User talk:86.29.222.228

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a certain number of days and made a certain number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (86.29.222.228) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing!  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 21:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018
{{{1}}}

Insert non-formatted text here== Can Öncü wiki page ==

Hello

In December you "re-added the deleted content to clarify 'adult licence'". I was the one who deleted 'adult licence' as I don't believe there is such a thing. The MotoGP Regs talk of a 'FIM Grand Prix Licence' and a 'one event Grand Prix Licence', the latter being given to wildcard riders. There is a lower age limit of 16 for Moto3, but there are two exemptions (CEV and RBRC winners) where this does not apply. That is what I intended to explain by my edit removing the reference to an 'adult licence' and leaving only mention of the age limit (and exemptions). I am still not sure that "a series normally requiring an adult licence" adds anything to meaning of that paragraph.

I thought that I would talk this through rather than simply re-edit the article.

All the best,

BobG PickleB (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @PickleB: - I value your communication, as a newbie (with no other history of generalised editing that I know of). I think you are being over-critical in applying semantics here, and it may be inappropriate to try to psyche-out others at such an early stage in your editing history. Bluntly, it looks as if you are determined to create an argument out of two words, without considering the wider aspect? This being the second attempt. Your worklist is almost-exclusive, showing what WP considers to be a single-purpose account - please consider other editing for wider experience. I'm trying to be helpful, here per WP:BITE.

The content you are disputing is a general encyclopedic entry, not an absolute interpretation/statement of regulations, and what Wikipedia needs is simplification for readers' understanding, not complication. Hence the simplistic, unequivocal term, adult licence, not quoting techno-babble. Wikipedia does not need a third-party source for everything written, just common sense, and its generally supposed to be para-phrased. Children are normally not allowed to race with adults, except in low-budget, entry-level/feeder-series. You've already been advised of including irrelevant detail about the twins birth-times? When it's a basic stub article, that sort of detail can be used to 'flesh-out' the content, though.

What I hope you can learn and assimilate from this interaction is that there is much schoolboy racing (I know that's sexist, but that's the traditional UK term as there was/still is very little female participation by comparison), particularly in Spain, the home of Dorna Sports who dominate everything. Whether you personally consider the term 'adult licence' to be inapplicable or invalid does not allow for common sense, and that people may want to understand easily without considering the exact qualifying detail from series to series. That's why I used the term adult, meaning they (the others) were schoolchildren - literally, under working age. Child competitors will have mandatory, appropriate licencing, but - again - that's beyond the purview of WP, and over-detail is particularly non-relevant in a WP:BLP - just a cursory mention - they can click-through to the reference for that greater understanding if need be.

My understanding is that the racer 'owns' their own licence, not that the team controls their registration. The rider leaves with his/her licence; different to contract law that determines whether the rider can operate with another team. That's why I changed what you had written here from 'by' to 'with' - a subtle difference, but I felt the former implied the team had ultimate control over the entry-sequence. Incidentally, the story of the cost behind Josh Owens racing at the abandoned Silverstone British GP (an example of wildcard as you mentioned above) is that the cost was around £13K with little to show, including £2K entry fee, and two sets of mandatory airbag-leathers, control tyres, control engine (for his own existing bike), probably also control fuel. That's without checking anything for certain but I believe the commentators, several of whom are ex-racers.

Incidentally again, I also deliberately linked to Turkish people - rather than to Turkey - as we don't know for sure where the twins were living during the race season, as the team is Europe-based, and they're beginners, not jet-setters. Another example is Cal Crutchlow who suffered a bad leg break towards the end of the season. Most of the time he spends in Tuscany to be near the Italian team (ignoring that he's a millionaire living in, to some, one of the most desirable places on earth) but for tax-avoidance reasons he is officially domiciled in Isle of Man. You may have heard of the Paradise Papers and of Lewis Hamilton taking his private jet to merely touch down for a short time, then take off again? Cal's father was quoted by UK race commentators that he could convalesce in either Isle of Man or at his place in Socal. I think the former is likely, temporarily in the early stages, to access the Hyperbaric chamber supported by many motorcycle racers in Douglas, Isle of Man (facility website).

Another aspect of guidance I wanted to offer some weeks ago was that when you canvass a Flickr user to change a licence, you should make it clear that WP is a free-for-all to use and re-use both text and images as they see fit - including commercial usage. Wikipedia only accepts images on that basis - they cannot be negotiated as for use on WP only. The copyright holder still 'owns' the rights, but agrees to re-use under terms of the licence, which includes often attribution - mention of the owner/repository.

Apologies for writing a polemic, and thanks for making me think.--86.29.222.228 (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!

First, let me say that I recognise a considerable degree of pedantry in my character that I have tried to overcome with, I believe, some degree of success. Now let me address what you have advanced against my point of view before addressing some more general points you raised:

“The content you are disputing is a general encyclopedic entry, not an absolute interpretation/statement of regulations, and what Wikipedia needs is simplification for readers' understanding, not complication. Hence the simplistic, unequivocal term, adult licence, not quoting techno-babble.”

The ‘content’ I take to be the term ‘adult licence’. My preference would be to limit the discussion to the age limit applicable racing in Moto3. How, please, does that equate to “quoting techno-babble”? In the context of the article, I felt (and still feel) that it is superfluous to introduce the concept of adulthood. Further, I think my version would accord with the “simplification for readers' understanding” you espouse. In that context I would ask you to review my version and your own.

Now I feel I should address a couple of the other issues with the article that you mention.

“Incidentally again, I also deliberately linked to Turkish people - rather than to Turkey - as we don't know for sure where the twins were living during the race season…”. I would point out that ‘Nationality’ is what is mentioned in the infobox and that nationality doesn’t follow residence. Generally it is a matter of birth place and parentage plus, in later life, allegiance. Without examining their passports, I cannot be certain but I believe that the twins are Turkish citizens. To be pedantic, they may have dual nationality, or be eligible for it, as I think their mother is Norwegian. (At times they have displayed a small Norwegian flag on their racing helmet.) My preference would be to revert to ‘Turkey’ as I have no reason to disbelieve the nationality given in the short biographic details on various racing sites.
“You've already been advised of including irrelevant detail about the twins birth-times?” As a newbie, I recognised the issue, learnt from it and made no further comment. So what? How is this relevant other than to bolster your own opinion of me?

That last point brings me to a more general issue. I feel that you are equally as guilty as I may or may not be of “being over-critical in applying semantics here”. Think on this, please. I may have 'made you think', but might not we be over-thinking this as an issue rather than going for something that is both simple and correct?

As for “it may be inappropriate to try to psyche-out others at such an early stage in your editing history”, here I must dispute your interpretation of my motivation. I put forward what I believe to be a logical argument. There was no psychology involved other than a wish to promote discussion rather than argument. It may be that I have failed.

Then there is “Bluntly, it looks as if you are determined to create an argument out of two words, without considering the wider aspect?” Really? I don’t think this is appropriate for the reasons I have outlined above. And also “This being the second attempt”. A second attempt at what, may I ask? Creating an argument (as that is how it could be read…there I go with my pedantry) or removing ‘adult licence’. Only the latter is true, but I chose to discuss this with you, the author of the term, rather than acting unilaterally once again.

Finally, was your opening “I value your communication, as a newbie (with no other history of generalised editing that I know of).” [sic] meant to sound quite as patronising as it came across to me?

In summary, I still think I have a valid point about ‘adult licence’ and I also think we can both benefit by reflecting upon our interaction, as you point out in your final sentence.

Thank you for the information in paras 3 & 4 of your “polemic” (I learnt something) and also your advice re Flickr (here I readily admit that I need advice and guidance).

My apologies for the length of my reply, but you raised several points that I felt I should address.

All the best, and thanks, BobG PickleB (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PickleB I will try to address the issues, not in any particular order, but I suspect that your vehemence will not allow you to appreciate what I have been trying to clarify. Generally, newbies are not confrontational. I can't reconcile so much down-time caused by your personal objection to two words - it's so inconsequential.
I made a change and you swung into action, keyword searching to find out more, then adding techno-babble (shown in this diff) - the technical content from the primary sources you consulted - which would be better suited to a more-technical article, IMO, not a BLP. This led to you deleting what I thought was adequate, referring to adult licence. I left guidance in the edit summary "note - Refs go after punctuation, better not to break the sentence - possibly too much information for a biography of a living person - re-added the deleted content to clarify 'adult licence', but they could click-though to source for that detail.....unneccessary change into American spelling benefitted ->benefited???? Why???."
Regarding internal Turkey wikilinking/overlinking, links appeared adjacent to each other in the lead and infobox, so I changed one - only one link per small article (seen in this permalink version). Normally major areas (inc land masses) are not linked, per WP:OLINK, but can be left in without adverse consequence. I think the UK commentators recently stated they were born in Norway - maybe I no longer have it on hard-drive, and it could have been in extensive coverage of practicing, so not easily locatable - or citable. Leave it to others to argue whether that makes them Norwegian or Turkish. "Alanya, Turkey" has been incorrectly added in this change by an occasional editor - if it was to be cited, then per WP:VNT we would have to go with it. I have templated the article and created a Talk page section. This overlinking also applies to Red Bull, which as a newbie you were determined to add into the lead, which I let go. Too much WP:PROMOTION of red bull in such a small article. Not exactly the same, but WP:UNDUE indicates that Monster Energy, their commercial rival, should be given equal usage. Over and over again?
Addressing your resentment of the term 'adult licence', there is an historic motorcycle that, some contend, was never called Mk1 - until the Mk2 appeared. Retro-application of common usage then ensued. So there's no such thing as adult licence, keyword-searchable? Try this Google search. Try also this Google seach for relevance by extension. The other aspect I am obliged to mention is that WP will be read by non-English first speakers, particularly near-Continent and Scandinavia - hence I felt adult licence would be understood. To this end, on re-examination, maybe I should not have used the word "parity" in the original, but it was spontaneous.
I only arrived there to help; it appears that this has caused considerable inflammation and resentment. At this stage, per WP:AGF and WP:BITE, I should defer to the inexperienced newbie - if that appears "patronising" it's your interpretation - again, spontaneous words. Did you want my advice on changing spellings, per this Google search? Again, I deferred to your spelling-change. I have to anticipate you still want to learn correctly - see WP:RETAIN - it gets more complicated where an article has been written on en-Wiki, instigated by a Turkish national from what was a non-article (this diff) - a page created as a redirect to avoid WP:WRITEITFIRST. This revision also shows early linking to [[Turkish people|Turkish]] in the lead. Better to leave things alone than change spellings, unless there is an obvious error, when experienced editors would annotate the edit summary by variations on sp, spelling.
I should now withdraw from the article entirely, otherwise it smacks of WP:OWNERSHIP on my part. I would always defer to someone like you. So congrats, your POV-pushing has WP:BLUDGEONed me into submission (I fully expect you to throw that back at me - that's why I included it - crash course in proactive and reactive). Wikipedia is not about winning.
Lastly, thanks again for making me think-back (not think about my own position/frailties, as you have intimated), and taking yet-another two hours from my busy schedule . I forgot to add that sometimes with non-English on Flickr, it can be difficult to explain the details, adequately. I would always try to provide advice, as would most Wikipedians. From your extensive comments above, you might find this difficult to accept, but condescencion is not my mantra.--86.29.222.228 (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness gracious me. I’m not at all sure that I understand your latest submission on first reading.

You continue to ascribe to me a variety of feelings…in this case "inflammation and resentment"…that I am not experiencing. Yet you are not inclined to think about your own "position/frailties", whatever they may be. You also suggest that I "swung into action, keyword searching to find out more, then adding techno-babble…the technical content from the primary sources you consulted - which would be better suited to a more-technical article, IMO, not a BLP". I disagree with your characterisation and, as it happens, also with your opinion. So be it.

You obviously have a detailed understanding of your own logic and can write about it at length. No doubt much of what you do is extremely valuable and helps to keep wiki somewhat consistent. However, my opinion on ‘adult licence’ is of equal value to your own. Pointing out that the term is in existence and may be recognised in other forms of motorcycle racing does nothing, IMO, to address my point that "In the context of the article, I felt (and still feel) that it is superfluous to introduce the concept of adulthood." I would add to that “also in the context of Moto3 as a class of racing”.

Oh well…yours (somewhat puzzled and a not little baffled),

BobG PickleB (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

[edit]

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at Lambley, Nottinghamshire, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Lourdes 05:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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


Stop icon This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass fellow Wikipedian(s) again, as you did at User talk:Gumsaint#January 2019 and at Talk:Lambley,_Nottinghamshire, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Lourdes 05:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.29.222.228&oldid=919573440"