User talk:SamH

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Hi,

I renamed your user account to SamH. Please drop me a note if something went wrong. -- JeLuF 17:49, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Re: Renault Laguna

Nice work on this article. It is certainly NPOV now - I've removed the NPOV message. [[User:Akadruid|akaDruid (Talk)]] 11:43, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Schumacher revert

I thought the sentence ending "...leaves many fans to feel the sport has been debased" was rather POV. I'll revert myself and edit that sentence accordingly. — Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 15:15, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Pic copyrights

You wrote: I noticed you've not added any copyright info to those images yet. If you've just been busy, then no worries, but it would be good if you'd do them sometime in the near future. If you're not sure what to do, then leave a message on my talk page and I'll try to help. Thanks, SamH 10:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

These pics were taken from a car hobbyist web forum on which I participate, and were placed in a "member's cars" photo page there. I do not know who took them, although because they are amateur photos, I'm almost certain the person who took the photos is also the copyright holder.
As such, feel free to remove them. Perhaps there is an argument to be made for fair use of the pics, but I'm not prepared nor interested to make it.
With best regards,
--Ryanaxp 15:56, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Volkswagen Golf Plus

Thank you for moving my Golf Plus info back under Golf V: it makes a lot more sense there. I was always rather curious why someone had shifted it to where it was before that edit. Stombs 10:06, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ford GT40 image

I have my doubts, because:

  1. The user is inexperienced enough not to have a user page and has only a touch over 300 edits. This suggests possibly too new to "know the ropes" about what's allowed wrt. images.
  2. The image contains no source information. It's not enough to put "ford gt40 gfdl" on an image description page. One should say who the image belongs to, and thus who released it under that license. If it's the user's own image, he should say so.
  3. The image appears to be a professional quality studio image, and thus seems a bit unlikely to be GFDL. Rarely are commercial images released under GFDL; if we can use them, it is generally under fair use or a more general free license.

History and practice says that here we do not always take users' opinions of image sources and licenses at face value. This is because we don't just care about legal protection, but actual freedom, as much as we can. —Morven 11:27, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

The other reason I was 'quick on the trigger' was that the article already had two perfectly good images, so it would not be without. —Morven 11:28, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

I took that picture in the Black Hawk auto museum. It, along with all the cars on display, is light in such a way as to give it a studio like look. Seano1 21:15, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, and I hope no hurt feelings. There should be no problem having it on the article at all, then. —Morven 00:52, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Copyright

The pictures I posted are, I think, publicity shots, however, as I can't be 100% sure would it be better if I removed them in favour of ones I can guarantee are? --Mrbusy 12:24, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible request for help

Sam-

I was wondering if you might be able to monitor something and help me with a proble. I seem to be under attack from a user with many identities on Wikipedia. This all stems back to an edit war that I have found myself in over the Article on Ohio Wesleyan University, which I was trying to keep on an NPOV course. I've tried to be a good Wikipedian, however I have found myself in a tight spot. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stude62 user: stude62 user talk:stude62 14:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)



[edit] Nash Motors

Sam- Could you take a look at the Nash Motors entry. Someone edited it (ID's under their DNS number) and took some liberties with it. I tried to fix it and added what i could come across as far as Nash Healy's were concerned. Any help appreciated, thanks - user: stude62 user talk:stude62 02:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] audi a6 image

You're right... it is however, a promotional image. I've already updated it and put the source as well. I've been meaning to update a few images, but I'm a bit behind on it. I'm busy also updating the Formula 1 drivers/cars/teams/circuits list. Diego440 22:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 USA-Race

DNS stands for when a car does not take a a race start. Makes sense. By having Ret listed that mean the driver has actually started in that race and will count a race starts towards the driver race start tally.. The formation lap does not count as a lap at all as it is not added towards the race classification. For when does a driver 'start' a Grand Prix? To my mind he does so only if he is on the grid when the flag drops or light goes green at the final start. Should a driver have failed to compete the formation lap, for instance (as was the case with Prost at Imola in 1991), he cannot truly be said to have started the race. In the case of restarted events such as the British GP in 1986, poor Jacques Laffite certainly did start the race, but this was declared null and void and he was not presented to take the restart, which is the only one that counts. For true official race results is best to get them off www.forix.com as they receive their race results from the officials. Yes I know formula1.com is official but not 100% official in statistics. If you decide to leave it as Ret then you must give all the drivers a race start count!

I have spend hours in researching and asking many F1 statistician who are famous and know more on Grand Prix. All the statisian I have contacted and got back told me it is actually DNS not Ret, they also have mention the formula1.com is not very accurate with their race results. The formula1.com is incorrect as listing as ret instead of DNS for 2005-USA. This were the responses from the following people. Renowned F1 statistians, like David Hayhoe or Autosport's Peter Higham agree that all Michelin drivers were DNS in 2005-USA, but consider a RET if a driver didn't made a re-start, for example. That was the common view in the past - no contemporary source listed Lauda as a DNS in 1976-Germany - and they simply ignore the current "null and void" FIA rule. I totally agree to change it as DNS not Ret as they didn't take part on the first lap.

Here is a intersting fact. Button will start his 100th race start in the 2005-China race. But according to wikipedia when doing the math by adding all Button race starts it would be his 101st race start in China as Button has been listed as Ret instead of DNS for this year 2005-USA race. Does this make sense to you. That means wikipedia will have an extra race start for all the drivers who have no started in the 2005 USA race have an extra race start which wouldn't be official to the drivers stats.

I am trying to help you all to have accurate data on Formula 1 on wikipedia. I DO beleive the formula1.com site doesn't not give out accurate race classifications. As I have been involved with FORIX and autosport.com for many years as my job is to look for incorrect data on their server. Andreas 04 October 09:36

[edit] Important WikiProject Automobiles Discussion

Hello! As a Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles member, I just thought you might want to input your opinions on an important discussion we're currently having about whether articles regarding similar vehicles should be merged into one or split by brand. If you would like to comment or read further, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Articles of Similar Vehicles. Thank you in advance for your thoughts and feedback. Airline 23:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] F1 portal featured article

The F1 portal (in which I assume you have some degree of interest, as your name is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One) is intended to have a regular rotation of a 'featured article'. I've swapped a few in and out over the last couple of months, but I think it would be better if there were more of a community attempt at deciding this, proposals, votes, that kind of thing. So - why not pop over to Portal_talk:Formula_One#Suggestions_for_Featured_Article: and make a suggestion. Ta. 4u1e 00:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selected articles on Portal:F1

Hello again.

I dropped notes round a while back to those who have listed themselves at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One to ask for suggestions for selected articles on portal:Formula One. There was a pretty good response, both in terms of how it might work and of articles suggested. Damon Hill came out with the most support and was brought up to Good Article standard after a lot of work by Skully Collins and others before going on as the F1 portal selected article a couple of weeks ago. It is now at Featured Article Candidates as a Featured Article candidate (why not drop by and see if you can help polish it further?).

Several people who responded to the original request suggested that a monthly or bi-weekly 'Selected Article' could act as a catalyst for an improvement drive to get more articles up to a higher standard. Although it wasn't quite what I had in mind when I started, this seemed to work pretty well for the Damon Hill article, so I've drafted up a process for doing this more regularly. See Portal_talk:Formula_One/Management_of_selected_articles for details. Essentially the suggestion is that we vote for an article to improve every couple of weeks and at the end of the improvement process the article goes on the portal as the new 'Selected Article'. I'd be grateful for any comments on how this might work - I'm sure some of you are more familiar with things 'Wiki' than me - as well as your votes for the next candidate (by 16 July).

You may also want to help with the article Gilles Villeneuve, which was the next most popular after Damon Hill. The idea is to try and get it up to GA standard by 16 July and then put it on the portal as the 'Selected Article'. I hope you can help! 4u1e 18:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:McLaren_Technology_Centre.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:McLaren_Technology_Centre.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/m/User_talk%7ESamH_eed2.html"