User talk:ColinClark

Hi - welcome to the Formula One wikiproject. I noticed your recent edits to the Formula One page - it could certainly use some tidying up! Regarding 10 cylinder engines, V8s remained in used up to 1997 - see this bit on the F1 talk page. Carry on the good work! --4u1e 07:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments and the information.ColinClark 20:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Alain Prost (Schumacher reference) Thanks for the catch here. Triumph of enthusiasm over intelligence I think. Britmax 21:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries :-) ColinClark 22:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions (discussion on Talk:B-29 Superfortress. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! .... LanceBarber 07:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia... How to edit a page... Help pages... Tutorial... How to write a great article... Manual of Style


 * Umm, though I do sometimes have periods of inactivity, you can see I've been here for a while. But thanks for the "welcome" anyway! :-) ColinClark 08:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Alain Prost
I've suggested what looks like the middle ground at the Alain Prost talk page (regarding team mate comparisons). I'd be grateful if you could comment on whether you're willing to accept it. Cheers. 4u1e 14:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Kafka
Hi Colin You might want to take a look at WP:RS and WP:Verifiable. You must source content to reliable, verifiable sources. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. If I have time today I'll take a look myself as well.... The other consideration is whether the content you are adding is in any way significant in terms of Kafka's life.(olive (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC))


 * The cite was perhaps improperly formatted (as a link to another page with the cite), but the cite is there and it's reliable and verifiable. As for significant, Peter Drucker and I happen to think it is. Maybe there should be some discussion about the significance issue instead of just deleting material?ColinClark (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Kill Bill
Those 14 words are not the most troubling to me. I think the plot summaries are too long already, so I am wary of adding more detail. It could be, in the larger scheme of things, that your 14 words should stay and 100 or more others should go. It just seems to me that the general trend in these situations is that 20 different people, all well-intended, each add only 10-20 important words compromising some important detail they believe was overlooked, and before you know it the plot summary is too long and unwieldy. If you want to readd your 14 words, I will not revert you. But, at some point in the near-to-far future, I am going to pare down that section. Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 04:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your polite reply, as well. Oh yes, 14 characters, not 14 words.  Big difference. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  12:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

SR-71
Hello, ColinClark, I saw your edits Here I was just wondering if you could point me to some information on "SENIOR CROWN program". The references I have about this flight speaks nothing of this program. Thank you Peteypaws (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Cometbus merge
<3

Talk:Racko!
I have started a discussion at Talk:Racko! to rename the page to Rack-o. I saw that you had commented on that title before, so I hope you will chime in when you get the chance. Thanks, -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 13:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Tyres
In the future, please be more careful about your reverting, I have fixed the single link that is broken. Please leave me a note about your rational that is not related to your geographic location for using a UK English spelling for a french company against the consensus of the community and the common usages everywhere else on the wiki. In the future, if you feel an edit has broken a link, fix it. It was a lot of work to clean the article out in the first place, hyper-nationalist individuals from a small island in the Atlantic had vandalized it with hundreds of hidden comments in an attempt to hijack it. To reiterate: the only variation on tire that might make sense is the FRENCH word "pneu", as it is a french company. Drn8 (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See wp:engvar. In this case, there appears to be no specific reason to favor tire over tyre, the original article spelling should be retained. In this case tyre. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The first non-stub version of the article contains one instance of the word "tyre". which links to the article entitled "tire" This is a bunch of silly nonsense I no longer wish to be a part of. For some reason people who live in the UK currently seem to have overestimated themselves and do not realize it's a small country of 60 million people who are not actually the global authorities on the language that is named for them.Score a victory for the little guys, they have managed to insert a uk spelling into an article about a french company against the rest of the wiki, based on a stub from 2002, and ~2,500 characters of hidden comments in the article to defend it by making it nearly impossible to edit. Wiki is not the place for such petty nonsense, but it seems like the defenders of the Queen's English will not be deterred from their quest to let everyone on earth know they spell things a little differently than the majority of the world's native English speakers by fighting to use a y instead of an i and ignoring everything else and everyone else. Drn8 (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It wasn't just the link, you also messed up (most importantly) the IPA pronunciation and the grammar in several places. It was a very large edit which is exactly why I didn't go through every character of it to find and fix your mistakes when it was immediately clear the edit was done sloppily and carelessly. You still don't seem to know that you messed up the IPA.


 * I am not involved at all in the tire/tyre dispute, and my revert had nothing to do with it. I happen to think the article should use tire, but the length of the debate and the passion of some of its participants goes far, far beyond how much I actually care about it.ColinClark (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Apollo 11 Cave, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! LionMans Account (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Ayrton Senna
You're probably right. Sometimes I have a hair trigger for people adding apparently random sentences to articles. Britmax (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem at all (FWIW, I didn't add the text originally). Thanks for the message! ColinClark (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Didn't notice, as I tend to edit the edit not the editor. Britmax (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your addition to Jochen Rindt
Dear ColinClark, I have removed your addition again. The simple reason is that this article is a Good Article, so higher caution is appropriate when adding information. If you can find a source for the information, feel free to add it again, but please also keep in line with the current level of prose, your addition did not really meet the criteria needed for a GA. Thanks. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't add it and it wasn't my prose, for the record. I just prefer to use the tags to ask for a cite rather than remove information that it probably correct. Hopefully the editor who did add it comes back with a reference. ColinClark (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, did not look far enough down the article history... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)