User talk:Mark83/Archive 2

Archived talk:
 * Archive 1 (April 2004 - July 2005)
 * Archive 2 (July 2005 - January 2006)

Link repair
It looks like you are a UK based person, so what on earth are you doing piping United Kingdom to British. Do you really think they are equivalent? -- RHaworth 22:53, 2005 July 12 (UTC)
 * No, please give me specifics (I have been working on British as a disambiguation page and therefore can't remember where I did that). For the record I understand better than most the full meaning of the terms British/Great Britain/United Kingdom/British Isles etc and the fact that they are certainly not fully interchangeable. Cheers Mark 16:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Forget I said anything. British is probably as good as anything else for people. For place articles, which is what I work on mainly, I prefer to change UK to the correct country, England, etc. -- RHaworth 17:19, 2005 July 13 (UTC)

Renault Sport
The article on the F1 team used to be at Renault Sport, and I moved it to its present title some time in March, leaving behind the redirect. I didn't even think to find out whether Renault Sport was an entity of its own. As for changing the links according to time period: sounds good to me. You seem to know a lot more about Renault history than I do. :-) &mdash; Dan | Talk 23:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Like I say though, I'm not sure about the situation before Renault's return, so I think I'll be conservative with the redirects until that's confirmed. Mark 23:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

RBS logo
Thanks for your message on this image. Fine with me to delete. Astrotrain 20:27, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hi again
Hey Mark - thanks for dropping by to say hello! Your new image is much more "human friendly" :) As far as help goes; WP:A is currently under quite a bit of pressure from a number of angles - it needs knowledgable and level-headed contributors to help nursemaid it through a difficult time. If you care to wade through the morass that is the project talk page, you'll see what I mean! --Rlandmann 15:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Aircraft specifications survey
Since you are a contributor to aircraft articles, you may be interested in a survey currently underway to help develop a revised version of our standard specifications section. Bobblewik 19:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

A View to a Kill
Would this article be good enough? . Heres some excerpts from reviews: No other Bond movie gets labeled like that, but it's hard to find a decent source to say this is one of the worst (refer to #2). For example -> "It's terrible, but that's not such a bad thing, is it? 7/10". Would the CommanderBond.net article be sufficient to cover the statement that it is "often considered one of the poorest entries"? K1Bond007 02:54, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) This is one of the weaker James Bond movies out there,
 * 2) No Bond outing is awful, but this one comes close.
 * 3) Not as bad as its reputation, but certainly among the lesser Bonds.
 * 4) A View To A Kill is often numbered among the worst of the series
 * 5) The worst James Bond film ever.


 * I'm happy with that. I hope you see where I'm coming from, it is a very strong assertion with no evidence to support it. I think the examples you supplied more than do that. Thanks again for taking the time, Mark 15:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah.. I see where you're coming from. I'll add the link to the page. Thanks for your opinion on the matter. K1Bond007 18:46, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Frozenfar
Hi,

So, what should I do? Remove the text and change it with link to the webpage? Reply to David Latapie 23:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi. As the copyvio template is on the page now I would suggest rewriting the article (in your own words from the source) at the temp subpage. Thanks for getting back to me, and so quickly. Mark 00:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. There is no temp page, but all the rest is my own creation (sadly, no one volunteered to help). I will do the same for all pages. At least one hour… Reply to David Latapie 00:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Clicking on the red link above will get you there, it will be just like starting a new article. Mark 00:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

World Community Grid invitation
Sorry, I really don't think Wikipedia is the place for that kind of thing. In fact, I think you're likely to get your account blocked for posting too many messages like this. ike9898 00:24, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * It was only a proposal, and the very reason it was only a proposal is that I was afraid that it might raise objections. It is written in the most (hopefully) reserved way and raised with very few admins for consultation. I was not or am not going to post it any further pending feedback. Thanks. Mark 00:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * While the aims of the organisation itself may well be laudible, the problem is that what you are doing is effectively spamming if you distribute messages like that. It is nothing to do with the Wikipedia at all which further reduces the strength of the case for putting messages like that about. David Newton 07:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: Michael Schumacher
I've checked out your edits in the Schumacher article...while they've definitely taken some of the pov out, I (having neither support for or against Schumi) still feel that section is a little biased against. I cannot pinpoint an exact part (although i think the comment about 'discrete' team orders is unnecessary, as it is not related to schumi), and i don't feel the need to put the npov thingo back on. all in all though, i think you did an excellent job considering the controversy behind the man and those particular incidents in his career, and i guess we will have to wait for comments from his supporters/detractors (taking them with a grain of salt), and see if any changes need to be made. thanks for the work. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 07:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me. I too believe at I am coming to the article unbiased, it's just such a difficult balancing act due to the enormous amount of comment these incidents have attracted over the years. Overall though I think it could be natural to view the section as biased against Schumacher simply by the presence of allegations, nevertheless I think any balanced commentary of his career must recognise these allegations (whether they are well founded or not). Having said that I never expected my new version to be perfect and welcome any NPOV revisions or suggestions.


 * I didn't include this as its POV but just for interest when researching the incidents I came across a M.Schumacher tribute site. The author (a self confessed Schumacher fan) said he honestly believed '94 was a genuine accident but '97 was a blatant attempt to take Villeneuve off and that the 1994 incident received undue attention due to revisionism, i.e. commentators equating the two when looking back.


 * Regarding "discrete" team orders; yes it isn't really Schumacher specific, but I just included it because Ross Brawn said it after the FIA banned team orders (I think his words were something like it will just go "underground") &mdash; perhaps more at home at Scuderia Ferrari. I also thought the emphasis that all teams can practice team orders when it suits them balances the ==Team Orders== section. Mark83 12:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * yep fair comments, thanks again AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 01:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Your signature
Hi Mark. Could you please modify your signature format in some way so that messages signed from you do not look identical to those from me? You could recommence signing with "Mark83", or instead you could add a link to your talk page. There's information about how to do that here. Thanks. - Mark 07:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I never thought about that. I have changed my preferences to produce the signature "Mark83". Mark83 10:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I had to look twice at your post to my talk page, because it looked for all intents and purposes as if I was talking to myself :) Thank you - Mark 13:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

RE:Renault Sport
''Just a small thing, to link a Formula One related article to Renault Sport (RST) isn't correct. Quoting from Renault's annual report: "Renault Sport Technologies is active in...motor sport activities other than Formula 1". Renault F1 is a separate part of the group. Cheers, Mark83 13:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)''
 * Yep thanks for the heads up... I noticed when you went through changing it a couple of weeks ago, but i guess i was used to typing Renault Sport. Duly noted, Renault F1 it is from now on... AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 15:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Sky News
You removed the Astra 1E frequency for Sky News from Sky News as inaccurate. Its not. Sky News has been carried from 19.2E since 1989 non-stop, although it has changed from analogue to digital transmission and moved from 1A to 1E. It is definatively still there. --Kiand 18:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think though that Sky News is broadcast to the UK from a different satellite, is it not just Sky News International which is broadcast from 1E? In any case I'm sorry, I didn't realise Astra 1E was used at all by Sky. Thanks Mark83 18:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sky News and Sky News Ireland - same but for ads and a two hour Irish optout - broadcast from Astra 2B; Sky News International - which is the same but for ads and weather as far as I can remember, broadcasts from Astra 1E. Theres also some form of Sky News presences on Hotbird but its encrypted and in Italian so I've never seen it.--Kiand 18:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up. Mark83 19:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Sprucefield
''Thank you for your comments. I have expanded the article considerably to the point where I believe keeping the article can be justified. I will expand it further in due course. Thanks again Mark83 21:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)''


 * 'Lo. Nice job on the article, it's got something worth reading now. Glad I could be helpful. Slán agat, --Blackcap | talk 21:39, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mark,

apologies for the delay in response regarding the Sprucefield article. It looks like the deletion debate is going the right way now, but let me know if you need any help.--Eloquence* 05:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Problem with Squadron 111 badge
Mark83, a certain Andrew M. Ockenden has taken issue with the image of the badge for RAF Fighter Squadron 111, which user H1523702 (apparently that's you, in a former life?) uploaded last October. Ockenden says he is a former member of 111, and the badge is incorrect. I find that odd, since you say you got the image off the RAF Marham Station website. In any case, if you wish to address this issue, you can find Ockenden's comments, and the discussion that followed, at the Help Desk, under the heading "Treble One Squadron". &mdash; Nowhither 08:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello. I've provided the source information for the badge on Help desk. Both that RAF Marham website and the official RAF listing for the squadron show the badge with numerical "111s" and not roman numerals. As it seems to be Andrew M. Ockenden's or the RAF's error I've suggested he contact them. Mark83 09:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dealing with this. &mdash; Nowhither 10:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

2005 USA-Race
DNS stands for when a car does not take a a race start. Makes sense. By having Ret listed that mean the driver has actually started in that race and will count a race starts towards the driver race start tally.. The formation lap does not count as a lap at all as it is not added towards the race classification. For when does a driver 'start' a Grand Prix? To my mind he does so only if he is on the grid when the flag drops or light goes green at the final start. Should a driver have failed to compete the formation lap, for instance (as was the case with Prost at Imola in 1991), he cannot truly be said to have started the race. In the case of restarted events such as the British GP in 1986, poor Jacques Laffite certainly did start the race, but this was declared null and void and he was not presented to take the restart, which is the only one that counts. For true official race results is best to get them off www.forix.com as they receive their race results from the officials. Yes I know formula1.com is official but not 100% official in statistics. If you decide to leave it as Ret then you must give all the drivers a race start count!

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

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

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

Aircraft specs policy
Several weeks ago, you voted in the WikiProject Aircraft Specifications Survey. One of the results of the survey was that the specifications for the various aircraft articles will now be displayed using a template. Ericg and I have just finished developing that template; a lengthier bulletin can be found on the WT:Air talkpage. Naturally, we will need to begin a drive to update the aircraft articles. However, several topics in the survey did reach establish consensus, and they need to be resolved before we implement the template. It is crticial that we make some conclusion, so that updating of the specs can resume as soon as possible. You can take part in the discussions here. Thanks, Ingoolemo   talk 05:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages with links/Challenge
Since you've been a solid disambiguation participant, I thought you might be interested in this proposed sporting event. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 16:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment
Sorry for that, I had no intention of blanking it, just of reverting it. Demiurge 21:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Vivendi / Veolia
I'm afraid I disagree quite strongly (considering how relatively boring the topic is!) with what you just did with Vivendi SA / Veolia Environnement. Vivendi SA is a defunct name only in use for five years; but the entire history of Veolia is now buried under that name. This is most unhelpful. I do not think Vivendi needs a separate entry at all - redirect to Veolia is sufficient, or disambig with that and Vivendi Universal. Or if it does have an entry, it should be specifically on Vivendi and not on all the company history that preceded "Vivendi"! Rd232 talk 16:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The history you are describing is the history of Compagnie Générale des Eaux which was renamed Vivendi in 1998. The "history" of Vivendi Environnement/Veolia Environnement only began in 2000 with the creation of Vivendi Universal. I can think of numerous instances on Wikipedia where the history of a company only begins with its formation, with the preceding history kept at the original company's page. Mark83 16:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you're making an assumption that is wrong: Veolia is not a new company. The vastly overblown ambitions of Messier failed, and the company returned to its roots. It is CGE under another name. Yes, it's a bit messy, but I had sorted it out (since Veolia is one of the companies I have to know about for work), and you undid it. Please put it back the way it should be. Rd232 talk 17:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Vivendi Environnement/Veolia Environnement is a new company. You have just suggested that CGE is effectively equal to today Veolia. That is wrong. CGE became Vivendi SA and DEMERGED Vivendi Environnement. Vivendi SA then became Vivendi Universal. From an inital shareholding of 63% VU subsequently sold its interest in that company to the point where the former CGE had absolutely no interest in Veolia. It may have been a disaster for CGE/Vivendi/VU to dump its water, energy, waste management and transport businesses in favour of media interests, but it did! Mark83 17:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Your argument above is illogical. CGE is effectively equivalent to VE. The fact that it underwent a metamorphosis into Vivendi and then got split off from Vivendi Universal is irrelevant: CGE's sectors, assets, personnel are very substantially the same as VE's, enough that everybody I know who works in the sector (as I do myself) considers VE and CGE to be the same company. Please don't fight this, you're wrong. Rd232 talk 19:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * We're debating semantics here aren't we? The fact that the sectors, assets, personnel are very substantially the same as VE is because those assets WERE by the late 90's (with communications) one of the two pillars of CGE. All I want is a separate page for CGE/Vivendi history from 1853-2000 due to the importance of that company. How about I simply add the same history to the Vivendi Environnement/Veolia Environnement page?
 * In this way a reader can visit the VE page and understand the full history of CGE's water, energy, waste management and transport businesses and its metamorhis into VE. A reader can also visit the Vivendi SA page and understand Messier's actions to turn the company from an industrial one into a media giant. I've honestly tried to take a step back and look at your point of view and avoid being dogmatic, please do the same. Thanks, Mark83 20:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That seems fine. Rd232 talk 21:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

"Sorry about the delays in replying — work etc. got in the way."
 * I'm shocked and appalled - you'd better check your priorities! ;) Rd232 talk 17:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

747 Advanced
Just wondering why you redirected the above back to Boeing 747? The only discussion I can find is here, where 4/5 people disagreed with the merger of 747 Advanced into Boeing 747. Perhaps there was some discussion elsewhere? Regards Mark83 00:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Because at the time, the 747 Advanced was not even offered, and the article contained a ton of speculation. When it became the 747-8, it became a formal part of the 747 family. Your objection is a little late, and is the first one that I have noticed. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 00:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The common course seems to be discuss and decide. The decision as I see it is 4 to 5 in favour of two articles. That no one else seems bothered that you ignored this convention is not really the issue. I would also argue that given:
 * The aircraft has been offically launched, and
 * The 747-8 information added has tipped the page over the ideal size;
 * it would be better as a heading and paragraph at Boeing 747 and a full description and analysis at Boeing 747-8.


 * Finally as far as I am aware there are absolutely no time limits on challenging edits. I could blank the 747 page and replace it with "its a big tube with wings and engines" &mdash; If you then objected 23 days later I wouldn't argue my case on some notional time limit! Mark83 00:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Speculation
I try my best to remove speculation where I see it. As far as I can tell you are critising me for:


 * only removing the speculative edits I thought wouldn't start a flame war on the 747 article. That whole list needs deleting IMHO.
 * removing speculation that BA's operation of the A320 led to them placing further orders. How do you know they wouldn't have placed the order anyway? I agree mention of the A320 order should have been made on the page and I missed that is wasn't mentioned elsewhere. When you put the info back minus the PoV I was quite happy and left it, so why are you still moaning?

To top all that, you justify re-adding speculation that BA has plans for 747-400 replacement by saying I didn't remove some other bit of speculation during an earlier edit. Surely the correct thing would be for you to remove what I missed, not replace the speculation I removed.

[user: Mark83] The potential customers section on the 747 page is pure unsourced speculation + It is perfectly valid to say that BA is an important potential client for either the A380 or 747-8 in the same paragraph!!

So, in summary, you think pure unsourced speculation is perfectly valid in an encyclopedia.

I despair! ∙ 20:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * YOU DESPAIR??? It is NOT speculation to say "BA is an important potential client for either the A380 or 747-8". Due to its size, reputation and current 747-400 fleet it is! Detail exactly what is speculative about the sentence please. Your paraphrasing ("you think 'pure unsourced speculation' is 'perfectly valid'") is incorrect, childish and infuriating.


 * By the way, we do agree. When replacing the A320 information please note I didn't replace the speculation that it was their experience with the type which lead them to purchase more. Mark83 20:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Detail exactly what is speculative about the sentence please.


 * Don't misquote me, I said the suggestion that BA had plans to replace its 747-400s was speculation. Later you were the one who claimed the potential customers section on the 747 was speculation so I used your definition in my last sentence.


 * Your paraphrasing ("you think 'pure unsourced speculation' is 'perfectly valid'") is incorrect, childish and infuriating.


 * I was not paraphrasing I was quoting ∙ 21:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You ARE paraphrasing! What I originally said was "It is perfectly valid to say that BA is an important potential client for either the A380 or 747-8". That is in relation to what you removed from the British Airways page (i.e. the title of the section on this discussion page). I then drew the comparison between what is NOT speculation (BA an important potential client for either the A380 or 747-8) with what IS speculation on the Boeing 747 page. That is about two distinct sections of two distinct pages. Is that too complicated for you? Mark83 21:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You Only Live Twice
At You Only Live Twice you added that the Bond producers among others were scheduled to be on a flight that eventually crashed. Your source doesn't say anything about this, only that the plane crashed. Not that I don't believe you, but is there a source that actually states they had tickets for the flight? Where did you get that piece of the trivia? K1Bond007 23:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Efficient as ever!! Reference done. I realise the BBC report didn't mention the Bond element, I was just placing it there to reference the actual crash. Interesting though? What would Bond have been like without Broccoli and Ken Adam! Mark83 00:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reference. I've never seen any of the TV documentaries or most of the documentaries included on the DVDs (I only own the first set of DVDs, waiting for next years HD release - although I have them all on VHS) so there are a lot of details I don't know. What would the world be without Broccoli or Ken Adam? Well, without Ken Adam, I'm sure we'd see more in the style of Peter Lamont, but without Broccoli or even Saltzman at this point, I don't know. Scary though. :) K1Bond007 01:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Missing refs
Hi! I noticed that Astra 1A doesn't seem to have any refs, and you've written a fair bit of it. Please could you add some when you get a chance? Thanks! Lupin|talk|popups 04:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi. You asked me to provide a reference for my contributions to Astra 1A. Unfortunately my reference was an SES Astra pdf factsheet which has since been removed from their website. However I have added other references which confirm the basic information presented on the page. Regards Mark83 13:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

BAe Dynamics
I noticed that you edited the article BAe Dynamics to "Revert Vandalism". I believe that this is incorrect as I think that the article was listed in the articles to merge section. Sorry if this is incorrect. --GW_Simulations 11:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, of course it wasn't vandalism, that was a bit tongue in cheek. The reason I reverted it is that I believe that particular division of British Aerospace is particularly important because of the way it fits into wider European defence company consolidation. The Matra BAe Dynamics and MBDA pages link to that page and the various mergers can be particularly confusing, so it helps if there is a clear and concise explanation at BAe Dynamics to explain when it was formed and where it fits in. Regards Mark83 11:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I understand, thanks. --GW_Simulations 11:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the otheruses4 tag/Eurofighter
The reason I put them there, was because Eurofighter, which is technically the name of the company redirected to the aircraft. Although there is a link in the article, I believe that little notice would be beneficial for readers looking for the manufacturer, without knowing the full name. Haven't put it back in, as I'm not interested in a potential editwar, and won't put it back in unless you feel the same way. Bjelleklang -  talk 13:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not that important now, as GmbH is mentioned by name at the top of the article. The thing was, when I inserted the tag, the introduction mentioned a company, but not by name. I suspect that most readers are looking for the aircraft, and as lon as the company is mentioned that early in the article I see no need to reinsert the tag. However, if someone were to write an article about Eurofighter International sometime in the future, a disambiguation page should probably be created, although this should be discussed at Talk:Eurofighter. Bjelleklang -  talk 14:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Typhoon reply
Thank you for your many excellent images! ''Regarding Image:Typhoon.t1.zj807.arp.jpg I notice the rudders of both Typhoon's seem to be fully extended in one direction. Any idea if this is part of the taxying or parking procedure (if there is such a procedure), which also folds the canards?'' Thanks for your kind words. Unfortunately I have no military knowledge at all so can’t help you (I worked at BAe Filton on Airbus A320 and A340 wing design). The two aircraft are static, waiting to display later. The deflection is a nuisance photographically-speaking because it looks as though the rudder has been removed! Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 09:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Stub
Chalk it up to patrolling the "recent changes" page.Bjones 20:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Re Featured picture candidate
You are welcome, Hope you don't mind it's now my wallpaper. Thanks.-- Dakota ~  ε  22:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a great pic either way. I kept the first as wallpaper.Thanks.-- Dakota ~  ε  03:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

FP candidate
Hey, I think you would have to be the best candidate, taking advice. Many people would just forget it. So, thankyou :). I cant wait to see more of your pics on the list. --Ali K 13:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Mark 83 Please Contact me
Hello Mark,

Can you please shoot me an E-mail at your convenience. This is RE your fine work with your F1 input.

Best regards,

Tony Jones

tjones@veritasalpha (dot) com

Re: F1 flags & Eddie Irvine
Yup, I have added a lot of Republic of Ireland flags to represent Eddie Irvine. That was because on 1999_Formula_One_season and the like, he is listed as coming from Ireland. Upon further research, including the FIA, you are correct, he is listed as GBR, and as such, should have the union jack flying next to his name. I will work on rectifying this at my next availability. -slowpokeiv 17:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup, sorry about that. (and yes, I know how people get worked up about it...) GBR or GB would have been correct, Great Britian would be incorrect. (The full and correct term would be: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This Yank keeps making the mistake of shortening it...) -slowpokeiv 22:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)