User talk:4u1e/archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Re:F1 images[edit]

"Copyright is held by Barry Boor who has kindly allowed their use on Wikipedia." - that is insufficient because Wikipedia is mirrored by many other websites (who may or may not be commercial operations by the way). If you wish to upload them, you should convince Mr Boor to release them under a free license such as {{gfdl}} or one at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. enochlau (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

They also happened to be listed at on CAT:CSD under WP:CSD I3. If you can point to where he has granted permission, not specific to Wikipedia, then I am happy to undelete them, but for the time being, they do fall under the CSD I3, and will remain deleted. Sure you can't convince him to release them under the GFDL? It practically doesn't take any more rights away from him compared with the license the images had, and will save everyone a lot of trouble. enochlau (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding, and I hope it comes out well. enochlau (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Green & Gold[edit]

4u1e thanks for your message re the Brabham racing colours and my comments (June 20) and in the discussion - sorry for the delay.

Quote: "user:DeafCom has identified this, which states that the green and gold were in general unofficial colours prior to 1984, and became 'Australia's official colours' after that date. Note that did take some digging - even emailed Sir Jack - but nothing as yet :)

your other questions were: 1.Were Australia's colours in motor racing really green and gold at the time? Basically - no. But do u mean internationally or domestic? The Tasman series in the 60's (which was quite often run in the off season to F1 and included the current at the time F1 drivers like Moss etc in NZ and Aus)?

2.If Green & Gold were Australia's colours, how come Team Lotus raced in a very similar livery to Brabham (Green with gold trim on nose)? as stated - not until 1984 were the green and gold 'officially' Australian 'sporting' colours. Therefore Lotus could have raced using the same. Due to Sponsorship in the 1970's - the use of 'national' colours used to denote the teams/cars has since gone by the wayside. It is still used though with Ferrari (red) and Mercedes involvement with McLaren (silver).

Cheers - user:DeafCom —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeafCom (talkcontribs) 13:01, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Brabham BT19[edit]

Hey, I looked at it, and I'm afraid my answer won't be definitive enough for what you need. On the one hand, the sentence might not strictly be necessary, since there is a link, but on the other hand, as a person who formerly had no idea what Formula One actually was and who probably wouldn't have ever clicked on the link, I now know what it is because the sentence was there. Not sure you can make anything useful of that comment :-) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that the sentence is unnecessary, because people who are reading the article are very likely already quite familiar with F1. Reading the article myself, I would either ignore it (I know that F1 is a form of car-racing, and that's all I think I would need to know) but if I wanted clarification, I would click the link. Also the sentence doesn't really fit into the flow of the paragraph. Hope that's useful! Best of luck. Cricketgirl 13:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem, glad I could help with the issue! Cricketgirl 10:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!! Well done on the FA promotion, a sterling effort. You can feel properly chuffed with yourself. Pyrope 17:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

GA type questions related to improvements on the Alan Kulwicki article[edit]

How do contributors feel about using reliable sources like magazines for Featured Articles? There are no books or scholarly papers about the person that I am currently working on improving. Royalbroil 16:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What about events that took place on television during televised races: should I cite the race "episode" or do I need to find a written source? Several relevant videos are "available" to watch on video sharing websites, but I can't link to illegally uploaded videos. Can I quote what was said on television in this manner? Royalbroil 13:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
(Copied from my talk page to keep everything together) Hi Royal. I think something weird happened with your first message...
Anyway: I see no problem with magazines in themselves. The question is more about their reliability for what is being discussed. A discussion of carburettor problems is probably not best sourced to a lifestyle magazine and details of a driver's divorce (say) might not be best coming from Race Tech magazine. Provided the articles are written by people who know their topic (i.e. have a good reputation) you should be fine.
TV is a bit difficult, I think. You could only use it for obvious unarguable things - like two drivers colliding on a certain lap. Anything more complicated would be your interpretation - whose fault the collision was, for example. That means they they might not actually be very useful as sources. I think you could probably cite the transmission in the various ways you suggest, but you've got to consider whether those sources are available to anyone else (legally!). If they're not (as DVDs?), then they don't really add any weight to what you've written. Even if you know a race was broadcast between 2 and 4 on 5 September 1991 on Channel X, that doesn't mean anyone else can retrieve the information. I know a lot of my stuff comes from books that people don't have, but they can always get them through a library or on Amazon if they want to check up on me. I don't know how anyone could reliably check what was seen or said in a TV transmission.
On the whole, I'd say avoid using the TV transmissions if at all possible.
Hope that's helpful, and remember that it's just my thoughts, not Wikilaw! Good luck with the article. I remember Kulwicki's career being reported in Autosport in the early 1990s. He seemed like an interesting and talented guy. Cheers. 4u1e 14:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I moved an earlier message that you did not respond to into a more obvious section in the bottom since it was really a new topic related to my last post. Sorry.
I was hoping to use television "episodes" only for very non-controversial things like these:
          • After the final race of the season, series champion Dale Earnhardt and race winner Wallace drove a side by side Polish victory lap carrying flags for Kulwicki and Allison
          • Three days after Kulwicki's death, Bristol race winner Rusty Wallace honored his old short track foe by turning Kulwicki's trademark "Polish Victory Lap".
          • Always conscious of his appearance for potential sponsors,[10] Kulwicki combed his hair, making a national television audience wait for him to emerge from his car (note: [10] is cited)
Both already have web citations, but both are from non-major websites. I was hoping that multiple references would strengthen the statements' reliability.
I am concerned about not having any book references. There are no books about Kulwicki, just one from believe it or not a Roman Catholic priest. The book has been scheduled for release for several years but it hasn't come out. I will work until it achieves GA nevertheless, but I'm most concerned about FA.
I don't live near any well-stocked libraries in a major city either. I received help from a WP:NASCAR member with stacks of Stock Car Racing magazines from the 1980s and 1990s.
I'll ask you for a more thorough review when I get done with sourcing in the next weeks, except if you think I'm gone in the wrong direction. One of things that I'd like you to look at then is how appropriate these references are. I've looked hard, and most things in the article are only available from only a few sources. I hope that's not enough to preclude the article from obtaining FA, because I don't know what else to do.
There is a low budget feature film on his life that appeared in selected theaters in the U.S. I technically was an "extra" because I was in the crowd at a local track on the night that they happened to be taping! I own the DVD of the movie. I've used the movie as a guide to what was important to his life, although the movie is only based on real events. The movie has a fictional semi-antagonistic character.
Thanks for you help! Royalbroil 15:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your critical review of the Kulwicki article. I was hoping and expecting that people would be very critical since I stated that it would be running through the FA process. I expected that the article would need help in certain areas. I was expecting that WP:MOTOR contributors would be the main reviewers of the article since WikiProject NASCAR has only one Good Article. This is my first attempt at a Good Article alone. I appear to be getting very little help with this article from WikiProject NASCAR members. The WikiProject appears to have few regular contributors. Royalbroil 18:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

BAE Systems FAC...again.[edit]

Hi. The talk page is getting a bit hard to navigate! However I think the issues have been addressed, could you take a pass sometime and see if you agree/if there are any other things that need work. I've made several improvements since we last talked. I've added quotes regarding the logic of the merger etc, e.g.

  • Reporting the appointment of George Simpson as GEC managing director in 1996, The Independent had said "some analysts believe that Mr Simpson's inside knowledge of BAe, a long-rumoured GEC bid target, was a key to his appointment. GEC favours forging a national 'champion' defence group with BAe to compete with the giant US organisations."
  • The merger created a vertically integrated company which The Scotsman described as "[a combination of British Aerospace's] contracting and platform-building skills with Marconi's coveted electronics systems capability,[24] for example combining the manufacturer of the Eurofighter with the company that provided many of the aircraft's electronic systems; British Aerospace was MES' largest customer.[25] In contrast, DASA's response to the breakdown of the merger discussion was to merge with Aérospatiale to create the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), a horizontal integration. EADS has since considered a merger with Thales to create a "fully rounded" company.[26]

btw, I'd be happy to return the favour with any of the articles you're working on. Mark83 14:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

On the FAC page you said "could you replace one with an electronics example? (I'm all for aircraft myself, but I suppose we should give a full picture" -- I'm sure I'm doing Marconi a massive disservice, however I can't think of an "inconic" project. There are many areas where the company had world leading technologies, e.g. the Sea Harrier's Blue Vixen radar described as "groundbreaking."[1] and "the BAE Blue Vixen - generally reckoned to be one of NATO's best fighter radars" (Flight International March 12, 2002) What do you think? Mark83 14:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm not looking for anything more (yet)! I just wanted to update you in case it seemed I haven't acted much on your suggestions
Like I said there's actually too much information regarding BAE's strategy. Rather than doing it quickly with just a few sources I'm trying to get the full picture, so I've been doing a lot of reading of news articles etc. The short version is post-merger BAE wanted to be a defence systems integrator and to move away "non core"/civil businesses, hence the closure of regional aircraft production, space etc. and right from the start wanted to expand in the US. The move into land was by accident initially - the Alvis Vickers bid was a last minute decision. The further move (UDI) was due to the fact that the then BAE Systems Land Systems was dwarfed by General Dynamics and it moved BAE well up the US defence food chain. Dick Olver (Chairman) launched a review when he arrived which confirmed the focus on the US. -- The short version I said?? Anyway, it will take a while to fully explain and reference all that. Thanks again for your help! Putting the strategy into context is a great idea, as is linking the major decisions to that stragtegy. And like I said before, let me know if I can help you out with anything else. Mark83 19:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Brabham BT19[edit]

I noticed you nominated it for FAC, and I have supported the article. Now, I wonder whether i'll get the same (or similar) response with another article. For some reason, I don't think I will. Can you think of any ways I could "persuade" people to look and give a review of the article. I did ask Pyrope if he would give comments on the article 11 days ago, but got no reply. :( Davnel03 19:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm watching the FA to get a feel for the process because Alan Kulwicki article's GA & FA is approaching. I don't have enough experience to comment. I do think that one-off should remain linked, because I wondered exactly what it meant too. I'm surprised with the limited number of inline links required considering how many where required for Andretti's GA. I cite to death! Good luck with the FA! Royalbroil 13:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, there, I had to take a break from FAC; there is some stuff going on there that may make me pop a cork and say something I shouldn't, so I've decided to stay away for a while. I'm sure you'll do fine :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Automobile conversion templates[edit]

I know, I only found them a few days ago myself! Unfortunately there is, at present, no facility for creating wikilinked units, which is why I left some of your conversions as is, but I'm thinking about finding a way to create an option for that. And thanks for your comment on the DBR4! Not as impressive as the BT19 article though... Pyrope 11:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Blimey, I'm glad that nobody is here to see me blushing, thanks. I reckon that bmep might be a touch too esoteric to have attracted a template just yet... but it can only be a matter of time. As for the photos, when I flounced out of here in a huff earlier on this year, I promised myself that I'd spend more time actually breathing methanol fumes and Castrol R so I have been prowling race paddocks with my camera quite a bit this summer. I'm not claiming any great photographic talent, but they will serve for illustrations. And blagging my way into "closed" pit lanes (it usually pays to have a brass neck and feign absolute contrition when security finally spot you...) was quite a fun game. The Donington GP Collection was quite productive too, and if you are anywhere close it is an absolute must for a visit; I even asked them for a job I was so impressed (and unemployed). It's amazing what the historic race mechanic fraternity will put up with as well; most of them are top chaps who are quite willing to take an engine cover off for a couple of photos if you are able to show that you have a decent reason for wanting the shots (see the Lotus 16's oblique engine mounting, for example). Unfortuately, with BT19 being down under there wasn't much I could do about that, although I did bag a BT20. Pyrope 12:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I know! I was amazingly lucky with the weather really, the only significant rain was towards the end of the Sportscar Masters race at Silverstone, but as they were proper big-banger machines running on headlamps through the dusk this only added to the atmosphere! Sadly, my weedy camera isn't great in the rain, or the dark, and as I was stood on the Luffield terracing, with zero weather protection, I didn't risk knackering the poor thing. As for the Lotus, yes it is. As far as I understand it, the whole engine position in that was a bit of a lash-up, after one of crafty Colin's little experiments didn't work and the front end of the chassis had to be re-engineered at the last minute. Pyrope 15:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
p.s. Not as extremely tilted as the Ferguson P99's FPF was, though. That was almost 45 degrees out. Pyrope 15:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... I'm not sure either. The engine inclination isn't sufficient to reduce the bonnet line significantly, and with an FPF you always come up against the problem that the cam cases stick out on one side, and the inlet trumpets the other. Therefore you need to really crank it over (a la Fergie) before the bonnet line comes down. On the other hand, there is no doubt that CABC was definitely going for a "lowline" approach when he routed the propshaft around the driver, rather than under him. Just take a look at the position of the bell-housing in the cockpit of the contemporary Aston Martin DBR4 (I'm not name-dropping my own articles to be smug, I promise, they were just the most appropriate images I could think of on short notice!) Pyrope 15:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries[edit]

No worries! I was just concerned that somehow you had received the impression that I was uninterested in learning about Formula One racing and that is not the case. Awadewit | talk 06:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Various stuff[edit]

Yep, the 2007 Malaysia article is still on PR. As for Awadewit, I'm just about to have a look over his comments. Davnel03 16:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


I did not realize that my suggestion to retain the link to "one-off" would develop into such an extensive discussion. I feel like it has distracted the FAC - we are no longer really talking about the "meat" of your article. I'm sorry! Awadewit | talk 19:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A couple of explanations[edit]

I am currently copy editing 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix and I was wondering if you could explain a couple of things to me, as you seem to know about F1 racing. There are two sections of the article that need to be clarified, but I can't clarify them until I understand what they need to say. The editor has done his/her best to explain, but I am still not getting the picture.

  • There was some sort of brouhaha over a "customer car" - perhaps you could read this section and explain to me exactly what happened?
  • Apparently white stripes were painted on the "softer" tires for this race. It is not clear to me why this was necessary - why do people have to be able to distinguish between the hard and the soft tires?

Any help you could offer would be much appreciated. Awadewit | talk 21:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Unit hyphenation[edit]

Hi. I notice that you have hyphenated some of your unit quantities in the BT19 article, and blamed it on the MoS. Would you mind pointing out which part, I'd like to see their reasoning? In ten years at the coalface of science, I have never, ever, read a single publication where a hyphen was used between quantity and units. Pyrope 09:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it all seems logical, even if it does look a bit odd. If that is the case then the easiest thing to do would be to alter the {{Auto litres}} template to conform. Which I'll off and do now... Pyrope 10:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
As I read the MoS, it should be hyphenated where the unit is spelled out, and not so when the unit is abbreviated. Wouldn't 3-litre and 3-litres therefore both be hyphenated? And I have no idea why sometimes it is plural and others not! Pyrope 10:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you are getting at. Hmm... I'm stumped. Pyrope 10:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This has come up before, and SandyGeorgia assured us all that you just have to use the template the right way to achieve hyphens. I don't like the template, myself, but see if you can find out how to work it (Talk page of template?). Otherwise, manual for those ones? Tony (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You were asking about adding hyphens to conversions using conversion templates. It can be done now using {{convert}}. Jɪmp 03:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Your updated footnote on List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions is a great improvement over the original version. Regarding authorlink: I only discovered that myself a couple of months ago. Regards. DH85868993 16:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hispanic Admirals in United States Navy[edit]

Even if it is delisted, I really want to thank you because your observations were really valid and I have taken them seriously. Thanks to you I have found some mistakes and so on. I'm taking care of the concerns, but due to my personal situation I'm doing it at a snails pace (smile). You are a real nice person to interact with. Tony the Marine 22:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Most points w/o win[edit]

Hi, just FYI, the table for most points without win is as follows:

  • Heidfeld - 135
  • Brundle - 98
  • Johansson - 88
  • Amon - 83
  • Webber - 79

That's as of the 2007 Japanese GP. I collated info from List of Formula One drivers and put it into an excel spreadsheet (124kb) so you can view it yourself. mattbuck 20:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


Fantastic job on getting Brabham BT19 to featured status! Well done. Readro 21:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, well done! James086Talk | Email 00:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Well done. Could you have a look at 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix, and give some comments on the talkpage (like what others did with BT19)? Again, cograts! Davnel03 16:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

i'm sorry and it's okay[edit]

High i'm sorry for uploading such images, i just learned yesterday about this stuff, i'm sorry and thank you for understanding me, i.m new here, "everybody makes mistakes!" =)

Hello again :-)[edit]

My dear friend 4u1e, I've not spoken to you in what seems such a long time, and I haven't worked on the Toyota F1 article for over a month. I hope all the folk at Wikiproject F1 aren't frowning upon me, but I've simply been involved in such a lot of things on Wikipedia (and in real life) during recent times, that I've had to divide my time between 3 wikiprojects and lots of other work, both on and off Wikipedia. Sorry about this.

What I need is just a big gap in everything I'm doing so I can sit down and really work on the article. I might need your help with a few things here and there if you don't mind! But I'm just saying I'm still here, I just need the right moment to get stuck in and address the issues that need addressing. I've not forgotten! With regards, Lradrama 11:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Marcus Trescothick[edit]

Trescothick FAC[edit]


Would you be so kind as to take another look at the Tresco FAC (here) and either leave more comments or give it a yay or nay regarding promotion?

Thanks, –MDCollins (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hi. BAE Systems passed FAC. I just wanted to thank you for all your comments & suggestions, they lead to some major improvements. There are still a couple of issues you raised that I have yet to address and I intend to still work on them, e.g. MOD procurement policy, organisation section into paragraph.

Thanks again. Also congratulations for getting Brabham BT19 promoted. Mark83 13:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007 Malaysian Grand Prix[edit]

Thabks for your comments - much appreciated. I've left some comments regarding your comments at the above link. Please comment on them, along with your Support or Oppose vote of the article being promoted or not. Thanks again! Davnel03 15:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Made a furter batch of changes as well as further comments at the above link. Again, many, many thanks for leaving comments - I really appreciate it! :] Davnel03 17:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you possibly change your opinion from oppose to support, seeing as I have responded to your comments??? Sorry to leave another comment, BTW. Davnel03 08:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Brabham BT19[edit]

Congratulations on finding a suitable photo of BT19! The article looks great now, are you putting it forward as a front page candidate? I can't remember having seen a race car on there. AlexJ 14:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation: Yes, /ɹ/ is more precise than /r/, but check the new link. We're trying to standardize Wikipedia pronunciation formats so that they're not dialect specific, and to do that we need to make them as broad as possible. /r/ is pretty standard (it's used by the OED, for example), and is more accessible to our readers, many of whom have a hard enough time with the IPA as it is. Another example is the long o in toe; in different dialects it may be [ɜʊ, ʌʊ, ɔʊ, oː], but we've chosen a compromise value of /oʊ/. kwami 10:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Malaysian Grand Prix Edit[edit]

F2007 -

Please add back the term there


--TvKimi 18:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Many, many thanks for the copy-edit! Thank you! Oh, and for the above link, it's better Ferrari F2007, not as it was originally F2007. You may want to leave a comments on the FAC page informing other you have copy-edited it. Thanks! :) Davnel03 21:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Malaysia[edit]

Was it actually you who added a broken title and a single US spelling into the 2007 Malaysian GP article? I've reverted the change.

Yes, but I was trying to give the tires paragraph its own subsection with small lettering under Summary. Although it didn't seem to like a section with six ====== markings. Guroadrunner 09:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I can somewhat understand your umbrage to the edits, but I write in my natural language, and that includes spelling it "tires" instead of "tyres". Anyway, that aside, I felt like it needed a header in itself because it seems like an important but separate area about the lead-up to the race. It is featured briefly in the lede of the article. So I did want to make it have a subsection entry in the TOC, but I did a shoddy way of doing it. My apologies. Guroadrunner 19:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
No hard feelings.
Now, moving forward: about the customer car controversy and the flexi floor issue, I would say that these are more "insider's" interest items, which differs from general interest. Of course, my rationale that the tire stripe thing is only notable for the lede is because it helps explain its introduction and purpose. The customer car issue is explained well in the background section (and not so well in the main Formula 1 article). Flexi floors I would classify as insider's (in fact honestly I had never heard about this issue before) Guroadrunner 21:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Trussardi[edit]

Sorry, yu wr right about this team, there entry ws never axceptted by the FIA. However, they trned up @ 6 GP's in '87. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Max Mosley[edit]

Hi, thanks for your constructive edits. I've rewritten the Grundy stuff as you suggested and hopefully it now avoids copyright issues whilst remaining sourced. Cheers, Duncan Berger 20:16 5 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncan Berger (talkcontribs) 20:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, I meant to get back to you sooner regarding the 2005 US GP. It was actual the other FAR closer who handled that one. In the main it's fine, though I'd still like to see the refs done with consistent formatting. I'm not especially bothered about the language—it's just that it has US in the title. Cheers, Marskell 18:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review list[edit]

Please think about adding yourself to this list of peer reviewers. Awadewit | talk 19:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Ya, it is a bad habit of mine. michfan2123 18:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

BT20 > BT19[edit]

...the sort of detail that you are best placed to spot! Thanks. Pyrope 17:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:F1 standard country code for Singapore GP[edit]

Thanks for your support. DH85868993 (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

2007 Rugby World Cup PR[edit]

Sorry about the lack of action pertaining to your comments on this Peer Review. I can't comment for anyone else, but I've been swamped with university work, so I've not been able to devote as much time as I would have liked to the article. However, I will make a start with the edits soon, and I would appreciate any further comments you have to make. – PeeJay 15:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Super Aguri F1[edit]

Hi, i'm the guy who altered the Super Aguri page. I didn't think to ask, although i feel it needs editing a lot. There is a lot of waffling in the article and no structure. I've copied the coding and i'm working on fixing the structure and wording, if you would like a copy i will send you it by e-mail if you let me know. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(Also replied at talk page) Hi. Of course you should be bold and make changes you think are needed. Without taking a close look I'm almost certain you're right and the writing needs work (most of the articles on modern F1 do need work in that department!). My only objection was that the actual layout you chose was non-standard for Wikipedia (see Brabham, Brabham BT19, Tom Pryce and 1994 San Marino Grand Prix for some examples of our best work). Even picking a non-standard layout is not necessarily a problem, but when changing things like that, it's often a good idea to raise the topic at WP:F1 to see if the change has been proposed before, and if anyone has any reasonable objections. You mustn't let us shout you down without good reason though! The other thing to be aware of is the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Normally this should be followed closely - unless doing so doesn't make any sense or damages the article. Hope all that's helpful and that you enjoy editing here. Oh, and you'll probably find life easier if you register and get a username! Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, sorry i thought i was signed in.... this is me. I wasn't aware of the format that is used, but i will use the links you provided for guidance now. Sorry for the incovenience. Is there any way i can e-mail you before making changes so i don't look like a wally on a stick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woggle eye (talkcontribs) 19:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't see you why you shouldn't look like one, the rest of us do it often enough :D. If you want to experiment, probably the easiest thing to do is to make a sandbox on your user page (you can see mine at the top of my user page here, numbered one to four). I've taken the liberty of creating one on your user page - click on the red-linked 'sandbox' there and copy the code for the SAF1 article into it and then play around with it. I would suggest having a look round other articles to get a feel for the house style - Toyota F1 is in fairly good shape from memory. Drop me a line if I can help. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hiya again, i've added the version to my sandbox if you would like to view it. I have tried to cut out all the waffling, re-wrote it in places, and changed the layout a tiny bit. I have not added anything new though (like previous/ current drivers). I thought i'll leave that to the people in the know! One last do i put it to the WP:F1 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woggle eye (talkcontribs) 18:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

yeah, sure. It's Ben btw! cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woggle eye (talkcontribs) 22:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. All suggestions are good to me...i will work on it some, alter it and let you know as soon as i do. My screen is set to the same resolution and i thought they were a bit small myself, but wasn't sure if that's how small they should be. Now i know, i'll make them bigger and move them around. P.S. I see what you mean by the lead! Ben —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woggle eye (talkcontribs) 19:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Max Mosley[edit]

Just a note to say I think your doing some good work on the Max Mosley article. Let me know if there is any thing you need any help with, tracking references down etc.

CheersTommy turrell (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Good catch[edit]

You always seem to be a few seconds faster than me on the revert button for the F1 articles I watch :) Really, Ralf Schumacher at McLaren? I think thats 'Plan D'. Heck, there are signed drivers they would try and poach before going for the unsigned Ralf. Oh and good work on the Mosley page. It is amazing how any mention of his work with his father was removed from the article for the longest time. Narson (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe I got accused of making a personal attack by calling someone mad as biscuits. :) I mean, I'm English, don't they realise how many more colourful terms we have when it comes to insults? Narson (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Look at the history of the Raikkonen talk page :) One of the finns ;) Narson (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like your thoughts[edit]

Hi 4u1e. I'm proposing some updates to the F1 season summary articles for years when there were non-championship races. I'd appreciate your thoughts on my proposal at my talk page. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for mending the sentence of Wilson Fittipaldi Júnior. The sentence is that I wanted to write. --Morio 01:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton[edit]

Hi - I've amended the Top Gear reference on the above article. Not sure why the previous editor said "presumably" Jeremy Clarkson said there was oil on the track and recorded the fact next to Hamilton's time. BTW its well worth watching the show if you get the chance to catch one of the repeats Richard Hammond also test drove a [Renault R25] F1 car. Kelpin 18:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"You think Raikkonen chopped, I'd say he lifted off mid-corner to put Hamilton off" it was a bit of both. at least make it clear in the article that Kimi lifted off the pedal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckford14 (talkcontribs) 16:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


Basically the entire article besides the two sentence intro and infobox was a copyvio from I reinstated the article, but I deleted the offended text. нмŵוτнτ 18:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

1994 French Grand Prix[edit]

Hey. I figured it's best to put the rollback buttons to work while reverting is still possible. I'm not too fond of this redlink-killing part of the Twinkle tool. It's way too often used when it shouldn't be and redlinks are a fundamental part of the encyclopedia, after all. Anyway, thanks for fixing those copyright problems. Prolog (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Youngstown Ohio Works[edit]

Hello, 4u1e,

I have worked with User:Daysleeper47 on the Youngstown, Ohio, article, which clearly benefited from your feedback. The article was recently promoted to Featured Article status. I am trying to upgrade several B-class articles related to the Youngstown project. Earlier today, I requested a peer review for Youngstown Ohio Works. This article has been improved upon since its last peer review. Still, I hope reviewers will pay special attention to the "Dissolutions" section. The last time around, one reviewer indicated this section was top-heavy with quotes. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, -- twelsht (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Informal peer review Boeing 747[edit]

Would you consider looking over the Boeing 747 article. I'm working with some other nice editors rewriting it. The first revision is nearing completion (except one section) and then we'll clean up the format of the reference. If you look at it, it need not be a formal peer review, just an informal opinion. I'm contacting two people, one of them you. We (at least me) are looking at just ideas for improvement, not necessarily GA or FA. Thank you. Archtransit (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Since this is not a formal peer review, I didn't put the tags on the talk page. You can let me know on my talk page or whereever you want. Archtransit (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Incorrect race results[edit]

No problem. Unless you have a corroborating source handy (which I'm lucky enough to have) it's hard to know whether it's correction or vandalism. I've left a message on the IP editor's talk page suggesting that if they make any more changes, to leave an edit summary quoting their source. DH85868993 (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays[edit]

Jeeny-xmas tree.png


When the other person made comments, I shifted gears to address those. Will re-read your comments and make some changes. (re:747) Archtransit (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

About 80% of your advice taken, 20% still working on it! Archtransit (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


Um, maybe its part of a new identity. I changed my account name a month ago. Since then, well, a vandal created a new account under the username Davnel03, which was blocked indefinitely, and now is salted. My account was hacked, but luckily I was able to regain control just over a day later. Been an eventful month by far. Hope you have a good Christmas and a Happy New Year! :D Davnel03 20:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long range TFA requests[edit]

Please see our discussion at Wikipedia talk:Long range TFA requests. Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your comments. I'm trying to improve the article not argue with you. After discussion with SandyGeorgia, it was suggested that I contact you and see if your concerns for FA have been addressed. If so, please change your "oppose" conclusion.

"Basically a good article, but there's a lot of cleaning up still to do". Fnlayson and I, as well as some others, have done a lot of clean up. Our vacuum cleaner bags are full! Archtransit (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Archtransit (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your well done comment. Thank YOU for your help! Archtransit (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Likely excellent 1984 photo source[edit]

I have made an acquaintance with a flickr contributor who has been an excellent source of drag racing photographs. He has been willing to use Creative Commons licensing on his pictures. He is a huge fan of drag racing, and has been taking pictures since the 1960s. He took pictures of nearly every driver's dragster in Top 50 NHRA drag racers of all time. All are high quality pictures that he took himself at numerous events over the decades. He is thrilled to know that Wikipedia finds his photographs so useful. I notice that he has uploaded many photographs from the 1984 F1 USGP from Dallas. I have asked him if he would consider changing the license on selected photographs if I were to have someone reliable mark the photographs that are interesting to Wikipedia. See here. Would you be interested to do this if he is willing to change the license? All I did was mark which ones to change (after we were introduced). I ran across while while looking for a photo of Bill Jenkins (dragracer), an article that should have been written long ago. Royalbroil 05:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The photographer is willing. Let me know if you're willing. Royalbroil 14:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Help Requested With Driver Templates[edit]

As you may know the 2008 F1 entry list has been published by the FIA [2] I was going to try and update the driver numbers (though the first few I went to were already done) but when I tried to update the one on the Anthony Davidson page I couldn't figure out how to change the driver number in the template - can you advise? Thanks. Kelpin (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

1984 Dallas GP photos[edit]

Hello again! I just found the set that you have recently been through whilst browsing Flickr. Can I request that you ask the photographer to change the license for this image of Andrea de Cesaris as well, as the de Cesaris article does not currently have any photos?--Diniz (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Always nice to get a new batch of historic F1 photos.--Diniz (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You can tell Tom that Royalbroil sent you. Royalbroil 18:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Tom said to me that he is extremely excited to see his images in over 20 articles! Tom also has a personal acquaintance with Eddie Hill, so he hooked us up. I just got off the phone with Eddie Hill! We talked about some minor problems with his article, plus improving the images. The highlight of editing career! Royalbroil 16:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Request[edit]

Person Centred Planning is up for peer review. Someone with your skills in language and copyediting would make a great reviewer Max (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


I found my books and yes, this group was called the 'Thingmen' also thingalio (transliterated) and Jomvikings. So I've copied the article to my user space Here and I am going to work on the article now I've got my books. Seems the roots date back before when Æthelred Evilcouncil (Or Unready, depending which you prefer) hired a group of norsemen, 3000 strong, under Thorkill the Tall. However, I have yet to find any mention of them serving up to Hastings as a scandanavian force. Anyway, I'll be editing the article in my talk space in the coming days, stripping out the obscure refs infavour of easily found and citable texts. Figured you might want to know :) Keep up the good work 4u. Go Honda F1! Narson (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

At least one or two of the books I have read link the Jómvikings hired by Æthelred Unræd to the Thingmen. Thingmen does seem to refer specifically to huscarls in the service of the English king (rather than the various Earls etc who ruled over the lesser kingdoms). I am going to write up the Thingmen article, and then see what length it is. If it is more than a stub etc I will put it in place of the pingalio article (turning the pingalio into a redirect). If it is just a stub, I'll merge it in to huscarl and AfD the pingalio. Narson (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


You are a volunteered copyeditor listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and I'd be glad if you could have a look at the article Vädersolstavlan I just nominated for peer reviewing. My shortcomings in English most likely makes copyediting both necessary and easy.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for peer review[edit]

Hi, I saw your name on the wikipedia:peer review volunteer page. I'm currently working on a science article called the Kardashev Scale, the page has gone through a lot of changes in the last 3 months, some of them reverts that I wish to overturn. I've sent out some notices to people who have worked on the page previously but I'm having problems getting open opinions and feedback. Their ideas about what they want the article to be about and look like are pretty set. I need outside opinion.

In my opinion the Kardashev scale has 3 primary interests:

  • 1) A benchmark used by Seti scientists in there search for extraterrestrials
  • 2) A catch-all vocabulary term for a scale used by scientists, in classifying advanced civilizations. This has important implications when speculating on sociological structures of advanced civilizations. But also, it is a necessary analysis when talking what about clues might be left behind or generated by alien species; which then might lead the the discovery of extraterrestrials.
  • 3) Because it is can be used for the speculation of advanced civilizations it is a magnet for those interested in science fiction. Not many science fiction writers actually talk about the scale or the power generated by fiction species in power(WATTS) terms, but science fiction enthusiasts are interested in the Kardashev Scale.

My primary goals are in advancing the content area of number 2 and diminishing the fictional content. After all, it is a scientific not a fictional topic. My secondary goals are to find and add published content on the extension of the scale. The feedback I have gotten is pretty much divided between goals 1 or 3. And I don't want to create a editing war!

So please read the article and the discussion page and tell me what you think!!

  • 1)Is the article presently fine the way it is?
  • 2)After you read it, did you get the impression that it was a science article or a science fiction article?
  • 3)Was it too long, too short, easy to understand?
  • 4)Was the article interesting, was it boring, did it feel jumbled or was it concise?
  • 5)What do you think might be needed to be added to this article, what do you think needs to be edited out?

Thx--Sparkygravity (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Heroes peer review[edit]

I noticed that your user name was on the Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers list. I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Max Mosley[edit]

Hi, I could do with your help on the [Max Mosley]] article it has been put on hold for 7 days before it's GA review to deal with some points that are outlined on the dicussion page. Cheers! Tommy turrell (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

All the hard work paid off! Passed it's GA review. It's Been really good working with you. FA next!?Tommy turrell (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Red Dwarf peer review[edit]

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Red Dwarf talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The article has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be great if a prominent editor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Red Dwarf Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. If you are interested in joining the peer review discussion please follow the link. Thanks. Wikipedia:Peer review/Red Dwarf --Nreive (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the peer review and minor tweaking of the Red Dwarf article. Much appreciated. I will be looking to work on those suggested areas in the next few days. It's amazing that you can be so close to an article and not see the little adjustments that can make a big difference. Thanks again. --Nreive (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Alan Kulwicki peer review[edit]

I have slowly implemented the suggestions in the article's peer review, which was a major task (but essential). I found issues/questions on several of your bullets, which I added to the peer review article. Would you review the peer review again and expand your comments on the "not done" items, and do an inspection on the "done" that I have marked? Please respond at Talk:Alan Kulwicki. Don't be scared to be very critical and hurting my feelings - my goal is to improve the article. I have been in email contact with Father Dale Grubba attempting to get a free use image. He wants to talk on the telephone, but we haven't talked yet. Thank you very much for you guidance! Royalbroil 16:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Darn your quick skill[edit]

Once again you beat me to it on the reverting of the spanish trolling on Lewis Hamilton! Curse your fast fingers and eagle eyes! I wonder if we shouldn't apply for semi-prot if he hits the newspapers again, rather than spend half the day reverting. Narson (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The temptation to make some puns about Ecclestone being a small problem, or about how he is below the level of notice for most people is there. Sorry, my sister is short so I have tons of short jokes in the bag. The Thingmen are coming along, though, slowly. Unfortunatly my house is being rennovated ATM (Subsidense damage) so it is all a bit hectic, my edit count for this month is pretty attrocious. Narson (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
About thirty grand worth of repair, but, hey, we get redecorated etc. And we only have to pay one grand of that thanks to insurance (And we are making 500 quid by renting out our place in france for a week during Le Mans weekend. Hehe). Well, the issue is mostly one of sources and having to try and understand them, make sure they are talking about what you want, and, well, making sure that in interpreting/reading the source, I havn't slid into OR. There are times I remember why I hate mediaeval history :) Narson (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Max Mosley[edit]

I have reviewed the article per your request. I have added many wikilinks to the article so that Americans can understand British context. There were numerous words that I had never heard of before and had to look up. Please review my edits to make sure that the article still makes sense. I left comments on the article's talk page for things that I couldn't resolve. Royalbroil 01:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi 4u1e good idea to get a peer review, it's got to a point where it all makes sense to me because i have seen it so many times and i am running out of knowledge on the subject. I have noticed User:Skully_Collins seems to make sensible contributions to formula one articles perhaps we could get him on board. As from a non motor sport background i don't know anyone but I think Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review is a good idea, i suspect in many respects we know to much about the subject now after spending a few month on it. Tommy turrell (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the heads-up! I've seen it all now haha... so a Brazilian who just lives or works here, or happens to be passing through, is Brazilian British? Wikipedia never ceases to amaze me, and I normally avoid category warfare like the plague, but this one stuck out as being particularly silly. If he insists, I won't get into a fight with him, but I'll certainly point out to him how silly I think it is :) Thanks again, Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Sorry, I can't help out with a peer review at present. My schedule is simply too full. Good luck with the article, though! – Scartol • Tok 17:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Coloni emblem.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Coloni emblem.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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for showing me the discussion page for WP:F1. It was a big help. I was scared that if I did anything major without disscussion... That's why I did it anyway


Thanks for showing me the discussion page for WP:F1. It was a big help. I was scared that if I did anything major without disscussion... That's why I did it anyway

WP:F1 Newsletter Issue 1[edit]