User talk:4u1e/archive6

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

Contents

Cast chassis...[edit]

Just noticed your recent edit summary comment and thought you might be interested in the following trivia tit-bit. De Tomaso constructed an Indy 500 chassis that was cast in aluminium. The design had an internal and external skin, with the void between the two acting as the fuel tank. The chassis was cast by Campagnolo and shipped to the US, but there the trail runs cold... Not even the De Tomaso register seem to have been able to find out what happened to it once it reached America. Anyway, that's the only cast chassis I can think of! Pyrope 00:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Spelling and other stuff...[edit]

Hey 4 - Just a quick question. Whilst a do agree with you about races, I was wondering what to do about Anglo-American teams. The only team I recall at this moment is Shadow Racing Cars. Should we decide by randomly selecting one from a hat for something? Also, I was looking at try and get back to my old ways and had a look at Ronnie Peterson's article and thought I'd give it a go, just wondering if you might have any material that would help me in my quest to improve it? If not, it's fine, I'll see if the Waterstone's in Crewe has any books/bios on him, I'm sure they would. Finally, apologies for not doing the spoken file for Brabham but I haven't been able to find the time to do it...oh and my voice does actually sound like I'm bored out of my mind over a microphone so it's probably for the best I didn't do it. ;-)

Back to the Peterson point, you wouldn't mind just looking over my edits and telling me where I could expand on? I usually find your pointers a big help when I'm improving an article. If your not in the business of third party reviewing anymore then, once again, it's fine. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 18:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A quick note of thanks[edit]

Thanks again for your comments on the Motor Sport digital archive. I finally got the '80s CD a couple of days ago and I've had some fun looking at the contemporary reports, especially the editorials which aren't too much different from those of today! It should also come in useful for my plan to expand the 1982 Monaco Grand Prix article at some point.--Diniz(talk) 18:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (September II)[edit]

--Diniz(talk) 18:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou[edit]

Thankyou for being a pleasure to work with during my time on WP, I really appreciate it. You've even got a mention on my userpage. ;) Lradrama 07:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

FIA vandalism[edit]

Please warn the vandals after reverting the vandalism. With no warnings given, it becomes difficult to report and block them. LeaveSleaves talk 11:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Damon[edit]

Thanks! Felt it was better than not having a reference. Readro (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

After a look at the redesigned article, I'm torn. It's in much better shape now, in terms of writing and structure, and I appreciate your hard work. Still, I can't say that it's the best it can be. The general F1 references remain my biggest concern, and I still see some little awkward sentences, though not as many as before. I am leaning towards nominating the article due to its age as an FA (an effort is being made to review FAs of this era), but I want you to know the purpose of FAR is to raise old articles to modern standards. Downgrades only happen when this doesn't occur, and articles with dedicated editors usually find a way to retain their status. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I just nominated it. As you said, we'll see what happens. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oil shale extraction[edit]

Hi, 4u1e. In spring, you conducted an informal review of the Oil shale extraction. Although the article was not promoted to the FA status, your review was a great help for improving the article. The main reason, why this article was not promoted, was a prose. However, I am going to renominate this article after some improvements. I hope you agree to review this article again and help to bring it to the FA level. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

Justin Wilson and Darren Manning are Indycar racers, not Formula One racers. Indycar is not controlled by the FIA. Bookp (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (October)[edit]

--Diniz(talk) 15:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: I was[edit]

Thanks for the kind words. DH85868993 (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Greenfield[edit]

Thanks very much for your review - your comments all look helpful, and I'll act on them later today. It was especially good to have somebody who wasn't familiar with Canadian political terminology do the review, to help me reduce use of jargon (I just sort of assumed that "caucus" and "riding" were common to all Westminster democracies, but apparently I'm wrong). Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll try to have a look at your article tomorrow sometime. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Danica Patrick[edit]

I've removed unsourced content at Danica Patrick per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This is not to be reverted. The BLP policy applies to all content, positive or negative. --- RockMFR 16:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


Eddie Irvine re FFord Championship re FFord Festival[edit]

Aware as I am that these are different things, I linked to the former as that is the only place I could find it mentioned. The festival may well merit its own page but as you say does not have one yet. I can see what you mean though. Britmax (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the remark re infoboxes. I have put an embryo Formula Ford Festival article up for contribution and comment re your suggestion. Feel free! Britmax (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Dyppel[edit]

Hi. Thanks for the feedback on Dyppel. I'll take a look at Max Mosley as soon as I have the time to. Mikkel (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Senna and Ground effect[edit]

I don't know if it is true or not if the accident in question can be (partly) contributed to a sudden lack of ground effect induced downforce (however, you are probably correct and due to my limited knowledge in this matter I will not argue), but in any regard you are of course correct about the vandalism tag, please accept my apology, it was of course completely incorrect to use that tag in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posix memalign (talkcontribs) 20:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

2008 Italian Grand Prix[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your comments at the Brazilian GP PR, which is now up for GA. If you have a moment, could you take a look at my most recent work and comment on the peer review here? I'm more than willing to reciprocate the favour on any of your articles (reviewing, copy editing etc.) Cheers, Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 04:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (November)[edit]

Cs-wolves(talk) 12:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

F1 Racing[edit]

I wasn't going to reply on the PR page, but here it is, in Letters:

The closing guitar solo on Demolition Man by Def Leppard is credited to Damon Hill. Is this really the 1996 world champion?

-Some dude in the US

Wikipedia says "yes"; it must be true

Told you not get excited. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 23:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:F1 Talk[edit]

Thanks for weighing in. It was getting a bit circular with the four of us, hence why I stopped responding. --Narson ~ Talk 18:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 Japanese Grand Prix[edit]

Hi. This article is currently up for PR here. Any comments you have would be useful. As before, I am more than willing to return the favour. Apterygial 02:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


Saruman[edit]

I think your right. I was thinking much the same as you were, and was wondering if I should remove some of the quotes. I've removed the line you've mentioned-I agree with your point there. But as for as the quotes, I suggest you remove whichever seems unnecessary. I've made a few changes: see if they are enough.User talk: Steed Asprey - 171 11:28, 10 December, 2008 (UTC)

1964 Gabon coup d'etat[edit]

Hey! Would you mind verifying the French sources at the above linked article? ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 16:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for my ignorace, but what is the language helpdesk? The radio url is simply a description of the broadcast; User:Polaert sent me a recording. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 20:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Now could you check the French books, for Leon M'ba and the coup? Please paste your results (ie if the articles are correct or not. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I meant to ask if you could check out the books (damn fast typing!) from a library. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't own a scanner. I'll see if User:Politizer can get them for me. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Of interest[edit]

Don't know how often you check out autosport but I thought you might find this interesting. The quotes really shoot the old chap in the foot. --Narson ~ Talk 16:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

from the past[edit]

Hello, seasons greatings! I'm still about watching MM! Many thanks for reminding people of the work I put in to the article. I've stepped back becasue I think I couldn't really offer much more, and he made me angry when he spoilt our shot at a FA. I am still mulling over a clean up of Frank or Ron but I haven't got enough sources for either. Tommy turrell (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

from the future[edit]

What else could I name the section? :) I tagged MM, and explained the little things on the talk page. The other thing is, with the 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix FAC swinging my way, I'm thinking of nomming 2008 Japanese Grand Prix for FA, but the PR is still open. Were you thinking of adding more comments? If not, fine; if so, I'll keep it open. No pressure to add comments, but the bot will probably close it if nothing gets done for a while, so I want to make sure. Apterygial 11:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Very good! (we should do this on every talk page!) Thanks. I'll give it a copy edit and then nom it. Merry Christmas (it's only an hour away here, but look! there's Santa!) Apterygial 12:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, you probably already have seen this, but you might want to take a look: [1]. Apterygial 11:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (December)[edit]

Cs-wolves(talk) 04:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Lockdown (2008)[edit]

Hello, you may not remember me but you took under part of the above article's GA review a few months ago. Well thanks for taking the time to review the article for as little or long as it took. It recently passed its second FAC and became a Featured Article. So any comments you left during its GA review helped get it to the status it is today and I want to say thank you.--WillC 05:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.[edit]

Thank you for your patience working with me on the Scuderia Ferrari article 4u1e. I hope you like the solution provided by DH85... He seems to think just like you do regarding the future of this article. Thanks for helping me survive my first real Wikipedia edit! Timoleon (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Japan GP FAC[edit]

You could have done this a little sooner! :) It's fine, if you have problems with it I'm more than willing to work through them with you. I think though, that the change you did make makes that sentence a little too long; I found it quite hard to follow when I read it. Apterygial 09:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't really help you edit those sentences; I agree with the reviewer after you who found the "short, staccato sentences... a breath of fresh air", which, given the heat in this country, could only be a good thing. Apterygial 04:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I thought that was the best IP I'd ever seen! You've even got people imploring you to create an account! You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and I don't really disagree with any of the edits you did. I was always taught to have short, concise sentences. Like this one. And this one. Actually, that one started with "and". Can't have that. Whoops, a contraction. Apterygial 08:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (January)[edit]

Cs-wolves(talk) 16:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Villeneuve[edit]

Hi

Just wondered if you wanted any help with the article, I appreciate you may not need it, but just wanted to offer if necessary :¬)

Cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Schumi[edit]

Hi

I will have a look then and try and get the prose sorted out first, as you prob know more tech details lol

Can you also go and check Schumi page ? someone edited it a lot today, and I thought some of the comments were PoV as well as others being non-neutral, so would appreciate a second opinion as I keep reading the same things over and over and I'm starting to lose objectivity. I will prob have most time free tonight in about an hour or so and will check Vill. then

cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Villeneuve[edit]

Hi

Not a problem, that's one of the good things about wiki, I can make mistakes and you can correct them ! Please continue to do so lol

cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC) PS - I would say that IMO short sentences do not read well, hence the taking out of . and joining them

Personally, I think you should to some extent own it, although I know it's against Wikiworld ethics lol, you have deep knowledge and your copy writing is great. I was rather trying to explain why I had done it rather than complain about it. For example some of the Schumacher paragraphs are much better since you changed them.--Chaosdruid (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

2008 Chinese Grand Prix[edit]

Hi. If you've got a minute, I'm interested in some feedback on this article in light of your comments at the last FAC, at the PR here. I changed my writing style slightly after that, and I just want to make sure I'm on the right track. Thanks, Apterygial 03:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mosley[edit]

The judge's ruling is at [2]. The relevant bit is:

121. As it happens, some of the women were rather reluctant to accept the description “prostitute”. (For the purposes of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the term is defined by reference to providing “sexual services” in return for payment: s.51(2) of the Act.) Several of them offer a variety of services on their website (usually spanking or being spanked in various guises) but expressly warn that they do not offer specifically sexual services. They apparently made an exception in “Mike’s” case and threw in a bit of sex, as it were, as an “extra” between friends. Indeed, sometimes they were not paid at all. As they liked the premises and found the atmosphere relaxing and congenial, things developed from there, Indeed, although the Claimant’s sexual activity as revealed in the DVD material did not seem to amount to very much, some of the women stayed on after the party was over and indulged in same sex action purely for their own entertainment.

It's not so much that prostitute is necessarily wrong, but it seems to be a matter of POV, and definition. Perhaps there is a better word than "sex worker", I just feel we should be wary of using "prostitute" if the label seems to be disputed by some of the women. Mdwh (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Bakshi[edit]

Hi. I clarified your concerns about the citations. You may want to rethink your opposal of the FAC. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

  • Listen, I really do not appreciate you opposing the FAC on the basis of problems that simply are not there. It's really damaging to the article's success for one reviewer to barely glance at the article and post an opposition. This tends to cause people to overlook the article and further impairs its recognition. I just find this really poor form for another editor to do something like this. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC))
    • Sorry about that, it's just that I've had this article up six times, and every time towards the end when I think it's going to be promoted, the FAC fails because users who opposed in the past never took the time to check again to see if their concerns were actually addressed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC))
      • Fixed the sentence about "Harlem Shuffle" and added Mancusco's perspective to the sentence on Cool World. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC))
        • I went ahead and deleted the part about "Harlem Shuffle", being that it's a minor part of Bakshi's history. I've repeatedly stated that I checked through all of the references and they do, in fact, reflect what they are sourcing. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC))
          • I do not think that you look at the references closely enough. The fact is that they do reflect the text. I don't see any problems with the sourcing. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC))
            • Believe me, I've checked all of the citations myself. They back up the information that they are supposed to. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC))
  • Aren't you going to comment on the current revision? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

WPF1 Newsletter (February)[edit]

Cs-wolves(talk) 09:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Saruman[edit]

Just curious: what do you have against "before" [3] and "appear" [4] ? Elphion (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I grant you "appear". Elphion (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(Webster's 7th): "before adv 1. in advance: ahead; 2. earlier, previously." Yes, it is also a preposition, but a perfectly good adverb. In this context, I think "before" reads better than "earlier". No big deal; the edit just struck me as peculiar. Elphion (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Safety car[edit]

No worries man. Cs-wolves(talk) 19:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

LOTR as "trilogy"[edit]

Good additions to Saruman. But "trilogy" makes me cringe a bit. Tolkien reacted emphatically against its being applied to LOTR, as to him the books constituted a single novel, not three related novels. I see that you are trying to avoid confusion of "book" and "Book III" (a Good Thing), but I would advise avoiding "trilogy". Elphion (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Forti[edit]

Your edit was both accurate and an improvement; thank you for making it!--Diniz(talk) 20:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (March)[edit]