NSONGS. All the versions of the song by notable artists are: Fleetwood Mac/Bob Welch, Pointer Sisters and Sweet Baby J'ai, who changed the song so much as to credit herself with it. I don't think that amounts to "several". The award was given to Bob Welch rather than the song itself, for two songs, the other of which was released as a single twice and so received considerably more airplay. I don't mean to cause any further fuss, I just wanted to explain my view that the song appears to meet the notability guideline in an incredibly tenuous, obscure way, if at all. The references, besides Allmusic, are surely trivial - if they're not trivial, I don't know what is. Anyway, thanks again, I'm just disappointed that the guideline doesn't really stack up. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Brentonbanquet,
 * Thanks for your note. I will say: (a) I've always used "several" to mean "three or four", although I'm aware that regional use of English varies; (b) the fact that the award was given to the artist for the songs rather than to the song is surely semantics; the song was specifically included in the award. I think the guideline has been met, unless there's a specific objection to "several". I think the guideline could be tightened to avoid these types of questions. I do appreciate your comments and your feedback, and although you are not satisfied with the result, your nomination of the article did result in improvement of the article. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester  18:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the guideline's wording could stand to be tightened up; we certainly don't need an article for every Fleetwood Mac song between 1975 and 1988. Firsfron of Ronchester  19:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You are cordially invited...
Come and check out your old friends, Brian Downey, and Marco Mendoza; and there is more to come. :) --Leahtwosaints (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ayrton Senna
Hello Bretonbanquet. I would just like to discuss the changes that I had made to the Ayrton Senna article.

The reason why I had changed "the rivalry between Senna and Prost intensified into battles on the track" to "the rivalry between Senna and Prost intensified and turned into battles on the track" is because 'intensified into battles' does not make sense. "The men's anger intensified and turned into a battle" is more proper than "The men's anger intensified into a battle". Senna and Prost's intense battles on the track was only one of many outcomes that could have resulted from their rivalry. The original wording made it sound as if the battles on the track were the only outcome possible.

I had changed "and a psychological war off it" to "and psychological wars off the track" because it seemed to fit better with the beginning of the sentence. Rereading both version, A PSYCOLOGICAL WAR does seem to fit, so I won't go into more detail as to why I had made the changes. The only reason for changing IT to THE TRACK was that IT was not specific enough. I had to stop reading and as myself, "It? What 'it are they talking about?" I had learned from my university proffesors that if you stop reading and have to ask yourself what IT or HE or SHE means, then you should use the proper noun that you are replacing.

"Senna took an early lead in the championship with victories in three of the first four races, but unreliability in Phoenix..." was changed to "Senna took an early lead in the championship with victories in three of the first four races, but wasn't as lucky in either Phoenix...". I can see why UNRELIABILITY was used, but it doesn't sound right to the ear. Any form of the word UNRELIABLE is used to describe an inanimate object, like a car or a piece of mechinary, for example. It can be used to describe a person, but more in terms of the things they do or things that they must complete. I understand that Senna was doing something, he was competing in the race, but after reading the entire sentence, it doesn't flow as the sentence should. Other options for the sentence, "but wasn't as reliable in"; "but was unreliable in"; or "but had unreliablity in".

The original "in Phoenix, Canada, France, Britain and Italy" was changed to "in either Phoenix, Canada, France, Britain  or Italy". The AND was changed because it didn't agree with my previous modification, therefore needed to be changed to OR, and EITHER was used to support the OR. (e.g. EITHER blue, white OR red)

Another solution to the last sentence (in the original version) could be, "Senna took an early lead in the championship with victories in three of the first four races. But unreliability in Phoenix, Canada, France, Britain and Italy, together with collisions in Brazil and Portugal swung the title in Prost's favour." This modification makes it possible to have minimal changes made. The only changes would be a period after THE FIRST FOUR RACES.

Also, my reasoning for adding HE HAD in the second paragraph "Prost took the 1989 world title after he had a collision with Senna at the Suzuka Circuit in Japan" was only to make clear as to whom Senna had a collision with. The WITH in the sentence can easily be missed or mistaken, and I only wanted to make sure it was clear that Prost and Senna were the ones in the collision.

I apologize for my long post. I just wanted explain my reasons for making said changes to the article. I would love hear your opinion on this post and maybe we could decide which changes should go into the article itself and which ones shouldn't.

Thank you very much, 100eme (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello again.
 * I agree with you and 4u1e about my typo. I guess my finger had missed the S key as I was typing.  For some reason, I can't seem to find the mistake, so if it hasn't been corrected already, please do so.  Thank you.


 * My reasoning for the 'remained focused' modification, was because some people might take the 'kept his foot down' statement in a literal sense (meaning he literally did not take his foot off of the excelerator). Quite honestly, I had taken it literally when I first read it, hence I felt that it should be changed.  The original sentence is obviously still correct, and your explanation is completely valid, so if you feel that 'kept his foot down' is not as deceiving as I felt it was, then I will gladly change it back.


 * I understand your point of view on the point "intensified into battles on the track". Instead of adding and turned, might I suggest "intensified into numerous battles on the track".  Adding NUMEROUS might seem somewhat repetitive, but leaving it unchanged does not seem, in my opinion, to match the standard that the rest of the article is communicating.  As for the IT at the end of the sentence, if you feel it's pointless to state THE TRACK then we can leave it as is.


 * As for the sentence containing UNRELIABILITY, I would feel more comfortable with putting a period after THE FIRST FOUR RACES and having BUT become the beginning of a new sentence. Both sentences would be quite short, but it is grammatically correct, and again it would match better with the rest of the article in terms of the standard and quality.  And yes, there should be a comma after Portugal, but I wanted to mention that to you, considering the commas that are used when stating the countries where Senna did not do well.  I'm not sure if semicolons would have to be added so that the paragraph maintains proper order.


 * My changes to "Prost took the 1989 world title after a collision with Senna at the Suzuka Circuit in Japan..." were only to clairify that is was infact Prost and Senna that were in the collision. As I stated before, the variations that I had made were only made do to the WITH that, in my opinion, seemed a bit misleading.


 * Wikipedia is obviously an encyclopedia, however, if parts of an article are too vague, people have a tendency to become lost and confused. They end up not understanding parts of the article and are left with holes of lost information.  I'm not sure if you've looked at my user page, but I enjoy languages.  I have a lot of friends that have English as their second or even third language and I feel it's important to try and have a certain balance when it comes to structure on Wikipedia.  I do not want to change every article and make the sentence structure very basic.  (There is of course a simplar version of Wikipedia.)  I just don't want others to become lost and confused.  That was the main reason for some of the changes that I had made.


 * As well, I wanted to mention that I am from Canada, and if I read correctly, you are from the UK. Even though our native tongue is English, we have different expressions, and some times are sentences are worded differently.  I believe this is one of the reasons why some things seemed incorrect when I was reading this page.  I'm just mentioning this because, given that we may say things differently, it's important to come to a mutual agreement when it comes to wording.  It's important that whatever the article reads, it should be reasonable and understood no matter what part of the word we come from.


 * Please let me know if you agree to my changes, and I'll be happy to make the minor adjustments.
 * 100eme (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

More Thin Lizzy photo uploads!
Now, you should see Brian Downey, Marco Mendoza, Ricky Warwick, and the photo of Lynott/Gorham--this one: probably should go to Gorham's article, don't you think? Cause I also uploaded several of Phil Lynott, too: ,, , And, last but not least, another band photo of Robbo, Phil, Scott, (can't see Downey) but it's from 1978. Maybe it can somehow go on the discography page? It's from the Live and Dangerous tour: I think the pic of John Sykes on the discography page should be removed, anyway.

So, I thought you could take a look and see which of the photos you would like to see and where. :) I've been "slaving over a hot computer all day, and this is the thanks I get!" --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Kobayashi
You are using your sense rather than stewards confirmation that he is allow to race. Such idea is known as original research. Under F1 regulations, clearly it is stated that "any driver who fails to set a lap within 107 percent of the fastest Q1 time will not be allowed to start the race". That is under stewards consideration whether he is allow to race or not. What you reply to me, "trust me it won't happen", basically is based on your sense and not fact. Are you a stewards? --Aleen f 1 13:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Reference, stewards have right to waive, but is optional. So who is the with original research here? I am trust the source rather than your sense. --Aleen f 1 13:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This might not be any of my business, but Aleenf1 has a history of blindly reverting other people's edits. Intoronto1125 Talk  Contributions   16:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That kind of thing is everyone's business. Luckily for him this time, he stopped and discussed things. I'll keep an eye out though. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw the clarification from the stewards, no need to argue anymore. Actually you also need a source to clarify that he is allow to race, your move is also in the original research, but i don't want to argue anymore. Furthermore, i don't see someone who also done the things without discussion, consensus came out to voice a "blindly reverting", though the past indicate that he done the same and all he knows to comment people fault rather than himself. --Aleen f 1 23:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Back to the Lizzy photo questions
The pics are uploaded-- I'd love to place the one of Scott and Phil on Scott's article, since he often projects an image of the two of them being such tight buddies (maybe it was just the drug using?). The problem is that Scott Gorham's article doesn't have more than a few sentences connecting him to Thin Lizzy altogether! But if you can expand that part of the text, we can reasonably place it on Gorham's article, for the better! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Rollback?
Hey. Would you be interested in the rollback button? It would make your anti-vandal work a lot easier. Prolog (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Best comment...
...that I've seen on Wiki in a long time was this. Spot on, too right & I don't care what anyone else says. Very good advice...No Moar! ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 02:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

New resolution proposal
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:Penalties
I was doing it for consistency's sake. Looking at the other leagues' articles they are all representing penalties with "p" in the bracket. Personally I think a footnote with a Cross sign looks uglier than including parenthsies in the bracket, but that is just my opinion. I think "p" is pretty clear to say penalties. The does (talk)
 * Well you got me there. I can't find other sources that use "p" except for the other league articles. That compromise sounds valid. I will make the changes that we agreed on now. The does (talk)
 * Do you think we should make this change (p -> pens) on the other league articles as well? The does (talk)