User talk:Andreasu

Adelaide

Be sure to check out Australian resources, like Australian Collaboration of the Week, New Australian Articles and Australian stub articles. You can list yourself at Australian Wikipedians.

Also, assuming you're an Adelaidean, have you considered participating in WikiProject Adelaide? We need all the help we can get!

Again, welcome.--Cyberjunkie 03:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Andreasu, it's nice to have another Adelaidean on board. Just a tip, when signing your comments, use four tildes (i.e. ~~~~). There is a signature button on the top of the edit boxes that you can use also (it's the second last button). The links in my welcome message are useful for Aussie Wikipedians, and for discussion on WikiProject Adelaide see the project's talk page. --Cyberjunkie 08:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2005 Brazilian Grand Prix

Hi. Thanks for the message. Certainly, we can never discard the possibility of a mistake. I too found it somewhat strange that, if the driver had finished the race (as you said he did), he'd be listed as "Retired" in the official results. Then again, this is most likely a side effect of those new rules. Often, a driver who is forced out early in the race but whose car can be repaired, returns only to avoid being first in the next race's official practice. In that context, the driver only stays out there for as long as it takes for him to "overtake" other drivers that also might have had to abandon the race. In the case of Webber in the Brazilian Grand Prix, his goal was to "overtake" Coulthard, Pizzonia and Doornbos, who had all abandoned the race. So, after he had even been listed as "out", he returned to the race, with 20+ Laps behind the leaders, just so he could accomplish that — notice that, although Tiago Monteiro also retired, he did much later than those other three, and Webber could not have overtaken him. Once this is done, there's no point for the driver to stay in the race, and indeed they all just return to the pits as soon as they have accomplished this manouver. That's probably why Webber is listed as "Retired" but with +26 Laps: he had retired, then returned and, in all likelihood, did not actually finish the race, as he had already overtaken those other three drivers a little before the leaders concluded the race. Still, because he returned, however briefly, he might have been given an official timing and an official number of Laps (behind the leaders).
Since you wrote to FormulaOne.com, I expect this should be cleared up by their response. Depending on the case, we can amend the article then — and it would be a good idea to post their answer on the article's talk page, for future reference. But I'm not so sure that they made a mistake this time; it was probably the new rules causing some confusion...again. Regards, Redux 23:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I see you have already posted the reply on the article's talk page too. Thanks for the note letting me know the answer had come through. Regards, Redux 14:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Button's count

That's actually an interesting issue. On one hand, Wikipedia is obliged to go with official stats (in this case, those put forth by FIA), so unless it's another case where the FIA records are mistaken, we'd have to correct it. On the other hand, I had actually pondered some about this: when I first saw our table with the results, I noticed that all drivers were being listed as Retired (Ret) on our board. Af first, I thought I'd go in there and change all of those to DNS (Did Not Start), but then I remembered something that was said during the build-up to that race and again in the aftermath of what happened: they said that if the teams and pilots simply refused to participate in a race without a valid, compelling reason (and then FIA and the Bridgestone-equipped teams did not recognize the claims that the Michelin tires did not offer sufficient safety conditions to race, and thus this was not accepted as an official reason) they'd be fined, and it was a steep amount that they'd have to pay. However, it seems that the rules say nothing about abandoning a race once it's started (so if one wants to pull over for no good reason, one can do that with no repercussions). That being the case, the Michelin-equipped teams quite simply gamed the system, lining up in the grid and taking the warm up lap, but then not starting to race per se. It was said that, by doing that, technically they had not "refused to participate", and that would mean that they did start, but then retired.
But if that's the case, I have no idea why the FIA stats themselves show a DNS instead of a Ret for those drivers. It would seem, by what happened in the US, that a DNS would only apply if the teams/pilots hadn't even shown up on the day of the race, but since they lined in the grid and even took the warm up lap, they would have taken part in the race. Maybe we'll have to ask FIA for clarifications again? Regards, Redux 03:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. The other users at the article on the 2005 USA Grand Prix are going with the results divulged by F1.com. It would be difficult to convince them to change the stats on a say-so. There's two ways I see that you could convince them that you are right: 1)You could post there that e-mail you got stating that the correct stat for the drivers of the Michelin-equipped teams would be DNS — although they might remain skeptical on account that the person signing the e-mail is not known to them. 2) Maybe a safer way, if we could locate an online version of the F1 rules (possibly a PDF file), and then direct people to the section (I'm sure there will be one) that specifies what a DNS is. That would be a verifiable, undeniable proof that you are right. As I said, my original impulse, when I saw the table, was to replace all the "Ret" with a "DNS". Maybe the fine that the teams were looking to avoid by putting on that show is applicable only in case of a no show, but not if the team(s) show up, line up and take the warm up lap (but then DNS). In this case, the media coverage of the incident may also be a factor of confusion to the users. Personally, I think you're right, and I'd go after evidence myself, but as you probably noticed, I'll be leaving on a wikibreak momentarily, and won't be posting for the next 20 days. But if you can do one of the two things above — preferably the second — it'b be a big step towards convincing people.
Also, if you have some evidence to indicate that F1.com should not be held as the unquestionable official source, it would be interesting to share this with the other users, especially since their reluctance to accept your point is based largely on the fact that F1.com says that the drivers retired (marked "Ret", instead of "DNS"). Regards, Redux 03:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tough break with the military training. Seven weeks!! Anyways, about the updating of the data, there have been more than one instances where users involved with constantly changing (usually due to periodic updates) articles have agreed on a method to avoid chaos while updating the information. Once you convince people that F1.com is not such a reliable source for official data, and that the information is more complex to assemble than most people tend to think, you might be able to persuade users to adopt a system whereby only certain people would be in charge of uploading certain new pieces of information. In this case, a note can be added to the articles concerned informing users to avoid updating that section, unless they have access to or knowledge of the specific sources necessary to do it properly (usually subject to immediate reversion if they edit anyway, disregarding the request), but that will require a consensus between the people more involved with F1-related articles. But it is doable. Regards, Redux 04:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grands Prix

Andreas said: 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.

I too am aware of the possible inconsistency of data on these sites, however I have not worked on these Formula One pages for a long time and most of those which I added, which mainly encompassed the 2003/2004 seasons, were then overwritten by a robot with more accurate, more thorough results.

However I hadn't previously considered the possibility of inaccurate data, particularly on the earlier Grands Prix. I will keep watching these in future. Thank you for your remarks - next time I edit one of these pages I'll double-check the official results beforehand. Thank you. Bobo192|Edits 03:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andreasu said: Then I take it you do unsterstand how a race start is counted towards the driver's race stats statitics. I have found several more erros on formula1..com on DNS and have already send emails to make sure they correct it. I have corrected them in past and are thankful.

I certainly used to. I didn't write most of these race summaries and driver summaries and most of these were written in by a bot which worked on the data from.. either f1db.com or formula1.com. I can't remember which. But that bot left quite a few of the fields blank at the same time.

Personally I'm no longer sure what to do with this information, but it sounds safe in your hands. Thank you for taking this great task upon yourself. There has been a period since the main man, Bill left, that this data has needed to be upheld, and I'm glad we've found the guy to do it. Bobo192|Edits 03:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

150th race start for JV?

Jacques Villeneuve is to make is his 150th race start in the 2005 Japan race if he takes the race start, but now according to wikipedia Villeneuve did start the 2005 USA race so that makes Villeneuve has already started his 150th race in the last grand prix at the Brazilian Grand Prix which is incorrect. As Villeneuve did not take part in the race start for the 2005 USA race. Andreasu 04 October 2005, 13:40.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. However, you have not proven your point. All you've shown is that there is confusion over the results of the 2005 USA Grand Prix. Your arguments about Button and Villeneuve do not contribute anything, since you provide no authorative source indicating that FIA considers the Japanese Grand Prix to be Villeneuve's 150th Grand Prix. I think that it would be better to try to make an argument based on the FIA sporting regulations. Unfortunately, I reviewed them last night and couldn't find anything which applies to this situation. The only relevant sections I could find were the those which describe the procedure for a second formation lap. In this case, the extra formation lap is subtracted from the remaining laps, implying that it is part of the race, but this is far from a conclusive argument. Until conclusive evidence is shown that the Michelin drivers should be qualified as DNS, I think that we must defer to the official Formula One website, http://www.formula1.com. Pburka 23:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005 USA-Race

I am aware of the small controversy surrounding the Ret vs DNS issue. I simply changed David Coulthard to Ret since every other driver was listed as Ret at that time. He did nothing different to the other drivers, so I thought consistency was best. Dtaylor1984 23:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't worked on this article in a while, and I have no knowledge of the fine details of the FIA scoring system, and how they distinguish between a 'DNS' and a 'Retired', so I'm afraid I can't help. I suggest you discuss your concerns on the Talk: page of the article, and the current editors can discuss the issue there - plus to which, the discussion will be available there for future editors (who aren't even here yet) to see. Noel (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, long story short, through inconsistancies and inability to prove those inconsistancies, I have ceased to care. I will whole heartedly agree that statistical inaccuracies exist. Here on WikiPedia. There on Formula1.com. Elswhere, probably. I have two questions, only one of which you can answer.

First, how can a race have only 6 starters, when more than that is required for a race to be legitimate? (FIA's question, not yours) I am fully aware that most of the F1 crowd considered the USGP to be a farce, F1 Racing going as far as to refuse to produce a race report, and I whole-heartedly agree. The only thing I claim, is if points were given, and if more than 6 starters were required for that action to be taken, (a claim that might be faulty, and if so, say it, and I will believe you.) then how can it not count as a start? Again, FIA's question, but whatever the answer, do we have a choice but to follow the answer? (even if it doesn't make sense.)

Second, where can one find authoritative, and accurate race results? (Better phrased: who's correct, and how do I know that?) I have found results listed in FIA's Media Centre [1] and further back to 2001. Are these authoritative? Accurate? If not, who is? In any case, where can one find anything before that? I know you have said Forix.com, but that is not openly available. Even a print source that is authoritative would be acceptable, as anyone (at least to my understanding) can go to their public library and confirm or refuse said results, using those books as sources.

Until these questions can be answered, I have no choice but to abstain from F1 editing, as last time I assisted, even in a task as mundane as adding flag icons and formatting results tables, I was informed that / Ralph Firman was not even listed under the right nationality, and that I was doing the entire 2000 season wrong! (supposedly Mr. Firman has dual-nationality, and his superlicense was issued under Irish nationality, despite formula1.com's insistance that Firman was GBR.) I originally took up editing and updating/standardizing F1 articles as a method to learn the history of F1, as I am a relativly new fan of the sport. As of this moment, I'm not too sure of the soundness of that idea, as it seems that the information here is less than trustworthy, and I don't want to learn the wrong thing. If I can find some valid sources, however, I would be more than happy to assist and edit the WP in as much as I can. -slowpokeiv 04:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand that what we need is a reliable source. Do not continue to spam this discussion around to other pages: keep it at Talk:2005 United States Grand Prix, and provide a trustworthy source. These are the rules, and without them we'd have an unverifiable mess of an encyclopedia on our hands. If this is indeed the correct information, formula1.com will doubtless be willing to amend their record; I know they have done so in the past. — Dan | Talk 03:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to figure out why you posted your arguments about this on my talk page. It must be the standings table template? I created it but only by copy and pasting another user's work - it was a proposal which I decided was a welcome addition to Formula One. For what its worth I agree with the DNS classification. Regards Mark83 21:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Army Reserve

I am considering doing Operator Command Support Systems (ECN256) as a reserve. I have finished uni and still can't find any IT job yet so I am looking at this as it is IT related and hope it will improve my IT skills. What is the pay like? Is there too much exercise? Is it nice? Is the IT training good? Will I have to handle guns and live grenades? -- Zondor 06:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll only handle "guns" if you're in artillery, you handle RIFLES at Basic training. Also, Live Grenades arent used in Basic, you may or may not utilize them at your IET. Also, of course theres too much excercise, you will get pushed beyond any normal capabilities both physically and mentally. I recommend you go in full time because part time blows

As a matter of fact I have applied for the Commandos, on June 30 I have my pre-fitness test. I am going full time next year in January 2007.

Lake Underwood

Hi, someone recently added Lake Underwood to List of Formula One drivers, but I can't find any reference to him entering an F1 race anywhere. I don't want to remove his name until I've checked at least with you - did he ever enter a race??? AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 07:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly correct, Lake Underwood never participated on a Grand Prix weekend but has tested a F1 car on a off season which doesn't even count towards the FIA statistics anyway. Andreas 17:33, 10 April; 2006

Thanks! I'll take him off then. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 08:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F1 portal featured article

The F1 portal (in which I assume you have some degree of interest, as your name is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One) is intended to have a regular rotation of a 'featured article'. I've swapped a few in and out over the last couple of months, but I think it would be better if there were more of a community attempt at deciding this, proposals, votes, that kind of thing. So - why not pop over to Portal_talk:Formula_One#Suggestions_for_Featured_Article: and make a suggestion. Ta. 4u1e 00:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selected articles on Portal:F1

Hello again.

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

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

You may also want to help with the article Gilles Villeneuve, which was the next most popular after Damon Hill. The idea is to try and get it up to GA standard by 16 July and then put it on the portal as the 'Selected Article'. I hope you can help! 4u1e 15:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality of Brabham team

Hi. Thought I'd see if you could help me on a minor point. When I first started mucking about with the Brabham Racing Organisation article the lead stated that the team was Australian. It had never occured to me that it was anything other than British to be honest, as it had always been based here, but I suppose I had forgotten just how many Aussies worked there in the early days! The current words are consequently a bit of a fudge.

Do you know, or do you know how I can find out, which national motorsports body Brabham registered with? This is the only way I can think of establishing an answer to the question of what the nationality of the team is. Thanks for any thoughts you have. --4u1e 19:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! --4u1e 19:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your hard work is about to be deleted from Wikipedia

The article you created, Xavier Perrot is about to be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xavier Perrot.

The faster your respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved. This is because deletion debates only stay open for a few days, and the first comments are usually the most important.

There are several tools and other editors who can help you keep the page from being deleted forever:

You can list the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. If you need help listing your page, add a comment on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
You can request a mentor to help explain to you all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted, here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond on the deletion page.
When try to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you.
Here is a list of your own acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
Acronyms in deletion debates are sometimes incorrectly used, or ignore rules or exceptions.
You can merge the article into a larger article.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. travb (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]