|1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8|
- 1 A beer for you!
- 2 Malaysian motorsport
- 3 Reference Errors on 9 April
- 4 Template:Campaignbox Military Operations: Belgium and northern France 1914
- 5 sort keys
- 6 Re: Qualifying Tables
- 7 Coventry Climax and Lotus Elite
- 8 Category:1949 in Formula One
- 9 Brawn GP BGP 001 title incorrect.
- 10 Updating AAMCO
- 11 Flag, caterham
- 12 Excess accident details
- 13 Roy Salvadori
- 14 Jos Verstappen
- 15 Lotus
- 16 Thanks
- 17 Jonathan Williams (racing driver)
- 18 Formula E taskforce
- 19 Because you thanked me
A beer for you!
|Thanks for helping... was gonna opt for shrimp on the Barbie... but then again, I've never met anyone from Down Under that wouldn't mind a pint every now and then... MotorOilStains (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)|
Have no problem if there are multiple articles. Like to think there could be more than two before creating a subcat because it's not as though the main Malaysian sport categories are groaning with overload, but my primary objection was there being a subcat of one. That just seemed totally unneccessary. --Falcadore (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 9 April
Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|35px|alt=|link=]]
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the James Rossiter page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)
Template:Campaignbox Military Operations: Belgium and northern France 1914
- In general terms, any text between the <noinclude> and the </noinclude> doesn't get included in the articles which transclude the template. So in this case, it means that the template will be included in Category:Campaignbox templates and Category:World War I campaignbox templates (which we want), but the articles which transclude the template won't (which we wouldn't want, because those articles aren't templates, and hence don't belong in template categories). See WP:NOINCLUDE for more information. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I fear I may have done a few more than you found. I have to re-trace my steps (trying to fix some of my errors in a few edits anyway...) I had seen other series done like this and thought this to be the norm. sorry bout that. btw, is there any difference in sorting between GP and F1? MotorOilStains (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Re: Qualifying Tables
Wow. Somehow haven't realized such data exists! Thanks a lot! Am hoping to embark on a project to build a table and report for every single F1 article in the '80s, similar to the 1981 Italian GP. A mountain ahead... L. Zheng Wei (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- That sounds like a very worthwhile project - good luck! DH85868993 (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Coventry Climax and Lotus Elite
Hi. I was about to click (Thank) on your minor edit on the sports car racing link edit on Coventry Climax, when I realized that the change you made was exactly the same as what I almost made a day earlier. You and I know quite well the concept of "Sports Car" do not generally apply to "Sports Car Racing" where most serious contenders have been prototype racing cars since the 1950's. However, the link in the article is for Lotus Elite, which was a series production sports car (or a GT, according to FIA classification), and not a prototype racing car that is described in sports car racing article for the era. Linking the successes to [[sports car racing]] may be more appropriate for DOHC 'FWC' or 'FWMC' engines, not the series production SOHC 'FWE'. So while I don't like the "[[sports car]] racing" very much, I decided against making the change you made. What's your opinion? Yiba (talk | contribs) 10:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- I guess I've just always considered sports car racing to always include both production sports cars and prototypes, but I haven't really thought about it too deeply. If you think "[[sports car]] racing" is more appropriate in this particular instance, then that's fine with me. DH85868993 (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Category:1949 in Formula One
Category:1949 in Formula One, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. NickSt (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Brawn GP BGP 001 title incorrect.
(discussion transferred to Talk:Brawn BGP 001)
Thanks for your help on the AAMCO edits. I was wondering if you had any tips about how i might be able to move that project along? I've asked for help in all the projects that the page is listed as a part of, but no response as yet. What would be the best way (from your viewpoint) to make this happen?
Excess accident details
Your tweaks to this article are mostly OK but I have never heard of anybody being "loomed" into retirement and isn't "was tempted back" a little vague? I mean, how would we know? Britmax (talk) 10:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- I had accidentally edited an old version of the page. Now fixed. Thanks for letting me know. DH85868993 (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
|The Citation Barnstar|
|I don't normally go splashing these things around, but I think that you deserve this in relation to your recent work on the Jos Verstappen page. Pyrope 16:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)|
- Hi Aftabbanoori. You are correct that Lotus Supercenter does not currently lead to an article. But if you look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Lotus Supercenter, you will see that other articles link to Lotus Supercenter. At MOS:DABRL it says "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link." Which means it's OK for a red link to be included on a disambiguation page when other articles also include that red link, which is the case here. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I notice you have been removing a lot of "broken links". Are you aware that as a general rule, it's OK for articles to contain red links? They merely indicate articles which haven't been written yet - see WP:REDLINK for more info. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree, I didn't know this.
I have read WP:REDLINK, It was really a useful article.
Please have a look on WP:REDLINK#Disambiguation pages
Thanks for correcting me.
Best wishes and regards
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 02:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Jonathan Williams (racing driver)
Hi DH, Thanks for your appreciation of edit on Williams' page. Not sure if it was the minor edit to career details or the death date correction!! I have now expanded the article a bit more, if you are at all interested; & also just wanted to say I've not forgotten about the Henry Taylor eyesight issue from earlier in the year.Eagleash (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- The thank was primarily for the death date correction (I can't believe I messed that up!), but all your contributions to the article are appreciated. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure yet - I don't have any particular interest in/knowledge about Formula E - although that might change after Saturday's race DH85868993 (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Because you thanked me
|DH85868993, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt...
It's a pleasure, and I sincerely hope that you enjoy your continued improvement of this inspiring encyclopedia! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX!
15:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)