User talk:Falcadore

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6

August 2013

Your recent editing history at Boeing E-7 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

If you'd read the pages concerned you would have seen a solution had already been reached without your belatedly involvement. --Falcadore (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

ANEW

I was literally just thinking of how to deal with this mess, again, so thank you for going straight to ANEW, that will suffice for me for now. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

2014 International V8 Supercars Championship

Hi Falacadore, purpose of co-driver field is to allow cites to be added as they become available, rather than as on the 2013 page where it has yet to be done and will be a larger task done restropectively. Co-drivers start to be named as soon as straight after Bathurst.V7867 (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No they are not. There is speculation straight after Bathurst, but generally not confirmed. Additionally with so few main game drivers signed up for 2014 and with a few RECs on the move the co-driver market will start later this time around. Although it's very easy to call that speculation too.

At the very least there is no reason to create a co-driver column until any of them have been announced. Empty columns are not a good idea. They encourage editors to add every rumour they think.

The only reason you've named to put the column in is based on your prediction that drivers will be named next month. That's not good enough. Not close to good enough. Remove. --Falcadore (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys has managed to explain - in a far friendlier manner. The column wasn't added on the basis that co-drivers will be announced next month, just a bit of house keeping for when needed. But Prisonermonkeys has pointed out how this has been handled on the 2013 page.V7867 (talk)

Graphs of F1 Results

Hello Falcadore, My AFL 2012 is graph is genius, and showed you at a glance that the B Lions languished at 13-14th on the ladder, telling you what kind of year they, and all other teams had - succintly and elegantly. I've had 2 Falcons (XP and XC) and one Commodore (VB) - maybe I'm a Falcadore too. And I too remember the Formula One broadcasts in 1984 - Channel 9 with Peter Wherett in the chair. In fact, I was tuned in when Senna challenged Prost at the rained out Monaco GP that year... somewhat before the race at Detroit. johntcp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johntcp (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The graph was a solid tangled block of colour, the lines were too similar (and too thick for the surrounding space), would be completely unreadable to anyone who has any form of colour sensitivity (Geelong, North Melbourne and Freemantle are much too similar as are Brisbane/Adelaide and Hawthorn/Richmond - refer WP:COLOR - it is more important to have your linetypes distinct [both in colour and pattern] from each other than to make them match club colours) and was too tightly packed. A good graph should have enough blank white space that it does not look like a brick wall.

It looks good to you, but it is more important that it look good to everyone rather than just those who are familiar with club colours, and can see the difference anyway. --Falcadore (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You didn't actually deny reading the B Lions line on my graph ... I think you did, and instantly got why these graphs are good. Johntcp (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Umm, I don't know how you read that into what I said, so I'll give you the highlights version. The presentation of this chart as an example is borderline unreadable (and for those who are colourblind it is very much unreadable), primarily because of the insistence of using club colours. The existence of clash jerseys should tell you why it is a bad idea. --Falcadore (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Falcadore. You still haven't denied reading the Brisbane line on my graph, without needing a key, and instantly getting an overview of the season they had last year. Johntcp (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Whether I can read it or not complete ignores the problem. And as a Brisbane Lions member I know how the season went, I personally don't need a tool like that. We don't write wikipedia articles for people who know all about football, we write for those who know next-to-nothing. --Falcadore (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Falcadore. I have to admit you bring some powerful arguments. Good luck with the F1 2013 wiki. P.S. I put graph of the count on the 2013 Brownlow wiki - genius. Johntcp (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

1970 London to Mexico World Cup Rally (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Buenaventura

Rallye Açores (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fiat 1500

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Blanking pages

Please don't remove all content from a page, leaving it blank, as you did at New Zealand Porsche GT3 Cup Challenge (with a few exceptions, such as pages in your own userspace). If you believe that the entire contents of a page should be removed, then you can nominate it for deletion in one or other of the accepted ways, in this case by taking it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The suggested redirect was a bad one, being not related to the topic except obliquely and no alternative was available. --Falcadore (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understood why you think it's a bad redirect, I was just explaining that blanking the page is not the way to get rid of it. If you knew of a better page for the redirect to point to, then you could retarget it, but since you don't then taking it to RfD is the way to suggest deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

True, although restoring a bad link is not great idea either. --Falcadore (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bathurst 1000, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AUSCAR (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

1988 Goodyear NASCAR 500

The race was a NASCAR Winston Cup exhibition race, not an AUSCAR race. Toa Nidhiki05 03:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say it was an AUSCAR race, I said it was an AUSCAR sanctioned race. Bob Jane's AUSCAR body sanctions a wide variety of events including circuit racing and drag racing at Calder. Certainly many NASCAR competitors were present but NASCAR of the 1980s always kept a long arms length distance from the folks at Calder. --Falcadore (talk) 06:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright. Toa Nidhiki05 15:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Ford XC Falcon

Is there a way to make reference to the 1977 Bathurst? Perhaps Moffet and Bond raced a modified version of the Hardtop in the Bathurst 1000? Because while not a factory team, Ford still homologated parts for use by race teams.Space alligator (talk) 08:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, what's the link from the XC Falcon to the Bathurst winning car? --Falcadore (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

In September 1977, Ford supplied CAMS with the Evolution package, it was successfully homologated and allowed to be raced. It was in this spec that Bond and Moffat drove the Hardtop to victory. No different to say, the Nissan GT-R page where vastly modified versions (more so then group c) of the GT-R have raced.Space alligator (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I have in fact found evidence supporting the Factory involvement of the Moffat/Bond Finish. Ford had backed the Moffat Ford Dealers cars for the 1977 ATCC season, and it was under Ford's instructions that Moffat and Bond race in separate cars for that years Bathurst.Unique Cars: Bathurst legends: Ford XC Falcon HardtopSpace alligator (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Factory supported, but not a factory team. A factory team is one that operates right out of the factory like the original Ford Works team of the 1960s. Hence the name factory team. Holden Dealer Team was not a factory team anymore than the Holden Racing Team, Ford Performance Racing or Glenn Seton's Ford Credit Racing. If you sub contract the operation out to Allan Moffat Racing it doesn't matter if they give it the fancy Moffat Ford Dealers name, that don't make it a factory team.

Moffat's 1977 team got back door parts and homologation support that many Ford racing team got over the decades, some more than others.

But team orders and parts don't mean a thing. What is the connection from the Ford XC Falcon (not Ford the factory) to the racing car? And why is it so important to put it in the article lead which acts as a summary of the rest of the article and should only have the most important aspects of the topic? Why is the Bathurst victory one of THE most important facts about the XC Falcon, which primarily is supposed to be a passenger car first and foremost, not a racing car, like say the original Ford GT40? --Falcadore (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The article has already be rectified, with relevant information moved into a "motorsport" section, rather then the lead article.Space alligator (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pedro Rodríguez (racing driver), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Watkins Glen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Bob Forbes Motorsport

Don't the records show that the Bob Forbes team GIO Racing) ran VP Commodores for both Neil Crompton and Mark Gibbs in 1993? If not then the 1993 Australian Touring Car Championship page is also incorrectHoldenV8 (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

From what I know, Bob Forbes ran one car for the more 'media friendly' Crompton, but Gibbs ran a second GIO VP Commodore in the final round of the 1993 ATCC at Oran Park.HoldenV8 (talk) 09:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Not quite, no. The team was more than happy for Gibbs to stay on, he'd been with them ever since 1989 and gotten all the team's could results. Gibbs would have stayed on in 1993 but he decided to retire from racing because his business interests demanded more time. Crompton was a natural replacement after his season with Advantage Racing came to a premature halt when Brock decided they couldn't run two cars anymore and had joined the team for the 1992 enduros after Rohan Onslow had also decided to concentrate on his business interests (as a gunsmith and a descendant of the famous Macarthur family of colonial days.

They completed the second car just in time from the Oran Park ATCC finale and the existing #7 was renumbered #4. Crompton raced the new car at Oran Park and Gibbs in his first drive of the year drove the #4. The #4 was almost immediately sold to SA privateer Stuart McColl who had been running a fuel-injected VL as #44. The team only raced the new car at the Sandown 500, and McColl's team did not repaint before Bathurst. McColl's team ran out of the same garage as the Forbes team at Bathurst as sort-of team mates then McColl raced in the same manner alongside Crompton at the Adelaide Grand Prix meeting. In 1994 McColl's team was now completed seperate after the change of ownership and another new car was built as the new #4 for Wayne Gardner. --Falcadore (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1989 World Sportscar Championship season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nick Adams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

V8 Supercar round results

Hi, Falcadore! How are you doing? I'm not sure if Whincup has 38, 39 or 40 round wins in V8 Supercars, and I have no information on round podiums. Do you have a reliable website with that information? Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The person with the IP address 78.149.230.252

Hello, I see that you are active on international motorsports pages, and I would like to let you know that there is someone who has been cluttering up a number of Grand Prix pages and has been doing this on a consistent basis. Of course when this person strikes again he will be using a different ip address but I'm just letting you know about this specific person and advise you and everyone else to stay alert. --Hmdwgf (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I only just took all the (Year stuff) out of the headers on the basis that the text should carry the years rather than the heading. It is not the function of the headers to tell the story. Look at Belgian Grand Prix, I changed them deliberately because they are closer to sentences than headings. Would you really put chapter titles that long in a book?

You should see what the chapter headings at the Belgian Grand Prix article, ridiculously over-long. --Falcadore (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If necessary and appropriate, I would put long titles in a book if those long titles needed to be there. The initial problem is that some fool is putting very long titles close together in hap-hazarded attempts to organize the pages better, resulting in you, me and others having to fix those pages. I think you and I will both agree that those actions make the pages look bad. Since you seem to be active here in the international motorsports pages, I'm just letting you know about this trouble-maker- this is not the first time he has done these things- particularly to the Belgian and Brazilian Grand Prix pages. You know your way around here better than I do- I don't know who to actually report these problems to. --Hmdwgf (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Formula E teams

I don't understand why you deleted all the images and information about the Formula E teams without going on a talk page and start discussing what you want to do not just go and do it anyway when a lot of editors including me put their very time into making those articles could you explain yourself. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I made it very clear it the edit summaries, so I don't know how you can claim that you don't understand.

It is not wikipedia practice to create seperate article for existing teams competing in different formulae. You don't creat a seperate article for Andretti Autosport, you expand the existing Andretti Autosport article. Incredibly simple to understand. --Falcadore (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

ATCC Records article

Do you have any ideas on what to use for references on this page? Since V8 Supercars removed the section on their website with all the records I can't think of another reliable source with such information. I do keep this page of records for my own personal use but I don't see it as an acceptable source. ^Kytabu_Talk 07:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Have to have a think about that. Using an archived version of the official v8 supercar site is a possibility.

Some good stuff in that page. --Falcadore (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

F1

It's not a case of ignoring you. You've probably made the best argument for your position out of everyone. I don't know how many people will go for the alphabetical idea, I just see it as the fastest way to reach a conclusion, hopefully not upsetting too many people along the way. I aim to have little or nothing to do with the 2014 season on Wikipedia, I just hoped to help out a bit. If not enough people go for it, I'll back off. I noticed you avoided the edit-warring. It might have been better if the warriors had been blocked... All the best, Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Advice

Just a friendly note of advice to you. I've noticed that you have warned some users for breaking WP:3RR after they made three reverts recently. This is no entirely correct however. The WP:3RR states that no user should make more than three reverts within the space of 24 hours. That means that one breaks 3RR once one has made at least four reverts within 24 hours. So the correct procedure to deal with such a situation is warn after 3 reverts and report if more reverts follow. Of course one does not have to break WP:3RR to be involved in an edit war an you can issue Edit War warnings if you feel it is justified. Hope I clarified this a bit for you. Tvx1 (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That's why it was a WARNING, and not an actual report. --Falcadore (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but in your warnings you claimed that they were already in breach of WP:3RR by making three reverts, which is incorrect. That's why I decided to give you this friendly advice. Tvx1 (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Compromise

Yes, I saw it, and it's a fair compromise. I wasn't really referring to you at all when I said editors aren't willing to compromise, I should've clarified that. I've certainly lost patience with a number of those editors though, I must say. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. nothing to apologise for :) Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Australian motor racing series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GT3 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

List of Formula One race edits songs

Please comment on my latest posts to the talk page on the deletion of List of Formula One race edits songs article. Thanks. WesleyBranton (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I did. --Falcadore (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see the page again WesleyBranton (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I did. --Falcadore (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You know what to do... check the page again :) WesleyBranton (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of the See Also section are for links of associated pages that carry additional information. There is NO additional information to the Formula One season pages carried in that list. --Falcadore (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

RE: WesleyBranton

These are not just songs that someone used in a video, they are songs that the official Formula One website has used.
These are basically the themes songs for each track for that season. The songs are not only used in the Official Race Edits, but is also played during the television broadcasts and radio broadcasts.

Also, this information cannot be found on any websites.
Not even the Formula One credits artists and songs.
This is the only place on the web that this information can be found.
That is why it is important that we keep this information somewhere on Wikipedia. Otherwise this information will be forever lost.

What we are trying to keep this information alive. That is what we are trying to achieve.

WesleyBranton (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Except these videos are trivial. It has just as much relevancy as the songs NASCAR on Fox uses, along with NASCAR on TNT when they play ACDC's TNT every race. Additionally, there are other wikis that this info could be placed; there's a reason why Wikia exists. Finally, if you're so insistent on keeping the page, you could ask an administrator to userfy the article for you. ZappaOMati 16:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

RE: WesleyBranton

I tried Wikia but it was removed there.
What is with all of you Wikipedia like places.

Your all the same!
70.51.73.28 (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)