Talk:Michael Schumacher/archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Popularity thing

WRT to the thing about popularity. I would have to say that Ralf Schumacher was 19 by the time his brother became WDC and Heidfeld also was a teenager by then. Can you back up your assertions that SChumacher specifically caused a boom in the skill level and talent pool of racing drivers. What about participation rates for young drivers. At the moment it implies he specifically causes more success for Germany at the highest level. He is not a racing coach nor does he run an F1 academy. He has definitely increased popular viewing, but has he increased grassroots participation? At the most we should note the grassroots increase. It is inapporporiate to claim that he is responsible for success of other elite drivers. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, you cannot prove there is causation with just a correlation, just like you can't prove that winning more WDCs than anyone other driver makes schumacher by default the greatest driver on that criterion alone. It's one fact of many, though, and the veracity of the claim is unquestionable, and it is in fact suggestive that schumacher indeed had some effect in bringing more German drivers in formula one. Do you really think schamucher just increased the popularity of the sport in Germany only to WATCH it? It's pretty hard to argue with all the talented German drivers in forumla one right now. Perhaps you want to wade through 50 years of F-1 WDC statistics and see if you can come up with 3 Germans in the top ten in any other era?Ernham 03:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
F1 is not a normal sport. It is an extreme sport, and is very dangerous. I like F1, but I have never ever tried go-karts at all, whereas I do enjoy having a hit of cricket and kicking a ball around from time to time. Success does generate TV ratings, increased merchandise and also grassroots participation. I agree and encourage you to add stats with respect to this increase in grassroots participation, merchandise sales , etc, - this is definitely true, I would suspect that interest in spectatorship would be more than the number of people deciding to drive around in a sagnerous manner. As I pointed out before, Ralf and Heidfeld were alreay fully grown by the time Schumacher was successful (and I think Rosberg is due to his dad), so to allude that he is highly responsible for elite level success when he is not a coach, manager etc, is stretching it. Also in the 1990s you had Frentzen, so that's two. Were you also aware perhaps awarethat BMW is *believed* to have a policy of favourable German drivers for perhaps commerical reasons, same as Honda for Japanese drivers? Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I am merely stating a fact, one that does not conclusively prove schumacher has increased F-1 participation, but does in fact suggest he has. I've stated the fact, not the conclusion. The reader can speculate how they chose, but the fact is still a fact, and it is applicable to the argument of Schuamcher's increase in popularity of the sport. In short, I fail to see any logical issue whatsoever anyone would have with the inclusion of that information. We could speculate all day for possible others reason for the increase, but this wiki is about Schumacher. Ernham 03:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Since I dug out my trusty calculator, I hammered on the statistics on this popularity issue. The mean frequency of Germans in the top 10 prior to the entrance of Schuamcher into Formula one was .175(layman's terms: that only one German would generally make the top ten approximately every 6 years of formula one.) The standard deviation was .44. In Schumacher's last year, with 3 Germans in the top ten, the right tail of the assumedly(n>40) normal distribution of this statistic has a probability of .00000000059. Layman's terms: The chance that 3 Germans would make the top ten purely by coincidence is .000000059%. In scientific AND layman's terms: no way in hell did that happen randomly.Ernham 12:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm losing track of this argument, but for what it's worth - I think the original comment had some validity. The current crop of drivers would be drivers anyway - but Michael's success is responsible for the current high profile of motor racing in Germany, which I think may well have produced the financial backing which has put those drivers where they now are. -- Ian Dalziel 18:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


The removal of this section was deplorable, smelling or jingoism. Here's Vettel's words himself "In Germany, F1 stands for Michael Schumacher. What he did for the sport in Germany was fantastic and it was very good for all of us young drivers who came up the ladder. For sure he opened up some doors for all of us."Ernham 18:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You cannot argue the math. You cannot argue with a German driver's own words. Do not remove the section again. Ernham 18:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Brawn, Byrne, Todt at Ferrari and previously

I've just removed the comment "The same members that Schumacher brought to Ferrari from Benetton, however, had no success in creating a competitive racing team prior to the hiring of Schumacher." from the article.

This seems to cover Brawn and Byrne (explicitly) and Todt (implicitly - since it is not clear in the current wording that he arrived at Ferrari before Schumacher and recruited him to the team).

Looking at their biogs on www.grandprix.com we can see that:

Todt had a long and extremely successful career managing Peugeot Sport (2 world rally championships, 4 Paris-Dakars, 2 Le Mans 24 hours and 1 World Sportscar championship).

Ross Brawn had moderate success designing for Arrows in 1987 and 1988 - fourth place for Arrows is a pretty good result! He also designed the Jaguar XJR-14, which won the 1991 World Sportscar Championship (beating Schumi in a Sauber-Merc on the way!), was very competitive in IMSA racing in the States the next year and formed the basis of the TWR-Porsche which won a couple of Le Mans in the mid-1990s. (You'll have to take my word for the last two bits - I'm sure I can verify if anyone queries it).

Rory Byrne had some success at Benetton, who won a race most years up to 1994.

The removed sentence doesn't really seem to match the facts. Admittedly they hadn't achieved success on the scale that they subsequently would, but then, no-one has :) --4u1e 00:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dummy assessment against GA criteria

The Good Article criteria can be found here.

Going through one by one (in reverse order, cos I find it easier):

Images: Pass, in my view. Images are not a GA requirement, but if present must be appropriately tagged, as these are. There are improvements that could be made, however:

  • No pictures from early career.
  • Pictures are a bit 'samey' (i.e. lots of pics of Schumi in a red car) - more interesting pics are hidden down at the bottom of the article. We should consider moving them around to get more variety in tone.
  • Captions are present, but not very interesting. We should think how we can use them to draw readers in - the Japan 2006 pic could say something like "Schumacher at the 2006 GP shortly before the engine failure which virtually ended his chances of an eighth world title". And so on. See WP:CAP.

Stability: Fail, at present. Not surprising this, and will hopefully improve as we get further away from the current season. Nothing to worry about at present.

Neutral Point of view: See WP:NPOV. Fail I believe we have problems here, and would fail the article at GA on this one. Problems are mainly of assertion (i.e. asserting a particular point of view, rather than simply stating the facts) and in fairness of tone (i.e. facts may be stated, but are 'coloured' by the language around them). Some examples:

  • 'Scumacher impressed the paddock' & 'After his impressive debut'
  • 'Despite Hill having the superior car, he struggled to keep pace with Schumacher'
  • 'Despite this bold and risky move' (joining Ferrari)
  • The whole second paragraph of 'Ferrari years' presents quite an argumentative approach to its topic - better to simply state the facts and quote some relevant views.
  • 'Some fans argue that it was not only bad luck that prevented Schumacher from winning the 1998 world championship' (Following section probably goes into more detail than is required here.
  • 'Schumacher started 2006 well'
  • 'Some believe the claims of Schumacher's "poor sportsmanship" are little more than sour grapes in a sport that has become increasingly competitive.'
  • 'Schumacher's critics allege that, knowing his car was damaged, he intentionally drove his car into Hill's in order to take the Briton out of the race.'
  • 'However, this was not the first incident of the sort in F1 history, and while Schumacher was judged to have been at fault, others have escaped punishment for similar situations.'
  • The whole of para 4 under 'Sportsmanship' is argumentative - from both points of view. There's some good and interesting material in there though.
  • 'Nevertheless, team orders are at times practiced by many teams and, despite bans by the FIA, can be executed discreetly.' The relevant point is simply that they were not illegal at the time of the 2002 Austrian Grand Prix.
  • The whole second to last para of 'Team orders' seems constructed to support the use of team orders - not neutral or necessary in my view.

I'll come back and go through the other three criteria later. I'll emphasise again that this isn't a formal review for GA, just my take on how it would go. I do carry out GA reviews on other articles though, so hopefully I have some idea what I'm doing! :D Cheers. 4u1e 23 October 2006


Broad in coverage: Pass Includes family life and activity outside F1 - good.

Accurate and verifiable: Fail Variable. Some bits very well referenced. Others are sketchy - Benetton years, Most of the Ferrari years up to 2005 (which includes some quite contentious statements), Records, Most of the 'Controversy' section (again - contentious). There may also be a problem with the quality of some of the references. The reference for the rather um, bold statement that "the 2005 rules changes were entirely targetted to ending the domination of Ferrari and Schumacher" is a throwaway line in an unattributed (i.e. we don't know who wrote it) article from the Associated Press, not a noted authority on F1. --4u1e 06:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well written: Fail Some changes needed per WP:MoS. See the automated comments from the Peer Review for these, here. A lot of these are quite quick to fix.

Not sure where to put this, but the balance of the piece is wrong. As many of us have noted, the 2006 season summary is much, much longer than the others - it probably still needs to be cut to half to one third the length - any material that can't be used here probably belongs in the individual race reports or the 2006 season summary. The controversy/sportsmanship/team orders sections are very long in relation to the rest of the piece as well and could do with editing down. Cheers 4u1e

Forking

With such a long career and many incidents, twists, turns, I feel that the article needs to be forked rather than simply chopped up with half the article thrown away. What are the logical ways of steamlining into components? Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely sure I agree, article seems a bit repetitive and wordy and can I think be shortened significantly without throwing anything important away. Quite a lot of it has turned into season summaries of each year he had competed - covering rather more than Schumacher himself - and the 'extra' material could be transferred to the relevant F1 season summary, if it doesn't appear there already. Similarly removing the argumentative material I mention above and sticking simply to the facts would produce a worthwhile reduction. I don't think it can get down to 32k, but 45-50 ish ought to be achievable.--4u1e 05:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Accumulation records

I can see what is meant here, but think it will just be confusing for a reader new to the topic - it's not even discussed all that often in the specialist press. I think it is better to leave the lead simply to say 'has won more races etc etc' and then go into how this compares to others - including the win to race ratio - in the main text under 'records'. The lead is also getting a little long at 6 paras, so could do with trimming anyway. --4u1e 05:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Helmet

Talking about helmets, I heard until 2002 he wore Bell helmet, he upset them and S.P.O.R.T.S. Europe about that deal with Schberth, i have got some extra info about this here. For all these who wants some extra info, I already added bits about the helmet he wore as I used to own a few Minichamp brochure which features them. Willirennen 12.50 24 Oct 2006

Is the helmet really notable and important enough to be on the article? It's nothing personal, it's just that the article was very very big, almost 100kb, it is being reduced a lot, like removed quotes at the retirement section, reduced the season 2006 section and all. The helmet is taking space, and I'm not sure that it qualifies as being important enough to be here. That's more technical information, which maybe doesn't have a space on Wikipedia. If we put the helmets, why not adding his suits or his shoes and such? Still, I'd like to see what other users have to say about this. Cheers and thanks for the contributions :)--Serte 15:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Some of the material was in the article anyway - I just split it out as a seperate header - partly to provoke such debate. It has to be said that there is room for material on the helmet in the Damon Hill (FA) and Gilles Villeneuve (GA) articles. I don't think it's particularly critical however, and - if pushed - can go. However, personally, I'd like to see the wordiness of the 2006 season and Controversy/Sportsmanship/Team Orders bits addressed before we conclude that we have to dump it. 4u1e
Another thought: How about an image of his helmet like the one in the Fernando Alonso article - Would that give the same info in a better way? 4u1e

Wealth

Although Schumacher is refered in the lead of the article as the first billionaire athlete, there is little reference about it in the text, only a few trivia stuff. Do you think there should be a section about this, his wealth, and publicity he's made just to show the impact he had as a sportsman?--Serte 14:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for Controvery etc section

Can I float a suggestion for this piece? A lot of its length is down to the 'framing structure' and to editorialising about the meaning of the various incidents. Can we pare it down to a single section under 'Controversy' (or similar) with brief factual accounts of:

  • 1994 Allegations of cheating with Benetton
  • 1994 clash with Hill
  • 1997 clash with Villeneuve
  • 1998 British GP
  • Team orders - centered around 2002? in Austria
  • 2006 incident at Monaco

Given that the 'getting a push' topic seems to have argued itself to a standstill - the current wording suggests that it's a non-issue - I suggest that it could be left out.

Does that fly as a suggestion - or am I going to get shot down in flames? (Retires to bomb shelter and pulls tin hat down over ears). 4u1e

KABOOOOMMM!! All kidding aside, I totally agree with you. It's time to finally put those controversy and incident sections organized. Those parts are the worse of the article. They are not very well-written and need POV to be totally eliminated. I'm on to it. --Serte 16:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to re-write the whole section on a personal page, but my main difficult is really finding reliable sources and how to use them. I mean, many many people criticize Schumacher for what he did in 1994 but it's impossible to find a reference for "many people". Also, there are fans that claim he was innocent, such as in [1]. Whatever I write looks to me like POV anyway, so it's really hard. What are the facts? Schumacher closed the door? You could claim he didn't, he just made the manouver as it should be made. You could claim Hill shouldn't try to overtake there.

Facts:

  • Schumacher was one point ahead of Hill in the championship with one race to go.
  • Schumacher was leading until lap 20 [2]
  • Schumacher crashed into the wall hitting with the right side hills. (What was it? A mistake? a twitch?)
  • Schumacher managed to get back on track with Hill just behind him pressuring
  • Hill tried to overtake, but they crashed. (What can you say about this? Schumacher crashed onto Hill? The opposite?)
  • While Schumacher quitted (?) right there, Hill completed the lap, went into the pit stops where he retired due to the damages made to his car during the crash being unrepairable.

I'll do my best effort on making something out of this that satisfies guidelines. By the way, can youtube videos be used as a source?--Serte 17:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Youtube is a bit dodgy - firstly because the legality of what is on it is often suspect (How come there's video of the incident there in the first place? Who owns the copyright?) but also because to a third party little of what you see will seem 'evident'. It's still your (my, whoevers) judgement as to whether Schumacher drove into Hill or vice versa.
regarding neutrality of the Adelaide incident, I think neutral wording would look something like:
"On lap XX of the race, Schumacher went off the track at turn XX, hitting the wall with his right rear tyre. He returned to the track at reduced speed. Hill, who had been closing on the German before the incident, caught him at turn XX. As they approached the corner, Hill moved to pass his rival on the inside. Schumacher turned into the corner and the two collided. Schumacher's car was tipped up onto two wheels and eliminated on the spot, while Hill was withdrawn shortly afterwards by his team due to damaged front suspension. A Reliable Witness has said that Schumacher took the normal racing line for the corner, although Numerous Pundits have blamed the German for the incident, which gave him his first crown, claiming that he must have known his car was damaged."
Where A Reliable Witness and Numerous Pundits have yet to be identified. To make any potential bias on my part clear, I tend to be pro-Hill, so my version might not be quite neutral. My belief, for what it's worth, is that Hill wasn't quite close enough to risk nipping inside there and should have held back, while Schumacher was travelling too slowly to really regard the corner as 'his' and should not have turned in. Both at fault, although Hill's error I regard as more honest.
Your trouble of course is in locating the appropriate quotes at the end to give the opposing interpretations. I'd be a bit wary of web references for this - has anyone got a decent hardcopy race report, or a book on Schumacher or Hill (Skully Collins has some on Hill, I think)? See WP:NPOV#Undue weight for the guidance on how to balance opposing views. Thedummy version given above assumes that the view is fairly evenly split, which may not be the case. --4u1e 20:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't be more unbiased than this: User:Serte/schumicontroversies. Say what you think about it. I wrote it as to replace the current controversy section which is too big and not NPOV at all.--Serte 21:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Damon Hill BBC Radio Five Live interview

Does anybody think any of this would be suitable (Hill's perspective):

Victoria Derbyshire: Damon, just remind us what happened between you and Schumacher in Australia.

Damon Hill: Em, well, we were racing, I didn’t, I wasn’t aware that Michael had actually gone off the road and damaged his car and so when I saw him coming back on the track I though he had just escaped again from another near spin. And so he was struggling to get up to speed and I went to overtake him and it’s pretty clear that he drove into me to prevent me from getting through and by virtue of that he won the world championship. But that was really sort the first big incident in his career but it sort of set the tone of his whole career really. Em, and what was slightly disappointing I think was that the, from time to time when things have happened it does appear that there has been slight favouritism towards those kind of, that kind of, or at least blind eyes turned to that kind of tactic.

Victoria Derbyshire: But did that show he was a cheat, or that he was desperate to win or he was just an extremely determined competitor and that’s what you need to be a world champion?

Damon Hill: Yeah, expect in Monaco this year it was concluded that he did actually do something deliberately to spoil the opportunity of Alonso to get to beat him to pole position, so he’s not only…, and there have been other incidents as well where the teams he’s been driving for have been had up for blatantly cheating, ignoring black flags, all those kind of things have been part of his career. Mark83 21:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wheel to Wheel

We were looking for a reference for 'many people consider'. Alan Henry's book 'Wheel to Wheel' contains the following: "many F1 insiders regarded the German as solely responsible for the collision which resolved the outcome of the 1994 World Championship" (p. 117) --4u1e 06:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

English

Minor point: UK English or American English? We have both at present. I would vote for UK English, but technically we ought to check what was used in the first 'proper' version of the article and stick with that. 4u1e

The MOS states "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type" and British English is predominant. Also it's a European subject (both the man and effectively the sport). Mark83 14:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I've had a look at older versions and they appear to be UK as well, so let's take that as the standard. So - tire > tyre and all the other favourites. Cheers. 4u1e

Grammar

I am not surprised this is a FORMER featured article candidate, some of the sections arevery badly structured and the use of the word he is over used. there are common use of brackets in the article although some are necessary for translations should be completly avoided here is an example from he article.
The penalty (for overtaking Alex Wurz under safety car on lap 43 of 60) should have been issued within 25 minutes but Ferrari were informed 6 minutes after the limit had expired
In this example the reason the penalty was issued should be explained before this point and not put in brackets.
The word he is over used and should be replaced with Schumacher, also the use of his first name in the main body of he articl should be avoided.
The biggest problem with this article is sentence structure and grammar.
Here is an example
The move, embarrassing for F1 fans and media, was done after the very last corner of the last lap of the Austrian Grand Prix. This led to a public outcry by spectators in the grandstands;on the podium a visibly embarrassed and bewildered Schumacher ushered Barrichello onto the top step in an attempt to calm the irate crowd.
First major grammatical error is the use of the semi-colon it must not be used any-where in the article except the pronounciation at the very beginning. The phrase 'embarrassing for F1 fans and media' should be better structed and should not be a statement on its own. a better structure would be to remove it completly from the section. The podium setion is also poorly structured as it is written as if the person is Schumacher, we do not know what he was thinking or the complete reasons for the decision to swap places on the podium. The section should be written by saying things such as the aftermarth of swapping places was revealed to try to calm the crowd a citation of this would also be required.
These are just a few points to improve the article grmmar and structure are the main points but citations are lacking in some areas as well so more are required as well.--Lucy-marie 10:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

We're working on a shortened and less POV version of the Controversy/Sportsmanship/Team Orders section at the moment, this will replace many of these problem areas. 4u1e 12:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a Wikipedia policy barring (correct) use of the semi colon except in first paragraphs! Mark83 14:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I've been following this article from afar for a bit now, and I must say it has improved considerably over the last week or so. It reads less and less like fan journalism and more and more like an encyclopedia entry every day. Still has some way to go, but it's definitely better. Just my twopence'. --Ramdrake 14:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
And it will be even better in the next few weeks I hope. At least I'm working hard on it.--Serte 14:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Not to disrupt your work, but one of the editors just changed the measurements of a sponsor logo from metric-only to US-first metric-second measurements. If you are adopting the UK style, shouldn't metric measurements at least come first? Just a thought.--Ramdrake 15:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I did change, but didn't remember of that. Anyway, I believe it's not the same thing. We're not adopting an UK style, I guess. We're just using UK English which is the European English. And the Europeam measures are cm, not inches. You may disagree. The best solution is to include the two types of measures.--Serte 15:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


For terms like championship, driver's championship, constructors' championship, should we use capital letters or not as there is no standardize way at the moment. If we want to go for FA, we should standardize it --Cyktsui 10:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes to results table

Results table has recently been changed, but no longer matches the Key - could someone who knows more about the tables than I do confirm whether these changes match the WikiProject F1 standard? Cheers. 4u1e 16:07, 25 October 2006

There is a key?--Lucy-marie 16:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just above the table there's a link to click on. It's probably best to revert to the agreed colour scheme for the table, but possibly raise your ideas for changing the scheme at WP:F1.

I've also reverted your last change re 24 races etc (Sorry!). My logic is that the 24 races is an inclusive number up to the last race where you don't retire, i.e. Malaysia. What do you think? Cheers. 4u1e 16:14, 25 October 2006

ok thanks what do you think of the colour changes made to the grid?
I think that having it upto the malaysian gp implies he retired at the malaysian gp so saying brazil implies he retired at the brazilian gp. I also think that it is 23 not 24 races i may have miss counted though--Lucy-marie 16:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted back againt because I agree with 4u1e. And I've counted several times and it is 24 races. The reason in which I believe Malaysia should be there is because what we're talking about is races in which he didn't retire. "Most consecutive race finished without retirement: 24 (from the 2001 Hungarian Grand Prix, until the 2003 Malaysian Grand Prix)" So, we should put Malaysia because that's the last race he finised without retiring. That's what I think.--Serte 16:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Err, how about using the word "including" (as in "until and including the 2003 Malaysian Grand Prix"? Slightly more cumbersome, but no chance for a misunderstanding there... Just a suggestion.--Ramdrake 16:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely 24 races (I counted three different ways and came up with the same result each time :-)). Hungary is race 1, Malaysia is race 24. The sentence involved is 'Most consecutive races finished without retirement: 24 races'.

Hungary to Malaysia are 'consecutive races finished without retirement'. Brazil cannot be included in that definition because he did retire there.

We could put 'inclusive' in the sentence if you feel it is really unclear that he did not retire in Malaysia (i.e. 'Hungary 2001 to Malaysia 2003 inclusive'), but I really don't think it's necessary. 4u1e 16:28, 25 October 2006 (I've been trying to get the above posted for the last few minutes, but you guys keep editing it!)

Shift results table to a template?

Removing the results table brings the article size down from 85 to 62 kilobytes. What about putting it in a template? That way it will not appear any differently but I think this would cut the article file size?? And if anybody listed it for deletion arguing it should be kept inside the article we could make the argument that it is a special circumstance (i.e. the amount of information on this page plus the fact that it's one of the largest driver results tables). Mark83 19:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A template for Complete F1 results could be a good thing, not only for this article but for all F1 drivers articles. However, I think you got to have very good skills at templates, which I don't. I know the basics only. However, the main thing that might complicate is that every year there are different schedules and such, so a template for this would still require everybody to put the races, the results, and such. Don't know about the colours though. Cheers--Serte 20:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. A generic results table would be almost impossible to write! I just mean copying and pasting the table into Template:Michael Schumacher career results (or similar) and then when you add {{Michael Schumacher career results}} in the right place on this article you get the full table but with a reduced article file size. Mark83 20:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I see now. I've made an experiment and it is quite simple to do it. Don't know if there wouldn't problems as you said in the beginning, don't know if there are special circunstances for these cases. If it's approved, I approve as well. Cheers--Serte 20:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/c/Talk%7EMichael_Schumacher_archive_6_e6cc.html"