User talk:Ian Dalziel

Welcome!

Hello, Ian Dalziel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Gflores ^Talk 22:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, I have added some text at Talk:Silverstone Circuit for your consideration. You seem to have reversed my entry twice without submitting any reason why and not sure of your motivation. Dadford Road and Dadford happen to be in Bucks until north of the junction of the Silverstone entrance. I have submitted official district council mapping which you seem to not consider authoritative enough. Perhaps if you have better references to validate your reversal, you could post it for information, or perhaps you are suggesting that the county sign that I drive past every so often has been put in the wrong place?! Best to respond on the Talk:Silverstone Circuit page so that others can comment if appropriate. Warren Whyte (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, kindly refrain from grinding you ax on race relations in the UK on Wikipedia. This is your final warning as this constitutes a hate crime under federal U.S. regulations which could lead to the suspension of your account, and a lawsuit against Wikipedia. This is your final warning to refrain from hate crime and vandalism against ethnic minorities, failing which federal authorities will immediately be notified and your IP investigated for propagating hate crime on the internet. DuncanWeir (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian Dalziel. This deletion has been contested twice and rebutted. Kindly remove from speedy deletion tags. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.167.246 (talk • contribs)

Hi 86.168.167.246 - Or should I say Kai Wong? I have nothing to do with any speedy deletion tags, so kindly learn to read, then go forth and multiply. Thank you! -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Ian Dalziel! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Computerjoe's talk 18:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, maybe it's time to request that the Jim Clark page be locked/restricted/whatever to prevent that twat from continually arsing around with the first couple of paragraphs? I was going to add some info about the Jim Clark Memorial Rally but will probably wait until this guy can be stopped. T-r-davies 00:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - I'll try requesting it (if I can work out how!). You should be safe enough with updates, so long as you make sure you're not applying them to Pflanzgarten's version! -- Ian Dalziel 14:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think you have to request it from an Administrator, looking at the number of reverts you've done I can't imagine they'll object. Will go ahead with the rally info, may end up creating a new article and linking, depends how much I write! T-r-davies 17:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have deleted this without merging the content back into Winnie-the-Pooh or removing the redlink. Is this normal? Seems a bit unhelpful. (Genuine question - I haven't been involved in a deletion before) -- Ian Dalziel 21:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you send a message to someone about a discussion, it is best to include a link to that discussion in the title of the message in order to assist the reader, as above. The majority decision was to delete the article with no consensus about where the information should go. If you would like to contest the decision, please state your case at Wikipedia:deletion review, preferably with a strategy for restructuring the Winnie the Pooh-related articles that it affects. (aeropagitica) 21:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how politically correct is my request, but if you see it fit, please revert the valdal revert of User:Ernham, currently as top version: I've already changed the page 3 times today... Mariano(t/c) 13:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. Mariano(t/c) 15:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 20th century seems a bit late. N.B., in Medieval abbreviations "common phrases may be severely abbreviated: "N.B." (or just a hand with a pointing finger) frequently can be found in the margin of a page". Q.E.D. (Baruch Spinoza, in 1655)......dave souza, talk 20:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring the image! Addhoc 12:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw that you tagged all the socks. Do you potentially want to consider removing the notice from User:193.25.183.52 and/or User:89.50.227.123? The edit history for them may indicate that they have been used by other users as well. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

has there been a consensus on using Grands Prix? i agree that Grand Prix events does sound better. also Grand Prixes is an accepted plural of the word Grand Prix[1]. cheers --Dan027 08:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not accepted by me, I'm afraid. Dictionary.com is just plain wrong on that - it happens!. Try a Google on "Grands Prix" as opposed to "Grand Prixes" and count the hits. "Grands Prix" is the plural used on Forix, grandprix.com and formula1.com, as well as being the correct French plural for a French phrase used in English. -- Ian Dalziel 20:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re avoirdupois. The etymology referenced gives (as, too, does Longman): "O.Fr. avoir de pois". The misspelling mentioned in the reference is the substitution of "du" for "de". Of course the words avoir and pois were earlier aveir and peis, but both avoir and pois are Old French within the usual definition of French before ca. 1300. Just to take a few examples of avoir from Old French texts:

• Autrui avoir par larrecin ou tolu par force an chemin (1180)
• Ainc de nule arme ne pot avoir garant (12th C)
• De la pitié q'au cor li prist, qu'il ne plorast ne s'en tenist por nul avoir (12th C)
• S'auchuns velt oïr ou savoir la vie Mahommet, avoir en porra ichi connissanche (1258)
• Pour avoir chascun qui la vient, faites vo serjant estre au Pire (13th C)

The two forms/spellings even overlap in time. See:

• Qant grant furent vostre dui frere, au los et au consoil lor pere alerent a .ii. corz reax por avoir armes et chevax (Le conte du Graal, ca. 1085)
• Jo ne lerreie, por l'or que Deus fist ne por tut l'aveir (La chanson de Roland, 1090)

I have restored, because it is not wrong, "Old French avoir de pois", and the spelling of the term in Middle English also suggests that it was borrowed from Old French in this form. -- Picapica 19:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, but is it useful to refer to a form which is virtually identical to the English word? Also, the quoted source suggests it came into English as peis, which seems highly dubious. -- Ian Dalziel 23:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is. The usefulness of the note about the origin of the word lies, I would have thought, in how well it explains the sense of the words avoir de pois from which "avoirdupois" derives – rather more than in going into variant Old French and Anglo-French spellings (though, for those who are interested, there is already a footnoted reference that deals with that to some extent). Would it, for example, be "not useful", in mentioning the original "hand-work" meaning of the word "manoeuvre", to refer to the O.Fr. maneuvre because its spelling closely resembles that of the modern English word?

Fair enough. I preferred the older form, but I don't feel strongly about it. I admit I didn't look it up and thought the shift to "ois" was later than OF. -- Ian Dalziel 08:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, just for the record, here is some of the history of English spellings of the form form the OED (sorry that the pron. symbols don't come out!) -- Picapica 11:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• avoirdupois (ˌævəRdəˈpɔɪz). Forms: 4 auoirdepeise, auer de peis, 4–7 avoir de pois, 5 haberdepase, 6 auerdepaise, auer de poiz, haberdepoys, -poise, 6–7 hauer de pois, haberde-pois, 7 averdepois, aver-, haberdupois(e, haverdupois(e, 8 hauer-du-pois, 7– avoirdupois. [A recent corrupt spelling of avoir-de-pois, in early OF. and AF. aveir de peis `goods of weight,' f. OF. avoir, aveir, property, goods, aver, de of, pois, peis (= Pr. pes, pens, It. peso):—L. *pēsum, pensum, weight. The first word had the variant forms of the simple aver, and the pronunciation remains ˈaver; the Norman peis was from 1300 varied with, and c 1500 superseded by, the Parisian pois.]

My objection to the Online Etymology reference is that it suggests the term entered English as "peis" then underwent a parallel shift in English to "pois". That seems just silly to me - clearly what has happened is a succession of borrowings from French as the word evolved there.

Now, what do you think about the names of the units? -- Ian Dalziel 08:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't that reference good? It is about the fact that team orders were banned after the two incidents with the ferraris in 2002, in Austria and USA. If you read the reference well, you'll see "The rule forbidding teams from determining the finish of their drivers resulted from Ferrari instructing Barrichello to let five-time champion chumacher pass him to win the Austrian Grand Prix earlier this year, and Barrichello winning the U.S. Grand Prix when Schumacher slowed down in a bid for a dead-heat finish.". This proves what is stated in the article. I think if something has to change, is the wikipedia article to match the reference, not the opposite. Cheers--Serte 13:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message about full protection on User talk:Zsinj. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reasonn why Schumacher was not stripped of wins or points would be that it would arguably suggest that drivers who finished behind him in races should be promoted, and thus it might affect the championship points of other drivers.Lucifer 13:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly mark this article for disambiguation.

Have you read the recent history of the Jim Clark article? There isn't going to be any "talk activity". The whole problem with Pflanzgarten is that he refuses to discuss changes - just reverts back to the version he updated in June. It has to be at least semi-protected, so that he loses one of his sockpuppet accounts each time, if nothing else! -- Ian Dalziel 17:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's been only one edit in the last 12 hours - I think we can handle that. Pflanzgarten has been indefblocked too. So, if the reverting gets out of control, it should be only be semi-protected, not fully protected. Let me know if it gets too crazy. Since I know that's the behavior now, I'll start blocking IPs on sight when that happens. This is a preferable alternative to leaving it on full protect forever. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, Ian. It seems that taxonomic terms change a bit more than I had expected (and are different from what I learned in biology -- of course, that was thirty years ago ;) I'd imagine that as man begins to understand down genomes in more depth, the classifications will change even more. Hope I didn't mess anything up, or if I did that you fixed it. •Jim62sch• 22:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I hate flagicons, they make the articles look a bit silly and add no extra information. In this case I was removing several that a user had added to dozens of articles. In some cases the flagicon was there but not the country of birth which is even worse. Restore the icon if you wish. I never remove the icon more than once per day and I don't go out of my way to look for them. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info Ian, have just got back from 48 hour trip to London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portlius (talk • contribs)

Y you remove my edit Username900122 (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K I’ll stop,how do you use sandbox Username900122 (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As of right this minute, I'm thinking yes they should. But there was a discussion on this, started by DH, I think, and I can't remember what the conclusion was, if there was one. Hang on a minute, I'll see if I can find it. 4u1e 07:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the conversation I was thinking of, which suggests that 'constructor' should be used (so I'm wrong on that basis!). Although it wasn't entirely conclusive about what happens with drivers results, where 'constructor' wouldn't necessarily have priority over 'entrant', which it does for race results. I'll change Jack back for now though. 4u1e 08:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put both entrant and constructor in now. Probably a bit redundant.... Cheers. 4u1e 08:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixeder indeed. That's some seriously ugly code now - I'm just relieved we all spell camshaft consistently. (Come to think of it, the redirect for DOHC vs Dohc is rather lacking.) --AndrewHowse 16:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I notice you've been involved in blocking User:Ernham before. He's just come back from his ban, and is already at it again, removing sourced references etc. he doesn't like with no attempt to discuss. I'm immensely frustrated at wasting time reverting him, and hope not to get sucked into another edit war. I'd appreciate your help in keeping an eye on him, especially his 'contribution' to Lothar von Trotha and Herero and Namaqua genocide. Thank you :) Greenman 12:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported him at [2] and commented on a report of his against another user at [3]. It would be much appreciated if you could add your comments if you get a chance. Thank you :) Greenman 12:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Do not accuse other editors of "vandalism" in edit summaries. Edit summary personal attacks are considered to be the lowest of the low. --Mais oui! 09:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated reversion of a consensus position while refusing to discuss changes IS considered vandalism. That is NOT a personal attack. If you are prepared to discuss this, why are you not prepared to discuss your one-sided multiple reverts? -- Ian Dalziel 10:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to revert yet another misguided edit of Lewis Hamilton's WDC position, but you beat me to it! I've made a new topic in the article's talk page outlining the tiebreaking procedure in F1. If you have to make another reversion in the next 12 days, you can point the editor to the talk page for a further explanation. Majin Izlude ^talk 23:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on X-Sample, by CultureDrone (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because X-Sample is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting X-Sample, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate X-Sample itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 12:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While looking the revision history of the "Dog" image, I erroneously clicked on the wrong button and reverted to the inappropriate version. I want to profusely apologize for this error, hoping you can repair the damage without too much trouble. Sorry!--Ramdrake 19:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out how to undo my own boo. The correct image is showing again. Thanks for understanding!--Ramdrake 19:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian - sorry for multiple edits on the DFV page. Being a Newbie to Wikipedia I couldn't understand why comments weren't 'sticking', and didn't see your comments until too late. However you inspired me to continue looking & both me and the DFV page are better for it! :0) 198.28.69.5 16:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC) PS. is the correct place for comments like this?[reply]

Hi, I reverted your extra indent to my comment, as I wasn't replying to the comment above, but the original root-level comment. By indenting it, it implied I was replying to the comment directly above mine. John Hayes^talk 10:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps our anonymous friend is familiar with minimalist poet D. N. Eva's famous quip:

"I knew a man called T. S. Eliot

"Who wanted to write the 'Waist Land' but couldn't spelliot."

Or, perhaps more appropriate, considering the calibre of his edits, W. H. Auden's near-palindrome:

"T. Eliot, top bard, notes putrid tang emanating: I'd assign it a name, gnat dirt upset on drab pot toilet."

Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You're wasting your time until Bob is blocked by an admin. I've already posted at WP:AIV, let him fuck around all he wants then revert when he's blocked. WLU (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now blocked. WLU (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You just beat me to it! I think between us we must have zapped that particular serial comma dozens of times. Personally, I have nothing against the serial comma in general, but that particular one certainly annoys me! And you, by the look of it... Snalwibma (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've responded to you at my talk page. Cheers. --G2bambino (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the error. I thought that I was reverting vandalism by an anonymous user, when, in fact, I was repeating an error. Well, it was sorted out in the end. I will take a more careful look next time. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the McLaren article it was in 1997 that the device was noticed (the wording used in the F1 article). It wasn't until 1998 that it was banned. Does that sound right (it doesn't have an online reference). (Arguably this is too trivial to mention in the main F1 article, by the way!) 4u1e (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think of it, I've got the 97 and 98 Autocourses, so I can look it up this evening sometime (D'oh!). I'm in the middle of doing something else at the minute though, and the books are lurking behind the Swiss cheese plant, so it'll be later on. 4u1e (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you got it anyway. Good work. 4u1e (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "there is no real triple crown for drivers"? Should the whole article be scrapped? And why is it unnecessary to note that there has only been one constructor who has won all these competitions? John Anderson (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! I read the diff wrong. Thanks for rereverting. TJRC (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

?! Talk about sheer persistence. Surely there must be something more interesting s/he can spend time doing? 4u1e (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you reverted my edits on cask ale, citing a concern about use of a single term. I think that this was abrupt, given that the terms cited were a small part of the totality of my edits, which included a number of wikifying links. ENeville (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I clearly didn't read the rest of your edits properly - I have no objection to them. Sorry. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ian: Re. Ayrton Senna KARPOUZI For someone who apparently thinks of himself as a Wikipedia policy expert, you have never logged in to identify yourself. I agree with you that the entire Senna profile is a mess. For example, the insertion about Senna and the NSX is too trivial a fact to close the article. It seems logical to end the article with the Legacy section. Unfortunately, editing by committee inevitably results in such an article. Lastly, the use of British English spelling is inappropriate for the reason a British Empire no longer exists. Most foreign language dictionaries translate words back to American English spelling. American English is the world standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinsuper7 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "Wikipedia Standard English". See WP:MoS. The consensus at WP:F1 is that F1-related articles should use UK English, since F1 is primarily centred in Europe. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ian: Thank you for clarifying this matter. No offense intended. I would like to see UK English usage applied consistently which I believe is not always the case. Best regardsColinsuper7 (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)ColinSuper7[reply]

When you have a moment, can you take a look at this article and let me know what you think? I have very grave doubts about it, but would like some other opinions. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not an expert, either. The article does not look right to me, though. He altered the First War of Scottish Independence article, and I changed it back, because his edits looked very POV to me. I am hoping someone with more expertise, perhaps Celtus, will weigh in. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am contacting you for your thoughts as you are one of the principal contributors to this article. As you may or may not know, it has been nominated by PheonixRMB as a featured article candidate. The FAC is not going too well, with the current consensus being that the nomination is premature and that much work needs to done to get it up to the requisite standard. I would be grateful if you would express an opinion on the article's FAC candidacy page. As FAC is currently desperately short of reviewers, withdrawing the article – and thus saving reviewer time and effort – would be one option. Thanks for your time, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No action now needed as PheonixRMB has withdrawn the nomination. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said you have never heard of 'motor carrige', I was wrong, I have corrected it to 'motorized carrige' - as in "Daimler Motorized Carriage". I have just quickly searched and can not find any sources to say this is true, but does the fact that the Daimler Motorized Carriage has the words "Motorized Carriage" in it kind of prove that 'Motorized Carriage' was at some point used. From there you could just use logic to workout that this is where 'motor car' comes from.

Is this enough proof for "(citation needed)" to be removed?

DineshAdv (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have certainly seen "horseless carriage" for the earliest self-propelled vehicles. While "car" clearly comes from "carriage", I suspect it did that in other contexts, without specific reference to motors - I am unconvinced that a term "motor carriage" was shortened to "motor car". I don't *know*, though - if you think you have a reference, by all means add it and remove the tag. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You undo-ed an edit referring to “sale Flamand” in the lemma about Brussels. For understanding the situation in Belgium and Brussels it is essential to know the effects of discrimination. In the world journalists only read English or French language magazines, never Dutch language magazines are read, so in the world there is a strong one-sided information. You asked about a source about "sale Flamand". Of course you will not find an official source. Try to find an source about "dirty nigger", you will find it neither. But that does not mean that the discrimination not exists. So look at the internet and you find a lot of sources about "sale Flamand", but all Dutch language (except this French phrase). You are not able to read it, but the phenomenon exists nevertheless. I don’t like to make an undo-war. I consider your attitude as a kind of censorship, withholding essential information to the world. It is up to you to restore the information.

LOL: I guess we must have both been sorting the anon User at the same time. I was working down his contributions list whilst you were working up it. I had checked back to the last edit before the one by 86.137.68.103 and reverted to the previous edit based on the raft of nonsense edits he had placed. I have now put an IP ID tag and a First & Final Vandalism warning on his Talk Page. Thanks for the message or I may have been scratching my head a bit. :0) Richard Harvey (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian. I just came across the fact that Pete Fenelon had died recently, and have added his name and a brief description to the page for Deceased Wikipedians. I also noticed that you posted the link to his memorial website, so I thought you should be made aware of this in case you wanted to add anything to what I have written. Thanks,--Diniz(talk) 00:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please may I fix a typo? Pretty please?  Always. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fear not, all is well. But we do need some sort of confirmation regarding whether or not he has ever legally changed his name. The lack of info makes it seem likely that he has not. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His children are all called Starkey - would seem to indicate not? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. It would be unusual to find documentation of something that didn't happen. We may need to be satisfied with what we have. But the change I made to the WP:LEAD was a necessary rephrasing.
• If you're keen on maintaining/improving the quality of the article, it is in dire need of more/better references and some nontrivial copy editing/rewriting. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to know that I have indefinitely blocked DuncanWeir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for legal threats and personal attacks. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome edit	F1 Newsletters edit
The newsletter is to keep Formula One fans and WP:F1 volunteers up to date on Wikipedia. It is full of results and things to do with Portal:Formula One and the WikiProject.	Previous Edition {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Newsletter/201212}}
What You Can Do edit	Vacancies edit
Article requests: Daniele Coronna, Hans Fouche, Chris Radage, Tamiya radio-controlled Formula One cars, John Hogan Copyedit: Bahrain Grand Prix, History of Formula One, Monaco Grand Prix, 2006 San Marino Grand Prix, Rob White (Formula One), Rob Smedley Expand: Paddy Lowe, Red Bull RB3, Spyker F1, Toyota TF107, BMW Sauber F1.07, Mario Theissen, Franz Tost, Chinese Grand Prix, Colin Kolles, Concorde Agreement, Formula One Constructors Association, McLaren MP4/1, Ove Andersson, Bob Bell, Korea International Circuit, Grand Prix Drivers' Association, Spyker F8-VII, Arai (company), Shoei, Schuberth Helme GmbH, Bell Racing Company, Jim Bamber, Nazir Hoosein, Formula One video games, Make Cars Green, Jonathan Legard, Michael Turner (illustrator) more Update: 2024 Formula One season, Will Stevens, Manor Marussia F1, History of Formula One Images needed: 2008 Turkish Grand Prix, Paul Rosche more For more work, see this generated list or the Auxiliary list	If there are any jobs available, they will be on here! There may be positions for temporary jobs here, and if you want to apply for a job here, then do so on the main desk or any of the other editors - Chubbennaitor, Diniz
Recipients edit
Recipients [edit] Chubbennaitor (talk) 24 February 2008 Typ932 (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Trekphiler (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Bam123456789 (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] NapHit (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Readro (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The359 (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Sage Callahan (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] Clyde1998 (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] Donnie Park (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] ĤéĺĺвοЎ (talk) 09:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Midgrid(talk) 23:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Thelb4 (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Cs-wolves (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] Spenalzo (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] KaragouniS :  Chat  21:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] ayrton_prost Don't know why I didn't sign up earlier. Ste900R (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 15:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Darth Newdar (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] MetzMaboo (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Apterygial talkstalk 00:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] Sporti (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Schumi555 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] DeMoN2009 17:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] graham228221 (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2009 Ian Dalziel (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] --Paste Let's have a chat. 18:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] --Akshaysarode21 (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] WilliamF1two (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Rafael 00:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] PodPedia (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Wild mine (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Troggy3112 (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] User:Anesleyp (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Bjmullan (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] AStephenGray (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Cokehabit (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Bduddy (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Rachit (talk) 7th June 2010 Carloseduardo (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Floul1Talk To me 18:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] QueenCake (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Airbus A380 (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Noobleton (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Ghtoti14 07:39, 22 March 2011 Hrhr2 (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] Mattressman09 (talk) 18:27, 08 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] pher38 (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] NEWSLETTERS MAILBOX (talk) Bigdon128 (talk) 21:00 1 October 2011 (UTC) J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 12:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] EdwardRussell (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Sabre ball (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Dubfire (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2012 L. Zheng Wei (talk) QuantumPaul (talk) 10:58 (BST), 12 August 2012 TollHRT52 (talk) 15:12 (AEST), 12 August 2012 Badger80 (talk) 22 September 2012 TheEnd35000vr (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2012 (GMT) Pitlane02 talk 18:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Jūzeris (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Andycro (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Varun ☎ 13:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comments Leave your query, improvements or word of support here. Hi, starting it off. The newsletter is very good i should know, I'm an editor. It keeps me up on the Portal:Formula One and other stuff. Chubbennaitor (leave me a message!) 15:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Can I make the point that the most recent issue is very F1-news based, the kind of info that could be got anywhere. As our aim is to be writing an encyclopaedia, I feel it should focus more on WPF1-news, and the race report writing should be focussed on either Wikinews or more formally as part of the encyclopaedia entries here. AlexJ (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chubbennaitor 21:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English (3rd edn, Oxford University Press, 2005)

loath reluctant; unwilling (p. 596)

loth variant spelling of LOATH (p. 602)

--90.211.227.154 (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my mistake. --Doradus (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix to the lead! My Latin isn't really at the "fluent" level yet :P Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 22:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the topic title says, please could you fill in an edit summary when reverting minor things, rather than using the default "Undo" message. Your revert to the page The Stig changing an English spelling to an American English spelling could be taken wrongly by the new user who made the change. Using edit summaries can help explain policy to new users and avoid looking cold and bitey. Thanks for your time reading this, and happy editing! --Taelus (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you removed the text, but why remove the distances in kilometres? Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I simply didn't look closely enough to see that there was something sensible amongst the dross - I just reverted the whole thing. Mea culpa. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've been there, done that. Thanks for the explanation. Dougweller (talk) 04

45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

2 reasons. They're in the main text, so they don't need a fn. And USF1 is "in recent years", which strikes me as a bit non seq.; adding Scarab & AAR put it in perspective. I'd take it out entire, if I didn't see the point of leaving in a U.S. team following the same trend. I'd rather add in the '30s M-B & Auto Union efforts, to give more perspective, if I was a bit more confident (without sources immediately at hand...) of which was getting Nazi $...& if I wasn't pretty sure even mentioning the Nazis wouldn't produce an edit war. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you're a regular editor of SPQR. Currently, that article is the best place I know of on Wikipedia to find a good definition of populus Romanus; bizarrely, until today when one entered populus Romanus as the "go" phrase in the search field, the redirect led to Etruscan civilization. I now have Populus Romanus redirecting to SPQR. Not sure why I'm telling you this, other than when craziness of that magnitude is afoot, it helps to have someone else keeping an eye out. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent edit to the page Eric Clapton, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. Srobak (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done no such thing - I have reverted such changes, as I regularly do. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me why you reverted the updated version of the page? A high degree of sensitivity, i think not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feedizzle (talk • contribs) 12:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct - your edit did not display a high degree of sensitivity. Further, you could have a look at WP:NPOV. -- Ian Dalziel (talk)

ËHello Ian. I'm writing this here to try and avoid any unnecessary rage on the relevant article's talk page. You might be intrested to know (in case you didn't already) that the relevant editor tried to re-add the {{{In-universe}}} tag twice (here and here), which somewhat proves that he doesn't intend to drop the matter quietly.

I'm hoping that he doesn't do anything too crazy about this, as I'm worried that it may have been bad faith on my part to tell him that he was assuming bad faith. I still have bad memories of the Davesmith Top Gear Dog/Stig/Sabine Schmitz nonsense a year or two ago and I'm getting similar vibes right now (nowhere near enough to say that they're the same person though). Looneyman (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian!

you just deleted the paragraph I added about the origins of the word Spa. It is in fact true that the word Spa was coined by the founder of MeridianSpa after growing up with the Belgium water of the same name and visiting the Belgium town on vacations. If you research you'll find that 1. MeridianSpa is the European market leader in the Wellness, Fitness and Spa segment. 2. The first Recreational- and Fitness center which called itself "Spa" worldwide was the German MeridianSpa. The German Professor asked me not to use his name in public. It is also true that the founder's son went to his Latin teacher and asked to correct the Latin phrase "Sanus Per Aqua" into it's correct grammatical form "Sanus Per Aquam". So what can I do?

here is one article that talks about it: http://www.welt.de/print-wams/article105643/Von_der_Kellersauna_zur_Spa_Oase.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Richters (talk • contribs) 01:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thx, greg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Richters (talk • contribs) 00:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|1=This seems to be no more than a range of Vodafone Mobile IPs - I am being randomly blocked when I connect via my mobile modem. Can't see that it is going to affect the intended user reliably.}}

If you keep getting problems then discuss with the blocking admin, User:Jayron32, when you have a good connection, there's not much more we can do.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi! Cheers for removing my doubling up in the article of The Stig; I swear that I searched through the article, and yet somehow I still missed it. I have changed what was written in the article. The BBC news item makes no reference to the book being White Stig's memoirs, so I have changed the article to reflect that. If it is Stig's memoirs that HarperCollins are trying to publish, then the article could do with a reference to point that out. Stephen! ^Coming... 16:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ian,

I saw you have reverted my changes removing the flagicons on the infoboxes - but the guideline you quoted to justify this was for use of a general flagicon use within the article (i.e. where someone represents a specific country at a sporting event), not for someone’s nationalities and not on their infobox – which has its own specific guidlines within the flags section;

"Avoid flag icons in infoboxes As a rule of thumb, flag icons should not be used infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many. The guidelines for a number of common infoboxes (eg. Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person) explicitly ban the use of flag icons."

If you feel a special case should be made for some individuals, please make the case on the WP:Flagicon talk page (there's been a discussion on there already for 'Flag in Infobox').

On a personal note I don’t disagree with you that flagicons are a nice visual aid - but I can understand why the general consensus has been to take them out for nationalities in infoboxes – so to try to ensure consistency across the encyclopaedia I've retaken them out.

Richardeast (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you reverted my edit on 24 Hours of Le Mans. While I grant it was hardly the best written edit Wikipedia has seen, please note Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary and WP:IMPERFECT. Someone else had, reasonably I believe, placed a tag requesting more information in the lead. I made a good faith effort to address that concern. Go ahead and fix the problems (as you see them), naturally. But simply reverting leaves a page with the same deficiencies and discourages efforts to improve things, as imperfect and incremental as such efforts tend to be on Wikipedia. ENeville (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "champion" versus "championship" would be a word choice that would be preferred in reference to the winning constructor, to address the only element identified as an inaccuracy. This hardly renders an entire edit of several sentences worthy of reversion. I will start a section on Talk:24 Hours of Le Mans. ENeville (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to explain the reasons for your reverts by providing an edit summary. This edit is, I think, potentially confusing to the user whose contribution you reverted. Thanks, NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not if he's skilled in luck and wit... It may just have been a good faith edit - I judged not - but it's nonsensical. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to bet you're right - the IP is from Germany and it's the same old theme. It's a floating IP too, so semi-protection might be an idea if the problem continues and gets worse. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted your last edits mainly because they broke the page. I'm not sure the capitalisation is a major issue, though. Palm and HP referred to it as "Palm webOS" or "HP webOS", not "webOS" or "WebOS" on their own. --Ian Dalziel(talk) 21:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting my inadvertent page break, rushing in within a few seconds to patch it up, that's so awesome. Indeed, yes, I can see your potential point regarding the entire title as the official name, but no, they in fact very much do use "webOS" on its own, as in, "Now in webOS 2.0, your open apps are logically grouped together in card stacks, so managing multiple tasks is ridiculously easy." ^[1] They title their web pages using the style "webOS" at a sentence opening.^[2] Even more tellingly, there is a difference between a sentence, "Distributing My Applications" as a section header and "webOS Development" in the resource material.^[3] This style is used consistently, including non-web based printed documentation, at least that with which I am extensively familiar. I really don't have a personal issue with this concern, but I wonder if you can actually help by giving me higher-level input as to whether WP either has a policy on title name style (Does WP prefer "WebOS" by policy?), or, if it permits "webOS" as a title, a way to protect the page from the repeated reversion by bots and other experts to "WebOS." In my attempt to use a WP template that might conceptually have addressed the issue I did discover it "broke the page" and was further editing it when your contribution locked me out. Any good information you have is appreciated.FeatherPluma (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no "higher level input" and I wouldn't know how to "lock you out". I know of no relevant Wikipedia policy - apart from quoting your sources. Oh, and I used the past tense, perhaps clumsily, to refer to "Palm webOS" - I wouldn't consider webOS historic, I'm reading this on a Pre. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, Thanx for getting back. My "locking out" refers to the reality I experience that once another editor starts reverting (rather than making his own active forward moving edits) WP essentially has no way of reconciling all the work that is being done concurrently, and "freezes" the reverted editor out from submitting his work product. I realise you didn't "lock me out" by active intention. Perhaps this is one of the reasons WP speaks to not reverting rapidly without due diligence. My language was also an attempt to suggest gently that I was trying to do the same thing you actually did - that's not too important as what matters is it got done. Nonetheless I have to confess that I had fallen into a WP trap myself: the bot changes I reverted were annotated with "WebOS" which I do not feel is supported by sources; when I tried to see what had been done, the edit page title had "WebOS" BUT on further review I realised the bot was NOT changing the title but I think was maybe adding a connexion to a Turkish language page on the topic, and had left the actual title as "webOS" (despite the edit page showing "WebOS"- I have to conclude this is just a WP formatting thing. More than enough breath on this. As far as your Pre, you have my best wishes. I do not know whether the documentation you have in the UK conforms to the "webOS" style or uses "WebOS" and I would be interested to learn what style is used. Drop me a note if you have time. Enjoy and prosper in Happy Herriot World (Scotsman in Yorkshire... bla bla...)FeatherPluma (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian - thank you for your help in keeping Duncan Lunan tidy - I think it might very well be Lunan himself trying to chip in, ignoring the Wiki policy about sourcing. I will be leaving the mention of him resigning from ASTRA in as I know for a fact that it happened, but I can't find any source of this. Will keep looking, of course. McMarcoP (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article on "acronym" sites this as an example and I've always heard this referred to as an acronym, so please tell me how or why you'd reckon it as “a poem or other form of writing in which the first letter, syllable or word of each line, paragraph or other recurring feature in the text spells out a word or a message”, to quote the opening line of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrostic

I’m inclined to change it back, but I don’t want to start an editing war, so I’ll wait at least a day before doing anything.

Regards,

Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is writing in which the first letter of each word (a "recurring feature") forms a word - exactly as it says. What it is not is a word formed from the initial letters of the word. It is a pre-existing word, unlike "radar", for instance. The phrase was tailored to fit the word. It is wrongly given as an example in the acronym article. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between an acronym and an acrostic consists not in whether it be an existing word, but rather whether it be a word scanned from the initials of a phase as opposed to a sentence or phrase scanned from the initial letters of paragraphs or phrases or sentences or whatnot.

Many contemporary English language acronyms are tailored to fit words that already exist; see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backronym

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym#Contrived_acronyms

Contrastἰχθύς to common Greek language acrostics (common in Byzantine hymnography) or those in Hebrew in the Old Testament or the English language examples given at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrostic#Examples

Methinks it is clear the ἰχθύς is an acronym.

Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Featured article review/James I of England/archive2. DrKiernan (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...for undoing my ignorant edit to the P di R article. I was going entirely by the BBC cite and didn't realize Uphall is a village near Livingston. Writegeist (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I thought that someone might have docked him a podium because they thought he should have/did lose one to that DRS business on Sunday. An edit summary would, of course, have helped. Britmax (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it don't quite seem right but the dram link did say 1⁄8 of an ounce. JIMp _talk·cont 01:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link also says "Dram is also used informally to mean a small amount of spirituous liquor, especially Scotch whisky". -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a lot more sense. Thanks. JIMp _talk·cont 03:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[4] Apart from the fact that MOS:FLAG is part of our official Manual of Style, while WP:F1 is a wikiproject page, there is not even an attempt at an overriding reasoning that would outweight the considerations that have led to the formulation of MOS:FLAG. Your revert is therefore entirely unacceptable, and I must ask you to revert yourself. --213.196.218.39 (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ian, I have verified that references provided show the person is a Chinese American and is notable. Please ask a person knowing Chinese to show you this.

Sorry, but a list of your own publications cannot show that you are notable. Please ask a person knowing Wikipedia to show you this. Otherwise provide some independent citations - or preferably write a sourced article. Ian Dalziel (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Simply because it was only in the 1950s that the 500 counted for the WDC - later deaths are not in this list)"

That was the note you left when you undid the piece about F1 fatalities at Indy all occurring in the 50's. What does that mean? I don't know that much about the history of the venues for F1, and I do know that there have been a number of fatalities at Indy since the 50's, but they weren't F1 events. The page was for F1 fatalities. You could have just added "as it was no longer part of the F1 schedule" or something like that. I think omitting that entirely is less informative. If you have something against Indianapolis it actually makes the case better-there would have been more F1 fatalities there if had still been on the calendar in the 60s-70s. The way it reads now it sounds like there was a major safety innovation at Indy in 1960 and magically no one died there anymore.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.170.233 (talk) 08:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comment I removed seemed to me to suggest that there had been no deaths at Indianapolis since the 1950s, which there have been. The list covers the WDC and F1 - Indianapolis has NEVER been an F1 event, it counted for the WDC before that was restricted to F1. If you want to make the page more explicit, please do! Ian Dalziel (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian,

Just wanted to discuss your revert of my change to the serial comma article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serial_comma&oldid=522025438). There must be some line in the sand between Original Research and stating facts on Wikipedia. If I state "using less characters in a sentence can reduce the space it takes up on a physical page", do I really need to cite an external source? I did not think describing intuitive facts would be considered original research. Let me know what you think.

(hope this is the correct avenue of discussing changes you've made but if not, let me know) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wabasso (talk • contribs) 22:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you do, because what you are quoting in the article are arguments which have been made for or against the construct. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum - however self-evident the argument, if it's your argument you have to put it forward somewhere else. Ian Dalziel (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Test_and_Reserve_Drivers.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this bobrayner (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You assert that I'm the one who doesn't understand WP:COMMONNAME. I hate to tell you this, but you are. Common name is for article titles, not for article content. The name in bold at the beginning of an article is a person's full name, not his common name. Consider the name in bold at Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette. It includes all of Lafayette's middle names, plus his title. In addition, I have removed your hidden aside on the topic because it inaccurately interprets policy pbp 22:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Volkswagen Type 2 you changed 'In 1972, for the 1973 U.S. model year' to 'In 1972, for the 1973 model year' with the comment "German, not U.S.". The 1973 US model year went from roughly Aug/Sept 1972 to roughly Aug/Sept 1973 - ie Americans name their model years by the end point. Most countries that I am familiar with name their model years by the beginning date - ie that date range would be called a 1972 model. I don't know which style Germany follows. Does Germany follow the American style of model year or what most other countries do?  Stepho  talk  22:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping an eye on user OscarGuzman310. He/she has been adding false content into articles lately. Thanks, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 06:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A thousand pardons for burying the vanalism. I should have checked. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to consult you about this edit. Although technically the 1950 season indeed included the Indy 500 (that was the case until 1960), it is widely regarded as the inaugural Formula One season and the drivers which won the World Championship at that time (between 1950 and 1960) are considered Formula One champions by various sources. Can you please point me why the two terms are not de facto synonyms?

I also want to ask you if you think the F1 championship really started in 1980 as 5.64.116.144 thinks. I think that's a very bold assertion... What date do you consider the championship began? Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see, it's a valid point. And when do you think the proper "Formula One" World Championship started...? --Urbanoc (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my article changes?

They are all relevant. Please leave them on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesleyBranton (talk • contribs) 16:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with you. I see that statement at 1949 Grand Prix season is unsourced. I made an edit at the fatalities page, reverting someone who added a fatality from the 1949 Czech GP, which I'll restore, although I have no real idea what kind of a race that was, or to which formula it was run. Any ideas? I'll have a root around and see if I can find some further detail when I get the chance. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find your revert to my edit baffling since its an indisputable fact that the women involved were wearing german uniforms there are numerous sources for this information such as http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/2459523/Max-Mosley-orgy-prostitute-says-sex-games-were-not-Nazi.html so you don't have to watch the video or view the pictures if you don't want too. Mosley is trying to airbrush history and is trying to curb press freedom until he succeeds I don't see why the article can't reflect the truth, it is true to say that the women wearing german uniforms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.172.45 (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was about before, circa 18 Nov 2015; I cannot recall how it was stopped. I have done the revert on Stirling Moss, but the spammer will need dealing with. Can you help please? SovalValtos (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because, well, it's a user talk page! --Ian Dalziel (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! Don't know if this is where this belongs, but just wanted to let you know that I've added the double champion table with the correct info this time. You reverted the "place-holder" table while I was editing it. Please have a look! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Real tlhingan (talk • contribs) 23:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian. FORIX are kind of the "odd ones out" in only listing Brabham as setting fastest lap at the 1970 South African GP - ChicaneF1, formula1.com and Mike Lang all say Surtees (in a privateer McLaren) and Brabham (in a Brabham) set equal fastest lap times - see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One/Disputed results#Other disputed results/information. But both ChicaneF1 and FORIX agree on 154 fastest laps for McLaren! (I haven't been sufficiently enthused to check which race FORIX credits to McLaren that ChicaneF1 doesn't). Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: ChicaneF1 now says 155 (including 1970 South Africa) as well. So at least now they're "consistently inconsistent" :-) DH85868993 (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian. To address your concern at WT:F1: My personal proposal would be to name/structure the articles as follows:

Years	Naming
1984 onwards	One article named "YYYY Formula One World Championship"
1961-1983	Two articles: one named "YYYY Formula One World Championship", focusing solely on the championships and one named "YYYY Formula One season" (or maybe "YYYY in Formula One"): an "overview" article, covering non-championship F1 races held during the year and a containing brief summary of the championships, with a pointer to the other article for more detail on the championships
1950-1957	Two articles: one named "YYYY World Drivers' Championship" (or "YYYY World Championship of Drivers"), focusing solely on the championship and one named "YYYY Formula One season" (or maybe "YYYY in Formula One"): an "overview" article, covering non-championship F1 races held during the year and containing a brief summary of the championships, with a pointer to the other article for more detail on the championship. Another possible name for the "overview" article would be "YYYY Grand Prix season" (i.e. continuing the pre-1950 naming scheme), thereby allowing scope to include non-championship F2 Grands Prix if desired - particularly relevant for 1952/1953.
1958-1960	Same as 1961-1983, recognising that these years are slightly different because one round of the Drivers' Championship was a non-F1 race. So perhaps the 1950-1957 naming scheme/structure would be better (although that sort of ignores the Constructors' Championship to some degree)

I thought I'd reply here for fear that if I replied in the main discussion, people might get lost in discussing the fine details of the article names, rather than considering the "bigger picture" (i.e. whether or not there is an issue to be solved and whether this is a good general approach to take). DH85868993 (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you semi-reverted my edit to Dog, where I explained variations in dog coats between breeds. Your revert doesn't make much sense, considering that you changed "golden" color to "light-to-medium" color, and coats do do vary quite a bit between a lot of breeds of dogs^{(just Google Image search <insert dog breed here> color variations)}, enough to warrant a mention on the article. If you'd like to tell me how I can improve my edit so that it makes more sense, please do so. Morphdog^{what did I do now?} 00:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a clue in the name of the breed - Golden Retrievers all have a golden coat. Light-to-medium qualifies that. Ian Dalziel (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Ptrav0 (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Two edits seem to have been corrupted by a virus of some kind. Thank you for reverting one (I had already reverted the other) but please read WP:AGF before making accusations of vandalism. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please read the notes before change something. This year a plenty of drivers use racing license which differs from their actual nationality. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've made the change only because Monte Carlo is not a city but a neighborhood/ward of Monaco,which is a city-state. For this reason, I've considered "Monaco" as more rigorous, in particular because it would be an exception to the criterion used for all the other circuits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.146.208 (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that you have made edits to the T.S. Eliot article before. I am interested in your comments on a recent change. A recent sub-section about the sculptor Jacob Epstein was made to the T.S. Eliot article. I deleted the addition and explained my reasons on the talk page.

Here is what was removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T._S._Eliot&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=877562978&oldid=877549994

Some have mentioned on the talk page that the Epstein material should be put back. Would you please look at the changes and make your opinion known on the Eliot talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:T._S._Eliot#Jacob_Epstein

WikiParker (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Am new on here. Still finding my feet. Would appreciate some feedback as to why my updates re Confartigianato/BBC/POB awards were reverted (Lewis Hamilton achievements/awards section).

Thank you

Koppite1 (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was that a misclick? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, I saw "ungulate," but thought "ruminant," which, of course, a deer is but a pig is not. Thanks for the correction. Good catch. Altgeld (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]