User talk:The359/Archive 3

New less ambigious template
Just want to say, considering you have created the season articles yourself. As I was working on a article related to cars competing in the series, I have created a less ambiguous to type template for you to use if you want to use it when linking articles to IMSA seasons. Chack it out at Template:IMSA.

As for your RLR article you created recently, although I am still looking for the source to that magazine amongst the several hundreds I have at home, there is a bit that might be an interest to your article. Richard Lloyd said in an interview for 911 and Porsche World magazine somewhere back in probably 2002 was that what caused his team to fold was his preference of hiring skilled drivers over hiring ride-buyers (amateurs racers who paid for a drive) which he said he regretted in the interview. Willirennen (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bethlehem Steel
Do you mean mature like auto racing? Sorry about that. I noticed your comment said 5 pictures on a web page are not useful, i guess that would mean you werent smart enough to click the 'next' button and see the hundred or so other photographs in that essay? I also noticed you said your not an expert on bethlehem steel. That is obvious by your contributions. Do you work for the Sands?

2007 Sandown GT Classic
Was not planning any individual Aus GT races other this this one. The GT folk are are planning the GT Classic as a standout enduro race, similar in its way that Bathurst is to the V8 Supercar series.

That having been said, I was planning to add any international motor race held in Australia, hence the recent addition of the two World Sportscar round that were held in Australia, and the backwards history expansion of the Australian CART/Champ Car round. Rally Australia also beckons, Australian Motorcycle Grand Prix, continuing the Bathurst 1000 back into the 1960's, and the Australian Grand Prix back into the 70's the Formula 5000 era, and at some point no doubt the Tasman Cup series. Plus I have intention to cover several current national series, with the second tier V8Supercar series a definte target for expansion. Thoughts? --Falcadore (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

re:International Motor Sports Association
Thanks for the reminder, I just had to add some new bits considering there is a large gap between the foundation of the organization and the sale, also got rid of some of the unsourcable bits. Willirennen (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

List of 24 Hours of Le Mans fatal accidents
Considering you were interested a month ago and I wish I could but I'm too time constrained at the moment, I now done the table reformat, all it needs if some summary, just write it at there it says above the black line, happy editing. Willirennen (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nissan R390 Picture
Actually, the Flickr page I got the pictures from state that they are in fact from Jalopnik. Here is the link for one of them: http://flickr.com/photos/jalopnik/1933304112/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by SGJ91 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I carelessly uploaded the pictures without much thought given to the copyright. I was under the apparently false assumption that all Flickr images were free to be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SGJ91 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

People like you 359 take he virtual world way too seriously. You are obviously trying to make up for a lack of achievement in your real life which you spend too little time. Do you really think any of this is important? Do you really think the work (I use that word lightly)you do here is going to help anyone anywhere ever? Its not! You are a hack and you would be better off taking up bowling or at least something that gets you out of the house... I feel sorry for you old man. You are a sad soul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.189.6 (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It was worth wasting your time.

Re: Bethlehem Steel again
Personally I'm taking less and less interest in this article. I originally added it to my watchlist because I currently live near the compound. I really do not wish for this fiasco to continue to go on (and have less and less desire to routinely visit this article) and I think it would be a terrible, terrible mistake to start neglecting other editors, however uncivil and unresponsive they may be. I am very busy and am not able to dedicate as much time as usual to editing, however when I have more time I do intend to get some books and use them to add information the article. But I think in terms of the article itself User:Urbanarcheology has been acting much more in accordance with Wikipedia policies and now when I go to the page I see a much better formatted article. He has been reported and has been warned (though he keeps blanking his talk page) about the incident with your talk page, but the article is just as much "his" as it is "yours" or "mine" and therefore I feel we would be just as guilty of claiming "ownership" of the page as he had been doing when he wasn't allowing any compromises or agreements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NcSchu (talk • contribs) 00:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

plotting to eliminate me while im away shooting in belize, he he, i'll remember that. you cannot simply eliminate an editor you dont agree with, thats now how it works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.65.154 (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!


A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Copyright and other
I can't thank you enough for posting that. I knew about copyright and all that but didn't know that I was taking the text directly as it was from other sites was wrong. I must also thankyou about this not being a database of all drivers killed, and that there must be a standard for that. I thought about that, and felt bad about it, but I did not know how to nominate articles for deletion. I understand where you are coming from, and I must apologize for any rules I have accidently infringed on in Wikipedia. I do feel bad that I have done what I have done, and I can't change the past, but I will take note of your advice and use it to hopefully be a more careful and understanding wikipedian in the future.

Once again, many thanks James17Australia (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Lancia
Glad to have a look. Contrary to my edit history, I do have an interest in other forms of motorsport! Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I must finish the other peer review (Jack Warner) I'm doing first, though. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

myoutdoortv
updated article after getting ad violation yesterday which I completely understand as that was not the intention. Further reviewed all rules of wikipedia along with many other company websites today to be sure we were providing company information, timelines, partners and products like other companies (Versus, Cabela's, Bass Pro Shop) but within seconds it was up for deletion again. Still learning the process - is the second deletion automated from yesterday and could it be reviewed again or what can I do to meet the requirements as it seems in line with other companies. Any advice would be appreciated... --Ajbaer2 (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Maserati Coupé / Spyder
I have moved the Maserati Coupe article back to where it belongs. Maserati Coupe / Spyder is a bad title, and is not helpful for those trying to find the page. I'd also suggest fixing all the redirects that you changed, since this now creates incorrect double redirects to the Coupe article.

If you want to improve the Coupe article, do it on its original page, write an entirely different article on a different page then delete through redirection the original. The359 (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, all of the photos you uploaded need to be deleted. They are not allowed on Wikipedia because they are not licensed under Creative Commons Share Alike 2.0 (SA-BY-2.0) or Creative Commons Attribution (BY-2.0).  The images you uploaded were all under Share Alike Non-Commercial (SA-NC-BY), which we do not allow on Wikipedia.  If you want Maserati Coupe images, try  or . The359 (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I imagine you are correct about the non-commercial Creative Commons. Some of those images (not all as you said) have the non-commercial limitation and so I will have to edit the article to remove those image links.  However, I cannot agree with the rest of what you wrote nor what you did.  I think the Maserati Coupé / Spyder title is more accurate and will still be immediately reached by anyone through the various redirects.  Most people are not going to search for "Maserati Coupé" with the accent, but for "Maserati Coupe" as you typed it so they get there anyway by a redirect.  However, the article name is not a major issue with me.  What is, though, is that rather than continuing a discussion on it to attempt to achieve consensus, or even moving the new content over under the name you like, you deleted my changes which had taken the article from a substantially incomplete and undocumented state into a completed, significant revision with over 50 unique sources cited for nearly all of its content.  Deleting all of that outright does not strike me as a very collaborative approach to improving Wikipedia. Spyderman1 (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * On the issue of the article's title, I have reviewed a number of other vehicles that have both a coupe and convertible style and see that the more common naming convention is to use just the coupe only, and so have put my recent changes under the "Maserati Coupé" as a couple of you have suggested. Assuming people don't continue to delete all of the new content I worked hard at including, I may even go back and fix all the links and double re-directs. :) Spyderman1 (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The removal of your text was done for two reasons: First, I was not going to judge which version of the article was better. Since the change was so sweeping, it was better to go back to the default and simply ask you to make your changes to the existing article. Second, you actually created a new article, and then altered the original into a redirect. This was a bad move, as it basically eliminated the entire history of the article. The better move would have been to use the Move button to rename the existing article. This not only would have created automatic redirects, but also would have retained the article's history even under the new title. Your version was also not deleted "outright", since one could easily have gotten it back by looking at the history of "Maserati Coupé / Spyder". It was, quite frankly, no more of a bold move then your initial moving and rewritting of the entire article without discussion as a fix.

As for the naming, the use of /, 'and', or other such terms should not be used in titles unless they are in fact part of the actual name. Unfortunately the Maseratis are rather unique in the automotive world, so the only solution is to pick one of the two names and use it, with the other being a redirect, that doesn't matter to me and both could be argued. Combining the two names just simply does not work, however. The359 (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I can agree with you on the article name and my moving of the article - in retrospect it is probably better leaving it under its current name. And I can agree that the "Move" button would have been the right approach.  It would have saved me some time if I had noticed it before creating the new article.  But what I disagree with is your deleting (undoing) my new material from the article proper because you disagree with my approach to adding it.  The article as it existed was significantly dormant and was in good measure plagiarized (I found sections of it appeared to be taken verbatim from existing copyrighted articles without any attribution).  In rewriting the article, I substantially maintained the information from the original in a non-plagiarizing state to the extent it was correct and verifiable.  My point being, that I did not simply throw out previous contributors' work, but included it to the extent appropriate.


 * You indicated that my rewriting of the article was as bold as your deleting it; perhaps, but (1) Wikipedia encourages contributors to be bold and (2) my "boldness" was in furtherance of improving the article, while yours seemed to be more of knee-jerk reaction to what I did, rather than being in furtherance of filling out this encyclopedia. You yourself said you didn't make any attempt to consider the changes on their merit, and I would suggest that you shouldn't be undoing significant amounts of other people's work without such consideration.  For someone who has spent significant time working on improving an article, it seems callous for someone else to just remove it because they didn't think it should have been moved to a new page. Spyderman1 (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The article was returned to its original state because, as I said, I was not going to decide which version was worth keeping, especially since they were on two different name spaces. I simply reverted to the default as a safety net, with the recommendation that you edit the current article with your information rather than having me attempt to do it.  In no way was I saying that either version was better, I was simply going back to the article that existed before this renaming mess occured.


 * I was not undoing work that was done, since you technically never made that work on the proper article so as it is. I was simply attempting to fix the name problem without touching the article content.  However, in order to do that, your article need to be changed into a redirect, and it was simpler to just revert your change to the original article than attempt to copy and paste.


 * Not that any of this matters, since this turned out exactly as it should have, with you editing the proper article in the manner necessary after the naming and redirect problems had been corrected by myself.


 * If you want to take it as wreckless, an attack, insulting, or any other thing, not my fault. I was simply attempting to fix the problem that you created, and have now managed to work out the way it should be. The359 (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * C'mon, is copying and pasting so difficult that you have to "attempt" it? You couldn't be bothered for a couple extra clicks to help out someone trying to improve wikipedia content?


 * And I didn't take it as an attack or feel insulted, but it was somewhat offensive given the alternatives available - copying and pasting, or discussion like another user did. Well, I guess I've made my point.  No acknowledgement that perhaps you could have handled it in a bit of a more friendly, cooperative manner? Spyderman1 (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

224jeff6
You recently did some stuff related to pictures uploaded by 224jeff6. First of all he did own all those cars but he couldn't get any pictures of them, so he got pictres of lookalikes. But you got him so mad that he left Wikipedia. And you don't need to keep sending him messages. He's in the hospital with life threatening injuries so it doesn't matter. I know this because I'm his brother. -- KETCHUP KREW    SQUIRT! 20:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Howmet TX
As I saw the car when I was at the '03 Goodwood Festival of Speed, hence small number decal on your photo, I took an interest to the article I noticed a bit of changes to the Le Man's '68 article as it is on my watchlist. Therefore I have nominated it for DYK.

As this will be my last edit until the end of the month, I hope there won't be much alteration needed for the nomination as it is within goidelines. Also, a bit of trivia for you, if you noticed the rear end, the taillight came from a Mk.1 Ford Cortina and the owner backs this up. Willirennen (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Richard Lloyd Racing GA review
Hello, I will be performing the Good Article review for Richard Lloyd Racing. The quick-fail criteria do not apply to this article, so the review will proceed. I will let you know here when I have completed the review, and my comments will be posted on the article's talk page. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! My concerns have been addressed, and I have passed this article. It is well written, and you did a great job responding to my suggestions. If you have any feedback about the review (positive or negative), please feel free to get in touch. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * One last thing...I am working on GA reviews to help clear the backlog in the "Sports and recreation" section. If possible, it would be great if you could review an article and encourage people in WikiProject Sports Car Racing and the Formula One WikiProject to help review nominations in the "Sports and recreation" list. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Howmet TX

 * Cracking article, nice job!  Pyrop e  02:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Alboreto - Sportscars
Hello 359 - Thanks for informing me of his early career in Sportscars. I've had a go at commentating his career in Sportscars during the early 80s but by the sounds of it, you know your sportscars so may I ask you have a look at the new section, please? Cheers. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 10:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Moreno - 1995 Japanese Grand Prix
Thanks for noticing the clear error in the article. I've replied to your comment at the talkpage. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied back. D.M.N. (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Flickr images
Did you see the WP:SCR thread that I started about a large set of photos from my flickr contact/friend from the 2008 12 Hours of Sebring? Isn't Derek Bell a well-known racing announcer? His article doesn't talk about it! Royal broil 15:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Arthur C. Clarke
Here's the (link) source for Arthur C Clarke admitting bisexual experience. I think it's pretty clear. http://playboy.com/magazine/interview_archive/arthur-c-clarke/arthur-c-clarke-4.html Here's the quote: 'PLAYBOY: Have you had bisexual experience yourself? CLARKE: Of course. Who hasn't? Good God! If anyone had ever told me that he hadn't, I'd have told him he was lying. But then, of course, people tend to "forget" their encounters. I don't want to go into detail about my own life, but I just want it to be noted that I have a rather relaxed, sympathetic attitude about it -- and that's something I've not really said out loud before. Let's move on.'

If you read the entire interview the topic of sexuality is discussed in greater depth. Given the context of the article, I think you've been a little harsh on other editors on this issue. Of course I have to agree that nothing should be added unless properly sourced. I think this qualifies.Rodney420 (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Want to just make a few more comments and get your input one last time - ....btw after further review in fact mine was just a bad edit, mea culpa. I really should have read the talk page to the Clarke article before doing anything. So, Im not going to edit this article again, but leave that to you and others. That said, I would also like some clarification if you are willing: 1-you said that my edit to the Arthur C Clarke article had no source. If I remember correctly I believe I got my edit to the article from clicking on one of the article's listed sources and reading it entirely. True I did not provide a citation. Are you arguing that I should have provided a citation? When would you say a citation is required, vs. just providing material from a listed source without specifically saying so? 2-you called my edit summary 'original research'. Isn't an edit summary supposed to be written personally by the editor? Wouldn't every edit summary be original research, and who cares anyway, as it is not actually in the article. (My edit summary was bad though, as it was more of a comment belonging on the talk page than a summary.) 3- I did not 'reprimand others about the requirement of using sources'; where did you get that from?? Any reasonable person reading my comment in that regard would see that I was simply agreeing with the individual who said so. 4 - you called my edit 'malicious and unfounded'. ok, unfounded you can make a good argument for, and as I've said, I'm admitting I should have done a better job. But where are you getting 'malicious' from? I find that comment of yours 'malicious and unfounded'. 5- Finally and ending on a lighter note, you said repeatedly on the talk page 'having a bisexual experience does not A) make one bisexual or B) make one gay'. No, I guess not, but I'm quite sure that 100% of bisexuals have had one, and the percentage of heterosexuals who have is pretty dam small. Where there's smoke there's fire. Not, mind you, that this means it should go into the article as an established fact. However, I still believe something should be put in the article, as it has import especially to the LGBT community who do claim him as one of their own. Exactly what to put in, I don't know, but just to leave his famous "merely mildly cheerful" deflection to stand on its own strikes me as disingenuous.

GA Reversal
Thats fine. Better to learn by making a mistake or two IMO, then not learning anything at all by not doing anything. Ill keep it in mind for the future, thanks :) Whammies Were Here 10:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Anfield
Thanks for taking the time to review Anfield it's greatly appreciated, anyway I've dealt with your comments. Once again thanks for the review NapHit (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi I've added the details about the pitch at Anfield, and some more stuff which I also found, hopefully it's to your liking NapHit (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter
Welcome to the WPF1 Newsletter. If you want we can deliver the last newsletter to u and very soon the next newsletter will be handed out. If u want to know more contact anyone in the Newsletter. 'Chubb 'enna itor  11:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

2008 Farnborough plane crash
Re your edit summary when removing the Pprune link. That is exactly what I have been doing. I've moved the link to the talk page, and given an explanation there. I can access Pprune elsewhere, but this makes it a quicker way to get direct to the thread. I've given an example of info found on the talk page. Please can the link stay there? Mjroots (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

re:Mazda 787B
At the time when I made these edits, all I had was a Tamiya catalogue, Autosport supplements on the 24 hour race and the 1990 yearbook of the race, plus another book which I sourced as much as possible which rarely mad e much mention on the Mazdas, just the odd European stuff that won races. As a result, there wasn't much to write about the other part of the season

The Life after Le Mans section which I added was intended to be about the use of its color schemes in future races and how it became adopted following its win, plus the car's growing popularity which I noticed since following its win. It might be a bit worthy for inclusion but I would be happy to trim it down just to allow it to reflect on how popular the color scheme it became following its win via scale models and videogames.

The bit about the engine and many of the original edit was originated on this edit before I came in, I made some edit without removing which was back 2 years ago, when I was relatively new to editing on this site, I feel that it would be best suited for the article about the engine since the article should be about the car itself.

Also, I agree with the sourcing as that was what i was going to do but feel a bit too time constrained to do it since these was my early attempt at sourcing articles.

I will be happy to go for any revamp as I was going to have a stab at getting this for GA. Willirennen (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My other suggestion is to split the Life after Le Mans section in half. The post season popularity, its popularity in media and with its color scheme should have its section called Popularity. Willirennen (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks captain obvious. Huggle was messing up, and kept applying the tag. I had to manually remove it from some other pages. But anyways, good eye Orwell. --Invisibl e Di plo mat 666 21:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Each time I go to the discussion page I have a new message from you. Just leave it alone, unless you're an admin. Which I'm not seeing. Let the admin deal with it. If you see, another user actually suggested this was a good idea on my talk page. I'm sure with all your reverts to my talk page, you certainly saw the post. --Invisibl e Di plo mat 666 21:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alert
I have filed a Wikiquette Alert on Twaz at Wikiquette alerts. &mdash; scetoaux (T|C)  21:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Maserati MC12
Yikes! I had forgotten about the MC12. It is horribly out of date isn't it. It's at the top of my to-do list now but feel free to update the article, I have a very variable amount of time available for Wikipedia so it may be a while before it's done. Thanks for the heads up. James086 Talk &#124; Email 11:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've given it a bit of an update but could you please read over it to make sure it is infact accurate. I have been known to misread the results tables. Also with the 5th and 7th what was actually meant was that they placed 5th and 7th in that race (2006 FIA GT Budapest 500km) I added a bit to clarify as I can see how easily confusion can arise. Thanks, James086 Talk &#124;  Email 12:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree and have swapped the images over. Nice find! James086 Talk &#124;  Email 09:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Nominate for F1POM & F1DOM
YOU can nominate for the F1 picture of the month here and F1 driver of the month here. 'Chubb 'enna <font face="Skia" color="#000">itor  18:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Colin McCool
Hi and thanks for your patience with the review of the above article. I have done as much as I can reasonably do at this stage and await your verdict. Thanks for taking the time to review the article; regardless of the result, the article has been much improved due to your input. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 13:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and also for tidying the link on the Testimonial, which is indeed a kind of lesser benefit year. I'd been looking for that Somerset Year Book and just found it... Johnlp (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, citations for the lead have now been added. Thanks again. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 21:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 American Le Mans Series at Long Beach - Flickr images
Hi The359. I've just found this set of photos from the race article you created recently. I see you have a commons account, so I thought you might like to know.-- <font face="Forte"> Diniz (talk)  16:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ford GT
How do you substantiate your claim that the "...little image..." that I've added to the Ford GT page, "...doesn't exactly belong there."?

I have many photos that I've created and would like to add to articles that are lacking. If I'm going to run into opinions like this, I want to know where they come from.

Hempdiddy (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you like to post your reply here so everyone else can benefit from your questionable substantiation?
 * Hempdiddy (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

you are too funny 359 hahaUrbanarcheology (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

More MC12
I'm studying like mad for a series of assessments my lecturers sprung on me so I won't be very active for about 2 weeks. I'll definitely add some info once I'm free again. Thanks, James086 Talk &#124;  Email 00:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WPF1
BetacommandBot (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiCookie
Just stopping by with wikicookies for those editors who started new articles today. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Tori Amos pioneer sources
I have created a section on Talk:Tori Amos for listing sources for her being a pioneer and etc. Convergence Dude (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Le Mans Template
Thanks for popping in over at my talk page The359. While I'm not that new with Wikipedia, I am pretty inexperienced. The reasoning behind by leaving in a lot of the things I did on the original template was for thoroughness and I was basing it off of the Indianapolis 500's Template. I left some things as broken links in the hope that someone would grow the series of articles around Le Mans.Ultimatum (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Le Mans Pole-sitters and Fastest Laps
I'm thinking of starting the arduous process of starting these two articles and was wondering if you have any good web sources other than that's already available on Wikipedia for this. The Wikipedia articles for each Le Mans year have the pole-sitting car and fastest lap car, but not the drivers that set them and this was something I was hoping that somewhere on the web would have. Racing Sports Cars is the best site I could think for it but it once again doesn't have the pole-sitting driver. Maybe I'll start the articles without the drivers and hope that someone else adds it later? What's your thoughts on this? Ultimatum (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

F1POM and F1DOM
You can vote for the Formula One Picture of the Month/Driver of the Month at User talk:Chubbennaitor/F1POM and User talk:Sage Callahan/F1DOM. We really need your votes as the last picture and driver was decided. '<font face="geneva" color="#6699FF">Chubb '<font face="geneva" color="#7DF9FF">enna <font face="geneva" color="#00FF00">itor  07:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Howmet TX
That's fine, I wasn't going to review the article until a couple of days, but that's fine. But, when you return, please leave me a message and I'll get the review on its way. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I totally forgot you came back from vacation. Oops. If its cool with you, I'll review the article this week. Again, sorry about that. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Its no problem, by this week, the article will have its GA review. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article has its review. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

VIR pics
Would you provide me links to the pics? I don't know who drives what model.  Royal broil  12:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He changed the permission on the pics. Do you know how to upload them to Commons? I'd prefer you to do it so that the get a more meaningful name (if you don't mind). Dallara, Coyote, and Proto-Auto Lola. Let me know if you want me to do them. You don't need a flickr ID to upload them.  Royal broil  01:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)