User talk:Pyrope/Archive 2013

A barnstar for you!

 * If you've got a bit of time, I could do with a little more help on the article. Worm TT(talk ) 11:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Dayncourt badge.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Dayncourt badge.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1949 BRDC International Trophy


The article 1949 BRDC International Trophy has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This article has been unsourced since at least 2006. I did some searching and believe that references could be found for the table of results, but I cannot find anything to indicate that this race is notable enough for inclusion as its own article.

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Andrew327 05:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

South Nottinghamshire Academy
Hi there, I cant seem to find any mention of South Nottinghamshire Academy being a specialist maths college. The website does state that it is still a Sports College, but no mention of maths. So I have modified your recent edit to the article. However, if i'm wrong, please feel free to revert me, but a source would be good. Bleaney (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A source was provided at the time that edit was made, look harder when you are checking diffs. Also, the dual specialism is confirmed in the academy's own prospectus.  Pyrop e  00:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Mercedes W04
I just want to be absolutely certain that every outcome has been explored. I think I made a pretty compelling case above, and based on some of the comments he has made, I suspect Daniels Renault Sport has let his ego influence his editing and that it is more important for his preferred edits to be made than it is for the right edits to be made. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree, your argument was far from compelling. It was shot through with your own "feel"ings, rather than being supported by evidence and logic. Your comments above are quite funny, and I am sure there is an old saying regarding pots and kettles that applies here...  Pyrop e  02:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I used words like "feel" in place of "think" or "believe" because I was consicuous of apeparing too aggressive in presenting my argument, and so decided that it was a softer word than some of the others I could have used. It had nothing to do with imbuing any kind of emotional substance into the argument. If it came across any differently, that's because I'm not particularly subtle to begin with, and so am not very good at nuance, even when it is called for. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Caterham CT03
Hey Pyrope,

Would you be able to take a look at Caterham CT03 for me, please? I made some changes yesterday, adding details of the exhaust that attracted Lotus' attention. I had to explain what the regulations say about exhaust outlets to explain why Lotus were questioning the parts, but the problem is that the regulations themselves are very wordy and it's easy to read them a dozen times and not understand them at all. I think I did a pretty good job of describing it, but I just want to be sure, so could you please take a look and tell me what you think? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's fairly good as it is, although if anything you could simplify it down a little. As all the documents you quote are publicly available you don't really need the quote, for instance. The intent of the regulation seems to be to prevent an aerodynamic device of any kind (either to modify the flow downward, or simply to put a wing there!) to be located in the region, although it keeps the term bodywork so as to be nice and general, and that's what the article should say. Bearing in mind that we are a general interest encyclopedia some times it is easy to overthink things and try to convey every single technical nuance when a general statement would be more than adequate. I'll make a few tweaks, see what you reckon.  Pyrop e  23:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll trust your judgement. One of my worst habits when editing is starting back further than I need to, so there's soemtimes a bit of exposition prefacing edits I make. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkpage
Pyrope,

What on earth are you insinuating with the words "too late". I was merely clearing out my talkpage. You can read between the lines and do whatever you wish to do.Rambo.XIV (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Frankly, sod off. You were removing block and unblock templates. The unblock template explicitly stated that your unblock was only granted on condition that you not upload any more copyvio material to Wikipedia. Directly below this was the notice of nomination for speedy deletion of your recent upload File:Stirling Moss Triumph.jpg. You claimed that this was your own work, a claim entirely unbelievable and eminently disprovable. That image appears on almost 100 web pages elsewhere, the vast majority of which are hosted by very reputable media outlets such as the BBC, the major international auction house Bonhams, and Stirling Moss' own website!! On the same day you also uploaded the file File:Jim Clark Lotus.jpg. This, again, has copyright owned by a reputable source. In this case the owner is Getty Images, one of the largest photo agencies in the world. Yet again, though, you claim it as your own work. How stupid do you think we are here? Both images are now deleted.  Pyrop e  02:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A family of member of mine worked at Getty Images and had jurisdiction over a vast majority of motorsport photos that have since been used on countless websites without permission. He gave me his permission to use those photos, the Jim Clark on in particular. Look I have no interest in arguing with a rude and megalomaniacal admin. I have better things to do than fight a lost cause - do what you wishRambo.XIV (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking about preserving this comment on my talk page for posterity. It's art in a curious sense. It is the absolute type specimen of "when caught with your pants around your ankles, don't show fear, go for the big lie". Beautiful, thanks for making my day, and enjoy your indefinite block. You thoroughly deserve it.  Pyrop e  21:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of March 701
Hello! Your submission of March 701 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been a week and a half since you posted to this page, and there haven't been any edits to the article in that time. Please let us know on the nomination page how long you expect the sourcing to take. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The nomination is about to be closed, and that could happen at any time. If you wish to pursue this DYK submission, you need to act immediately. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOOD Needs You!
Hi there Pyrope! I've noticed you have yourself listed as a member of the Food and Drink Wikiproject. Unfortunately it looks like the project has been slowly sliding into inactivity except for a couple of people. That makes me a sad potato, and nobody likes a sad potato amirite?

If you'd like to turn my frown upside down, can you do two small things?

First off, go here and add Tick (✅) next to your name if you're still part of the project.

Second, go to the project talkpage and participate in a discussion about how to make the project more active, and how to go about making articles in our area of interest a lot better.

You don't want to make me cry, do you? Potatoes have a lot of eyes you know. So come on, join in! :)

— The Potato Hose 18:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

BRG
I take your point (In your edit summary). I removed the "range of" from the lead - from my sentence, actually - because it seemed to be blurring the distinction between the use of the term in fashion and in motor racing. If it is currently used for a range of shades is there a better phrase we can use, actually defining the range? As a product colour it's a particular kind of green - in motor racing it could be any green at all. Ian Dalziel (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

CA12
When intentionally linking to a disambiguation page (as the hatnote in CA12 does), the link should be piped through the (disambiguation) redirect per WP:INTDABLINK. That is the reason for the redirect. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 06:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The page CA-12 is the disambiguation page. Not every page that is a disambiguation page needs to have "(disambiguation)" appended to the end of it. The redirect is spurious and confusing, and will likely lead to double redirects down the line. It is classic cruft.  Pyrop e  07:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know that CA-12 is the disambiguation page. Piping the link through the (disambiguation) redirect shouldn't be confusing (it's transparent to the reader) or spurious (as it lets the editors who fix disambiguation links (and the bots that compile the list of links to be disambiguated) know that the link is intentional and doesn't need to be disambiguated). Also, there's no reason it will lead to double redirects, as CA-12 is unlikely to ever be changed into something other than the disambiguation page that it is. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 07:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hogwash. This, as I said before, is classic cruft. If somebody has created a bot that can only tell if a dab link is intentional if it is piped, therefore we need to create many many utterly pointless pages, the fault is with the bot and its lazy maker. Why not make it so that links in a dab hatnote template are assumed to be intentional? That would seem the sensible course. You are making a very simple situation needlessly convoluted, and it isn't just readers you should be considering but inexperienced editors too.  Pyrop e  07:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The way the bot tells that the link is intentional is by the (disambiguation) parenthetical on the link. Hatnote links are not always intentional. I've seen plenty of hatnotes that were intended to go to a specific target, but after the target of the hatnote had been moved to a new title, the hatnote unintentionally went to the disambiguation page. I've had discussions with new (and not so new) editors who have asked me why I performed an edit similar to the one we have been discussing. Every editor seemed to understand and accept my explanation for why the piping is done. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 07:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough then.  Pyrop e  13:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Archiving Talk:McLaren
Hi. I've proposed archiving Talk:McLaren and wanted to bring this to your attention and ask you to weigh-in on the discussion page, since you're one of the most prolific contributors to the main article. Please feel free to advise any other editors as well! No action will be taken by me prior to establishing consensus, however. Cheers. Azx2 16:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Alain Prost
Hi - I saw you reverted my edits on Alain Prost regarding his rivalry w/ Senna (including deleting the entire Senna blockquote, transcribed from the press conference), but then you reverted your own reversion. Just testing something? Azx2 16:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Slip of the finger over the rollback button. My bad.  Pyrop e  17:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining what happened. I appreciate your time.Az</b><b style="color:#600">x</b><b style="color:#000">2</b> 16:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Lola Cars
Multimatic/Haas are planning on continuing with the design/manufacture of Lola P1 car for 2014. See link: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/sports/lola-saved-by-haas-multimatic-deal-327049.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Power Forward (talk • contribs) 21:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter - September 2013

 * Posted by Northamerica1000(talk) 02:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:Food
It would be appreciated if you joined in the conversation occurring at WT:Food regarding the layout and presentation of the project's main page. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter - October 2013

 * Delivered by Northamerica1000(talk) 21:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)