Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Pyrope. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Pyrope. I noticed your creation template:former F1 constructor. Are you happy for me to start converting all the former constructors which currently use template:F1 team to use template:former F1 constructor instead, and promote the usage of template:former F1 constructor on WP:F1? DH85868993 11:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pyrope. Yes, Alta was one of those constructors I wasn't sure whether or not to include in the Entrants category. I'd appreciate it if you could cast your eye over the other articles in the category and remove any that shouldn't be there. Thanks. DH85868993 09:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
We've done it again! See template:Racing car. (Racing car not F1 car because I think it can be a common template for any racing car, the info's essentially the same). It's already been used on a number, but by no means all, of the F1 car articles: Brabham BT46, Brabham BT55, unsurprisingly! Some others have, I think gotten confused about templates and copied the code of the template (and then modified it) rather than using it correctly (Sauber C20 for example). This one I think we probably do only need one template for - my suggestion would be that you edit template:Racing car to make any necessary change, but what do you think? 4u1e 08:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pyrope. I'm looking to update some driver career summary tables to "John Surtees format" soon. I believe you've done several (many?) in the past. In the interests of minimising my effort, is there some easy way to get the right colour in each square? Or is it just a matter of copying and pasting the right colour string from the key template each time? (Or do you remember them?) And how do you construct the list of races for each year in the table? Do you construct them by hand each time? Or do you find another table which has the same year and copy and paste? Or do you have a list of them somewhere? Thanks DH85868993 10:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, my apologies for reverting without leaving a comment, not intentional, just ham-fisted
I note your interest in Birker Fell, but please observe that we are attempting to apply a standard treatment to all 214 of Wainwrights Fells, and that they are 'fells' regardless of height or name. To simply state that we cannot call Green Crag a fell would be inconsistent. If you want to propose changes to such a large number of articles then perhaps you should initiate a discussion on the WP:BIHILLS talk page.
I'd suggest we leave 'Green Crag' as a Wainwright page and 'Birker Fell' as a page on the upland area as a whole. They are linked to one another and serve different purposes, fitting different templates. What do you think? Bobble Hat 21:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
You deleted the whole thing because I got Borough and Town mixed up (Re: Wandsworth article)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frankmoon (talk • contribs) 13:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC). (sorry, was unaware about the whole signing thing)
Thanks a lot for the template - it looks much better to understand. I wouldn't mind if you could update some from the mid 1990's - early 2000's - that would be helpful.
Again, many thanks Davnel03 21:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I;ve put the template on the 1994 Brazilian Grand Prix race that I have previously edited - can you quickly check to see if nothings wrong.
Many thanks - the template has helped me a lot!!! Davnel03 16:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about creating so many pages at blank, but at least I know for future only to create them one at a time. Anyway, I've put the warning at the top of each individual page so no one that doesn't know much about F1 doesn't go editing it. However, I do not mind people like yourselfs or other people from the Wikipedia F1 project editing it. I would be very happy if people did that. Thanks for co-operating with me. Davnel03 18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Good work. Only mistake was adding in mutiple links in the same table. Overwise it was fine. Buc 18:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a basic Wikipedia guidelines really that there shouldn't be link to the same article really close together. Buc 19:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
How's that not a reason? Buc 19:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure I read somewhere that mutiple links to an article that are fairly close together should be removed. If you you can put me right your welcome to rv my changes. Buc 20:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you but I've that before. Nothing about links to the same article in there. I have left a querry in the help desk to try a resolve this issue. Buc 23:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok so after further enquerry this seems to be a bit of a gray area. Some feel it's ok unless the entries are all right next to each other. But someone eles said though linking at only the first occurrence can make it clearer and easier to read. So my conclusion would that it doesn't really matter. Change it back if you want. Buc 09:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
If you can do anything eles to improve Monaco Grand Prix please do. You may or may not be aware that it's currently a FAC. Buc 11:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that, Pyrope. DH85868993 01:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on the Eagle Mk1 article. It's beautiful. If only all F1 car articles were like that... One tiny query - would it be appropriate to link "American National Championship" to United States Automobile Club? I think it would, but I didn't want to defile the article by adding an incorrect link. DH85868993 04:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Taken from the assessment page, top rating means "Article is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for articles that have achieved international notability within its subject or field." I'd say all F1 champions have achieved international notability, so they must all have "top" importance. High is for articles that do not have international notability, so this is clearly not high enough for F1 champions. I get your point, but I assessed the articles according to the definitions laid out on the assessment page. There might be an argument for changing the assessment page however, as it is a bit ambiguous at the moment. Readro 20:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, regarding Surtees, I'd argue that as the only man to win world championships on 2 and 4 wheels he is most certainly of top importance. Readro 20:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Another editor made the comment on peer review that you can't collide head on from the rear. Doesn't a head on collision mean both parties collide from the front? :S 4u1e 21:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pyrope, there was some discussion about this issue on the main Talk page (search for 'tense'), and on the dedicated guideline's Talk page. I am not saying that the 'debate' was very intensive or exhaustive - it was mostly the point that we needed to standardize (as we have both past and present tenses), and my own opinion that in the unfolding chronology of aviation events, having the present tense gives a dynamic news-like effect, which I believe makes it a more engaging and interesting style for a reader, and creates a more flowing structure, as opposed to a more disjointed list. Again, I don't think this was debated at any depth, but it was included in the guideline, which was accepted as a whole by consensus, and is the current standard for the list format. If you strongly feel this tense is unacceptable, then by all means present your case and try to create a consensus for change. I think the proper venue is the guideline's Talk page, where format related issues should be discussed, followed (if consensus is reached) by changes to the guideline. Thanks, Crum375 22:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I like it! I appreciate how difficult it is to track down info for these earlier cars, but you've managed to get quite a lot of info together. I'm by no means an expert on the era - in fact it's more of a keen interest - so as far as facts go, I don't really know enough to be able to judge. Reagrding images, I've had a look but I can't find anything free-use. My "stash" is actually more of a list of free-use pictures I've found. You can see the current stash here. I know how difficult these images are to find, so I thought it might be better to keep a record of them so that I have them ready to use when the time comes. Readro 21:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out, I had almost forgotten it was there. Blame the procrastinator in me, I guess :-) . Anyway, I've written the two final paragraphs and added everything to the page. I think it still needs some clean-up, lots of details, and most important of all, references. I took most of it from the websites I've listed at the end of the article, and even then it's mostly a textual representation of results tables. But I feel I've created enough of a skeleton that can easily evolve into a GA. --Pc13 20:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I originally addded that paragraph to highlight that there are two quite different areas described in two different sources!
The Duchy's website says: "Nowadays the County Palatine comprises the modern administrative counties of Lancashire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Furness in Cumbria." Not parts of modern Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Merseyside but all of them, which is a very different area to the pre-1974 county cited in 1992, and includes bits of what was Cheshire and Yorkshire.
As those were the only two sources I could find, and as they don't agree with each other I believe "however" points out that they don't agree.
They can't both be right of course, but in the absence of anything else they will have to do until we can find a definitive source. Lozleader 21:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, we never came to a decision over the propose template changes over on WPMotorsport; the discussion is here. Davnel03 16:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I found you a picture! I've put it in the relevant section, feel free to move it if you like. Readro 00:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You're confusing me with another editor. I didn't give the inherent justification. As for my reason for leaving out the county, it's in line with other footballer infoboxes. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, have been a bit busy keeping an eye on Imola '94 while it's been on the front page. I've uploaded the pictures but haven't categorised them on Commons yet. You can view them on my sandbox to get the file name (and please feel free to add categories to them on commons). I'll be importing more photos when I get time (there's hundreds on flickr). AlexJ 15:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Just saw your message on Commons! I should really check there more often.
You're probably right about the image. I was just going on the description of the image on flickr, but it could well be that the photographer has got it wrong. According to my sources, Ascari was a Ferrari driver in 1949 so that means it must be 1948.
Sorry to take so long to reply. Readro 23:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Pyrope. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:De Tomaso Logo.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Pyrope/Sandbox 3. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 00:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pyrope,
Thanks for backing me up on the Davnel sockpuppet. I think he might be back again though. If you've got a spare moment, could you check out User:Daviiid including contributions and let me know what you think? I could be getting paranoid now but it seems more than a coincidence to me. Readro 17:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Are you sure it was me? I haven't edited that page for months AFAIK. Got bored with the argument. Life's too short. :-)Lozleader 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we keep an eye on User:F1Fanaticsz. Seems another savvy newbie, who despite saying "Adding myself - hope I've done it right!", was then able to go on and install Davnel's favourite JS peer review script. I could be wrong but to me it doesn't add up. I'm going to observe carefully. Readro 11:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I saw that you recently joined the Wikiproject Food and Drink and I wanted to welcome you. Looking forward to reading your contributions.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 16:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2007
Hi. "late night sarcasm" would be OK. But "wine fuelled"?? On what basis are you making that judgement? Mark83 22:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I've suggested what looks like the middle ground at the Alain Prost talk page (regarding team mate comparisons). I'd be grateful if you could comment on whether you're willing to accept it. Cheers. 4u1e 14:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2007--Christopher Tanner, CCC 19:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
That's one thing that I probably won't do - upload material, after what happened before. If I do find myself getting into arguments, I will take a few days break to let the situation cool down. Thanks, and I hope we can put my previous edits behind us. Davnel03 10:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem, I've signed the page. Also I corrected the bit about Davnel's most recent vandalism, because we're in July now! Readro 19:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed something interesting yesterday - I hope it isn't a one-off. ;)--Diniz (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter August 2007
Hello Pyrope, good to see you again! I'd never really worked with you on anything before you temporarily quit Wikipedia due to the Davnel03 issue, although we're both part of the F1 Wikiproject. I hadn't realised you were back. Happy editing! Lradrama 11:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It's good to see that you've returned! Readro 11:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Good to see you back! I'd be grateful if you could cast your eyes over Brabham BT19 and make any comments you can think of in its current peer review. I realise there's a Davnel connection, which may be a sensitive point! If it makes any difference, he's only pre-empting what I vaguely had in mind to do anyway. And he did ask first. Cheers. 4u1e 10:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter September 2007
--Christopher Tanner, CCC 15:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I too think this article is well off FA, however I think I've hammered it enough and have decided to become an editor rather than a voter. I also agree with you that the ticks/check marks are really annoying, just yesterday I saw a check mark next to something that wasn't done, very annoying! However that's not why I chose to leave a comment here. It's because of this edit. Censored or not there's no need for "For ****'s sake". The rest of that particular edit was valid, but I don't see how the quote I mentioned added to it!!. Mark83 21:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
These images (1, 2, 3) were found by me (thanks to a link to a gallery from WP:British Motorsport), and I figured they'd be helpful for your Renault Alpine A442 article, since they are licensed under CC-BY-2.0. I'm not positive as to what specific model it is, but I believe it may be the later A443?
There's also several Renault F1 machinery as well, which I'm not the best at identifying as well. The359 07:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of becoming a bore (becoming...?): Any chance you could cast a critical eye over Brabham BT19? It's a tad on the short side, but I think it makes a nice coherent article (something which I now think I probably failed with on Brabham, but I'm not going to take the star away if no-one else is.....). Would really appreciate your thoughts. Cheers. 4u1e 10:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pyrope! How come you keep making Crotalus mitchellii angelensis as a stub? According to the definition, "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information." This article may not yet contain much information about the animal itself, but it does include complete taxonomic, geographic and conservation status info, along with internal and external links. I would call that useful information. (PS -- You can answer here as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). --Jwinius 13:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, then I don't think we're going to agree on this issue. We may have some interests in common, such as F1 (I hope Hamilton wins the championship!), but not biology. I always go a little way to towards your ideal, such as with the lead section where I describe what kind of a snake it is and whether it is venomous or not, and that rattlesnakes like this one give birth to live young and eat small mammals, but I know for a fact that including much more than that leads to increasingly poor articles. It would be like describing common internal combustion engine technology and rubber compounds in the articles for every single model of automobile. Obviously, you want to keep articles like that as much to the point as possible and the applies to articles on species and subspecies.
As for why we should bother to create articles for subspecies, that's usually because they all have something unique about them. In this case, C. m. angelensis is not only an island dwarf form of the more common speckled rattlesnake C. mitchellii, it is also listed separately on the IUCN Red List of threatened species (as a species). Also, keeping such articles separate prevents the species articles from eventually becoming too large and makes it easier to set up the necessary redirects for synonyms and common names.
Cruft?? You're obviously not much of a biologist. It's one thing not to understand the value of another's work, but to devalue it is rather unkind of you. Here I am, doing my level best to make sure WP's snake articles make sense and are all taxonomically correct, and along comes a motorsport fan to tell me I'm doing it all wrong. No hard feelings, but I respectfully suggest you stick to judging content you know more about. --Jwinius 17:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for the photos. Spiderlounge 18:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pyrope, I was wondering if you could at some point re-review the Malaysian PR for us. If you can, that would be be very greatful, thanks. (Discussion PR) Davnel03 18:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Ta very much - I've done some thinking out loud on the talk page and addressed some of your points. Others may take more time. 4u1e 16:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
How do you want to handle this? - {{Cfr}} (which will take about a week), or should one of us just create the new category and transfer the articles, then you can {{db-author}} the old one? DH85868993 15:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Re the misnomer: DH is right in a way, you know. The championship season was run to F2 rules, not F1, so under the current title we shouldn't really have the WDC results in the article at all! I suspect that in period it was not referred to as the 1952/3 F1 world championship. 4u1e 11:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Beautiful work. DH85868993 02:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Per your suggestion I uploaded an image that shows a Phase 2 graffiti tag in the bubble letter style. I'm unsure of the copyright status, and the image might get deleted later, though at least it is there for now. If you have any knowledge about image copyrights, fair use, etc. and could help that would be much appreciated. This is the first image I have uploaded and I have little or no understanding of copyright issues at this point. I've posted a question on the media help page so hopefully someone will be able to help out.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You mean I spent all that time with a calculator and table of conversions for nothing?! Remarkably handy templates, thanks for adding them. Does the expanded race history do what you wanted? 4u1e 11:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I bet you did ...
Can you help me on the WP talk page? Some anonymous guy has come along saying the new expanded driver tables are no good, he wants to go back to the simple ones, and someone even backed him up. We've spent a lot of time doing them and I am going to go mental if it's all been for nothing... Bretonbanquet 00:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Morning. Right at the bottom of WP:HYPHEN - last bullet of section 3. Seems fairly unambiguous, although I've never noticed it before. I've just re-worded in a couple of places to avoid it, because it clashes with the templates - you'd need two different Auto templates for each unit (hyphenated and non) to make this work. :( 4u1e 10:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Phew! All went smoothly in the end - thanks to several people taking the time to pick it apart on the way. Thanks for your contribution. If I can just find a decent (free!) pic of the whole car I'll nom it for the front page as well. It's a while since WPF1 had one up there. Cheers. 4u1e 21:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Why have you taged this page. I have only just realeased the Edit, You will see that I Have Left the Ref Chapter, ready to Ref the article but you have really jumped the GunStavros1 22:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I Had not Taken it Personel it is just the fact that you Tagged it, I Was interested to Know why you tagged it only 2 mins after I Had Realeased It!Stavros1 22:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I Have to strongly disagree with you! I have researched this article after visiting the hall and sat and wrote the article using my experiances of my visit and from research which included using websites and a book. If you bothered to take the time to read the ref's and there links you will find that they are all rellivant to the article. As for your comments on Peacock wording, I could quiet easly say the same of some of your motor racing contributions which I have taken the time to read and found very interesting. I However will not be so inpolite as to critisie somthing that you oboviusly have a passion and a knoledge off. So pleses treat me the sameStavros1 08:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I no longer have any interest in communicating with you over this subject. you are welcome to do as you please with this article seen as it bothers you so much. It is editors like you that take the enjoyment out of doing somthing constructive on the web. I Hope Your Move goes well!!!!!212.219.243.179 07:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have taken it on your self to stalk me I feel that you are trying to intimidate me, I was tempted to place the same tag on some of your work, which of course would only be my opion, but resited the temptation to get into some petty editing war with you, but this seems to be your intention. I have no problem with people putting right erros I have made , But you seem to be following me around like some demented school master I.E. the High kelling article. The Tag you placed on the A149 is only your opion. I Disagree with you. the Article is a fair dicription of this road, one I know and use on a very regular basis and I have resarched the facts that are mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stavros1 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
If you have studyed the history of my Wikipidia activitys you will see that I have made a lot of positive contributions. I have only seemed to have got into some sort of niggly communications with you because of your attitude. As for Hostility to other editors this has happened only once before because I completly disagreed with the editor in question who rather had an attitude like yours.Stavros1 10:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you know what the bot is? Raymond Giggs 08:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Discussions are so much better than trying to start an edit war. violet/riga (t) 09:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The person that seems to be making all the changes to the Force India name is Shellene. I've left two comments on his/her talkpage, but have no response. Thanks for your intervention. Davnel03 14:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pyrop
Thanks for the InformationStavros1 17:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping in on the Melbourne Grand Prix and Ferrari issue. As its something that keeps on getting repeated I figured it would be there, was quite suprised to find it was not. Added it in, for now. I am sure even the tifosi won't mind it being in there. Oh well, at least this season is over with. Hopefully next season Honda will have a decent car, or the FIA will let Rubens and Jenson simply walk around the track (Should improve the times a bit) Narson 14:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes that will be fine by Me. Just for your info, I was very lucky to be stood on the right bank at just at the right time to get this shot. it is in an album of photo's that I took that Glorious day, Just a pity the focus was not a little bit sharper, but as i'm sure you know to catch a good photo of one of these cars, even on a parade lap, you have to have a good camera. Its still one my favorite photos though!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stavros1 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:All American Racers logo.gif. 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 05:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Alpine logo.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 08:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Alta logo.gif. 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 08:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you look over Raikkonen's 2007 section? It seems unnecessarily detailed and POV to me (Stuff about Hamilton snatching pole, how Raikkonen dominated the weekend etc along with blow by blow accounts of almost every race of the season. Just want a second opinion to confirm I'm not nuts Narson 11:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter November 2007
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 04:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Not only POV, but "McClarren"!!!! <sighs>: 1 for the POV, and 1 for the fact that they don't know how to spell the team name correctly. Nice revert. Mark83 23:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just to ask, what do you think of changing the template name to a less ambiguous Template:LM as I was in the process of creating one myself until I discovered this. Please let me know what do you think. Willirennen 16:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Good work! DH85868993 06:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
First Brawn isn't taken back into the Ferrari fold, now Todt gets taken away from the race team, plus the whole incident with Stepney. I wonder if this isn't somewhat of a purge of non-italians from the Ferrari team so it can truely be an Italian team again (rather than one run by the Brits and French). Narson 13:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 1948 British Grand Prix, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: User:Pyrope/Sandbox 1. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 01:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, the days of 4 channels and little to do as a child on saturday night has alot to answer for, I'm afraid. Narson 16:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Obsessive, moi? ;-) 4u1e 17:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Pyrope!
Do you also have an bigger version of this logo? I would need one for German Wikipedia. If not, I´ll take the small one. ;) Chaddy (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I am as sure as I can be that this article is a hoax. There is no author on Google by the name shown, there is one book called "A Brief Historyy of Alaska" but it is not by Drury, and there is no book on Google entitled "Wow, I Guess I am an Anthropologist". His mother was a whaler and his father, with 4 names, the head os the Seamstresses' Union? This is a joke. Is there any reason why the Speedy tag should not be put back on? Thanks Bielle (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pyrope. 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)
WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter Decemberr 2007
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 22:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.