User talk:4u1e/archive2

1994 San Marino Grand Prix

As it happens I was going through the edit history to find who added the reference so I could ask them but unfortunatly it turns out it's an IP address (13:52, 14 October 2006 194.106.44.129) I'm going to see what Google comes up with. Alexj2002 13:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might have been dated 5th May not 6th [1] - Autosport is a weekly publication isn't it? Alexj2002 13:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'Death At Imola' might be the title. Alexj2002 13:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm hoping to get it on the main page sometime, and have been playing around with layout etc: User:Alexj2002/Sandbox3. I can't decide which picture to use, the maps won't make sense and the crash is Fair Use. Alexj2002 22:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Wikipedia

Thanks for your comments - the Schumacher article has certainly improved lately, and I am still watching it and all the other articles I worked on. You're right about quieter articles being easier to work on, though I did experience many problems with articles on drivers so forgotten that they had no article at all, yet as soon as I wrote one, people wanted to come along and change it all around... Bretonbanquet 14:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bretonbanquet"

Brescia & F1

You're right. I wasn't thinking F1, I was on "Grands Prix". What about "once in the F1 era" or "modern era", & mention Brescia linked to GP article? Trekphiler 14:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brescia & F1

My first thought was, "You're right". But I looked at the rest of the paragraph, & it's not entirely clear it only refers to the F1 era, because it's dealing with the venues. I'm going to have a go at rewriting. I'll post it here if I come up with anything. Trekphiler 14:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brescia (yet again)

I came up with this:

"Silverstone from 1963 to 1986. The only other race to have been included in every season is the Italian Grand Prix. The World Championship event taken place at Monza with just one exception: in 1980, it was held at Imola, now host to the San Marino Grand Prix."

If you're satisfied (I am), go ahead & paste it in. Trekphiler 15:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brabham

I know where you're coming from, I'm working for FAC for BAE Systems. You can't beat an outside opinion/check. When you work on an article and look at it enough, even glaring errors are easy to miss after a while. I can't say I know enough to make it ready for FAC, but I'll have a look.

I haven't looked at the article for over a year, there seems to a dramatic improvement. Mark83 13:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked over the first half. I've listed a few thoughts:

• Refs are free form, I think they have to be in the template format.

If I'm reading WP:CITE correctly, it's not a requirement. I find using the template in the text makes editing a real headache - I've come up with a hybrid approach (template for refs at bottom of page, notes then just refer to those by name and page number). What do you think?

• The Serious Fraud Office investigation is mentioned twice (main and intro). Minute detail obviously not appropriate, but a summary of the conclusion (if any) would be good.

More detail on SFO - any better?

• As above, detail not appropriate, but a quick mention of why Luhti was arrested would be good. Did it involve his management of the team in any way?

Brief reason given. Enough?

• This point not related to the FAC, but I linked the first instance of Middlebridge - it would be interesting to expand on this.

There's not a huge amount of info on Middlebridge available. In a way, what there is is quite interesting: Number One is probably this case. Number two is their funding of a brief revival of the Reliant Scimitar sportscar. Number Three is a case involving the sale of 'Number One' (I think) - a famous classic Bentley. I've left it for the moment as it doesn't strictly meet the requirements of WP:NOTABLE, but perhaps a project for later.

• I cleaned up the Crombac merde comment which was a bit of a trainwreck.

Fair enough.

• In the first half there is extensive use of dashes. I don't know if this is suitable?? Something that might get complaints?

I think it's OK, but I've reduced my use of them a bit. I am prone to using too much 'furniture' in my writing.

• Do the following need cites:
  • The penny-pinching comment
  • Tauranac/Bernie leadership comment.

Yes. 'penny pinching' revised. I decided against using the 'tighter than a bull's ass in fly season' comment from Gurney, which were his actual words.....although I have stuck them in the Jack Brabham article for now. Haven't done Tauranac/Ecclestone yet.

I'm done for now. I'll try and get a look at the 2nd half, maybe tomorrow. I hope these points help. Mark83 22:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Cheers for the heads-up re: pic size, didn't realise that. I liked the Brabham article a lot, and I realise the problems with "Jack", but it did get a bit confusing in places! Pyrope 22:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

Hey 4u1e - Since (*fingers crossed*) AP's article looks like it's on the "last lap of the FA Grand Prix", I was wondering whether you had any articles I could improve, because I'm kinda stuck. Oh, and with all due respect please don't suggest either:

• My fellow countryman, because I've requested a book for Chrismas that I will need to improve the article, or
• The current F1 Inprovement Drive, because I'm no good with history and I would prefer to take the role of proof reader for obvious reasons.

Also, can I suggest an "April Fools Day" selected article for the Portal, at the moment, I'm wondering who we could improve...hmmm...Hmmm...HMMM :-P. Also, can we dicuss the MoS for F1 related articles? Because I think we've got the Driver articles MoS all set (Damon Hill and Alain Prost for example) and perhaps Grand Prix articles (Monaco Grand Prix and 1994 San Marino Grand Prix for example), but I'm not sure about contructors, mostly because of the lengh of your MoS for Your Pet Project. Don't get me wrong, it's a brilliant article, much better then my attempt, but the problem for me is that I don't know much about Williams' "notable cars", apart from errmm...that...thing? As well as the Grand Prix performances table, see Toyota F1's, because I've tried and tried and tried (then gave up) on trying to fix (shorten) the table but it's not working, any suggestions? Oh, and finially? For the Fatal Accident list, apart from completing it, what else needs to be done for it to reach FL? Once, again, thanks for taking time reading (all) the questions.--Skully Collins ^Edits 12:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? And what makes you think this season isn't juicy enough? Anyway, cheers for the infomation on Williams ;-). --Skully Collins ^Edits 07:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see Alex has already made a To Do list.--Skully Collins ^Edits 14:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi !

Sorry for not giving news since a long time. To say the less I am a bit busy yet.

I have worked on some academic article, I spend a lot time of working on the B&W films that I shot during my USA trip, and (after than more 20 years of live music frustration) I spend a lot of time listening and shooting rock bands in dark clubs. Until recently Nice was a musical desert but to my great surprise there's a really interesting rock scene emerging here.

On the other hand I think I will leave Wikipedia see Talk:Dirtrucks. I will give more complete explanation to my decision and finish some pending tasks but I don't like the current evolution of Wikipedia.

I promise to have a look on the Brabham article before.

Well you know I've found the article on Gordon Murray. It give a extended version of the Fancar controversy and confirm that the car was never banned. Here is the reference :

Pierre Ménard - Gordon Murray un designer "différent". p 54-65 Automobile historique n° 9 July/August 2001

It's in in French. I can scan the article if you are interrested, otherwise you'll have to trust me to sum up the valuable information.

BTW do you know if Murray speaks French ? He has a house in France but there's no information about the language used during the interview.

I also noticed that you consider that Mc Laren introduced the first carbon-fiber monocoque. Well there is no doubt that the MP4/1 was the first carbon fiber monocoque raced but the double chassis Lotus 88 had also a carbon fiber chassis it was revelead only a few day after the Mc Laren to press. Of course the double chassis and the fact that the car was never allowed to race overshadowed the innovation.

Ericd 16:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

link to British

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something British, please do not link to British, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as United Kingdom or Great Britain by writing out [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[Great Britain|British]]. Regards, Jeff3000 20:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was on the Eddie Irvine page [2]. Regards, -- Jeff3000 20:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1978 British Grand Prix Brands Hatch Fittipaldi F5A Ferrari.jpg

I'm doing some sorting of F1 images, and came across this one. There's some excellent pictures on the guy's site, but I need to clarify a few things. Are all images on the site under the same licence and does the licence allow use only for wikipedia or for anyone provided the author is credited? Cheers, Alexj2002 21:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi & thanks for the reply, I think pictures are probably the most difficult and complicated part of Wikipedia - having been caught out myself a few times I want to try and make sure that as much of the F1 content (and especially our GA/FA's) are done correctly.

• "(I) would appreciate a discussion on the ins and outs of Wikipedia's copyright rules, first."

Well you asked for it! The trouble is the official explainations are scattered over about 5 or 6 different pages. I've tried to summarise how I understand things should be done:

Photos that permission has been given for use on Wikipedia or non-commercial use or education use must be accompanied by a Fair Use rationale and a copyright notice (provided of course that they qualify as fair use).

If the images is indeed suitable "for any use provided the author is credited (attribution)" and such permission is specified on the website the images can be used with no problems provided that on the image description page, a link to the page with photo on is given as source and the page with copyright/permission notice is given under permission using the infobox template on Commons. That is unless it's from flickr. If it's from flickr, you'd put {{flickrreview}} in the permission bit.

The tricky one is the email permission - you don't want to make it too much of a hassle for the author, but you need to make sure it's done properly.

Click to view the full-size image.

If email permission is sought it is recommended to try and get permission under the GFDL or Creative Commons (but only CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, ones with NC or ND in aren't permitted). Personally I prefer Creative Commons because it's easier to explain (I usually provide this link http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/) and when it comes to reusing the photo, the GFDL licence text doesn't need including with the image. The best explaination I've found of the GFDL/CC for images argument is the cartoon on the right. I don't recommend complicating things by getting them to dual licence the image.

Once permission has been obtained you'll need to provide some proof that (s)he's licenced the image under said licence. The preferred method is to get him/her to send the following email to [e-mail] (I usually do this after uploading so as to fill in the links and everything first).

• I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ insert link ].*

I agree to publish that work under the free license *LICENSE [choose at least one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_tags ].*

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in violation of another law such as trademark restrictions, libel, or geographically-specific restrictions.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the image may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

• DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER*

That's sometimes a bit scary to send someone so you could just get the author to say the equivalent of "I am the author of (work) and I have licenced the work under (licence)." It's not the official method but it should be just as valid and has worked successfully for me in the past.

Here's what I've found to be the simplest and most painless route to email permissions:

• 1st email sent - request for image to be licenced under CC-BY-2.5, link to CC Deed page along with summary of what it'll mean - mention it could be used in other locations than Wikipedia.
• 1st reply - Author agrees to licence the image.
• Upload image to commons.
• 2nd email sent - send the pro-forma with all fields filled in and ask for the author to send that text to the permission email address.
• Someone will then add the "permission is archived in the OTRS system" text to the image description page. (See Image:GP_Imola2005_SchumiAlonso.jpg for an example)

So where does that leave Mr Boor's pictures? Well without seeing Scottanon's original permission we can't be sure (because it isn't in the OTRS system). The image description page does say "This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose." so we'll have to assume that is what permission was given. If that is the case I don't see any point in further emails although I'd be wary of obtaining any further images under this licence.

On the site licence vs. individual photos licence issue, it's a difficult one - a person may be more willing to freely licence one photo than their entire library, however they may tire of recieving several emails asking for photos to be used.

Hope that was fairly clear, any further questions or I've explained something badly please let me know. Alexj2002 00:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formula 1/Formula One link

You're quite right 4u1e, wasn't thinking properly.--Red Sunset 19:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Schumacher GA

Hi. I played a minor role compared to you, but just wanted to say well done. Best regards, Mark83 00:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brabham Racing Organisation

I'll leave the results here on your talk page:

• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[1]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
• Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. [2]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AZ _t 23:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this should be (exactly) the same as when you try it w/ the PR script (I note that it is on your monobook.js). Actually, I'm not a WP:BOT (at least technically am not), I just use the that script repetitively. AZ _t 23:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, sorry about that. The tab is supposed to be used for literally sending an article to peer review (like placing it on WP:PR, adding the {{peerreview}} tags, etc.). I haven't tested that in a while, so it might no longer work. Instead, there should also be a link next to the logout button that states 'peer review'; clicking that will show the suggestions. Thanks, AZ _t 22:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sion

It's possible he's not that comfortable with English, a fair proportion of people in Wales are more comfortable in Welsh than in English, but very little can't speak it at all, and he's editing pages written in English successfully. I noticed this on his user page which just about confirms what I thought: "This user supports the independence of Wales.". I'm pretty sure there's a guideline against hijacking wikipedia to prove a point. He does seem quite into his F1 and it'd be good to have another contributor. Of course new users aren't expected to know WP policy inside out and mistakes are to be expected and tolerated but when you've been advised of something and you continue to do it, people get more irritated. If we can't discuss any of these issues with him what chance do we have of solving them? Alexj2002 09:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hi ! I've scanned the article about Murray. It's a bit large... I can put it for download on a server, but I don't wish to put the URL on Wikipedia because its better not to have my small bandwith eaten by a lot of downloads. I've never used the Wikipedia e-mail but I think that's the way to go. Ericd 15:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

linkspam

User:A2monza has been adding these same links to that same site. You might want to consider warning him/her for linkspam. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brabham BT20

Hey 4u1e, if you wanted to start a topic on the Brabham BT20 then I've found a Free Image on Flickr for you. [3]. Sorry, just though it would be of some use to you, being a user who edits the main article alot ;-). --Skully Collins ^Edits 16:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Skully - just wanted to point out if you found any interesting F1 images on Flickr that are freely licenced (that is Creative Commons Attribution or Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike but not images with Creative Commons No Derivitives or Non Commerical licences) you could help the project by uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons. If you use the image information template when uploading (Description, Source etc.), could you add {{flickrreview}} under Permission when uploading images from Flickr in addition to specifying the licence using the dropdown box. Once uploaded add it to the [[Formula One gallery under the appropriate heading. This should make it easy for others who need an image of the car to find one. Alexj2002 19:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

Why don't you use a sandbox for all of this? Looks very odd on your user page. Tony 14:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could argue that I wanted to give an accurate reflection of the disordered state or my mind, but frankly it's because I'm lazy. If you're wondering, I noticed the comment a while back, but couldn't be bothered to reply. Lazy, see? Good work on the writing standards, btw. Cheers. 4u1e 21:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brabham

Hi Sandy. Thanks again for having a detailed look at the Brabham article currently on WP:FAC. I think I've responded to all your points now. Noting that your time is yours to do with as you wish, and I certainly have no special call on it, I would really appreciate it if you could have a read and comment on the writing in the article. (Either for or against - I hope I am always open to criticism!). For some reason the Formula One FA nominations never seem to attract much interest from those with strong views on good writing. Somewhat perversely, I would be quite disappointed if the article passes FA with support from WikiProject Formula One members and none from neutral parties. If that means more work redrafting, or my finding someone else to redraft, so be it. Cheers. 4u1e 10:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 4. I read the entire article quite a while back: the article structure is now sound in terms of referencing, formatting, layout, MOS, etc., and is impressive. But I was disappointed in the prose: I didn't comment on the FAC, because I don't consider myself a good grammarian or copyeditor, and I'm not that good at explaining prose problems. If you can get a good copyeditor to run through the entire article, you'll have my support. Try asking Outriggr (talk · contribs) or Deckiller (talk · contribs): I would also suggest Tony1 (talk · contribs), but he is most likely too busy. Sandy (Talk) 15:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as I said, I'm not good at analyzing/explaining prose issues, so take these samples FWIW - I'll jump around in the article just to pick up some random sections:

• (many seems redundant, plodding) the team introduced many innovations to Formula One, such as
• (passed to seems passive, lacking explanation) After Ecclestone sold the team in 1987, ownership passed to the Middlebridge Group
• (these three sentences feel choppy and unconnected - three facts consecutively, but with no connection or explanation between the facts - three large jumps in his career just stuck together - hard to explain) Jack Brabham and Ron Tauranac met in 1951 when both were successfully building and racing cars in Australia. Brabham went to the United Kingdom in 1955 to further his racing career. Driving for the Cooper Car Company works team, he became Formula One world champion in 1959 and 1960.
• (I hate parentheticals like see below in the text - they are distracting - the prose should flow naturally, not requiring the reader to jump around.) Brabham and Tauranac set up a company called Motor Racing Developments Ltd. (see below), deliberately avoiding the use of either man’s name, and produced their first car for the entry level Formula Junior class in the summer of 1961.
• (This is personal preference, and maybe I'm wrong. I don't like seeing bolded text and new names later in the article - I feel like any name that is associated with the article should have been mentioned in the lead/first line, since they might be search keywords - but maybe I'm wrong on that) Brabham left the company in 1962 to drive for his own team: the Brabham Racing Organisation,
• (Here again, I feel like there's no connection to the facts - like the article is just a string of historical facts put together, one after the other, with no compelling connections between these facts - why did they field an oudated chassis? How is the second sentence related to the first? How is the third sentence connected to the first and second.) The Brabham Racing Organisation (BRO) started the 1962 season, its first in Formula One, fielding an outdated customer Lotus 21 chassis for Jack Brabham. Brabham became a Formula One constructor when BRO debuted their turquoise liveried BT3 car at the 1962 German Grand Prix, where it retired with a throttle problem after nine of the fifteen laps. Brabham took a pair of fourth places at the end of the season.

I guess the example above sums of what troubled me in the article: I just felt like I was reading a string of facts, one after the other, without any compelling or interesting narrative. I imagine that Formula One folks are very interested in these basic facts, so one thing you might do is focus on how it reads to a person who knows nothing of cars/racing - that is, make the relations and connections between the sentences and events more interesting. I hope that helps, and hope it doesn't just muddy the waters :-) Sandy (Talk) 16:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(And you say you're not good at analyzing prose issues Sandy!) Hi 4u1e, thanks for asking for the article review. I can take a look, but a full copy review is slow-going for me, and I'm not sure how much I will get through in a timely manner. Ideally, this is done before the article is submitted to FAC, so it's not racing against the clock (no pun intended!). I can't make any promises as to how much I will look at, but I will keep the article in mind for sure. –Outriggr § 02:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Brabham is an FA, congratulations! I will consider your copy review request cancelled in light of that, unless there is a specific area you'd like reviewed (she's a long article!). Now go put your gold star on. –Outriggr § 21:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Sports Car Racing

Due to your involvement in racing articles, specifically in your development of a race car template, I'd appreciate it if you were to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Car Racing and, if possible, provide any input you can into developing your race car template to be adapted for sports cars through the help of others in the project. Any other help you can offer outside of that is greatly welcomed. The359 09:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on Brabham reaching FA

Congratulations for your extensive work. You're an example to the community.--Serte ^[ Talk · Contrib ] 11:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject:Formula One "style guide"

Hi 4u1e. In Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#UK_drivers_and_nationality, you mentioned the idea of adding a 'style guide' to the WP:F1 page. FYI, I've just created this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One/Conventions (which I have linked to the WP:F1 page), which I think might be the sort of thing you were talking about. Feel free to rename, merge and/or update the new page as you see fit. Regards. DH85868993 16:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constructor vs Entrant

Hi 4u1e. I hadn't thought about doing the check you described on my Talk page. It would be great if you could do that. Thanks. DH85868993 15:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mauricio Gugelmin

Thanks! And thank you for your help with tidying up the loose ends, it's made the article that bit more complete.

It was really interesting taking someone not quite so well known and researching their life. I can definitely see myself doing it again. Readro 22:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting the article on the portal! Readro 20:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there should be a proper written procedure for the selected article. I don't touch it because it doesn't say on the page how an article is selected, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes! Readro 21:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F1 car

Nuts, now why didn't that show up when I searched for it. I had an inkling that it might already exist (it is a fairly obvious one after all). I'll take your suggestion and make a few adjustments to Template:Racing car then adjust the WPF1 page to reflect that. Ah well, great minds think alike, and apparantly mine fits into that category, which would be news to my school teachers... Pyrope 09:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that now that I'm chasing down the transclusions. I have made the adjustments, nothing major just a little reordering to keep vehicle details and racing history more clearly separated. I have also trimmed out or combined some of the field codes to keep the pro-forma as simple as possible while still allowing a degree of flexibility in the format. I'll tag F1 car for deletion when I'm done and upload a proper pro-forma onto the project page. Then it might be worth visiting our WP Motorsport brethren and spreading the word. Pyrope 10:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And.... relax. Template changed, transclusions updated, usage instructions updated on both project page and talk page, F1 car tagged for deletion... anything I missed? Pyrope 11:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus

I guess some of my decisions of whether to change Lotus to Team Lotus or Lotus Cars have seemed a bit arbitrary, haven't they? (In general, I'm changing them to Team Lotus, unless all the other instances of "Lotus" in the article are linked to Lotus Cars, in which case I'm changing them to Lotus Cars "for internal consistency" - most of the time!) I guess I wasn't too concerned, because we need to resolve the whole Team Lotus/Lotus Cars issues like we did for Renault Sport/Renault F1 (And then we can move on to Honda/Honda F1, etc, etc...) DH85868993 16:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

83.36.31.151/Michael Schumacher

You've more patience than me! I stated organising those edits and then gave up! Mark83 22:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to get a good laugh once in a while! I've tried that too!! e.g "take the high ground" response to "Can you read" edit on my talk page [4]. Mark83 23:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award

On this 6th anniversary of the founding of Wikipedia, I am awarding you "My Barn". You are one the Wikipedians that have made the most exemplary contributions to my "home" areas of Wikipedia in the past year. Congratulations! Royalbroil^T : C 17:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formula Three Euroseries

Hello! I reviewed Formula Three Series as a Good Article nominee...it's on hold right now; I just needed a couple more references in a portion of the sections. All the information is on the talk page if you want to take a look. Theirishpianist 14:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Jordan

Ok, I like that idea. I'll go make the edit. Minardi 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Bull Racing

Hi. I don't know if you've been editing this article lately because of the tags I added, but either way thanks for your help. I've removed the tags. I think it's well cleaned up and although there are a few statements which need citations, I think fact/cn tags will do for them. Thanks again. Mark83 11:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Edit Summary

Thanks. Just so you know I'm currently working to try and make Michael Schumacher and Monaco Grand Prix FA. Buc 18:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I could tell after a quick read though that MS still needs some work. I've just made Monaco Grand Prix a FAC though. Buc 18:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool, the changes you made were accurate. Thanks for the intro man, I've added the citation.

Peace and love and such ^_^ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.240.44 (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Barnstar.

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Awarded for your never ending patience, especially on the Michael Schumacher article and events in question. Skully Collins ^Edits 10:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 4u1e. Just a little reward for you ;-).--Skully Collins ^Edits 10:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Prost edit

Thanks. That clarifies it even better :o) --Dave. 22:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. See footnote
2. See footnote