User talk:Spute

This is my talk page.

Re: Mercedes in F3
Hello, Spute. Thanks for the reply. I will expand that section for you in a day or two. Regards, Adrian M. H. 18:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Spute. I got around to working on the Mercedes F3 section. Regards, Adrian   M. H.  17:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ferrari 312T
Sorry Spute. When I saw you hadn't touched the page for nearly an hour, I thought you'd finished editing. If I'd known you were still going, I wouldn't have "butted in". DH85868993 13:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've made all the changes I wanted to. Actually, it's funny - I saw the (excellent) changes you made the other day and thought "1980 needs it own section; I'll make that change some time in the next few days". I finally got around to doing it tonight at exactly the same time you were making the same change - when I browsed to the page, 1979 and 1980 were in the same section; when I got into the editing screen they were in separate sections - boy was I confused! But it's all sorted now. DH85868993 14:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the technical history of F1, I've made some suggestions on the talk page of your sandbox. I though that might be beter than leaping in and editing it straight off. I'll keep adding thoughts there, if that's OK? 4u1e 19:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

F1 chassis redirects
Hi Spute. I notice that you recently created articles for Arrows A3, Renault RE20B, Tyrrell 010 and Fittipaldi F8C which are just redirects to the respective constructor pages. I'm wondering whether it might be a better idea to not create "pre-emptive" redirects like these, but instead to create any necessary redirects after the base article has been written. Otherwise, seeing blue links might discourage people from writing the articles because they think they've already been written. What do you think? DH85868993 07:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I see your point. Another question: Yesterday I updated a driver career summary table for a driver (Reine Wisell) who drove a Lotus 72D. I wikilinked "72D" directly to Lotus 72. Do you think it would be better to have created a "Lotus 72D" article (which redirects to Lotus 72) and wikilinked to that instead? One advantage of doing that would be that if anyone ever types Lotus 72D in the future, they'll get a blue link straight away. But I'm worried that we'd end up with a clutter of little redirect pages for every /B, /C, /D, etc chassis variation. And a slight variation on that theme: Wisell also drove a BRM P160B and a BRM P160C. Noting that there currently isn't a BRM P160 article, do you think I should have:
 * (1) linked "P160B" and "P160C" to BRM P160, resulting in red links (this is what I actually did)
 * (2) linked "P160B" to BRM P160B and linked "P160C" to BRM P160C, resulting in red links


 * (3) linked "P160B" to BRM P160B and linked "P160C" to BRM P160C, created BRM P160B and BRM P160C both as redirects to BRM, resulting in blue links
 * (4) linked "P160B" to BRM P160B and linked "P160C" to BRM P160C, created BRM P160B and BRM P160C both as redirects to BRM P160 and created BRM P160 as a redirect to BRM, resulting in blue links, or
 * (5) something else?
 * DH85868993 01:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi DH85868993. Yeah in the Lotus 72 case i'd agree with you, it'll be easy enough to sort it out, as the Lotus 72 will never have too many links. AS fot the other case, personally, I'd go for:
 * linked "P160B" and "P160C" to BRM P160, and created BRM P160 as a redirect to BRM, resulting in blue links

for the following reasons: If someone does ever make "P160B" and "P160C", it'll be quite easy to spot the incorrect links, as there'll never be too many of them. I think blue links are much more helpful to the general reader/F1 fan. I know it's slightly less easy for people, like you and I, who want to spot articles in need of attention, but we can always mention these on the project pages. What i do think is important is that someone who knows very litte about F1 history, can click on a link and instantly get some relevant info, even if it's not yet a full article solely about that car. That's why i did it for Fittipaldi F8C. I thought someone might be looking at, say the page for the MP4/1 or another 1981 car, and want to know about its competitors. At least with the link to the redirect they find out a bit about Fittipaldi Automotive/Copersucar - a fair bit of intersting F1 history they may never have known, whereas a red link would give them nothing, unless they do a google search for the car or something. That might seem trivial, but i'm keen to make things as easy as possible particularly as someone who has had computer-related repetitive strain injury problems. Having said that, i'm not too bothered if there's abit of inconsistency in this respect, there's plenty of other stuff to do on wikipedia.Spute 21:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just realised that option (4) isn't a viable option anyway, since BRM P160B and BRM P160C would be double-redirects (which don't work). So I agree that your suggestion is probably best. BTW, are you happy for me to copy this discussion to the WP:F1 discussion page, so we can share the idea with others? DH85868993 01:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Suspension keel
Hi. I notice that you have some good looking start material in your sandbox relating to the proposed F1 technical innovation page. Just thought I'd let you know that I created a page specifically about suspension keels, if it is of any use to you. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the page if you have time as well. Bye for now. Pyrope 15:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Your sandbox
Hi, I noticed that in the article in your sandbox you a referring to the venturi redirect page using the link venturi. That page redirects to the venturi disambiguation page. I would like to ask you to change the link to point to a more useful article like venturi pump or venturi effect. Thanks ʍαμ$ʏ5043 18:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:2007renaultpromo.jpg
Hello, Spute. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:2007renaultpromo.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Spute/sandbox. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 01:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Steve Earle The Mountain Album Cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Steve Earle The Mountain Album Cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Steve Earle Transcendental Blues Cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Steve Earle Transcendental Blues Cover.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

New entries edit (2010 Formula One Championship)
It's very good!

Just felt like you needed some credit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter-27 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * How do you propose to explain away the (very good) sources that say that bernie Ecclestone owns the F1 name? I would also suggest leaving the edit as it was originally while this is discussed, i.e. when I put the "new entries" section there, not how it was after your shaky edits. If you keep changing it to your idea, it looks like an edit war. "And again" is not an adequate edit summary, by the way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would add thgat Ken Anderson doesn't get to decide what the team is called if the FIA or Ecclestone doesn't like it. Therefore, Anderson saying "It's called this" before he has any kind of confirmation is meaningless. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As it says in the link you posted - they can't use it until they're in. In which case, neither can we. You've just undone your own argument. We'll leave it as USGPE with an explanatory note until theentry list is confirmed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has to stick with what's current and legal. If it's not allowed to be called USF1 until the entry is accepted, then we can't call it that either. Crystal-balling, they call it, plus there might be legal ramifications. When the name is confirmed, we can change the article title. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, good idea. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Spute/sandbox2
User:Spute/sandbox2, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Spute/sandbox2 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Spute/sandbox2 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 02:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)