User talk:Officially Mr X

A tag has been placed on Mike McGinnity requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. PyromaniacTom (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Coventry City F.C. (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Mike McGinnity requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Bablake School, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Snowman (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few good links for to help you get started:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style -- Snowman (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have put in drivers for Super Aguri with no proper references. I give you an invitation to join the talk page Formula One season#Super Aguri Drivers. Chubbennaitor (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but you were the last person to do anything to that area and the page history didn't make sense. Sorry. Chubbennaitor (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I notice you have removed all references to Frankie Bunn being joint caretaker manager of Coventry - twice. According to these BBC articles [1] [2] [3] Harbin and Bunn were in joint charge following Dowie's dismissal, so unless you can provide sources that suggest otherwise, please do not change this information. Thank you. --Badmotorfinger (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Now That's What I Call Music! 70 (U.K. series), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Now That's What I Call Music! 70 (U.K. series) is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Now That's What I Call Music! 70 (U.K. series) saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please feel free to use deletion review, but do not continue to repost the article if it is deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. Kinitawowi (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Mike McGinnity requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ejay (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left some comments for you here. I hope you find them useful. West Bromwich Albion F.C. was probably in a worse state when I started work on it, and I managed to make it a good article, so there's no reason why someone couldn't do the same with the Coventry City article. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Chris coleman.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Harry Warren (football manager) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This regards you and User:Linczone. I know you two have been reverting each others edits in regards to F1 test drivers, and there seems to be no end in sight. You have an actually valid source (F1.com) which claims these people are test drivers, and he has a valid claim that F1.com is mistaken. So I recommend, if possible, that you two stop editing warring with each other, and discuss this on either of your user pages, or the article talk page, and find a solution. This constant reverting is not helpful.

I am not trying to blame anyone or accuse someone of wrong doing, just simply trying to find a solution that works best, and some discussion between you two as it seems there might just be a lack of understanding. The359 (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, an individual editor can not grade an article above class B. There is a process for assessing article beyond this; see Wikipedia:Good article nominations. It would be best to put the football page back to B, and I guess that the page needs a lot more references to reach the GA standard. I wonder if you can coordinate work on the football page using Wikipedia:WikiProject Coventry. Some of the football teams in Birmingham have got their pages to FA status, I think. Snowman (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The takeover was agreed on the 14th of December 2007. The following links prove this:Official Website and BBC Sport Website. I shall therefore revert your edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.129.43 (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a reliable source for your claim (at the best selling artist article), otherwise it must be deleted, cheers. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 16:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK mix, is a blog, music fan site, very unreliable, try sources like BBC, CNN , MTV etc. Ill give you some more time, otherwise it will need removing. Cheers. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 16:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Castles.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting on Coldplay discography, we don't need pathetic, silly little flag graphics for each country. Stop reverting, and by the way, your attitude could use a little work, as your lack of willingness to discuss rather than revert on a whim has so far been shocking. Qst (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems none of us are willing to back down, and as your willingness to communicate is low as it is, I'm asking you to discuss this on the talk page, as we don't need flags, and the page is just going to get protected if we keep bickering. Qst (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use that attitude with me, as you did on Talk:Coldplay; it will get you nowhere in life, and further confirms my belief you're unable to communicate properly. Qst (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Any material without proper citations will be removed immediately. The burden of proof goes to the original contributor. Thanks --Madchester (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently lacks sources (no in-line citations or references) and has not made any assertions of notability (no indication of the importance/relevance of each award listed). Unless both issues are properly addressed, the article should be re-directed to the main Coldplay article for the time being.

I've also noticed you've been showing a lot of ownership towards Coldplay articles and have not allowed other editors to make changes to your edits; that's not permitted on Wikipedia. I'd suggest collaborating with other editors, instead of calling them out, like you did here. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I felt I made reasonable edits to the Coldplay discography page that you have reverted 3 times now. Please explain your reasons for reverting back. --Wolfer68 (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Coldplay discography. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Wolfer68 (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i notice you've reverted my edits regarding 'Lost?' on the Coldplay discography a number of times now and am left wondering why as you have left no description in the edit history. I assure you that the 'Lost?' is the track that charted, not 'Lost!' and overall i am just left bemused as to why you keep changing this back.

Please can i direct you to the talk page: [4] as well as this article which confirms what i say: http://new.uk.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chartwatch/232/week-ending-june-21st-2008/ If we can discuss this sensibly instead of just reverting edits it will be of far more help to the article in question Winterspell (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalising the Coldplay discography page. Why is it hard to understand that you need sources. Please tell why you keep on when i keep telling you no FL looks like that why? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get someone to block you again. If you don't want that 'stop vandalising the coldplay discography page, next time i'll blovk you for two weeks. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for experimenting with the page Coldplay discography on Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. - eo (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. --Madchester (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 30 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive edits; namely addition of unsourced info, despite multiple talk page warnings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Madchester (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Liam Francis, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not about to start getting into an edit war over the rumoured drivers, but without sources there's no point adding them, because then just about anyone could post up a driver and say it's a rumour. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 14:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style#Chart data a discussion about how many charts should be in a discography. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in having a link just to "Scuderia" in the Superleague Formula article, it just means "stable" in Italian. The full team's name is "Scuderia Playteam", they race in the Italian GT Championship and the International GT Open, have experience in Euro 3000 and the FIA GT Championship, and won the Spanish GT Championship. I've also removed Sarafree from the listing - they are in Italian insurance company and merely sponsor the team in GT racing. --Pc13 (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted Pc13 with no edit summary, and also wikilinked the word "team" for no apparent reason (again). If you have issues with people's editing, please discuss rather than starting a revert war. Thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you why you reverted my edits to Superleague Formula? I created a season-specific page for 2008 in line with other racing series, and am in the middle of creating a category system which will cover teams (both football and racing), drivers and seasons.--Diniz(talk) 14:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are references not necessary? You seem to have been around for a while, so you should be familiar with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Before I added them, the article had no references at all, and since the season has not started yet, it is important to have firm sources for the information.--Diniz(talk) 13:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm creating a template for the 2008 Superleague Formula season and used your basic template for SF. Hope you don't mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmurbobby (talk • contribs) 06:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Please follow existing WikiProkect guidelines listed per at Wikipedia:ALBUM#Chronology. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted all my changes back. All of them were sourced (Azerti's Belgian identity, FCP's move to ADR before the first race, FCP's move to Hitech in Vallelunga) and you erased them anyway. If you want to discuss my changes or have contradictory sources discuss them in the 2008 Superleague Formula season talk page. --Pc13 (talk) 07:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to discuss first, especially because there are contradictory sources. --Pc13 (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making edits that are removing direct links to articles. Regards. Cs-wolves(talk) 00:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Coldplay discography. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. - eo (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:CIVIL, as these are not acceptable edit summaries: [5] [6]. Thanks - eo (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Template:Coldplay. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Madchester (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source you provided simply speculates the confirmation of Buemi's appointment. Moreover the source of that news is Gerhard Berger, who no longer works for STR. For addition of his name to the driver's table, there has to be an official confirmation of his appointment. Please don't add him again until there is official confirmation. ^LeaveSleaves 11:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to No Line on the Horizon. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - eo (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to 2009 Formula One season, you will be blocked from editing. You have been warned about this too many times to count. The359 (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's customary to update; however, you don't redirect it to the 2009 template. BTCC, British F3 and F3 Euroseries have all got year-by-year templates. Like so, for example: {{BTCC 2006}}{{BTCC 2007}}{{BTCC 2008}}{{BTCC 2009}}

Hence, this is why it should be kept. Cs-wolves(talk) 09:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source you are using[7] to verify that "Strawberry Swing" will be the next Coldplay single, doesn't say it will be. The quote says, "Well, it's officially going to be a really great video. I don't know whether it counts as a single or not." Unless a reliable source says that it will actually be the next single, please don't re-add to Coldplay articles. Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Whiteshadows3.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, White Shadows, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. It fails WP:NSONGS JD554 (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the world have you found the information about Girondins de Bordeaux entering 2009 SF season ? The sources you have mentionned can not be regarded as reliable as no announcement has been made on SF official site. Any information about Girondins de Bordeaux will be removed until you are able to provide reliable sources. Maimai009 (Maimai009) 15:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding Alvaro Parente as test driver for Superleague Formula. He has never been involved with SF in any way. --Pc13 (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other three grand slam pages it is the same way, but not the way you are doing it! I will be reverting your edit, and go discuss and major changes like that at the appropriate talk pages WP:Tennis!TW-RF (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr X, I think it's great you're getting interested in other motorsports because of Superleague, but you've been making a few changes in GP2 and FIA GT and there are several nuances you still don't understand, such as the difference between "team" and "entrant". For example, you removed Sarafree from the 2007 FIA GT Championship season page. Legally, the team is called Scuderia Playteam. However, the entrant name is supposed to include the Sarafree sponsorship. It's the same reason why Ferrari races in F1 under the name Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro. The company name is still Scuderia Ferrari as a legal entity. The team registered as Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro on a sporting authority level. Then, in the 2007 GP2 Series season, you removed the Italian flags from Piquet Sports. At the time, Piquet Sports did not have a technical structure, the Italian flag was there because the team was run from Italy by an outfit called GP Racing. That's also normal, for example throuought history there have been several entrants called Martini Racing, sponsored by the Martini & Rossi distillery. However, there has never been any actual team called Martini Racing, they had a German flag when they sponsored the works Porsche team in Le Mans, an Italian flag when they sponsored Lancia in rallying, and a British flag when they sponsored Brabham in Formula 1. --Pc13 (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop using Wikipedia pages as reference. I've changed Alan Docking Racing to reflect their actual racing license, as referenced is this British Formula 3 archive site. In this part of the site, you can see Ultimate Motorsport also has a British license. The French Ultimate Signature was a joint venture between Ultimate Motorsport from the UK and Signature Plus from France, which ran in the 2008 World Series by Renault season exclusively. They have since gone their separate ways and Barry Walsh has taken over the World Series by Renault operation, with Signature retreating back to F3 while also operating a Le Mans Series team. --Pc13 (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've started a discussion about your recent homogeneization of champions tables in several racing series: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport#homogenization of champions tables - Rollof1 (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your references to Pedro de la Rosa and Bruno Senna being the drivers for Campos Grand Prix in 2010. The websites you have been linking to do not back up your claims; they only post rumours that the two drivers will be signed on. The Spanish media has traditionally been very unreliable when it comes to the Formula One driver market - they've been perpetrating the Alonso-to-Ferrari myths for years now - and they will probably become even worse now that there is a Spanish-backed team in the sport. If Valencia comes around and Campos annouce that de la Rosa and Senna will indeed be driving for them, then I'll be the first person to admit I was wrong and I'll even make the changes to the page myself. But in the meantime, please wait, at least until such time as a credible news source - like F1-Live or Autosport or GP Update - post it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Are you sure that Delta Racing (Delta Motor Sport) is the team of http://www.deltamotorsport.co.uk/. It just seems that the website there is for a small team - one which wouldn't do Superleague Formula maybe. I've found no information about this team and everything about them seems to be a mystery. --Roadblocker (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. :) I have just now found this webpage - http://www.delta-motorsport.com/projects.htm - A different Delta racing team - last seen operating all the cars in the GP Masters series. Is this the Delta we are after? --Roadblocker (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I have now created Delta Motorsport. The next part of what I will try to do is add more sources to the team pages and make them longer - including the results idea. Good to have all the pages created to some extent now though :) --Roadblocker (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that the template is "useless", please nominate it for deletion instead of just blanking it. Thanks, --Midgrid(talk) 14:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI I have opened the discussion here: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 29#Template:Speedcar Series seasons, transcribing your comments that were erroneously placed at WP:STFD. You may look into installing Twinkle to help you nominate things for deletion. –xeno^talk 18:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I only heard about this series a week ago. There was a feature in Autosport magazine about it. I think I have enough information to go on to create an adequate Wikipedia entry for it. I'll also edit Duncan Tappy with the information too. --Roadblocker (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please stop adding the two additional Renault drivers to the 2009 Formula One season? You provide as reference the official Renault site, but in there it is clearly mentioned that De Grassi was a test driver for 2008, but not for the 2009 season. Kahn on the other hand is simply a demonstration driver (which means he drives an underpowered version occasionally, just for show), unrelated to testing of the car. Only actual test drivers should be mentioned in the article, not drivers loosely or not at all related to the F1 car. --Ferengi (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you add Romain Grosjean to the 2009 Formula One season article. Nowhere in the reference did it state that Grosjean had been announced as a Renault race driver. Only when he is can you add him to the article. It has taken me time to revert the changes you made, particularly as I got stuck in an edit conflict, and then write this message to make sure that this doesn't happen again.

P.S. I've just seen the speculative drivers table on your userpage. What is the point in it because it is all unsourced rumours?

I do not want to have to speak to you about this again. mspete93 [talk] 18:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renault have not confirmed Grosjean. Simple as that. Now please stop wasting my time. mspete93 [talk] 18:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful not to infringe WP:3RR. I'm not saying that you have done so, but it appears that you may be in danger of doing so. FWIW, no drivers should be added to the table until they have competed in a F1 race. Mjroots (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is designed for other editors to be able to discuss things with you. Ignoring other editors and telling them that you don't care what they say is not how things get done on Wikipedia. Simply saying "I don't care what others think, I'm going to do what I want" wont make your edits stick any better. This mentality is not one that is helpful to Wikipedia. You need to discuss things with people and be prepared to back off when you are doing something incorrectly.

You have two ongoing disputes over Renault drivers immediately above, and you have done nothing to address these issues. I suggest you start there. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 21:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though a little late, welcome to the Motorcycling WikiProject. Hopefully you have a good time, start many new articles and can contribute lots to the existing ones. If you want some suggestions of work to be done, check out the To do list. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please post a source showing that Roma and Flamengo have swapped race teams, as they are currently not listed as having changed on the official entry list at http://www.superleagueformula.com/superleague/News-Media/Media-area/Entry-list . 91.107.30.87 (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Officialy Mr X thanks ALOT! you are a life saver! Before you came along and supported me I was thinking that no one thought that that article was good enough. (I know it needs more sources) But you proved me wrong. I hope that this article survives this AFD because if it does then it will be the first article that I have ever made. And PS just because my name is Coldplay Expert does not mean that im crazy about them or something like that, Im also very good at history related topics too.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add pages like 2009 Formula One season to the Category:2009 in motorsport. F1 and Indycar have their own categories each year, and these are then in the motorsport category themselves. Hope that makes sense. Thanks - mspete93 [talk] 12:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, where did you get/find/obtain a source for those new unreleased songs by coldplay? there seems to be enough to make a whole album!--Coldplay Expert 17:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, have they been heard by anyone. like were they played on the show or do bootleg versions exist? Could they be on the next ablum or are they like St. Stephen and Bloodless Revolution (which means they have been shelved).--Coldplay Expert 18:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You got to see how many unreleased songs are on the list of Coldplay songs section...Its HUGE! (LOL)--Coldplay Expert 22:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Per WP:CITE, please provide inline citations when adding a new leg to the tour. Don't just add the link to the edit summary.
2. User:72.198.84.83 has made WP:MOSFLAG-violating edits for sometime and they've been reverted by multiple editors across multiple tour articles. Your edits were just adding to that editor's problematic contributions. Again, we make edits in accordance with existing Wiki policies and policies. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any chance you could expand slightly on your new articles? Yes, they need creating, but surely quality is more important than quantity. It would be better to have just a few articles that provide information rather than loads of pages that tell you nothing other than the name and occupation (racing driver) of the person in question. Thanks, and keep up the good work - mspete93 [talk] 16:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're still creating articles indiscriminately. If you can't write anything more than stubs, that's not a problem, but at least mention why those teams and drivers are notable, such as "Motopark Academy won the Formula Renault Eurocup in 2006]" or something like that. Simply being a motorsports team is not enough to insure notability and it might lead to the articles being summarily deleted without a need for discussion. Oh, and Euroseries 3000 is far from a notable series, it's pretty minor in importance (Felipe Massa is pretty much the sole exception) and full of drivers who failed to impress in the regular ladder. --Pc13 (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, can you please stop with such an unnueccesary edit? Putting flags in such a low level domestic series is really, not only unneccesary, but you've got several of them wrong. So please, stop the obsession of splashing every table you see with colour. --Falcadore (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way was it constructive? Is there really a lot of doubt that the majority would be Australian? And also - why only do half the list? Should do all or none, not half-half. In a series where a lot of nationalites compete there is some value in flags, but not here. --Falcadore (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest putting this article up for deletion as there has been no news about this team since the start of the season. Have also removed it from the future section in the Superleague Formula template as it is unlikely they will appear. --Roadblocker (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The game has officially been released at www.slfgame.com. I know SLF's official sites (including Twitter and Facebook) have not mentioned it, but the slfgame site is official and has been referenced by many gaming sites. It is available to download on that site from yesterday, and I have even already tried it. --Roadblocker (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to BBC Young Sports Personality of the Year. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you might think these support races are significant, but does everybody else think so. Just to ask, did you read the talk section before you decide to revert, you have not asserted why these support races is significant to the main 3 which, including these is like including every support races to the main race. Donnie Park (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to have to be the one to do this, but it has to be said: would you mind putting a little more thought into what you add to the 2010 F1 page? You evidently contribute a lot to Wikipedia, but I'm afraid I haven't seen you add anything of value to the 2010 page. Your blank table was unnecessary. Your list of teams was redundant because of the table further down the page, and it was misleading because Mercedes is not a part of FOTA. Your updates to the table itself have been reversed countless times. Your naming of Virgin as "Manor Virgin Racing" openly contradicted the source you listed, which was simply "Virgin Racing". Please just stop and think for a moment before you edit in! I have no qualms about bringing moderator action about to people who vandalise, but you're clearly not vandalising at all. You're just not thinking about what you're doing, and in the process you're creating more work for everyone else. If you're uncertain about something, ask on the talk page. Wikipedia is not a news service, and when you start treating it like one, you start getting misleading and often incorrect information going. The accuracy of what we edit in is far more important than the speed with which we get it right. So please, take a moment before you edit again - because if you keep going the way you're going, you'll have to answer up to the moderators. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 day for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Mjroots (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Officially Mr X. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. As you are blocked, you may comment here and your comments may then be copied over the ANI. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Mjroots (who has apparently given himself superiority to dish out edit bans for some reason which seems thoroughly arrogant to me) about Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: there has actually been a discussion already around this issue on Talk:2010 Formula One season#Pre-season testing. My points, as usual, aren't really being considered even when my article ideas and suggestions are constructive and make logical sense. I find it a ridiculous system on Wikipedia in these areas. Officially Mr X (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Officially Mr X, I have not given myself superiority to dish out edit bans. The tools were granted to me, as with all admins, by the consensus of the community in an RFA. WP:3RR is a bright-line rule, which you broke. You have been around long enough to know this, hence the short block. I checked the talk page of the article being warred over and saw no discussion there. Mjroots (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have told you that there is a discussion here Talk:2010 Formula One season#Pre-season testing on the subject. Officially Mr X (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right there is a discussion there but you fail to mention that consensus is against including that particular information. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides which, one wouldn't think to look on the 2010 season talk page for discussion over a content dispute on the 2009 season article. Mjroots (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a note from another editor re your editing of 2010 Formula One season. I don't see anything really disruptive myself, and the source you used to back up the addition of Jarno Trulli appears to meet WP:RS. I can see the other side of the argument which would restrict such announcements to teams and drivers only. To this end, I've opened up a discussion at Talk:2010 Formula One season#Sources? where you are welcome to contribute. Mjroots (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from posting unsourced (or poorly sourced) information to 2010 Formula One season. Most of the time, the info is already being discussed in the talk page and there's a reason why it hasn't been added yet. XXX antiuser 20:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Officially Mr X. You have new messages at Talk:BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yeah, sorry. I was just in the middle of expanding them. Will start on it today. --Roadblocker (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are shifting the names of several racing drivers to Driver (racing driver). This is of course correct, but it's only half of the task. Because now there are a large, a very large number of driver links on other pages. Are you going to fix those, or write a bot to do so for you or leave the task half finished? --Falcadore (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try the link What links here, in the toolbox on the left of screen. --Falcadore (talk) 12:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it hasn't been done previously. But since you've started now, you've better finish it.

No idea how to program a bot for the task. I'm sure there are guidelines for it somewhere. --Falcadore (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Officially Mr X. Forgive me for "eavesdropping", but I think you have several options. You could lodge a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests for someone to configure an existing bot to do the job for you, but I suspect they will turn you down because (a) there aren't enough articles to make it worth their while and (b) the links aren't really broken in the first place (see WP:NOTBROKEN). Probably the most efficient method would be for you to make the changes yourself using the AWB tool - I estimate it would take you a couple of hours to make the changes once you have the tool installed. Or, you could always just revert the moves... You may also find this discussion of interest. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, of course, another option is "do nothing" (in fact that's what WP:NOTBROKEN suggests you should do). I was just proposing different ways you could fix the links if you wanted to. DH85868993 (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hows fixing those re-directs going? YOu going to do it, or leave others to? --Falcadore (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double re-directs are supposed to be removed where they exist, it affects speed of accessing pages when they flick through one or two re-directs. You created several hundred of these errors, the responsibility is yours. You don't want to do it, then shift the names back to what they were. --Falcadore (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're not going to. Thanks. Thanks so much. What a bloody mess. --Falcadore (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're still moving more of them? For gods sake will you stop! You're clocking up hundreds of fixes, and I must say they are on touring car drivers for the most part which you never get involved in so the , O'll fix them if they I come across them was very disingenious. That very fact that someone, IE, me, had comlained about you doing this already, makes such a move a controversial moves and there has to go to WP:RM. Can you show some respect for other edittors? --Falcadore (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you at the very least checked for double-redirects as per: Help:Moving a page#How to move a page ? --Falcadore (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Falcadore (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not going to fix the pages with incorrect links, can you at least correct the various disambiguation pages, like for example John Harvey? --Falcadore (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Officially Mr X. I was wondering why you replaced the {{Motorsport season}} templates with hardcoded table code in the World Touring Car Championship season articles, e.g. here, here and here? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for identifying the shortcomings of the {{Motorsport season}} template. I've added a couple of new parameters so the template can now handle "non-standard" previous and next seasons. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, why the shortening of the flagicon to three letter coding? --Falcadore (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. --Falcadore (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing the line from inaugural2 to inaugural - have you seen what that does? inaugural2 allows you to direct link to seasons, or to have no link at all, but inaugural links straight to the year in motorsport category which quite often is either wrong, or irrelevant. --Falcadore (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you made this move? This shouldn't have been done for a number of reasons, firstly because (auto racer) is a widely used disamiguation term, essentially the Americanisation of (racing driver), but it looks like you've performed a cut 'n' paste move instead of using the move systems. While I understand you did this because the Move would not work because Richard Lyons (racing driver) already existed as a redirect. The correct procedure here is to nominate the page for a move at WP:RM. Why? Because with a cut 'n' paste move you lose an articles edit history. --Falcadore (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you why you consider the Toyota Racing Serie in New Zealand as a Formula three serie? --Danilowski (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you had renamed F3 Brazil Open to Formula 3 Brazil Open again. This time you also removed the reference I had added. Why do you keep renaming it? I hope you could explain your acts as no source use the longer form but obviously it is, for some reason, very important for you to have it used.

It would also be nice to hear why do you think Toyota Racing Series should be included it the list of F3 series. 91.155.238.81 (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed the red link on your user page for the Template:European Touring Car Cup years, indicating you plan to create it. Before you do, I would like to suggest that you do it at Template:European Touring Car years, so that Pre-2005 championships can be included, as I have recently created 2004 European Touring Car Championship season and plan to create seasons 2001-03 and 2005-09. This will save work later. Thanks - mspete93 18:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. - mspete93 16:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally desagree with you (and I am not alone), the Toyota Racing Serie and the Chilean Formula Three championship cannot be consideres as Formula Three series. Please have a look to Falcadore (talk).

By the way, you broadcast wrong information in Wikipedia

--Danilowski (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Officially Mr X! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 938 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Niall Breen - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this series should get its own article as it doesn't have very much in common with the ADAC Volkswagen Polo Cup (single seaters <-> touring cars). As the article has been created by you, I would prefer you splitting it. :-) --78.42.28.167 (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the split templates are needed. It was awkward and too cluttered before. Especially going onto circuit pages like Brands Hatch - every other series had its own circuits in its own templates, not having to share a template with broadcasters and games etc. --Roadblocker (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your reply. Don't worry, I was never going to attempt a Future of SF page, but the Broadcasters page is passable, I'm sure I can make that page better with more references etc. I'll expand the 2009 race reports over the next couple of weeks and make sure Adria 2010 and the Bourdeaux pages get deleted. --Roadblocker (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UK and Germany round pages will get fixed up as well. I'd actually forgotten about them too. Don't worry, I'll fix these mistakes and expand on all the newly created pages long before the 2010 season starts. Sorry. --Roadblocker (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this? When you nominate anything for deletion/discussion, you have to actually start the deletion discussion. Since you haven't the TFD will probably be removed. Please complete process you start. --Falcadore (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Prove that testing is sufficiently notable for the coverage. Don't get mad. Justify it in words other than "it's important". --Falcadore (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said it is not interesting. What it is not is notable. Wikipedia is not a statistics resource. It is not a repository of trivia. If it is important to young drivers then the detail belongs on the individual driver pages.

Of course teams complain about testing bans. But that again does not make testing result notable. I may make the complaint notable.

The material placed on Wikipedia is not what it interesting it is what is notable. Testing can best be represent in Wikipedia motorsport articles with one or two sentences without graphs. Those few interested in test times have plenty of opportunity to look up those test times through the websites of the series, or the various other statistics based web resources.

You have a wonderful passion for this. I just wish you could write more sentences and less tables. More content, less trivia.

If you are so convinced I am so far from wrong, bring it up at the Wikiproject. The growing consensus of the last month has been to scale back on the insignificant. This is merely an extension of that trend. --Falcadore (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

then comes the complaint that articles are too short - I have never, ever seen such a complaint. I don't really consider a fiction Japanese animated drama for children is really relevant to the discussion. How much coverage do you see of practice Tennis matches? Of Boxing spars? Where are the Wikipedia tables covering Freestyle aerial skiing maneuvers achieved while practicing for the Olympics? What is notable to drivers is not important here. The drivers can look up the test sheets while standing in pitlane, they are not going to look it up on Wikipedia. It is not Wikipedia's role to record minuate.

It is perhaps important to remind you that motorsport fans are NOT the target audience of Wikipedia, but rather the general public. --Falcadore (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understood the intent of your Pokemon point, it just isn't relevant. --Falcadore (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't resort to insults, demonstrate notability. Learn from consensus, don't dismiss it as people who disagree with you. --Falcadore (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, where was your reference for the missing champions of Formula Lista Junior? I won't revert your edit yet but if you can't prove to me a source then I will simply have to as I haven't been able to find anything to back up what your edit is claiming. Thanks. Officially Mr X (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Here it is: "Ab 2008 mit Einheitsauto" from formellistajunior.smk-net.de

I guess everything's fine now. :-) -- 85.216.3.146 (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you probably know, "Waiting in Line" has been listed as an unreleased song by Coldplay. The question is though, is it? The source that I got that mentioned the song said that Waiting in Line was either a seperate song that did not make the final cut for Parachutes or any B-side for it (AKA: a song like Famous Old Painters, Something Ain't Right or Deserter ect..) or it was a seperate song that was writen alongside Shiver but the two were eventually fused together to creat the song that we know today. So which one is it? We may have flase info on our hands if it turns out to be the former.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Waiting in Line was never played live or leaked onto the internet. I have no clue about it other than the name. I may very well be an early title to Shiver or was morphed into the current song. As for the other songs, name all of the songs that you never heard of and I'll tell you about them. Every one of them existed but only a handfull have been played live (Ladder to the Sun) and most were just recorded for an album and then scrapped and never heard by any other listeners other than the band and their friends. EX:(Echo My Name)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well you said

Okay I haven't heard of these:

1. Firstly, "Mooie Ellebogen", which is listed as a released song from "Clocks"? 2. In fact, here are the songs I have actually heard extracts to, so I know definitely exist: A Ghost, Bloodless Revolution, Bucket for a Crown, Christmas Lights, Harmless, Idiot, Ladder to the Sun, Lukas, Ode to Deodorant, Solid Ground, So Sad, Sweet Marianne, The Dubliners, Wedding Bells, Where Is My Boy? and Your Love Means Everything, Part 2. 3. These are the songs I am aware of being listed in Prospekt notes or on video clips: 1000 - 1, Car Kids, Cartoon Head, Cartoon Heart, Drunks and Guns, Famous Old Painters, First Steps, Gardeners on the Frontline, If All Else, If I Ever Fall in Love Again, In Isolation, Leftrightleftrightleft, Love in a Lethal Dose, Loveless, Mining on the Moon, Spanish Rain, St. Stephen, The Fall of Man, The Man Who Swears and Vitamins. 4. So these are new to me: A View from the Top, Blasphemy, Call Me, December, Deserter, Déjà Vu, Echo My Name (I Can't Believe You're Gone), Eyes for Eyes, Fingers Crossed, Fury, Goodbye and Goodnight, If She Comes Back, Love I'm So Tired, School, Someone to Love, Something Ain't Right, The Blue Room (never knew it was intended as a song), The Butterfly, This Hollow Frame, Turn Your World Around, (Waiting in Line) and Your World's Turned Upside Down.

In order, "Mooie Ellebogen" was a Dutch song that was written by a friend of the band and was put on special release of the Clocks single. A View from the Top, If She Comes Back, and Someone to Love were all preformed in a soundcheck in Norway back in 2002. More than likely these songs were written for AROBTTH but were scraped. Even so, they were still preformed in secret during a soundcheck and were recorded by a few listeners, a kid from Norway finally uploaded them to Youtube a few months ago. However the quality fothe songs are terrible and you can only make out a few words and the chorus in each song. Blasphemy, Déjà Vu, Echo My Name (I Can't Believe You're Gone), Fury, Something Ain't Right, and Turn Your World Around werea ll written for X&Y and were even on the first proposed tracklisting for the album. However they were all scrapped in later proposals and were never played live or even leaked onto the internet. However, Echo My Name (I Can't Believe You're Gone) may be an early version of Til Kingdom come. Deserter, Eyes for Eyes, Fingers Crossed, This Hollow Frame and Your World's Turned Upside Down were all written for AROBTTH and were scrapped. None of them (with the exeption of Your World's Turned Upside Down) were ever played live or leaked onto the internet. Call me and Love I'm So Tired were written and preformed during the first few years of the band and were even recoded by a girl at one of their first concerts. However, the recoding has yet to be released onto the internet or anywere else for that matter. December was one of the fist 10 songs written by the band but was never preformed live (that I knwo of) and was never released. However, the first line of Violet Hill contains a lyric fromt he song Was a long and dark December. Goodbye and Goodnight was written for Viva and was on the leaked demos (along with Bloodless Revolution) I have it. School was also written for Viva and was the intro to Rainy Day but was later scrapped. However, the first "quiet" half of Death and all his friends is the entire song. The Butterfly was also written for Viva and played ina charity concert by CM but was never recorded or played ever again, so we'll likely never hear it. The Blue Room and Waiting in Line were mentioned in a tracklisting for Parachutes on Coldplay.com back in 1999 but both were scrapped. I think that was the last of them....--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 17:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! you, me and Cs-Wolves are editing the Formula Abarth section (new italian junior formula), i'm writing the same message to Cs-Wolves as well.

• How do you know BVM - Target racing has number 8 and 9?
• Why don't we leave Teams and drivers without personal page in black? without red link! It's stupid to create a page for drivers who probably we will never see again in the future....

this is an entry level formula and only top drivers will become famous....

• I suggest to create a page for Raffaele Marciello only, due to his involvement with Ferrari Young Drivers Academy

Giagi (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2010 (CET)

The teams which wanted to enter and the ones which could have been interested to enter in the 2010 Formula Renault WEC, were informed second week of March 2010 of the cancellation. The news has been revealed publicly by Jean-Pascal Dauce (Renault Sport Technology) and Philippe Sinault (Signature), see Autohebdo (24th March issue page 12). No other comments

Danilowski (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2010 (CET)

Hello again! :) Nice to see the start of the new season here. Don't worry about the pages that need editing, I'm planning a long editing session tonight and tomorrow which should see most problems fixed. --Roadblocker (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined your speedy because WP:CSD#G7 does not apply - this had not been blanked by its only author - and also this discussion at RfD decided to keep it. I'm not sure I agree, but that's what they decided. JohnCD (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Officially Mr X, I'm a user from the German Wikipedia. Can you also load the Superleague Formula pictures on Commons, so that other language versions can use them? Regards, --Gamma127 (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you've taken to adding Superleague Formula to a bunch of circuits in their major events, I'm leaning towards removing them, though not for the reason you might assume. The articles are about the circuits. Major events should list the major events in the circuits history, the races which have shaped its story, rather than a list of contemporary events. To use Monza as an example, the Races of Two Worlds which was short in history but dramatic in impact as American roadsters raced against European Grand Prix cars would be considerably more important for Monza's story rather than just another open-wheel ladder series Formula no matter what its marketting appeal may be. For some of the more modern much younger circuits, it could be that Superleague would be considered a significant event for them, but mostly it won't. It should be representative of all of its years, not just this year. --Falcadore (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Officially Mr X. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of A1GP Team Malaysia, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: You aren't the author, and the redirect seems reasonable. Take to RfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  18:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create red links to articles deleted at AfD. If you wish to contest the deletion, please do so at WP:DRV. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geddie's article should not be r