User talk:Falcadore/Archive 4

Barnstarring
Yes, I agree. Things get considerably confrontational quite quickly and quite often, in my experience. I'm not sure why this is, or whether other WikiProjects suffer the same problems. But certainly there aren't enough barnstars handed out among us, especially given that there are a few WPF1 chaps who do an enormous amount of work, some of it very tedious. I've given out one or two in the past, but maybe we should, as a group, be a bit more liberal with them - good call. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Those guys seem like a good place to start, and I'd add DH85868993 to that, since he seems to do a lot of the picky, boring work that I keep telling myself I should do. Those are guys whose edits I never feel the need to check. I'm a bit busy over Christmas but I will start handing out barnstars from now on, making sure those guys get covered. I sometimes see others who I think deserve one, and instead of making a mental note, I'll just award. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll do some if you like. --Falcadore (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'll watch out for them and award some later when I get a bit more time :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Driver Renames
Sorry, you are quite right, I will do my best to find and change all of the links. (Not sure I know how to get a bot to do it). Officially Mr X (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Try the link What links here, in the toolbox on the left of screen. --Falcadore (talk) 12:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, that is going to take ages. How can one create a 'Bot' to do all this for me for Simon Wills (racing driver), Kevin Bartlett (racing driver), Steve Owen (racing driver), Andrew Jones (racing driver) and Frank Gardner (racing driver)? Officially Mr X (talk) 12:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said to User:DH85868993: The way I see it now, does it really matter that the links aren't the same as the page name? Surely the links will just redirect so it is only a minor problem and if I'm honest, not really worth my while to correct for the sake of asthetic perfection over functional use. There is no point in reverting it because it is better that all pages are named Driver (racing driver) for people searching the name in the search box. Without seeming uselessly lazy, I say just leave it as it is unless a simple way to amend the situation can be found. Officially Mr X (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How can it slow accessing page time? It takes less than a second most of the time. I don't see how it can be such a big issue. I will correct the links whenever I come across any. Officially Mr X (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Paul Stokell
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Paul Stokell. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Flagicons
Without wanting to go into all the whys and why nots, I've always been of the opinion that it looks neater and more organised when editing to have the 3 letter system, although I am aware it makes no difference to the article. As a result, for the most part I simply tend to code country names when I come across them. Officially Mr X (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

TRS as F3
I saw your answer but TRS is not a Formula Three Serie, this serie is runing a 1.8 liter without restrictor. To be considered as a Formula Three Serie, the cars used must follow the FIA rules. By the way the "Chilean Formula Three championship" cannot be considered as a Formula Three serie. Since 1972 this championship did not follow any of the Formula Three regulations. Danilowski (Danilowski) 23:23, 3 January 2010(UTC)
 * The Tatuus car is a Formula 3 car. Several Formula 3 series do not or have not run the open two litre engine specs. A control engine version of F3 is not even remotely unusual. --Falcadore (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Many other Tatuus build one make class chassis such as Formula Renault (FR2000), Formula Challenge Japan and Formula Master are just as much F3 as TRS as well as many other single seaters by other manufacturers (for example Mygale FBMW). These series, how ever, are not considered as Formula Three series.
 * The difference between series like FCJ, TRS etc and the ones like European F3 Open, Italian F3 and South American F3 is, that the "control engine version of F3" use actual F3 chassis that are/were used in traditional multi-make F3 championships too. Another difference is the fact that series like TRS don't even claim to be F3!
 * I'm also quite sure that the Tatuus cars don't comply all the F3 chassis rules (at least not the current ones). 91.155.238.81 (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Toyota Racing Series website says it does. --Falcadore (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean this: http://www.toyotaracing.co.nz/flash/carSpecs.swf ? It refers to the monocoque (which is build to FIA F3 safety requirements) only. That doesn't make it a Formula 3 car. 91.155.238.81 (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.toyotaracing.co.nz/Default.aspx?pageid=5 Chassis: FIA F3. Seems pretty clear. --Falcadore (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The situation is difficult, and it could be possible to try to convince you.

1 As it has been said, TRS does not claim to be F3: but it is only your personnal opinion to write in Wikipedia that TRS is a F3 serie. The TRS chassis is build to the FIA F3 safety spec, which is easier for Toyota to have TRS approved as a National Formula by the FIA.

From a regulation point of view TRS does not follow the appendix J of the FIA Formula 3 regulation: 2.7.2 Engine and gearbox must be homologated by their respective manufacturers, which is not the case for TRS 4.1 For F3 the minimum car weigth must not be below 540kg, TRS is at 480kg 5.4.1 Each engine must be homologated by the FIA, and describe on homologation form for F3 engines, which is not the case of TRS 5.4.5 The intake system is free but must be fitted with an air restrictor, 3 mm long and having a 26 mm max diameter, which is not the case of TRS 5.4.14 Variable valve timing is forbidden is F3, TRS has one 5.11 The only engine control unit which may be used is the one specified by FIA, not the case of TRS 2 From a performance point of view,there is a big difference between a Formula 3 chassis and the Tatuus chassis. I had the chance to work on Dallara Formula 3 cars and on Formula Renault 2000 and 2.0 with the Tatuus chassis, I had also the chance recently to have a look to the new Formula Fiat Abarth with the Tatuus chassis, and I can assure that the Dallara F3 chassis has a higher stiffness than the Tatuus one. There is also a big difference in term of downforce created under the car, which gives to the F3 a big advantage.

I would also point on the fact that nobody tried to race the Tatuus chassis in any Formula Three race.

3 It is strange that you have no doubt even when two different guys try to explain the same thing

4 As a conclusion I would say that TRS is a "National Formula" as defined by the Fia, like Formula Renault, Formula Challange Japan, Formula Master, Formula Fiat Abarth, etc;

Danilowski (Danilowski) 22:15, 4 January 2010(UTC)
 * Well, if you've got it all with references why aren't you adding it to the article? Article comes before the edittors. --Falcadore (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Falcadore, May I ask you a personnal question? what is your technical knowledge in motorsport and what kind of experience do you have? Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danilowski (talk • contribs) 08:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Depends on what you mean by technical. I'm not a mechanic or a racing engineer if that's what you mean. Who's the 'two'? --Falcadore (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As you are described as an expert by  Officially Mr X, I wanted to know from where was coming your knowledge in motorsport.

Danilowski (talk 11:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've no idea what he has said about me. I work part-time in motorsport on the media & officialdom side of things, but I've never claimed to be a mechanical expert. I work with plenty who are and lean on them when I need additional information.
 * You can understand how cautious inspect the unreferenced work of unfamiliar edittors. --Falcadore (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm having a longer look at the above, and I'm concerned by some of the above which does not seem to tally.
 * Comparisons between Dallara chassis and Tatuus chassis is not necessarily that releveant. Also that Tatuus has not raced against Dallaras in F3 is also not neccessarily relevant. Dallara's competance within F3 has scared away comparions for a decade now, various potential rivals, Van Diemen, Lola, Ralt, etc had built cars that have been uncompetitive and have disappeared within a year. If the Tatuus chassis was built to F3 standards and specification then its not relevant that its not competitive against the Dallara as a spec racing series you can't use Dallaras in TRS.
 * If the Tatuus is not based an F3, then that's a good reason, find a reference that the TRS car was built to different specifications and we'll be fantastic.
 * Leaving TRS aside for a moment - the Chilean F3 series is decades old, is it your contention that Chilean F3 has never used F3 cars, or only currently do not? Going be fading memory Chilean F3 evolved out of the SudAmerica series and has drifted away over time, but that history should still be recognised, so the deletion of F3 referencing regarding the Chilean series should done on the basis of relevancy to the time period concerned. --Falcadore (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The FIA Formula 3 regulation is for car(chassis+engine), in order to have a Formula Three car, your car must be in line with the chassis + engine rule. The fact that the TRS chassis, is designed to fullfill the Formula 3 safety rules does not mean that TRS is a Formula Three. The Formula Renault has a chassis built to FIA Formula 3 safety spec, but nobody is claiming that Formula Renault is a Formula Three. I remind you that TRS web site does not claim that TRS is a Formula 3 but the TRS chassis has been designed up to Formula 3 safety rules. Peharps to close the discussion, it would better to have confirmation from Toyota New Zealand, if they claim TRS is a Formula Three.

The Chilean F3 is not derivated from the Sudamerica serie, and was never run under the same regulation, and also the Chilean Formula 3 did not follow any F3 rules even an old one. As I understand the memory side of that, it would good to keep only a link to the Chilean Formula 3 page, for reference, saying that it is called Formula 3, even if it is not following any FIA rules.

Danilowski (talk 14:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You have to take into account that writing in wikipedia is not for glory, but to share your knowledge with readers who come to find some information, so everything you write has to be true, and must be real facts and not interpretation of what your read on web.

Danilowski (talk 20:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK I really don't understand what you mean by that last, but I have to ask, how far from the strict definition of FIA F3 can any F3 series stray in your opinion, before it ceases to be F3? --Falcadore (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It is easy to define a Formula 3, you take the FIA Formula 3 regulation, and the reg must be applied to the full car. For example, if you want to enter a car in the British or Japanese Formula 3 championship or Euroserie (which are fully in line with FIA reg), the car has to be 100% compliant. It means that a TRS car would be rejected because weight, engine and gearbox are outside the spec. A car from the Spanish (Euro open) or Italian Formula 3 championship will be accepted in the British championship because even if the engine is a spec one, it is following the FIA rules. So be short, In 2009, a Formula 3 car is a car which would be accepted in one of 3 championships following the 2009 FIA rules (British, Japanese and Euroserie).

The case of the Sudam championship is a little more complex, because since there is a Berta spec engine (without inlet restrictor), the cars are not 100% compliant anymore. Chassis and gearbox are in spec, the engine is a 2 liter derivated from a production engine (Ford) but without the inlet restrictor. The Berta engine is not homologated as F3 engine by the FIA, but could be homologated with an inlet restrictor (which does not mean that it would be at the right level in front of the competitors but that's an an other question). So in order to be precise, there must a comment in the Formula 3 page, concerning this point for Sudam.

If I can express here, a personal opinion, as Brazil want to organize an international Formula 3 race and if they want to be successfull to have foreign entries, it is possible to expect that Sudam could be back to full FIA rules.

In order to explain what I mean with so everything you write has to be true, I must have written everything we write has to be true. If you think to the reader who does not know anything about Formula 3 but who wants to have information on the subject, the presence, without any comment, of the Chilean Formula 3 championship in the Formula 3 page would let him think that this serie is a Formula 3 one (in line with the FIA regulation), which is not true.

Danilowski (talk 06:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So you would claim that the Australian Formula 3 series is not fully complaint? You would claim it is not a Formula 3 series? --Falcadore (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have the Australian Formula 3 regs?

Danilowski (talk 06:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * --Falcadore (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, it is very interesting. If you look page 13, it shows that the 3 classes of cars are fully following the article 275 appendix J of the FIA regulation for Formula 3, valid for cars manufactured between 1st January 1999 and 31 December 2007. The Australian F3 cars would be admitted in the National class of the British championship.

In fact the only diffence between British, Japanese and Euroseire on side and the Australian Formula 3 champiosnhip, is just the fact that cars manfactured after the 31st Decemebr 2007 are not admitted in Australia.

To be clear, the Australian Formula 3 championship follows the FIA regulation, and must be considered as a Formula 3 serie.

One little point, I do not understand why only the cars manufactured in 2001 are not obliged to use the spec ECM.

Danilowski (talk 09:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The older cars have the older engines. There are a lot of cars not doing the rounds, so cost cutting would be a part of it. That and a large number of older F3 chassis are being converted to AF2 and Formula R specification because AF3 is too expensive to run. And running against '07 cars with the good HWA motors isn't so fun as it could be. --Falcadore (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Running a Formula 3 is expensive, it is also the reason why national Formula as Formula Renault, FCJ, TRS etc are attractive as the performance/cost ratio is better for these national series for people who are not on the way to Formula 1.

What is Formula R?

Danilowski (talk 08:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Formula R is a mix of former Formula 3 and Australian Formula 2 (no relation to F2) chassis (mostly Dallaras and Cheetahs) running a low specification Golf engine. Intended to be a very cheap wings/slicks category, and a method of running AF2 more cheaply. Prolifierated when a second ASN needed an open wheel category for its national racing series. Named for Terry Robertson who at one stage owned more than half the cars in the series. --Falcadore (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

One question: from different sources, and mainly from "the Formula 3 survey" by Karl-Friedrich Katabian, it appears that Australian Formula 3 serie would have started in 1997. Would do you know about that?

Danilowski (talk 12:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Australian Formula 3 dates back into the 1960s. The original Formula 3 was a local category, a downward evolution of Australian Formula 2, in turn downwards from AF1 - which was the Tasman Formula. Formula 3 as we know it today was introduced in 1989, originally to bolster fading grids of Australian Formula 2, which used F3 chassis anyway. By 1997 there were sufficient numbers of F3s to run their own series. It graduated to Australian Championship status in 1999. In 2005 Formula 3 replaced the fading Formula Holden as the category carryhing the Australian Drivers' Championship, to which the winner is awarded the Gold Star. --Falcadore (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Falcadore! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 12 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:


 * 1) David 'Skippy' Parsons -  ✅
 * 2) Peter McLeod -  ✅
 * 3) Graeme Bailey -  ✅
 * 4) Alfredo Costanzo -  ✅
 * 5) Armin Hahne -  ✅
 * 6) George Fury -
 * 7) John French (racing driver) -
 * 8) Bob Holden (racing driver) -
 * 9) George Reynolds (racing driver) -
 * 10) Midge Bosworth -

11. Bill Pitt (racing driver) 12. Leo Geoghegan 13. Barry Seton 14. Steven Johnson (motor racing)

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Toyota Racing Series
Thanks very much for getting rid of all those Kiwi flags that I mistakenly added when I put the standings in at 3:50am my time. I know I shouldn't be making excuses, but oh well. Cs-wolves (talk)  09:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Mt -- > Mount at Mount Panorama Circuitarticle.
Hi, Regarding your reversion of my edit, which changed some "Mt" references to "Mount". If you check, you'll see that the external references which I changed (Footnotes 15,16 & the Skateboard downhill external link) do indeed refer to "Mount", rather than "Mt", so I've reverted your reversion. Thanks for challenging my edits, you're not the first one to do so, and genuine Don Chipp efforts to keep me honest are appreciated. Johnmc (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct, my apologies. My original error then in thinking I'd written the reference correctly. --Falcadore (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Alfredo Costanzo

 * Moved from user:ikip

As you can see by examining the article - referencing has begun in the last week or so. Is this really neccessary? --Falcadore (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. I appreciate editors such as yourself monitoring wikipedia. I will revert back the article to main space. Thank you again. Ikip 04:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been sent a list of 12 articles to work through (as listed above) and am about half-way there. --Falcadore (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

www.therealmountpanorama.com
Do you know where I can get the 1987 Bathurst class 3? (1.6 l) results (apart from Wikipedia)? This is for that Bob Holden (racing driver) reference. Is http://www.racingsportscars.com/etcc/photo/Bathurst-1987-10-04.html suitable? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 V8 Supercar Championship Series/2010 V8 Supercar season
Eh, nevermind. The merge is self-evident and ought to be uncontroversial. Of course I read the pages in detail; I'm a bit baffled that you think I haven't. Have you read them in detail? Many links are broken, pointing to the championship when referring to the season or vice versa. It's a complete nightmare. I started trying to fix it, but the only real solution is to merge the pages. There is so much overlap there is no justification in having them separate in the first place. But if you prefer have it broken I don't have the time or energy to fight it. EeepEeep (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't start a discussion; I've never done a merge before and didn't know. I'm certainly not trying to edit wikipedia in isolation, if I were, I would have just done the changes myself rather than starting a merge and seeking help with it.  Working in isolation would be cutting off the process before it starts and directing hostile messages to people who are only trying to improve wikipedia.  The pages with broken or confusing links are here, here and this template. EeepEeep (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I never suggested merging all three series into one article, that would be ridiculous. EeepEeep (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty much every link to 2010 V8 Supercar Championship Series actually points to 2010 V8 Supercar season. If that's "exactly as intended" then this structure is more confused than I previously thought.
 * For the way this ought to work, take a look at 2010 in NASCAR. Just links to the series, with distinctly unique article names, no duplication of information or a confusing combined calendar. EeepEeep (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They're all over the place. Just try clicking on some of them.  For example this template, V8Supercar Championship Series (should be V8 Supercar Championships, more confusing and inconsistent naming) points to V8 Supercars and the season links point to the V8 Supercar season pages.  Is this really intentional? EeepEeep (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * At least I think that's supposed to be V8 Supercar Championships; looking more closely at the 2 pages there's lots of overlap. See what I mean about the structure being confused? EeepEeep (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You TEST my patience
WILL YOU STOP REMOVING TESTING DETAILS! You are so destructive. If testing was so insignificant why would it get reported on all the time by publications. What is your thing obliterating articles? Officially Mr X (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly it is interesting and by putting it on Wikipedia it is in a place where people can easily find it without having to search for ages through backlog news items on various websites. We give them the fastest driver with the link to the results and I think that is worth it for only a slight increase to the length of the article. In the motorsport world, testing is used to give a platform to young drivers, find race drivers for a season, test new parts, act as a venue for car launches, be a media outlet and attract sponsorship from onlooking investors. If testing was so insignificant why would there be such a big thing about the lack of testing, why would they even mention, or be aware of it, if it was so unnotable and lacking in any use. Ultimately we only put anything on here because it is interesting and that someone, somewhere might find what they were looking for and they won't be interested to say "oh I found what I want but what is that information on testing doing there, i better get rid of it so nobody else can ever find it, oh, aren't I doing the right thing". That surely can't be right. We must cater for all and real motorsport fans are often going to want to seeing the testing info and certainly wouldn't see any value in removing it. Officially Mr X (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is we are removing stuff but not replacing with anything and then comes the complaint that articles are too short. The point i'm making is that what may not be notable to you would be notable to testing officials, to the drivers involved etc. I definitely don't consider List of Pokémon interesting but its not to say some people don't (talk about a table giving heap loads of statistical information) and it's hardly notable in the real world, surely? What I want to know is where is the balance and the conistency and if that is happening there as a motorsport fan I don't want to be cutting back here on things I feel are important, and I can't be the only one in the world who thinks that. Officially Mr X (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If they're not motorsport fans then they're not going look at these pages anyway. The point I was making was that List of Pokémon (which goes into so much detail) is far less notable than testing. Sometimes I wish you would just stick to creating Australian driver pages. Officially Mr X (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Opinion
I know you've been one of the more vocal members of Motorsport articles on WP regarding the desire for more prose than charts and lists, so I was wondering about having a quick opinion regarding the 2010 FIA GT1 World Championship season. Since it's a new series and I can really start fresh with it, I've been trying hard to make it fit more into the style of season summary that it seems yourself and others want to turn the F1 season articles into. And it is certainly far different from the majority of the season articles I have been doing. So I just wanted to know if you thought this article was heading in a proper direction. The359 ( Talk ) 18:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

2010 IndyCar Series Season
I'm tiring of you declassifying Richard Antinucci and Jay Howard's rookie status. Neither have run more than 4 races and neither have competed in the Indy 500. They are ROOKIES. Ryan Hunter-Reay was classified as a rookie in 2008 even though he ran seven races and didn't contest the Indy 500 in 2007. Please show some critical thinking skills...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron5572 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)  Ha Ha Flacadore and EeepEeep suck it! Davey hamilton was signed by LDR/de Farren just like I said.

Unreferenced BLPs
G'day Commocon, As you are probably aware, based on the Dashbot message above, there has been a big focus on eliminating unreferenced BLPs from wikipedia. In particular, the WP:Australia project is trying to eliminate them all as soon as possible (and thereby avoiding as much drama as possible). We started out at around 2000, we are now down to under 500. I see you've done a few, and you're edits to Leo Geoghegan showed up on my watchlists today. As you probably have knowledge and quicker access to relevant sources, could you see if you could knock off any more on this list. Thanks a lot, The-Pope (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Eugene Laverty
Yeah I know. But, Laverty does race under the Tricolour. It's something that relates to the political status of which Northern Ireland and Ireland consist of. Parkalgar, Laverty's team, also list him under just Irish, rather than British for a Northern Irish rider such as Jonathan Rea. What makes it more confusing is that the other brothers (John and Michael) race under a British licence. Anyway, I'm off out for the afternoon, so I'll struggle to find more conclusive sources until later on. It's pretty similar to the Adam Carroll situation with him racing for A1 Team Ireland, but more confusing. Anyway, I bid you farewell for the afternoon. Cs-wolves (talk)  12:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Todd Kelly / Mark Skaife
I thought that I would put Skaife in 6th, Kelly 7th and Richo 8th due to the fact that they were very close on points and that Skaife had the most points of them all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.85.242 (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC) I thought that I would put Skaife in 6th, Kelly 7th and Richo 8th due to the fact that they were very close on points and that Skaife had the most points of them all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.85.242 (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware of that but due to the fact that all 3 were one point apart and I like Skaife more I put him in 6th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.85.242 (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but I don't like you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.85.242 (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but I'm the ultimate V8 Supercar guy, your just a loser —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.85.242 (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

2011 Formula One season
Your IP friend had put Kimi back in the Red Bull team for this year. I replaced the table with the last good version ( from your last edit) but you may want to give it the once over to see that I have it right. Britmax (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Car racing world championships
You can help us. If you know about Car racing world championships, you should improve this template : Template:Main world championships. Thank you --Italodal (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! I will update the template soon as possible.--Italodal (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike Burgmann
Oh yeah, that's right. Could Brocky go on the list? Does it count if it wasn't broadcatsed? Dunnybrusher (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Formats and templates?
There seems to have been something wrong with the pages you made on the V8 Supercar Championship Series - a glitch with the "align" tags in the beginning infobox made the text grotesquely overflow the margins. I've trimmed these down; mind checking my work? DS (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Been fixing those as I find them. --Falcadore (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

2009 Mini Challenge
Just started the 2009 Australian Mini Challenge series page. Could you help out with the colours for the points score please. I'll fix up a few references in coming days. --NigelPorter (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia uses XHTML (right click on the page and select "view source") and the proper way to insert a newline is . Check the relevant section. Hope this helps! -- Kimon talk 00:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How is enforcing correct syntax not an answer? I guess correcting typos and spelling is also "millimetric correctness"? -- Kimon talk 01:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Racist IP edits
You know the slew of racist edits against Lewis Hamilton that we've been getting lately, from the 115... IP addresses? That address is Malaysian, and I noticed this edit from a Malaysian user Gokul009, which he swiftly undid with a very lame excuse. I don't want to assume bad faith, but do you think it's the same guy, and he made the vandal edit without realising he was logged in? Do you think it might be worth talking to an admin and getting a Check ? Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. --Falcadore (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Shall I ask an admin or do you know one who might be up for it? Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know one. Sorry. --Falcadore (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No probs, I'll get on to it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good pickup. All I could remember was I hadn't seen that IP in awhile. --Falcadore (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked a CheckUser admin for advice. Will keep you posted. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Gokul009 indef blocked, and his IPs are blocked for two weeks. He was even doing it today - at least it gives us a break... Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, great work for picking it up. --Falcadore (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and thanks for the barnstar!! Much appreciated, cheers :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Port Wakefield
Ok, why was it wrong??HoldenV8 (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Are there any records of this? I know the circuit closed in 1961 but do you have any evidence that Brabham & Hunt's time was bettered? If so, why not put it in as a track record instead of just deleting what I contributed and telling me I was wrong? I'm not disputing that the time could have been lowered from 1:03.0 in the six following years as race cars do tend to get faster with development, but where is the proof that their time was beaten? And what's this you mentioned about a 49 second lap time being fantasy? I never wrote anything about that.HoldenV8 (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Formula 1 2010 Season colors in points system table
''Just stop it OK? The colours do not add anyting to this table, they do not provide any additional explantion,, the key to the colours is much further down in the article, they only thing they are is pretty, and potentially more confusing as the unfamiliar reader has to ask why its there.''

Hey, I'm not being rude when posting those changes. I'm as much intereseted as you to make this article look and be right.

You also agree with me they do add to the aesthetics, and also it really is coherent with the colouring of the standings table. Maybe what is confusing (I assume) is that the table represents points and not positions. Then it colud be right not to mix them up. Although, the table looks really withered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.1.117.15 (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Update note: Every page of every F1 driver has those colours in their GP results, without any references to them. It's not the same table as the points system table, because the latter shows positions and not points; and to mix their references could be confusing.

Even though, the driver's results problem still exist. Maybe F1 seasons articles should be presented better, and driver's pages could be kept this way (both as they are).LehonardEuler (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)