User talk:85.148.213.144

Welcome!

Hi 85.148.213.144! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Love of Corey (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Hello, I'm Love of Corey. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to 2020 Vienna attacks have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Love of Corey (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:2020 Vienna attacks. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Love of Corey (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The Last Jedi

I noticed your question about why Star Wars: The Last Jedi page is semi-protected. Any page that is consistently vandalized by non-registered accounts will become protected for a period of time. This is fairly common on high profile articles on Wikipedia. - Nemov (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand that. My question was why specifically that page? No other Star Wars movie pages are semi protected apart from that one. 85.148.213.144 (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Ghostbusters (2016 film), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Uranium Site (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Thank you. I added a reliable source. Gold333 (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Additions to Prost-Senna rivalry page

Hi there - I believe your additions to the rivalry page are broadly correct, but they need to be sourced or else we have to remove them. Can you cite a source? The "truck" statement, if rumor is correct, comes from the 2024 Prost docuseries on Canal+ which isn't available in the USA, so I'm unable to watch and/or confirm it. Namelessposter (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. RE: references, these are facts I have learned in 40 years of reading motorsports magazines and watching interviews. Some (in fact most) predate the existence of the internet. They are unavailable as digital references unless some source has all Autosport and Motorsport magazines digitized. They are correct and valuable facts though. I would suggest not removing them so that people may reference them when the sources become digitized in the future. Plus it gives people a chance to disagree with them.

85.148.213.144 (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I pulled up some sources and did some tweaking to your additions. Let me know what you think.

To your other point, Autosport articles around... 1990 or so, I think... are frequently online on Autosport.com, and earlier issues are often searchable at https://archive.org/advancedsearch.php. I know for sure that Archive.Org has back issues from the mid-1970s. Motorsportmagazine.com has a very extensive set of back issues, but there's a paywall. Namelessposter (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. Look I'll be honest with you. I am not a professional Wiki editor. I just know what I know, which is available in analogue sources (undigitized as far as I know). You mention that some magazines may be digitized, for which my thanks. The fact os that I have no time (or enough interest frankly) to spend my time working on this. I have no "skin" in this game.

I appreciate your efforts in rewording my additions. If I may be frank, the entire article (not just my additions) are worded in English language that is quite confusing and long winded. 48 words are used when 5 would have done.

To give you an example; Nelson Piquet (at the 1990 Suzuka drivers briefing) did indeed criticize the 1989 decision to force drivers to drive INTO oncoming traffic. The emphasis being [quote] "to drive against another car" [end quote]. This is referenced in the multitude of Youtube clips from the Senna 2010 movie and ad hoc video footage of the 1990 Suzuka drivers briefing on Youtube, where Piquet states this verbatim. After this utterance, all drivers agree, and Senna storms off in protest as can be seen on the video footage.

The article currently states:

"Nelson Piquet bolstered his original position by implicitly criticising the basis for the 1989 ruling at the 1990 Japanese Grand Prix pre-race drivers' briefing. Piquet told Balestre that turning around or backing up to reach the original track position would be dangerous. When Ron Dennis asked the other drivers how they felt, nobody disagreed with Piquet. Senna got up, made explicit what Piquet had left implicit (that Balestre's ruling in 1989 was reckless), and left."

There was nothing implicit in Piquet's statement. He didn't tell Balestre, he told all officials present at the briefing including Bruynseraede. There was also no mention in Piquet's statement of "backing up" or driving in reverse gear to rejoin the track at the point of departure. The key fact mentioned by Nelson being; turning around and driving onto oncoming traffic.

Also, in my opinion Senna did not make explicit what Nelson had left implicit. There was nothing implicit in Nelson's statement. Senna simply left in disgust.

Compare the current wording with what I had written:

"At the drivers briefing of the same race a year later in 1990, driver Nelson Piquet remarked that if the same rule would be applied (a driver being forced to drive against the traffic of approaching F1 cars, to exit an escape road) it would be irresponsibly dangerous. Senna left the 1990 Suzuka briefing in protest after all drivers agreed with Piquet, as Senna had been penalized the year before for doing something all drivers now agreed was just."

In my opinion my wording is a lot more clearer and representative summary.

To end, I believe the entire article suffers from an "obfuscating verbosity" i.e. too many words are used to document relatively simple events, confusing the understanding of the article for the layman. I am not saying delete or ignore events, I'm just saying simplify their explanation. Don't use 58 words when 12 would do.

In any case, I really don't have enough interest in this to care either way. But I wish you all success in making the article better.

85.148.213.144 (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, appreciate the conversation. Here's my response:

1) I appreciate any constructive criticism, but the way Wikipedia works is that if you don't care enough to revise it, you accept the risk that it might not come out the way you would like. You're welcome to revise anything you want. If anyone, including me, disagrees with your revisions, we'll take the issue to the talk page and consensus will determine the outcome.

2) My revision was actually fewer words than your edit (75 vs 79 words). But that is a small matter. Going broadly, sometimes we can't have both precision and concision, and for a rivalry page, I'd rather have precision. There is a lot of misinformation and one-sided storytelling about the rivalry (from both sides) and I would prefer to lay out the facts. But if you can revise in a way that is both precise and concise, I would love that.

3) The word "implicit" refers to Balestre's 1989 ruling. Piquet did not use words like "this is what happened in 1989." Senna was the one who brought the 1989 ruling into it.

4) We do not know whether every driver agreed with Piquet. Based on the mediocre audio quality from the YouTube clip, we know only that no driver audibly disagreed with Piquet. It's a subtle but important distinction, because your version implies that Prost (who was in the room) supported Piquet, which I find hard to believe.

5) Okay, you are right that Piquet did not mention backing up, he specifically mentioned turning around. Thank you for correcting me. I have made that change. I have also clarified that Piquet said this to the entire room.

Namelessposter (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Just an addition: Piquest did indeed refer to 1989 and was not implicitly referring to it. He literally said: "there was a big F-up last year with Ayrton, if we have to do the same thing, [...]" You can see him say this in the video. Also having read the page talk it seems others have referred to the language on the page being very hard to read years ago.

85.148.213.144 (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you send me the video you got that quote from? The version of the driver briefing video that I'm watching and that I cited on the article (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49qF32Pazwc) doesn't have any such quote from Piquet.

The complaints you mention on the article talk page are from 2020, and refer to the original version of the page from 2019 (available here for comparison). The page has been rewritten since then. Namelessposter (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

---