User talk:Prisonermonkeys/Archive2

Re:
Please keep your tone in check. Although your point is noted, your attitude is not appreciated. In any case, in hindsight, appears I was correct, and at the time I edited it, several reputable news sources had reported the change. I'm experienced enough in Wikipedia to know what is worthy of change and I do not appreciate being spoken down to. Kind regards, Mouse Nightshirt | talk  13:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Shotover Jet
Hi there, just to let you know Shotover Jet are not considering entering for 2011, that was just an April Fools joke! Have a look here and you'll see it! Well it happens to all of us ;) QueenCake (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Referencing TV
Template:Cite episode may help. --Falcadore (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 Spanish Grand Prix
I have seen the reports of the first four races as you have suggested. The reports on them are quite varied - the first two races - the Bahrain GP and the Australian GP are short without links, whereas the Malaysian GP and the Chinese GP have a long summary (probably justified as there were lots of incidents in both races) with lots of links, mostly at the first paragraph which describes the first lap or two.

I have made minor changes to the 'Report' section for the Spanish GP, but I did not add any more links as you have advised. If there is anything wrong with it, can you tell me, for I am new to Wikipedia. MichaelSchumacherFerrari (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

ITN for 2010 Monaco Grand Prix
Nice work. Perhaps you could take a look back and add some references in though? - Dumelow (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverted edits on 2010 Formula One season
Hi, I had to revert to an older vesion of the page due to vandalism. Unfortunately the "undo" button wouldn't work for this. Please would you mind putting back the edits you did since they got wiped out. Thanks  ARC Gritt TALK  10:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't revert my change again. Have a look at the change log and you will see that those changes are reverting vandalism that removed Lewis Hamilton from the statistics sections.  ARC Gritt TALK  10:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Good Faith
All edits are made in good faith and all comments regarding any edits must reflect an automatic assumption of good faith. Claiming edits are a vendetta is poor etiquette at best or at worst a personal attack. I hope that you will in the future not make any further rash comments which cannot be removed. -- Lucy-marie (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to issues which are controversial then I shall discuss them. I am though an editor who places WP:bold front and centre of their editing and will edit first and discuss later if needed. This is because 95% of all edits I make do not need discussion first and for the other 5% I am more than willing to discuss constructively over the points of policy. I have though had too much of personality edits from others in my time here. This may not be the way you edit but it is the way i edit. I also admit that I have an interpretation which is somewhat stricter than others of WP:POV. That does not make me aggressive or a vindictive editor. All edits I make are made in Good Faith regardless. This may not have been 2 years ago but that was 2 years ago. Also some of the sources over paragraphs do not cover all of the information being claimed in the rest of the paragraph, In that case I shall add a fact tag where I see necessary. A tag is not added to every single sentence as you have claimed, because that is absurd and unnecessary. Also I would like to know who these "other people" are who think I have a "vendetta" against these pages. I am not a vandal and all edits I make are a genuine attempt at being constructive. I also have to state that just because I have made someone else's life slightly more difficult on Wikipedia that I am going to disappear. That would be nonsense and would undermine the principles of a user edited free encyclopaedia. I have to say that i will continue my editing and will still be assuming good faith of all edits made and will be expecting the same to be done by all other users. Also just because editors have been editing pages for some time or consider themselves an expert or are a Wikipedia Administrator, etc. Doesn't give them any more right over a page or any more right to have their edits or the style of the page in the way they want as that is one of the founding principles in WP:Ownership. I hope that we can continue editing in a civil manner and that all edits will be considered in good faith from all editors. --Lucy-marie (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please be aware I was not referring to you regarding TV shows because to my knowledge and correct me if I am wrong you were not involoved in protacted and nasty discussions regarding merging articles of the show 24. Assuming good faith in other editors is the number one founding policy of an open and inclusive user edited encyclopedia and not doing so undermines this encyclopedia project. I hope you will assume good faith in all editors regardless of who they are including myself.-- Lucy-marie (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken Anderson
The information was removed as it was potentially confusing and contradictory when taking about the other team which has entered which is the remains of the USF1 team outfit which Anderson is not a part of.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

USGP
When it was first deleted by myself the source was just Ecclestone saying it would happen, which is not wholly reliable as he no matter what his job is he is still just one man. There was also no confirmation of where it would take place. As the discussions evolved and was fully initiated by myself more reliable sources emerged and unreliable sources were removed from the article. That is how I edit I will be bold to start with but I a more than willing to have a sensible policy based discussion. Unlike some of the rubbish I have had in the past with some other users particularly regarding certain TV shows. I hope this clears up your confusion regarding my editing style and I hope that from now on you will assume good faith in all editing by all users regardless of your perceptions of them.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Prodrive/Mini
While I agree that Mini World Rally Team utter toss, could we not display it as Prodrive/MINI for now, in order to show that it is a works MINI team - they will race as MINI (in one variation or another) and not Prodrive after all, as that is where the money comes from. - mspete  93  10:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

AGF
I think you need to remember that all editors regardless of your personal views of them should have the courtesy of good faith extended to them, I find it astonishing that you refuse point blank to view each edit on its merits. Good faith is an absolute necessity in the editing process or no productive change would occur to Wikipedia. If you continue your blanket failure to assume good faith without reason, purely because you have a disliking for me due to reasons which are passing understanding, I will be forced to file a report stating you are bizarrely not assuming good faith and have no valid reason not to assume good faith. It strikes me as very odd that you are not assuming good faith and I am also at a loss as to why you have this inbuilt "I think Lucy-Marie is here to piss me off" attitude, with regards to editing. Editing is based upon frankness and each edit made must be viewed as a way of trying to further the goals of Wikipedia and edits must not be pre-judged based on reasons which are beyond understanding just because I changed parts of an article you thought you had ownership of. --Lucy-marie (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have never held the view that the page regarding the 2012 Formula One Season is unnecessary. I also have never made an edit to the page which is designed to be "constructed in such a way that undermines the entire point of them". I simply think you just dislike me for some reasoning which passses understanding and are unwilling to accept any editing I do due to your absurd prejudices against me.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because you disliked the edits doesn’t give you the right to ignore the rules of civility which govern Wikipedia. As I have said If you continue to fail to assume good faith I will be forced to report the failure to assume good faith. This is because you have no valid reason for not assuming good faith. There was also a discussion regarding the topic which you use as you justification which was civil and resolved the situation in civil way. Your current reasoning for not assuming good faith, if the USGP is what you are using, is nonsense and invalid as it was purely on edits and discussion of content and was in no way vandalism or disruptive, any claims to the contrary and baseless and false. Continuing to fail to assume good faith is now passing all reasonable and rational understanding.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Historical precedent" being claimed as your reason is nonsense as there is no basis for claiming there is any "historical precedent" of any substance. Face it you disliked edits I made because it changed your version of your article. Get over yourself and edit like a grown up.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You are forming an opinion based on your own interpritations of the way you and you alone believe the article should be. The information removed was nothing more than padding and POV. The information contained in an article must only be what is needed. If you believe that that makes the article a candidate for deletion then that is what you think. I most certainly do not believe that the edits I have made to the article would have led to the article being deleted as there are plenty of sources within the article to justify the article remaining. I believe that you have made up your own conclusions which do not bare any resemblance to the facts. I believe you are paranoid that the article will change to a version you dislike and are making up worst case scenarios in your head such "oh shit the article i have worked on is going to get deleted because this editor has removed information i think is essential to it remaining”. This demonstrates you are exerting a form of passive ownership of the article and do not understand that 99.9% of all edits made by all editors are there to genuinely try and improve articles. I also reject any claims that you may make stating I am in the 0.1% of editors. I think it is time to grow up and accept that you may dislike my edits and my editing style but that I am firstly not going to go anywhere just because you dislike me and secondly (and this may be hard for your ego to swallow) i am genuinely editing with the goal of improving Wikipedia. --Lucy-marie (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a need for you to see my POV and not ignore it because it conflicts with yours. You have a perfectly valid opinion that information should be included if it is sourced and relevant. The USGP at the time though was not contracted and was only speculative and when the contract was sourced I had no problem with its inclusion. A frank and grown up discussion took place albeit with some hysterical contribution from a couple of users not being rational. I hold the view that a neutral point of view is the paramount importance in article, you seem to believe that as much information as possible is necessary. While these two perfectly valid views can usually easily meld and co-exist in some cases there is conflict. That is what the case in this situation was. I am not going to amend my editing style or my interpretation of what i believe Wikipedia should be. I also doubt you are either. I simply think you need to accept a plurality of interpretations and views and not just your own and being both correct and valid. Discussion boards are there for a reason and were correctly used for their purpose. Just because you went and found other people to participate in the discussion doesn’t make any single editor disruptive or wrong. All they simply did was something which they genuinely believed to be correct and you happened to disagree with them. I have said before and shall say again, time now is to grow up and accept that different editors have a multitude of interpretations and you have to accept that with good faith for all users myself included. I assume good faith with you and you have an obligation to extend the same to me, regardless of your predetermined misconceptions and conclusions.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Caesars Palace GP
It has also been described as one of the worst circuits Formula One has ever visited. - that source is more than a little opiniated? Is it really the sort of addition that is worthwhile? It's a rather subjective piece isn't it? --Falcadore (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Alonso/Vettel
Hahah, I knew it had to be a bit of brain fade on your part ;) And we're all guilty of that sometimes! Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

JB 007: BS
Hi Prisonermonkeys, I saw your edit. Concerning the correct title, care to voice your opinion here? :) -- Soetermans |  drop me a line  |  what I'd do now?  22:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Team order
Re: Your team order edit

Based on the comment of your edit, it appears your intention was to list the teams in alphabetical order. Considering that your newly created list starts with Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro that has not been achived, unles you believe the letter "S" to be the first letter of the alphabet.

I'm fine with the teams to be listed in alphabetical order but in that case official team names should be used instead of some arbitrary nicknames. C1010 (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

2011 V8 supercars
Hey PM, did you read the source V8fan used? Not even remotely any kind of official announcement. There is no mention anywhere of a 'Charlie Schwerkolt Racing' in anything other than fan forums. We shouldn't be spreading any kind of speculation. You know a source liek that wouldn't get anywhere in an F1 season article. --Falcadore (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

2011 V8 Supercar Championship
The article has a different name, because the series has changed its name, a move initiated by the FIA. To refer to it as the 2011 V8 Supercar Championship Series is false. The name change is referenced in the article. I would ask that you move it back please. --Falcadore (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ps if you don't like the change, there's nothing stopping you from changing it back yourself. Very true. And more wording might have been interpreted rudely, and I'm sorry for that. Trying to convince the editor though can prevent an edit war, altohugh I'm not suggesting that would have happened but it is a back-of-the-mind thought that slips in when I'm in a hurry. --Falcadore (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A query. We didn't need to know that VIP Petfoods, a prolific sponsor of Australian motorsport who left V8 Supercar openly criticising while doing so is no important, but listing every car number, when it is already listed in the table above the notes is important? I'm afraid that is demonstrating some backwards priorities. --Falcadore (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Greg Murphy
You know better than to include non-announcment references surely? --Falcadore (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

toro rosso drivers
Hi, Ok i appreciate what you are saying. I know it is not a race however I think that it should be up-to-date and accurate. What is the point in having out-of-date information. It does say however (on the edit page) that GP Update is a reputable source and they confirm it? If its not then this needs to be removed! You want official confirmation and I don't know what is more official than both the team and drivers confirming it. There have also been articles saying "Daniel Ricciardo will join as test driver alongside 2011 race drivers Buemi and Alguersuari" and the team saying the feel they will improve their performances next year? They have also said that the FIA list is incomplete as their drivers should be in it as they have been entered. This is the same with other drivers however they are included in the article? I will leave it for now however when the FIA release the revised list (which I imagine will be soon) then I will add them again. Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinmotox11 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Colinmotox11
I've just been looking at the history of the 2011 article and I see just how many times he's added that hopeless reference. He should definitely have been issued warnings by now. I'll leave a further note on his talk page pointing out the danger of what he's doing with regard to getting blocked. He seems to have a bit of fascination with that source! Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, somewhere along the line, he just doesn't seem to get it. I understand that he wants to complete the information he sees as accurate, but he doesn't understand that we have to be able to properly verify that it's accurate. I'm also wondering if that GP update site is his own! He seems obsessed with it. I've left him another note and pointed it out on the Wikiproject page as well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Autosport can be a bit troublesome like that. I agree that we need more reliable sources - Autosport is great but we can't use it all the time. GP update doesn't seem to be linked to any outside publication and it doesn't really say anything about where it gets its information from. We have the BBC, which can be handy, and grandprix.com is another useful one. F1news.com is a good roundup of news from other sources, and can lead you to other sites where decent refs might be found. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Albers
There are only two things I remember Albers for in Formula One: His points in the Indy "race", and Yuji Ide ploughing into him causing him to roll at Imola in 2006. Apart from that, nothing merited him being there. Cs-wolves (talk)  15:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I've just remembered his link with Kolles in the Audi in recent years. Bugger. Can definitely see HRT missing a few races if they have that driver combo, with the 107% rule back. Cs-wolves  (talk)  22:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope they are not as bad as everyone thinks they are going to be, but we won't know likely until that Bahrain test 10 days before the start of the season...at least they'll get some testing on the car pre-season hopefully, unlike 2010. I can't remember the exact figures - they're in some Autosport magazine - but I do know Senna had averaged under 107% in each race unlike Chandhok (didn't really get a chance when the car had been slightly improved from the start of the season) and Yamamoto (well, we'll not go there) but his fractious relationship with Kolles has probably cost him the second seat. Cs-wolves  (talk)  10:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't think you've forgotten any in recent times; Ascari way back would be another, but for those four we get the opposite end more frequently in various family heritage (Andrettis, Fittipaldis etc.) Cs-wolves  (talk)  10:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Bruno Senna
Hi! I thought that his place as first reserve was a little newsy and crystal ball (will he when it matters?) and a magnet for the addition of other drivers. As we are walking the line of what matters either way here (well IMO) I won't worry about it. Just letting you know my thinking (and that there was some thinking involved (!) Britmax (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Sorry for the edit but reverting people who think we need to know yesterday who's going to replace Kubica is almost a reflex action. Britmax (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I added a small section about the fact that Bruno will be driving for Renault on the Sat and Sun of the Jerez test. This is not a speculative edit as it has been confirmed by team. I feel that this is quite an important piece of information about him which is why I added it. You reverted it without a proper reason and I am just wondering why? You seem to be reverting a lot of information myself and others add which is reliable and valuable information. Colinmotox11 (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Tables
Hi, how good are you at tables? I need help with a four colum table, merging cells in the fourth column vertically with those below, where the first column is also merged vertically. Are you up to this? Mjroots (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Formula One season
I've had to revert some of your edits to this article as they seem to have broken up the Teams and Drivers table. Maybe you could have another go at them. Britmax (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I've reverted your correction. I will stay out of the way if you re revert it, so to speak. Britmax (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do that. And if you leg it to my page and put your four tildes in you may beat sinebot to the punch (!) Britmax (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine solution. It looks as though we can go back to fending off people who put some random yak herder in as second driver at HRT. Britmax (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Oz GP
Mjroots (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)