User talk:Pyrope/Archive 2021

Jo Bonnier 1966 British Grand Prix
I'm sorry for not adding a source straight away, but the BT7 that driven by Bonnier did have a 1.5 litre engine. It should be noted Bonnier drove one of the cars that MGM acquired for the movie Grand Prix. Bonnier was not able to drive his usual Cooper T81 as it was still being repaired after his crash at the 1966 Belgian Grand Prix. MGM allowed Bonnier to try multiple cars for British GP and eventually drove Brabham BT7 (chassis F1-2-63). As the car was usually used by MGM for the Grand Prix movie there was no need to "update" the engine. The same goes for the Lotus 25 [chassis R6] that Phil Hill used as a camera car for the Monaco Grand Prix of '66.

As someone who has and does a lot of research on Grand Prix racing and has worked together with respected experts, I would like to point out that websites like ChicaneF1 or StatsF1 (sources that are frequently used on Wikipedia) are not generally regarded as that great sources. While they have a big archive they are not always that well researched and definitely do not have first hand knowledge. I do note that this only goes for the chassis and engine stats. For the other stats like records, StatsF1 and ChicaneF1 are fine websites. Forix is a great website but their stats do have their fair share of mistakes.

While the database of MotorSport indeed has a lot of mistakes the archived copies of their magazine are usually a great source. The notes about Bonnier are on page 20 and 22.

The problem with Formula One stats is that there is a lot of rubbish on the internet. The best source probably are the books of the Formula One register with expert research and with first hand knowledge. Stats wise I would advise to use ORC as a source. This website is incredibly well researched and uses the help of experts to research their stats. And every single car is researched. The archived magazines of MotorSport are usually a great source as well.

I must say that I am not that active on Wikipedia anymore as working on my own database brings me more joy. But I do pop in once in a while and sometimes fix something when I run across it. Best regards, Jahn1234567890 (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, many thanks for the very detailed message. Given the information in the Motor Sport article I am happy to reinstate the 1.5L data. In general I am always pretty wary of secondary sources as far as F1 is concerned, including most databases and those claiming "first-hand knowledge". If data is drawn from works records (e.g. Doug Nye's Cooper or BRM books) then there is more certainty, but interviews with 90-year-olds about which widget was plugged in to the car one weekend in the mid-1960s are always suspect. Hence, contemporary sources all the way as far as I am concerned. Pyrop  e  15:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify with "first hand knowledge" I did mean chassis experts like Doug Nye, Pierre Abeillon, Michael Müller among others who probably have done more research on their given subject than anyone. But also because they usually have acces to official documentation. I do note however that some stats do "update" over time as more information comes available or pictures show up that prove a certain car was used at an event. That's why a site like ORC is probably the best site around that everyone has access to as they update everything. Wikipedia of course relies on sources, and the F1project mostly on online sources. This does causes some issues as reliable sources are not always around on the web. But then again you don't want to rely on a single source, which is probably why sources like ChicaneF1 and StatsF1 are used a lot. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You are no longer welcome on my talk page
This personal attack is unacceptable. Your false accusations of bullying are unacceptable. Name calling like "unthinking MoS fundamentalists" is unacceptable. Accusing me of canvassing with the intent of votestacking is also unacceptable, all covered in WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, etc.I never insulted you or commented on you personally in any way. You are no longer welcome to post on my talk page. You read my edit summary telling you to get off my talk page, yet came back and re-posted your comments. Read WP:TALK. Posting on a talk page after you have been told not to can get you blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that's not true in the slightest. Rather than engage in a discussion you chose to use a blunt tool threat of an RfC "where two dozen editors will all say to follow the MOS as written", instead of actually arguing based on facts and evidence. Your threat of mob action, based on numbers rather than reason, is certainly a threat of bullying. It says "do what I tell you or I will set a gang on you." I have been here long enough to know that there are a sizeable group of editors for whom the MoS is as as God, and no deviation will be tolerated despite evidence that in certain circumstances it is not fit for purpose. Put bluntly, you don't have to canvass or votestack (which I didn't accuse you of anyway) they do that themselves. The rest of your spurious mud slinging is your own invention. Pyrop  e  20:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I find the above interaction and the discussion (?scant as it was) that prompted it a very interesting sociological microcosm. Those who generally behave poorly toward other editors, and try to browbeat and threaten rather than working collaboratively, tend also to have the thinnest of skins when that browbeating and threatening is challenged. I've found this to be true IRL, and it is just as true here in Wikipedia-land. Running away and hiding, whining about not wanting these nasty things (eh?) said on their talk page, is basically behaviour I first came across in the playground four decades ago. Threats of mob-handed action rather than actually having to explain and justify your stance is the stuff of juvenile student politics that take me back to my university days in the 1990s. At every turn it should be challenged and countered and I will not apologise for having done so. I am happy to have people challenge my actions if they are willing to engage in reasonable debate, but threats will always be met with robust rebuttal. Pyrop e  20:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * An entirely different editor raised the need for an RfC, yet you are attacking me for it. For the unextraordinary opinion that special exceptions to a widely accepted MOS rule are why the Snowball clause is so often cited. Again, nobody said anything about you. Nobody called you names, nobody said a "mob" or anything else was going to be "on you". An RfC about flags is about flags, not about you.Please stop spreading false accusations against me. In addition to staying off my talk page, please cease making personal remarks about me. Stop accusing me of disruptive editing. Focus on content. If you have something to say about me, say it in a noticeboard appropriate for user behavior. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I thought you didn't want any further interaction? The original RfC suggestion came from another editor, but you repeated that suggestion and added the point about the numerical advantage, which was the bullying threat. The other editor didn't threaten, you did, so it was you I took to task, and you are certainly familiar with extended implication as you seem to have said something very similar about me right here. At no point did I accuse you of "canvassing" nor "votestacking", yet you read that into my comment. Pot, kettle, etc etc etc. Take some time to read your own comments before coming here to complain of unfair treatment; you do look a little silly. The other editor also pointed you toward a previous exhaustive discussion on this very topic they they, by their own admission, couldn't didn't read properly, and that you don't appear to have even taken a look at. If you had, you would have seen that all the points you are complaining about had been raised and the reasons for the current consensus explained. The MoS is a very useful guide, but it is only ever a guide. In those parts where it was written for too broad an application it fails as it doesn't recognise that alternative situations can be perfectly valid. If you are saying that the only time a sportsperson can be seen to represent their country is when they take part in a team sport such as football or rugby, or they are part of a larger squad such as for the Olympics, then you are operating with one intellectual hand tied behind your back. You are ignoring the codified rules of this particular sporting arena, you are ignoring the history of this sport, and you are ignoring the formal and informal presentation of this sport in reliable sources. Those are the facts of the content dispute, so please address those if you choose to respond again. Further attempts to stifle discussion by issuing threats will get short shrift as before. Pyrop  e  21:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again, I am asking you: please do not make personal comments about me. Do not make accusations against me unless it is at an appropriate noticeboard. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So, no comment on the actual content? I thought you wanted to focus on content? Or did you just want to come here and make personal comments about me? Pyrop  e  22:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Please remove the personal attacks, name calling, insults, and unfounded accusations you posted here. I have repeatedly asked you to stop violating WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. I have repeatedly asked you to take your accusations to an appropriate forum. If you think I've violated Wikipedia policy, you should take that case to WP:ANI. You can comment on the issues in the RfC without the insults and defamatory smears. If you don't delete these personal attacks, I will have to seek sanctions at the Administrators Noticeboard.I do not see any point in us having to bring this issue there. All you have to do is discuss the facts at hand without attacking other people. Do not expect me to reply to your comments about the RfC as long as your posts are uncvil. I will ignore them there and instead seek a topic ban against you at ANI instead.Final warning. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * You have long since demonstrated that you are not arguing in good faith. If you feel inclined to raise an ANI case then go ahead. My comments are merely statements of demonstrable fact. Pyrop  e  02:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Flag icon topic ban user:Pyrope. Thank you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Briatore
The Ford Zetec engines battle of 1993 was a master topic in this year. Briatore was the centre of attacks and criticism. It was relevant in his career and F1, fans accused him of being unsporty. It was relevant also as the lack of Ford Zetec engines made Senna leave McLaren. The source says Briatore doesn't allow Senna and McLaren use the engines, from middle of the article with quotes by Briatore.


 * Hi, thanks for following up. None of the information you have mentioned above was in the article, therefore the comment you added was unimportant trivia. If you want to make out that this incident was a significant part of Briatore's career then you need to flesh that out with other sources showing that significance, and that it wasn't just the usual F1 storm in a teacup caused by the usual desperation of the media trying to create controversy. Unless that event had a lasting impact you will struggle to provide sufficient sources. Second, no, the article doesn't say that he vetoed the engine supply. He is quoted as asking why Senna should be allowed to demand the engines, but it doesn't actually say he prevented them from being sold to McLaren. You need to provide sources that show what you claim they show, and not require reading between the lines or other outside knowledge. Pyrop  e  19:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Llywelyn2000‎
Don't revert an SPI clerk or a checkuser at SPI again.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * , would you mind providing some justification for that statement please? The admin in question refactored my comment on a talk page (usually not the done thing at all), in the process of which they removed that comment's context and allowed a factually inaccurate statement by another admin to stand unchallenged. Pyrop  e  18:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You put your comment in the wrong section. Even when responding to an administrator, you must do so in the Comments by other users section. In addition, checkusers and SPI clerks control the behavior of editors at SPI. If you have a problem with one of their actions, go to their Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the response. A couple of further questions therefore follow, to pick your brains please. How do you respond to an admin's comments and make it clear that it is part of a single thread of conversation if the comments themselves are scattered across the page? Secondly, why are the comments of HJ Mitchell allowed to remain in that section when they are not an admin either, and particularly considering that they actually started the coversation thread and weren't just responding to an existing thread? Cheers. Pyrop  e  18:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * HJ Mitchell is an admin. Let's take a less complex case. Editor Abc files a new report at SPI. An SPI clerk believes more evidence is needed and asks ABC to provide it. The proper place for ABC to respond to the clerk is in the Comments by other users section; if they don't the clerk will move the comment. The only difference between that and your situation is that the report had gotten extraordinarily complicated (even cluttered from my perspective as a tidy guy), but that doesn't change the principles.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Brabham Featured article review
Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Maserati
Hi Pyrope, a regular contributor of images to flickr called Andrew Bone has called for experts like yourself to identify this car. I have rushed in with Maserati 4CL as you may see if you go look here (I'm Dai777).

The trouble with historic things is that when they were merely old (maybe 5 or 10 years) people might treat them like junk and 70 years later they are no longer in original condition. In this case I suspect it is a "historic" car and possibly stored at Goodwood. Do you know anything about it? How would I get to be confident about my identification? Thanks in advance for your advices. Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC) over the road from Chile in NZ


 * Hi . It certainly looks like a 4CL in terms of the coachwork, but it has too many exhaust stubs heading into the manifold (I see six, but a 4CL should just have four...). I've had a bit of a look around and I think it is almost certainly the car that Markus Neisius has been entering as a Maserati 6CM. The general configuration of the car and the number it carries matches his listing in the Goodwood Revival entry list from earlier this year. I can't find too much information out there about this car (not a marque specialist by any means) but I would assume that he is running a hybrid 4CL chassis with a 6CM engine, or maybe this is a 6CM that was updated post-WWII to near 4CL specification? Just a guess, but it does complicate the identification as calling it a simple 6CM is misleading, but then it isn't strictly a 4CL either. What do you reckon? Cheers. Pyrop  e  15:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you Very much. I looked everywhere for that entry list (I thought). I have updated my comment under Andrew's flickr photo and made comments under the preceding images. Racing cars dwell in air too rarefied for me. I peer at photos and leap to conclusions but GP and Formula cars is too tough for me - as you have shown. I don't mind phoning people 'out of the blue' but I don't trouble people with boring emails of silly questions. Have you any idea who might know enough to provide enough history? The kind of history that might be supplied when advertising the car if it were up for sale. Nothing personal unless they were famous. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi . No worries, it was a great question and I'm happy to throw my ideas into the mix. Likely the easiest thing to do is simply to contact Herr Neisius himself, and ask him why he has a 6CM that looks like a 4CL. Most historic motorsport owners are thrilled to talk about the intricacies of their car (as you say, hardly any are precisely as they left the factory, and even then they were hand built so all vary from car to car) and he would be of course the best person to confirm exactly what is going on. I see that he makes no secret of his contact details (his work listing is here) so a polite and brief contact to that email address is not likely to cause offence. Pyrop  e  14:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)