User talk:D.M.N./Archive 1

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. &mdash; 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, 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! :) &mdash; QuantumEleven 23:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello,, 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! &mdash; QuantumEleven 23:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

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)

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 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).
 * or

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

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

* 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)

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

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)

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)

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.--Deskbanana 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. Guide_to_deletion and Deletion_policy are helpful. One area you could help with is Deletion_process. 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)

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)

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)

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:

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

And with the fields populated, it looks like this:

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)

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). --ais523 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 (UTC)

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)

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 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)

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)

Copyright issue with Image:Alex Zanardi.jpg}}}
Hello. Concerning your contribution, :, 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. As a copyright violation, : appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. : 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:. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at :, 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)

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 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)

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

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)

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)

AFDs
You should read 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)

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)

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 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)

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 23:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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.

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.

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:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Template
I don't know. It's quite a big change so I'm reluctant to go ahead without a definitive consensus. Readro 15:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD
A tag has been placed on Wolf WR7, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. mcr616 Speak! 17:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Place the hangon tag on it then. mcr616 Speak! 17:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: template
No-one voted in favour in the first vote. Even though only three people voted at WP:MS, I'd say that the consensus has gone against the proposal. I chose not to contribute to the second (revised) proposal, as it would not achieve anything. I'm not in favour of it, but I don't really want to go over it again anyway. Adrian  M. H.  17:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD
Sorry bout the speedy delete. I didn't really think it met the notability guidlines, but apparently it did. mcr616 Speak! 02:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

BT19
From books I'm afraid (They're listed at the bottom of the article).

However, you could try the following sources of information:
 * www.research-racing.de
 * www.oldracingcars.com
 * www.forix.com
 * www.ddavid.com
 * www.chicanef1.com
 * www.ultimatecarpage.com
 * www.allf1.info
 * www.f1technical.net
 * www.statsf1.com
 * www.gpracing.net192 Not being updated any more, so site is starting to fall apart...

They vary in accuracy, so you're usually best to compare info from more than one site to make sure you're getting an accurate picture. If all else fails try googling the type number of the car you're after.

Pictures and things I normally try to find from flickr or wikimedia commons, obviously checking to be sure they have an acceptable license. Hope that's helpful! 4u1e 16:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing minor things
Hi Davnel. I'll update the Footwork Arrows links sometime this week. I added it on to the WP:F1 task list in case anyone else was interested in picking it up before I got around to it, but nobody has, so I'll do it. I'm less enthusiastic about updating the Jyrki Järvilehto references, since the existing redirect page means that if you click one of the "Jyrki Järvilehto" links, you end up at the right page (JJ Lehto) anyway. DH85868993 04:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Toyota F1
Hello, and thankyou for taking time to analyse the Toyota F1 article. 4u1e has given me lots of help to get this article to a very good standard. My aim is to ultimately get this article to FA status.

Included in the guidelines, I was told to replicate as much as possible that was possible from Brabham (Featured Article) and Fittipaldi Automotive (Good Article), and the 'notable drivers section' came from the latter. Being a 'good article', I thought a notable drivers section for the Toyota F1 article would be good.

However, if you think this will hamper the article's chances, please let me know why. Thanks Lradrama 18:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: WM23
First, let me say that I did NOT mean to mark it as vandalism, it clicked the wrong type of revert. While it's not vandalism, it's certainly not notable as established by consensus on the article's discussion page, that's why I deleted it. It has been deleted at least 20 other times when mentioned by other editors. I do apologize again for marking it as vandalism. Bmg 916 SpeakSign 16:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing that to my attention, but I'd rather not, knowing me I'd lose it eventually. I'll let everyone else figure out a consensus and then I'll just follow that. Bmg 916 SpeakSign 16:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What I'll say is that the link cited gives personal opinions and nothing with proof so it couldn't be reasonably used as a reference ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ SpeakSign 16:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has phrases/words like "it is believed", "is expected", "fans in attendence said", "reportedly", "apparently", "would lead many to believe" (i.e. pure personal speculation) and the bit about Michaels shouting something is just something the author's buddy told him. My comment wasn't intended as an attack in any way, it's just the Wrestleview article itself isn't suitable for a reference. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ SpeakSign 17:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable
Please do not remove the replaceable tags, such as you did to Image:EvolutionsEntranceTripleHRicFlairBatista.jpg. If you believe it would be impossible to replace the image (that is, the subject no longer exists), please explain why using the template outlined. Thanks! --Yamla 17:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: WCW
Hmm, besides books and DVDs on the subject? try here. and here and here. If you need more, I'll try searching for some, hope this helps! Bmg 916 SpeakSign 18:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Sex, Lies and Headlocks" would be an excellent book to quote from. I'll have a look later and see if I can unearth my copy ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ SpeakSign 18:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Shawn Michaels
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Davnel03! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule obsessedwithwrestling\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 08:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and will be removed. Thanks. Shadowbot 08:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop spamming Wikipedia. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing. Shadowbot 08:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Shadowbot 09:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oww is on the blacklist of shadowbot, and he is overriding all those links. We are aware that it is a good link, but oww is being spammed by someone, and there is atm no way of stopping that (it is likely that the person involved is also doing a Joe job, it seems he is using multiple IPs and multiple accounts on several wikis).
 * Please make the edit with a textual reference and leave a note on shadowbots talkpage. It is not detrimental to have the link in place now, that can be done later.
 * By the way, shadowbot is a bot, operated by shadow1. Shadow1 himself is probably sleeping at the moment.  Hope this explains, have a nice day.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've put your references back in and it seems there's no bot reverts now. Looks like it's all sorted out now. --  O akster   T alk   15:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've just noticed. Awesome stuff. --  O akster   T alk   19:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think so yet. You've referenced his wrestling career from 1992 to now but not really much of his earlier career or any of his personal life (which I think definitely needs to be referenced). Also there's a few templates lying around that needs to be sorted out. But you're definetly getting there. Keep up the work. --  O akster    T alk   19:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Block
Sorry about that. The page you are trying to link to is on Shadowbot's blacklist because of a banned user trying to blacklist that website because his columns were removed from there at the request of Wikipedia. You will have to contact Shadow about it.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 09:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Subcategories of Category:Formula One cars
Hi Davnel. I notice you've recently created a few new subcategories of Category:Formula One cars. We had a discussion about this a while back, which I have reopened here - you may care to participate. DH85868993 00:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

WCW
I've got some references from the book dealing with the earlier days (I think that period will be more difficult to source so I concentrated on that). I'm concerned about over-referencing from one book though so I'm looking on news-sites for particular bits at the moment. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ SpeakSign 17:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So far I've got 20 refs with quite a few news sites there. I'm going to have to find a lot more though. I could probably ref the entire thing using the "S, L & H" book but that would just make it look like the whole article was based on one book (which it clearly is not). I'll probably be able to use the WrestleCrap book and "Foley is Good" for some more. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ SpeakSign 21:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!
Thankyou very much for my first barnstar! This means a lot to me, it really does, and it's lovely to know that my work is being appreciated. Thanks very much! Lradrama 15:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My Autograph Book
Thanks for signing it! Bmg 916 SpeakSign 16:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

STOP making the GTA char. articles
I don't mean to sound mean, but STOP making these articles. They are unnecessary and say the same things as their character list sections. Please stop making them. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 01:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

STOP!!
Please can you stop blanking articles under the WPPPW banner. We are doing our very best to source them. I'm sure you'll find plenty of other articles that aint sourced. Just please STOP. Davnel03 11:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, you will this and this, oh and this. Another on the end. Happy BLANKING, b****. Davnel03 15:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You will find that this has been long discussed on the administrative noticeboard. Please refrain from personal attacks in the future or you will be blocked.  Burntsauce 15:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Time to back off
Speculation on your part such as this, in no way helps the situation. It's time for you to disengage here and let Checkuser sort it out.--Isotope23 13:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It depends... possibly a few days. Long checkusers like this one tend to take longer.--Isotope23 13:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and now it is a mostly a moot point because Burntsauce has been indef blocked by .--Isotope23 14:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Mickie James
It looks great with all those refs. BTW, do you use Firefox? I have noticed in the past that Firefox users experience the site differently than those using IE or other browsers (an article might look fine in Firefox but have big white spaces in IE, and vice-versa). TJ Spyke 09:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:MichelleMcCool.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:MichelleMcCool.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 15:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:MichelleMcCool.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:MichelleMcCool.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 15:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:FU
Your violation of WP:FU on Michelle McCool has been reverted. Please refrain from using any more fair-use images solely to depict a living person as this is not permitted by WP:FU. --Yamla 15:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:McCoolJamesStevens.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:McCoolJamesStevens.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 15:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:MariaMattStriker.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:MariaMattStriker.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 15:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:MariaCandiceECWExtremeStripPoker.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:MariaCandiceECWExtremeStripPoker.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 15:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:MickieWWEWomensChamp.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:MickieWWEWomensChamp.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 15:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:MickieAshley.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:MickieAshley.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 15:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:WWEECWONS07.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:WWEECWONS07.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Yamla 16:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Morbidelli Adelaide 1995.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Morbidelli Adelaide 1995.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Yamla 16:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ferrari412T1B1994.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ferrari412T1B1994.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Yamla 16:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:1995AustraliaCoulthardPitwall.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:1995AustraliaCoulthardPitwall.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Yamla 16:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:1995AustraliaF1Start.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:1995AustraliaF1Start.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Yamla 16:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:FootworkFA15.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:FootworkFA15.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Yamla 16:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FootworkFA15.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:FootworkFA15.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 16:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:RR07.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:RR07.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Yamla 16:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Backlash07.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Backlash07.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 16:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1995AustraliaTakiInoueSpin.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:1995AustraliaTakiInoueSpin.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 16:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:1995AustraliaTakiInoueSpin.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:1995AustraliaTakiInoueSpin.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Yamla 16:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Images
You said: "Yamla, I've jsut logged on to Wikipedia, to find I'm being bombarded with messages trying to say I've put the "wrong" tag on images, and they've all come from you. You're really confusing me. I've labelled it under the proper license (most I have got from WWE.com [as specified by the tag on the images]), so what's the problem. Yamla, you've really put me under a lot of pressure for unnecessary reasoning. Also, WHY ARE YOU ONLY TARGETING ME? It's like as if you're threatening me. Yeah, look under Category:WWE Promotional Photo. There's lots more images, LIKE MINE WITHOUT TAGS ON."


 * I'm not only targeting you. I have tagged hundreds or even thousands of images when they do not meet Wikipedia requirements.  Please read WP:FU which explains these requirements to you.  If you find other images which violate our policies, please tag them yourself.  Thanks!  --Yamla 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You said: "Yamla, I don't mind if the non-WWE images are deleted, but all of the WWE photos have come from WWE.com. By the way, I also stuck the template on also, how can that not make it alright? Also, do I just need to say where it's from, and it won't be deleted?"


 * The information you provide must be verifiable. Please see WP:V.  That means that you must provide a link to the page on WWE which provides this image.  Also, as I have pointed out, images must adhere to WP:FU.  That means only freely-licensed images, not WWE promotional images, if the subject of the image still exists (that is, if the person is still alive).  That means providing a detailed hand-written fair-use rationale justifying any fair-use images, as also pointed out by the WWE template itself.  But remember, no fair-use images to depict living people.  And please don't claim I am threatening you or personally attacking you for making you adhere to Wikipedia policies.  --Yamla 17:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You said: "So what about all the other images under the same category where the person is still alive, hey? By the way, I've sourced the WWE related images, so you can remove the templates that are no longer relevant."


 * Please tag any fair-use image you find being used solely to depict a living person with to indicate that it is violating WP:FU.  It gives people time to resolve the problem if possible and if not, the image will be removed and then deleted by the appropriate people or bots.  --Yamla 18:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed the no-source tag from Image:MichelleMcCool.JPG. Of course, we still cannot use the image so I left the replaceable tag on that and the other images you have added a source to. --Yamla 18:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You said: "Are my images (the WWE ones) OK now that I've put the appropriate link on them. Sorry about the comments earlier - I got very heated up about seeing tonnes of them on my userpage. Can you remove the templates, then?"


 * Most of them are still replaceable. That is, they are still being used to depict living subjects, so they still violate WP:FU.  If you aren't sure why, please ask and I'll try to explain in more detail.  And no apologies necessary, I know sometimes being hit with a large number of warnings can be quite frustrating.  It's a little difficult because if I don't warn people about each tagged image, I get attacked for sneakily deleting people's images without giving them a chance to fix them.  And if I don't tag the images, they never get fixed!  --Yamla 18:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You said: "If you aren't going to remove the tags, why don't you add the tags to every single photo that falls under Category:WWE Promotional Photo, then?"


 * Because I monitor a little over 10,000 pages. That's well under 1% of the articles on the Wikipedia.  I'm not responsible for fixing every problem everywhere.  If you find images which violate WP:FU or some other policy, you are expected to tag them appropriately.  --Yamla 18:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, the reason they aren't replaceable is because WWE ban people taking in digital cameras to the arena, especially if their right near the front. Same goes with video cameras and mobiles as videos can (and mostly do) escape to YouTube. Davnel03 18:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is insufficient grounds for living people. Additionally, many people have been able to create freely-licensed images regardless of any camera ban.  --Yamla 18:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Take, for example, Randy Orton. --Yamla 18:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely
You have been blocked indefinitely for your personal attacks and legal threat here. This is as per WP:NLT and WP:NPA. --Yamla 18:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, for your deliberate vandalism. --Yamla 18:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not blank your block message from this page or we will have to protect this page against your vandalism. --Yamla 18:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Backlash07.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Backlash07.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 07:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Lotus1091994.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Lotus1091994.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock Request
Please unblock me. I sincerley apologise for my legal actions earlier this year, and I drop my comments that I made as I now believe I stepped over the mark and they were unneccesary on my behalf. I hope that I can do what I do best: edit Wikipedia. I will try and not get heated up in arguments, and just try to leave for a few days for the argument to calm down. Please can you look at my contributions before making your final decision. I would be very greatful if you could give me a Second Chance here on English Wikipedia.


 * Possibly. Will need to discuss with blocking admin. Please bear with us. Spartaz Humbug! 15:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Please note that this person is a confirmed abusive sockpuppeteer who has been violating WP:SOCK as late as the middle of June, and has been "misleading" us about at least one of his sockpuppet accounts. However, I would support another administrator who decided to use the 2ndchance template to extend this user the possibility of earning back the trust of the Wikipedia.  --Yamla 15:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for considering my unblock request. Davnel03 15:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OK 2nd Chance here we go: This request for unblocking has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:
 * Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
 * Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
 * If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas.
 * Click edit this page</tt> on that article and scroll down past the message informing you of your block.
 * Copy the source of that article and paste it to the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading (like this: ) and save the page before you improve it.
 * Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
 * When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
 * If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "<tt></tt>" to your talk page. Thank you.

'''I have 2 further conditions:
 * Full disclosure of any remaining socks
 * An undertaking that you will control your temper in future.

I'm going to be monitoring your contribs. If I catch you swearing at anyone again I'm going to restore the indef block without any warnings. If you would like any advice on controlling your temper I'm available on my talk page (since I have a vile temper that I'm mostly capable of hiding). Please can someone nudge me on my talk if I miss the next unblock after the second chance is completed. Spartaz Humbug! 17:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving me a second chance. Davnel03 17:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Spartaz is not the only one who will be watching you or your puppet menagerie. You have already been using a puppet identity since starting this capaign for reinstatement, so your cause isn't being helped any by that. I would very much like to point out that many of us rumbled your various puppets even before you started replacing whole userpages with abuse, and decided to give you more chances then. Chances which you spectacularly flushed down the toilet. This, then, is far from your second chance. By my reckoning you are up to at least chance number five. I used to be in favour of keeping you here as your edits, while often poor in quality, were obviously made with a real enthusiasm for the subject. However, you have shown a consistent inability to act within a community, often throwing a strop if people didn't do things in exactly the way you wanted, which was ultimately doing more harm than good, and you certainly were not making friends. This issue is quite apart from your temper, which is foul. After the last period of time I simply can not support any return of editing privilages back to you. Three months just isn't enough time to undergo a complete personality change. Pyrope 10:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If I do swear or abuse others, you can indef block me without any warning. I have also learnt from what has happened before, and sincerly apologise for my actions, as I stated earlier. As you can see from what I am doing below, I want to make articles on Wikipedia better.Davnel03 15:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Pyrope that this will be a 4th or 5th chance, having already created sockpuppets to get around the ban. However as it seems that another chance will be granted, I am going to note on this talk page some instances of abusive behaviour that were not originally required for the block but I wish to note in case they are required in future., , ,,  . I also seem to recall several edits from sockpuppet accounts saying almost exactly the same thing about being a changed character before once again turning nasty. AlexJ 19:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

=2007 French Grand Prix= The 2007 French Grand Prix was the eighth race of the 2007 Formula One season. It was held on 29 June–1 July at Magny-Cours.

In March 2007, the Fédération Française du Sport (FFSA) announced that it would take a year out of the Formula One world championship in 2008. However, on 31 May, Bernie Ecclestone confirmed that the 2007 French Grand Prix would be the last to be held at Magny Cours.

It was won by Kimi Räikkönen of Ferrari, followed by team-mate Felipe Massa and Lewis Hamilton of McLaren-Mercedes.

Pre-Race
From the United States Grand Prix, the Formula One teams headed to Silverstone for a three-day test. Nine teams participated in the test at Silverstone, but Honda and Super Aguri opted to test at the Jerez circuit. Neither Ferrari or McLaren were fastest on the first two days at Silverstone, and instead it was Toyota that was fastest on both of the days. However, on the third and final day of testing Felipe Massa put Ferrari on top with a time of 1:20.805. The nearest challenger, Nico Rosberg was 0.469 behind, with Fernando Alonso only 0.010 behind Rosberg. With Ferrari fastest on the third day, both of their drivers, Massa and Kimi Räikkönen were very confident heading into the French round of the season.

However, behind the scenes at Ferrari, the team launched a criminal investigation against their own worker Nigel Stepney in Modena. Stepney's lawyer ruled out sabotage claims, and Stepney said it's just part of a "dirty tricks" campaign.

There was also controversy at the rear-end of the grid, as Spyker asked the FIA to look at the new updates that were put on the Super Aguri at Indianapolis to see whether the Aguri team are recieving current Honda parts. On Saturday, Super Aguri's managing director Daniel Audetto said "We have rules - they [Spyker] can just protest. Tell them to protest - if I have something to complain about, I will make a protest."

Robert Kubica was back in his BMW after his horrendous crash at the Canadian Grand Prix. Early on Saturday, Nick Heidfeld was cleared to continue in his BMW after experiencing back pains during Friday practice.

Ferrari dominated both practice sessions on the Friday, with Räikkönen fastest in the 1st Practice Session and Felipe Massa was fastest in the 2nd Practice Session. Behind the dominant Ferraris, Alonso was third in his McLaren, but seven tenths behind the dominant Ferraris, with his team-mate and World Championship leader Lewis Hamilton sixth, but lost nearly an hour of the session due to car trouble. The two McLarens were split by David Coulthard and Nico Rosberg.

Hanilton managed to recover from his morning trouble to post the fourth fastest time in the 2nd Practice Session on Friday afternoon. The Ferraris were still leading at the front, but Massa was fastest, just 0.035 seconds ahead of Räikkönen. However, one of the major suprises came from Scuderia Toro Rosso, as Scott Speed posted the third quickest time, with Vitantonio Liuzzi posting the fifth quickest time! During the session, Liuzzi was involved in a bizarre incident with Anthony Davidson. Davidson exited his garage, and smashed his Super Aguri into the side of Liuzzi's Torro Liuzzi; knocking his front wing off in the accident. After finishing the first practice session in third, Alonso finished the second practice session down in eigth.

In the final practice session on Saturday morning, Hamilton managed to beat Ferrari, with the Englishman ahead of second-placed Massa by 0.063 seconds. Hamilton and the two Ferraris completed the top three, but Alonso was again down in eigth, having missed nearly the whole of the session with a faulty brake sensor. The Renaults sparked a return to form with Heikki Kovalainen and Giancarlo Fisichella fourth and fifth, both ahead of rivals BMW, who were sixth and fifteenth respectively.

Part 1
Both Spykers and both Super Aguris were knocked out of the first phase of qualifying, along with Alexander Wurzs Williams and Vitantonio Liuzzis Torro Rosso. For Super Aguris Takuma Sato, it didn't matter where he qualified, as he was docked ten places, due to overtaking Jenson Button under yellow flags at the last Grand Prix. Spykers Adrian Sutil was hoping for a wet race after a unspectacular qualifying. At the front end of the grid, the McLarens were first and fourth, with Hamilton on top, and the Ferraris splitting them in third and fourth. Heikki Kovalainen rounded out the top five.

Part 2
David Coulthard never completed one timed lap due to a gearbox problem, and started 16th. Both Hondas were knocked out also, along with Mark Webber, Scott Speed and Ralf Schumacher. Both Button and Barrichello were more happier with the upgraded Honda, with Button saying "the car is certainly better than the last race in Indianapolis, although the positions don't reflect that". Hamilton was again fastest in Part 2, with team-mate Alonso down in 5th. Massa, Räikkönen and Kubica rounded out the top four.

Part 3
After topping the first-two parts of qualifying, Hamilton dropped to second, with Massa taking Pole Position, just 0.070 ahead of the Englishman. Masa stated in the post-Qualifying press conference that "it looks like we [Ferrari] are back and fighting", with Hamilton believing pole was possible had he of not made a mistake at Turn 15. Räikkönen starts third as he lost time on one corner, which he called "all my fault", but Alonso was further back after qualifying back in tenth after suffering a gearbox problem, which put him out of Part 3. He stated that he'd "prefer a wet race". Behind Räikkönen was Kubica in fourth, but despite qualifying fifth, Giancarlo Fisichella believed there was "potential for more" from the Renault. Fisichella's team-mate Kovalainen was sixth, with Nick Heidfeld seventh. Jarno Trulli, Nico Rosberg and Alonso rounded out the top ten. Rosberg also had a slight gearbox problem in the final part of qualifying, which he believed cost him a few tenths coming into the final few corners.

Race
Hours before the race started, sad news reached the Magny-Cours circuit as it was announced that three Bridgestone employees had died in a helicopter crash on Saturday night, and one other badly injured. One of the people killed, Emmanuel Longobardi was a popular member of the Formula One Paddock.

Massa got off to the best possible start and retained his lead, but Räikkönen passed Hamilton into Turn One. At the back of the field, Anthony Davidson hit the back of Vitantonio Liuzzis Toro Rosso. The Toro Rosso came back onto the track and smashed into the side of the Super Aguri. Liuzzi said afterwards that "all we can do is wait for Silverstone and hope that the definite improvement we have made with the car pays off". At the Adelaide hairpin, Jarno Trulli rammed into the back of Heikki Kovalainen. Trulli was out, but Kovalainen continued at the back of the field. Trulli apologised to Kovalainen after the race, and declared it "a racing accident". The tangle promoted Alonso up to 8th.

Robert Kubica was quickly losing ground on the two Ferraris and Hamilton. Alonso passed Rosberg for 7th, and quickly closed in on Heidfeld, but stayed behind him until he pitted on Lap 16. Alonso attempted to get past on Lap 5, but ran wide, giving the position back to the German. Hamilton also pitted on Lap 16, with Massa pitting on Lap 19 and Räikkönen on Lap 21.

Räikkönen decreased Massa's lead back down from 4 seconds to 2 seconds. Alonso passed both Heidfeld and Fisichella in the middle section of the race. In the second round of stops, Räikkönen pitted two laps after Massa. These two laps extra gave Räikkönen the lead after his second stop, with Massa now second. Alonso pitted for the 2nd time on lap 35. Heidfeld and Fisichella pitted several laps later, and both of them got out in front of Alonso.

Räikkönen won the race from team-mate Massa, with Hamilton third. Massa stated that the race win was lost "because of traffic", while team-mate Räikkönen stated he was "much happier with the car". Kubica was a lonely fourth, with Fisichella, Heidfeld, Alonso and Button rounding out the points. Despite it being Button's first points of 2007, he said that he's "not getting too excited about it." Despite finishing seventh, Alonso was still confident about his title chances saying that he hopes the "two points are important at the end of the season."

'KEEP ALL THE BELOW THE SAME ON THE ARTICLE!''

Qualifying

 * Takuma Sato demoted to 22nd place due to penalty imposed after US Grand Prix