User talk:Davnel03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feel Free to Leave Me a message!

[edit] Uploading Images

Hi! From your question on the help desk: The error message is a bit cryptic, but my first guess is to check that the file you are trying to upload does not have any dots in the filename, except for one before the file extension (eg .jpg if it's a JPEG file). Make sure that this extension is correct, as well. You may need to turn off "hide file extensions" if you are using Windows (any folder view -> Tools -> Folder Options -> View -> uncheck "hide extensions of known files"). Does that help? If not, drop me a message on my talk page, or ask again on the Help desk. — QuantumEleven 12:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for the help you gave me to do with uploading images. It has successfully worked! But I can't put it into the article named Lewis Hamilton. I can't work out why. I've tried on the edit page and it just doesn't work. Davnel03 15:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, looking at Lewis Hamilton, it seems to have worked! For future reference, Wikipedia:Picture tutorial may be of help, although it primarily covers images inserted into the 'body' of an article (in the article you were working on, you were inserting an image into a so-called "Infobox", which works a little differently). I hope that's solved your problem, but feel free to drop me a line if there is anything else I can help you with. Welcome to Wikipedia! :) — QuantumEleven 23:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Davnel03, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! — QuantumEleven 23:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have been blocked; no one has told me why or how?!

Your block log is empty. That means your likely suffering the ill effects of a IP address block. (so it's not actually targeted at you personally) You might want to use the unblock template. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos on 1994 San Marino Grand Prix

Thank you for your contribution to the above article, unfortuantly I've had to remove the photos as they are copyrighted to the websites you have taken them from. I suggest reading Wikipedia:Uploading images to ensure you are aware of what's allowed and what isn't on Wikipedia with regard to photos. As a guide "Please note that most images you might find on the Internet are copyrighted and not appropriate for uploading to Wikipedia. If you did not create the image or are unable or unwilling to verify its copyright status, do not upload the image." Thanks, Alexj2002 19:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's take Image:Simtek S941.jpg as an example. A little bit of searching showed that the image was taken from http://www.43r.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=3845 - when uploading an image always use the exact page address as a source and not just 43r.com. Nowhere on that page does it state the image is licenced under the GFDL. As images are automatically under copyright unless otherwise stated then the lack of a notice advising that the images are licenced under GFDL/Creative Commons etc. means that the image is copyrighted and we can't use it. Furthermore at the bottom of the page there is a confirmation that the page is under copyright "© 43R.COM".

If you are able to prove otherwise that the image is licenced under GFDL (if you got permission by email or similar) please state so. For reference the guideline on using images on Wikipedia are below.

Either

   * You own the rights to the image (usually meaning that you created the image yourself).

   * You can prove that the copyright holder has licensed the image under a free license.

   * You can prove that the image is in the public domain.

   * You believe, and state, a fair use rationale for the specific use of the image that you intend.

I don't believe you can claim any of those but would be happy to discuss further if you believe you can. Additionally you stated "Can you please put the images back on as soon as possible - they are on the checklist for images needed to be found on Wikipedia Formula One portal." They are because I added them there. The reason I added them was not because I couldn't find any images (there were plenty on a Google Image Search) but because I could not find any freely licenced images. I look forward to hearing from you. Alexj2002 19:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I was typing that, an administrator has decided to delete Image:Simtek S941.jpg because it was a copyright violation. Alexj2002 19:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Because it was incorrectly formatted. Deizio talk 19:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting articles

I can't. Only admins can delete articles and i'm not an admin. TJ Spyke 22:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As for TNA articles, I agree. I suggested this at WP:PW, but no one else seemed to care. If you want to bring it up again there, I will support you. TJ Spyke 22:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Montreal Screwjob

Please read WP:WIAFA and WP:WIAGA. Montreal Screwjob could not possibly reach either plateau, as it contains zero sources, and it has been tagged as unreferenced for five months. -- Kicking222 00:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for deletion

Please don't what you've did with articles up for deletion. I'll let the admins know about the articles and hopefully let them delete it for you but next time you should leave AfD work for the admins to do. Thanks. -- oakster TALK 21:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about it. Thanks for understanding. -- oakster TALK 21:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, non-admins are allowed to close only unanimous keep AfDs. If there is a single delete vote, I'd advise you keep away from it otherwise things could get sticky. Mistakes like this are easy to make, don't worry about it.--Desk banana 21:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Davnel03, I can see someone's already talked to you about the AfD issue, so I won't belabor the point. But I will direct you to the relevant policy/process pages if you'd like to read them. Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure and Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussions.2C_closure.2C_reviewing are helpful. One area you could help with is Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. If you're interested in closing some six day old clear consensus keeps, ask me and I'll direct you to the appropriate templates. You can reply here. Cheers!--Kchase T 22:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Actually, I'd like the idea. It's just I'm afraid it just won't happen due to Wikipedia's set policy. Sorry about that. -- oakster TALK 22:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Same here. I like the idea, but Wikipedia policy doesn't allow protection as a pre-emptive measure. TJ Spyke 22:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Preview

Hi. Thanks for your many additions tyo pages recently. However, I would ask that you use the "preview page" option more frequently. You have quite often made numerous csaves on one page over a very short period an this leads to a confused log entry. Thnaks! Pyrope 11:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox templates

Hi Davnel03. Just thought you might appreciate a few tips on using the infobox template. On the template talk page there is a text pro forma that you can simply copy, then paste into the top of the relevant article. This is it without anything in it:

{{F1 race report infobox
| Country        =
| Grand Prix     =
| Official name  =
| Image          =
| Date           =
| Year           =
| Race_No        =
| Season_No      =
| Location       = 
| Course         =
| Course_mi      =
| Course_km      =
| Distance_laps  =
| Distance_mi    =
| Distance_km    =
| Weather        =
| Pole_Driver    =
| Pole_Team      =
| Pole_Time      =
| Pole_Country   =
| Fast_Driver    =
| Fast_Team      =
| Fast_Time      =
| Fast_Lap       =
| Fast_Country   =
| First_Driver   =
| First_Team     =
| First_Country  =
| Second_Driver  =
| Second_Team    =
| Second_Country =
| Third_Driver   =
| Third_Team     =
| Third_Country  =
|}}

As it stands, without the nowiki tags, this would produce a box that looks like this:

**Grand Prix**
Race details
Race of in the Formula One season.
Date	[[]], [[]]
Official name
Location
Course	mi / km
Distance	laps, mi / km
Weather
Pole
Driver
Time
Fastest Lap
Driver
Time	(on lap of )
Podium
First
Second
Third

And with the fields populated, it looks like this:

**999 BC British Grand Prix**
Race details
Race -1 of 8 in the 999 BC Formula One season.
Date	July 45, 999 BC
Official name	MMXXIV Very Fast In Circles Race of Norfolk
Location	Cricklewood
Course	Regent Street 21 mi / 0.2 km
Distance	17⅜ laps, 89 mi / 7.2m km
Weather	Some
Pole
Driver	Keith Chegwin	Conservative Party
Time	12:20:03.89
Fastest Lap
Driver	Steve Irwin	Crikey!
Time	17 days... and counting (on lap 0.2 of 17⅜)
Podium
First	Boris Johnson	Barking mad
Second	George W. Bush	(insert prejudice of choice)
Third	Jilly Goolden	Petit verdot

Just cut and paste into the first line of your chosen article. Any problems then let me know. Pyrope 21:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, you seem to have got the hang of that just fine! Just a few quick words of advice though: sometimes less is more. I'm thinking specifically in terms of the number of images that you are adding to race reports and the like. Wikipedia is not a magazine, and it certainly isn't a picture gallery. Images must fulfill the prime criteria of being notable. I know that the images are there, and it is tempting to use them all, but honestly most of them don't show much. If an image depicts an event in the race (someone crashing out, or a race-specific car configuration - and I liked the "Thanks Michael" shot!) then it can be used without a problem. But most of the shots could be summarised with the caption "a car on a track somewhere". These are not notable. Just because they were taken at the event, they do not neccessarily form relevant historical documents. At best they might be used to illustrate the car's page, or maybe the driver or team, but as a record of an event thay are not great. The problem with so many images is that it breaks up the text and makes it hard to read, and ultimately in Wikipedia, text is king. Try and be critical with images, ask yourself "does this really illustrate the event, or is it just a pretty shot?" Otherwise, keep up the good work! Pyrope 00:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pages with no content

Please can you place some content in the page when you create pages like Williams FW16? If the page contains nothing but navigation templates ('navboxes'), it isn't any more use to the reader than a blank page would be, and in fact is speedily deletable under criterion (WP:CSD#A3). --ais523 16:55, 9 February 2007 (U T C)

I'm aware that you're in the middle of editing the pages, that's why I didn't put a speedy-delete tag on it. You could try:

Placing {{inuse}} on the page, to mention that you're actively editing it.
Drafting the articles on user subpages before moving them into article space, to prevent them being deletable before they're finished.
Creating the articles one at a time, and not saving until they contain content.

More than one user has been bitten by having articles deleted before they were finished, so I'm just letting you know about this so you can avoid having problems in the future. Hope that helps! --ais523 17:04, 9 February 2007 (U T C)

Davnel03, you are in serious danger of putting some noses out of joint and earning yourself a vandalism warning. The tags that you have applied to the myriad new pages that you just created are simply not applicable. The usage page states that they are "... to be used for a single edit session, specifying periods of several days is not acceptable, since it's impossible for one active edit session to last that long". These tags are to be used only if you are actively editing a page, in other words that you are literally sat, now, at your computer, putting an article together. You simply can't be actively editing ten pages at once. Creating pages just because you don't like the way red links look is not on. We discussed this on the project talk page and the issue is still not resolved, it is seriously poor protocol to go creating swathes of empty pages as you have done. I know that you are keen, and the last thing that I want to do is discourage you from contributing, you seem to have some very good ideas and have made some very useful edits so far. But quality rather than quantity should be your aim. Better to do one good article, than three "so what?" pages. Pages with no content will be rightly deleted. Pyrope 17:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1994 F1 cars

Hi Davnel03. I think all the 1994 F1 car articles are in order now. Note that Paul Crooks has been tagged for speedy deletion. If you want the article preserved, you'll need to add {{hangon}} at the top of the article and explain why it should be kept on the discussion page. Good luck! DH85868993 17:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Crooks

"Paul crooks helped design the Simtek S492" is not an article, it's not even a valid stub. It is a bad idea to create articles if you can't produce at least a decent paragraph, as has been pointed out to you before. A red link may attract someone to actually write an article, whereas a half-sentence blue link may not. Please don't create articles without citing at least one reliable secondary source to attest to the notability of the subject, otherwise you are in for a frustrating time as your contributions are deleted under speedy deletion criteria A1 and A7. Guy (Help!) 08:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Violations

[edit] Copyright issue with Image:Alex Zanardi.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Image:Alex Zanardi.jpg, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from www.f1-photo.com. As a copyright violation, Image:Alex Zanardi.jpg appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:Alex Zanardi.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Image:Alex Zanardi.jpg. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Image:Alex Zanardi.jpg, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia.

...and that goes for all the other photos as well. Just don't. Don't. Really, don't. Please, take some time out. Stop editing for a few days. Read some of the advice and policy pages. Have a breather. Your contribution has been enthusiastic so far, and your heart is in the right place. But time to use your head as well. If you don't then you are seriously going the way of getting yourself blocked by someone a little less tolerant than me. This may be a site open for editing by anyone, but there are rules, and some of the toughest concern copyright. You do not break these. Ever. Pyrope 22:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos in books

More than likely no. You see the photograph is copyrighted whether it exists in a digital form (say a file on a PC), in a printed form (book/magazine), on a video or any other tangible form. I'd reckon that >99.99% of books published are Copyrighted with All Rights Reserved (remember something is copyrighted automatically unless the creator says otherwise). Therefore unless the book said all images were GFDL (I think I've seen just one book in my life where this was the case)- they're not free to use.

As it says on the first page of the majority of books, copyright means that "No part of the publication may be reproduced... by any means including electronic... without permission from the copyright holder." Scanning a photo is what's referred to on Wikipedia as a derivative work, and unless the work you derived from is free from copyright then you can't claim a work created using it as a base is free. Any more you want to know about image copyright - just ask! Alexj2002 20:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For us to use a copyright picture on Wikipedia, we must justify why we have to use it and not a free picture. There's something called the Fair Use criteria that must be met. If we take the F1 logo for example, even though it's copyrighted it's used on the Formula One article page. We can do this because there isn't a freely licenced alternative, and there will never be one. It is also required to indicate the sport, and is not used merely for decoration.

I should probably list the things that Wikipedia suggests we may be able to claim this fair usage on:

   * Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary).
   * Team and corporate logos: For identification. See Wikipedia:Logos.
   * Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject.
   * Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary.
   * Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.
   * Screenshots from software products: For critical commentary.
   * Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.
   * Publicity photos: For identification and critical commentary. See Wikipedia:Publicity photos.

Also given are examples of things it's unlikely we can claim fair use on, I've picked a couple out:

   * An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like.
   * A photo from a press agency (e.g. Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo.

Now lets take your two examples, the driver would likely fall under the first no-use (unless they were dead), and the car the second (unless it was a publicity photo, but the vast majority of images are not, especially of old cars and f1-rejects would provide you with the information you need to verify they were). The fact that a free image doesn't exist doesn't matter, because provided the driver/car is still around, one could be created at some point (many old cars and drivers turn up at the Goodwood Festival of Speed for example). Also chances are a free image does exist - the number of times a look on flickr, a thorough search across the internet(by thorough I mean several hours trawling through fansites and the like) or an email requesting permission has turned up something of use. With regard to the email option you're of course more likely to obtain success this way if you go for someone who takes pictures as a hobby rather than a press agency or professional photographer. If you want - give me a list of some of the things you want, and I'll see what I can find. You might want a read through WP:FU for more detail on what I've said above. Finally could you point me in the direction of a couple of these F1 Rejects pictures? I'm not sure they should be here... Alexj2002 20:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Those ones you brought up look slightly dodgy, they do have claims to fair use on them, but I'm not sure they're 100% valid. I'm tempted to leave them for the moment and see if anyone outside the Wikiproject decides to challenge the claims. I'd suggest we don't use any more though. It's been discussed on WPF1 before (must be on an archive page) and I've discussed it in person with several members (41ue and Skully Collins in particular) and a few of those images were uploaded a fair while back, but I wouldn't be opposed to raising it again if you felt it was needed. Alexj2002 21:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport/Assessment

We don't need a separate assessment page, judst redirect to this one! Pyrope 18:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WWE PPV's

Those dates are not official. Unless you have an OFFICIAL source (i.e. WWE), do not revert it back. TJ Spyke 23:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD Grand Slam

I counted the Grand Slam as 12 keep vs 6 delete, I'm not sure how you call that no consensus. I don't want to change the AFD page but I think that you should note that a 2:1 majority for Keep should be listed as Keep, rather than no consensus. Darrenhusted 22:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFDs

You should read [1] this and other parts of the guide to deletion. Even if the AFD has gone the 5 days, if there is a backlog, it can take a day or so for an admin (who is a 3rd party) to review the nomination and close it. You are not an admin, and you created the AFDs, so you shouldn't close them the way you did. Wait a bit for an admin to look it over, and they will decide. And I'm not certain that it will end up a no consensus, there are plenty of AFDs with split opinions that still get deleted if the evidence is stronger on one side. I'm just trying to help you out, and let's just let a 3rd party admin close it out. Booshakla 21:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Motorsport Banner

I notice you're adding these to the F1 race reports talk page. It was kind of agreed not to use the WP:MOTOR banner on the talk pages of articles which are fully covered by one of the daughter wikiprojects such as WP:F1. Alexj2002 18:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it something to do with auto-generating worklists? If so, surely it would be better to seperate out the F1 articles from the general Motorsport articles, by creating a worklist from the F1 banner. Alexj2002 19:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of project banner

Hello. Nice work on the assessment page for WP:Motorsport. Can I clarify a couple of points with you? I was wondering what you meant in section 3 of Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport/Assessment, where you mentioned that all sub-project articles should have the WP:Motorsport banner? Do you mean that all motorsport articles should have it? We had previously decided that only those articles that are not covered by one or more sub-projects, plus certain articles of significant cross-project relevance that need our attention, should have our banner. The other question was about the priority rating system. I noticed that you added a table showing the ratings, but I wasn't aware that we had the option to apply a priority rating. Do you think that we should employ this system? Regards, Adrian M. H. 21:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

If you want the child projects to be kept track of by the bot, you will have to set up each of the projects (there is no other way to do it). Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 23:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAID 3-11 March

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

Liverpool F.C. has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

[edit] ITV F1 2007

They're not broadcasting it in HD, as they don't have an HD channel. FOM are supposedly supplying the feed in 16:9 widescreen, and if you look on Radio Times, etc. it is billed as being in widescreen.

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Backlash07.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Backlash07.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. 06:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toyota F1

Hi Davnel. Thanks for the taking the time and trouble to do the reassessment - I think it's always better to get someone else to do it to get a different point of view. Looking at the Good Article page, we can't just put the article straight through at that level, it has to be listed on the Good Article Candidates page first. Let's put it at 'B' for now, and list it at GA and let a completely neutral third party judge it. Cheers. 4u1e 07:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, thank you. I guess this is a new process you're trying to get going - maybe it would be better for future ones to leave the requested assessment on the article's talk page, where others can see it too? 4u1e 21:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I know. Not a complaint, just a thought that occured after having been through the process. :) 21:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for adminship

Hi there! I have removed your Request from the main listing, as it had gotten an overwhelming number of oppose votes (11 as of now, with no support ones). The main concern of the editors was that you do not need administrator tools (as the answer #1 does not indicate a real need, you can do what you want without the tools), or a misunderstanding of what Adminship means. I suggest you to continue working in Wikipedia, trying to find topics you like, collaborating as you have done, and before applying again (I suggest not before 3 months have passed at least, as many users would object if you try to achieve adminship shortly after a failed one), try to read the Administrators' reading list, which will give you information about what you can do as administrator. Don't give up, and good luck! -- ReyBrujo 19:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Admin

Hey Davnel - Yes, you can nominate me for a RfA...But I have a feeling that it won't turn out as a positive result. But I appreciate that you think that I'm deserving of being an admin. btw, the others I either have never told or I have told them but they just don't bother, but I prefer being called "Phill". I might as well just changed my signature, shouldn't I?--S kully Collins ^Edits 22:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Skully Collins

I would just like to point out an error you made to the nomination. Skully Collins has just around 3600 edits and not 5000 as you had mentioned..Thanks..--Cometstyles 20:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

I'm sorry but the last time I checked, 3 people is not a consensus. For your information I've been very busy in real life. For something as important as changing the project templates to something universal, there needs to be a longer period of discussion and more people need to know that there could be a change. Readro 16:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Running Man's Barnstar

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For the semmingly tirless work in Wikiproject:Formula One SlakaJ 17:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your race report edits

Could you please take a look at the discussion going on at WP:F1 regarding the edits you've made to race reports. It would appear most of the content has been copied straight from the GrandPrix.com encyclopedia. Alexj2002 17:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a word-for-word copy? Take this from the article 1994 Australian Grand Prix:

"There had been some changes to the field since Suzuka with the pay-drivers taking over. Larrousse was down to Jean-Denis Délétraz and Hideki Noda while Simtek had replaced Taki Inoue with Domenico Schiattarella. Otherwise the field was the same as it had been in Suzuka."

and compare it with this from http://grandprix.com/gpe/rr564.html

"There had been some changes to the field since Suzuka with the pay-drivers taking over. Larrousse was down to Jean-Denis Deletraz and Hideki Noda while Simtek had replaced Taki Inoue with Mimmo Schiattarella. Otherwise the field was the same as it had been in Suzuka."

Changing Deletraz to Délétraz does not mean that it isn't still a copyvio. Alexj2002 18:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1995 Pacific Grand Prix

I've done that one as a 'proof of concept' if you like: it took me about an hour and a half and is taken from web based sources and (hopefully!) doesn't infringe any copyright. It could certainly be improved, though. I'm not expecting anyone to revert my edits. The three sources I've used for that one should stand you, or anyone else who wants to do race reports, in fairly good stead for knocking up brief race reports for pretty much any championship race. I'm always surprised how much you can reconstruct just from the raw race data - fastest laps, who led when, that kind of thing. To be honest race reports aren't something I particularly enjoy writing, so I'm not planning on doing (m)any others, although you never know! Good luck with your writing. Drop me a line if I can help with anything, but be warned, I'm horribly disorganised and it can take me some time for me to get round to replying ;-) Cheers. 4u1e 20:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Woolmer

Hi there. I don't know whether you saw the talk page discussion about whether to fork the Woolmer article into two for balance but it would have been a good idea to record your reasons for doing this as there was not a clear consensus that this was a good idea. That said, I like the lay-out you have come up with and, if you don't mind, I'll do some work on it myself when I have some spare time. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:TNA Impact!

Sigh, the argument is STILL going on there if you want to discuss it. TJ Spyke 23:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/v/User_talk%7EDavnel03_8296.html"