Talk:Michael Schumacher/archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Michael Schumacher owns McLaren F1?

Someone in the McLaren F1 page left a comment stating Michael Schumacher has a McLaren F1. Does anyone know this for sure, or has a source for this information? -g8or8de 12:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember back in the 2004 (or 2005) Race of Champions when Schumacher could only driver the Ferrari and the Buggy, but not the Citreon Rally Car. The reason for this was that Fiat didn't allow him to drive them because he's under contract at Ferrari, who are Fiat owned. So to own a company that is a "rival" company to Ferrari is kinda farfetched (Sorry spelt wrong). But then again, Niki Lauda is one of the "big boys" (if you like) at Ford and didn't win a single championship (or even a point!) with a Ford engine, unless someone has a proper reference :-P. So personally, I wouldn't rule it out - but my head is saying "no".--Skully Collins 13:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
He means the car, not the formula one team :P
I don't think it would be that strange if he would, it's a bloody fast car, though I don't think he'd be showing it off very much because of his thing with Ferrari. JackSparrow Ninja 07:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sportsmanship

Is that part that in 2006 Monaco Grand Prix, Schumacher started at the back of the grid, but ended up finishing 5th relevant for sportsmanship?

The one reason that springs to mind is for the reader's interest and convenience, because I'm sure they'll ask how Schumacher did in the Grand Prix and will not want to scroll up/down to see how he did when it can be in the next sentance, although I do understand where your coming from with the question.--Skully Collins 12:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Schumacher is the first German to win F1 world championship. Jochen Rindt was Austrian.

Austrian nationality - but born in Germany (to German parents, I think?) -- Ian Dalziel 23:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
"Karl Jochen Rindt (April 18, 1942 - September 5, 1970) was an Austrian racing driver."
It doesn't matter where you're born, if you take Austrian nationality, you're an Austrian driver.
Formulaone.com also just lists him an Austrian. JackSparrow Ninja 01:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Has at last one German parent(possibly both). Had German citizenship. Born in Germany. Not sure you can get more German.Ernham 02:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe Rindt raced as an Austrian and should be classified as such. I know that in F1, you aren't "represnting a country", but if I am correct Rindt was badged as such. As you can see Nico Rosberg has a German mother and has the German flag on the side of his car, so I think he is racing as a German and if he becomes, WDC, should be classified as such and not Finnish as well. Are we talking "representation" or "passports" - If the former, then Rindt would only be listed once, under Austrian. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
But, you see, the comment is "the first German to...", it does not say the "first person to win X racing under the German flag" or something like that. It's incorrect to claim Schuamcher is the first German to win WDC; he wasn't.Ernham 09:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
That's why I changed it to "German national" a while back - "German" is ambiguous, saying "national" or "citizen" wouldn't be. -- Ian Dalziel 11:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

South African GP

The sentance reads that he's won nearly all the Grand Prixs he's started in, yes I know and agree with because of the Turkish GP. But, unless I'm mistaken, you reverted a correct statement that he didn't win the South African GP, and he's started that race twice! See 1992 South African Grand Prix and 1993 South African Grand Prix, so it is indeed, correct.--Skully Collins 12:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The actual sentence has a caveat in it that you seem to be missing, which i already told you to pay attention to.Ernham 18:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

Don't know if anyone's aiming for Good Article or Featured Article ststus for this page, but if so you'll need to lose the trivia section, which is normally viewed as being 'un-encyclopaedic' by reviewers. Most of it could either be incorporated into the text or lost. The very first bullet would make an excellent way of addressing the 'greatest' issue by the way. Instead of trying to state that he is the greatest (unverifiable!) why not state in the lead that he was voted as such in a BBC poll, which is a verifiable statement? Just some suggestions, anyway.

I've seen numerous articles that have been featured around here with trivia sections. I think some of the things are interesting, yet they don't really have a place elsewhere IMO. You'd have to stuff 90% of it into the intro paragraphs.Ernham 18:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the deal with reference section "a b c d e f"

All those cites are supposed to go to the official formula one website biography, instead the link back and forth between the refrence section and the spot they are cited. The actual source is missing, basically, but the linking works. http://www.formula1.com/archive/halloffame/driver/7.html that's the source.Ernham 20:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed Mark83 20:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.Ernham 20:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

possibly gutting the second intro paragraph

This one: "Schumacher currently holds almost every record in Formula One, including those for most drivers' championships, race victories, fastest laps, pole positions, and most races won in a single season. He is the first Formula One driver to win at every track he has started on at least once, starting from his first world championship title year(excluding the recently introduced Turkish GP). He is the world's first billionaire athlete, with an estimated yearly salary over 100 million dollars, tens of millions of which he donates to humanitarian causes.[1]" Particularly the first two-thirds of it. Instead, adding "see below link" after the "holds almost every record" comment. i think it's excessive, given we have a whole section devoted to summarizing many of those records. No need to dwell on it. Then add some more stuff to the intro found in the trivia section perhaps. Just discussing it now, I don't hvae time to do muhc at the moment. Thoughts? Ernham 20:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - I think the fact that he holds the Championships, wins and poles records is very significant and deserves to be mentioned in the intro. These are probably the three major records in F1. I agree that the "most victories in a season" and "win at every track he has started on at least once" should be removed as they are 'lower-level' records and you could easily substitute them for several others that he holds. Most fastest laps could be kept, but it just makes the sentence longer. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 20:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. That's probably what I started with in the first version of this lead, but it's one of those sections people like to add to! 4u1e 13:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Going for FA

After the end of the championship, I believe we should review and work a lot on this article and try to make it a FA. We have the example of Damon Hill, who's also a (former) Formula 1 driver and it's a FA now. I have some ideas.

  1. - The article is too long, almost 100 kb now. We have to reduce some parts, for example the 2006 season.
  2. - The most recent seasons, specially the 2006 are too large when compared to others. That needs to be reduced and all seasons should have more or less the same space.
  3. - search for more and more references
  4. - find old images we can use, such as the cars he drove in the 90's and pictures of him from those times and younger.
  5. - Get the Attributes section better: finding references and re-writing it, maybe.
  6. - find a reference for the BBC poll referred at the Trivia section. It may be useful to stop the controversy in the lead about him being the greatest or the best.
  7. - although the Retirement section is cool, it is big, so maybe reducing it, or creating another article for it and just leave a few people responses wouldn't be bad.

Add more ideas, discuss these and let's prepare to work? --Serte 12:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of what Serte says above. Can I also suggest that you step up gradually. With Damon Hill we found it useful to go through Good Article and Peer Review first to get a good number of views. 4u1e 12:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Since the WP:GA process takes a while, why not nominate it now? (After reading the criteria first, of course!) 4u1e 13:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I have a feeling that if Michael wins the championship (looking very likely at the moment), this article will get hit massively for a couple of weeks after the end of the season. Some improvements can be made now, but I think we should wait until about a month or two after the end of the season to nominate it for FA - one of the criteria is that the article is stable. An attempt at GA would be fine for now though IMO. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 13:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I believe also we should wait until the end of the championship, as I said above. Let's check the GA criteria list.--Serte 13:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The season ended today, so, I guess today is a new beginning for this article and we should all work together and try to get this article an FA. I really think it won't be much work, I think that my ideas above are the main things to do and then only a few minor touch-ups would be needed, I guess.--Serte 19:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest also that the trivia section should go (which will help with the excessive length) and that a lot of work on NPOV will be needed. Still up for trying GA first? --4u1e 23:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, why not. And Peer review at the same time to help?--Serte 13:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to keep them seperate - take it slow and aim to get the article to FA by January time, which should be well after all the casual editors lose interest in the topic. On the other hand, I don't think it would do any harm to Peer Review it now, so if you want to list it at WP:PR, go ahead. I'll have a stab at a dummy GA assessment later today to give us a feel for where we stand on that. Cheers. 4u1e 23 October 2006

In Peer Review! See Wikipedia:Peer review/Michael Schumacher--Serte 14:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

93 technology

The current words suggest that benetton did not have active suspension, automatic gearbox etc in 1993. While this was true in 1992, in 93 my recollection is that Benetton had as much technology as anyone else in the pitlane - even including four wheel steer. I will try to find a ref, but I believe the current words are wrong. 4u1e 12:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made this comment before as well. The current wording is misleading.

OK, ref found here: [1]. I have cut off the end of the relevant sentence, leaving the contention that the Benetton was inferior, but removing the implication that it did not have the 'whistles and bells' employed by Williams and McLaren. 4u1e (sorry - can't sign in!)

I think the same argument will also be found to apply to the traction and launch control that have been added - apart from anything else, their appearance in Benetton's software in 1994 when illegal (whether used or not!) would be really weird if they weren't used in 1993! Anyway,I'll look for more references. --4u1e 06:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be more weird if they used, for instance, traction control in '93 when they didn'thave traction control in '93. THAT would be, uhh, odd... Ernham 06:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
We'll see whether I can turn anything up to support my recollection from the time, which is that they (along with most others at the front of the grid) did have it. But there's not much point in basing this on my recollections is there? :-) I'll edit appropriately and post back here if I find anything. Cheers. 4u1e 16 October about 9:30.
You will find little more than misinformation on the net, where people don't even seem to understand the difference between traction control and launch control. Benetton didn't even start working on traction/launch control until the end of '93, let alone have a working race model. Contrary to your claim above as well, they only found start sequence software on the benetton cars, no traction control.Ernham 08:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Found some evidence of Benetton's "Gizmos" in the book, "The Unofficial Complete Encyclopedia of Formula One", although it says unofficial, it does provide a comprehensive coverage of Formula One. Anyway, on page 77, it says the following:
"In some cars, notably the Benetton B193, this system (Traction Control) was combined with an automatic 'launch control' system; the driver just pressed a button to 'arm' the system, then when the lights changed and the car would automatically make an optimum getaway. The Benetton also featured four-wheel steer..."
The rest of the page goes onto to discuss Williams' ABS system and McLaren's prototype system that changes the wing's Angle of Attack while it is on track. I'll also try and look through Derek Allsop's book, "Designs on Victory", tonight and see if I can find find specific dates and Grand Prixs when Benetton used TC and LC.--Skully Collins 10:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what to tell ya. They hired what's-his-face(has an eastern european sounding name -ski)sounding last name to work on developing traction and launch control for them. Towards the end of the '93 season they were testing with a model that had launch control, but not traction control.Ernham 10:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
But why would they bother testing at the end of 1993 when they were banned for 1994? Does anyone know when the ban on electronic aids for 1994 was announced - if it was late in the year it might explain it. Let's go with the evidence though. Cheers. 4u1e.
They banned traction control and active suspension first. They were declared illegal in middle of the 1993 season if i recall right. But there were court battles and whatnot and they didn't "truly" get banned until later. Ernham 11:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Allowing for the shortfalls of the internet ;-), see this forum page from AtlasF1 (frequented by a pretty knowledgeable crowd, including a few published authors and people from the Industry): [2] (see post 27 on the first page). The conversation wasn't centered around Schumacher, but the incidental stuff indicates that probably Benetton didn't have TC at the start of the year in races, but did by the end. This is of course not evidence and ultimately is no more use in referencing this part than my, Skully's or Ernham's recollections - it's a useful pointer to what the answer might be though. If correct, it also leaves the question of when in the year it was introduced, which requires a solid ref to back it up.

The suggested timing also matches with the info from this bio of Tad Czapski - I assume this is the guy you were thinking of Ernham? Pretty good recollection, if so! It says Czapski (great name!) was hired in Autumn of 1992 "to work on Benetton's advanced electronics systems which included active suspension, automatic gearboxes, ABS and traction control. He was responsible for control systems in the Benetton-Ford B193 transmission." - certainly possible that it was introduced sometime during 1993 on that basis. Annoyingly the bio is ambiguous about whether the technology was actually used on the race cars, though. 4u1e. 16 October 12:30 ish.

Ya, that's the guy. The name always stuck me because you had a French chief, a German driver, and what sounded like a Polish engineer. Seemed like the begnning of a joke or something. They were actively developing traction and launch control during the 1993, but after FIA announced that they were being banned in the middle of 1993, I doubt they were very vigorous in their research. I know Briatore later said in ad hoc interview that "We didn't--ever-- race with traction control". He answered that when someoen questioned him about allegations of using traction control in 1994, a year later. Then again, he is kind of a fruitcake.Ernham 12:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll agree with you about Briatore! I'm pretty sure they did use it during the season - but I haven't got any evidence worth the name yet, although the stuff Skully turned up looks interesting. I won't be making any changes until I do. Cheers. 4u1e
the reasons I think that it is unlikely they had it at all or any significant portion of ths season:
  • Briatore has said so.
  • It was clear at least in donnington park Schumacher definitely did not have traction control.(if you can find this video with the sound, you can clearly hear the difference between vehicles that had traction control and those that did not.)
  • Schumacher beat Senna in 1992 using a completely inferior car, yet in 1993 Senna beat Schumacher when senna only clearly had the advantage the last half of the season, though it's debtable if he had the advantage the first half as well.
  • The 1992 benetton had next to no frills and it seems unlikely that in such a short time they would make great progress in active suspension, Traction control, launch control, and semi-automatic gear box. They just didn't have the resources IMO.
  • It was canada(before donnington park) where it seemed like the future of traction control was doomed; why would they waste their reasources to continue developing it when it was clear it would soon be banned?


  • Yes, but we don't have the context of Briatore's words - was this in the late 1990s, when another row about traction control blew up?

>> Nah. This is was a couple years after schuamcher left benneton and they were in the depths of a major slump.

  • wouldn't that be 1997 and therefore late 1990s-ish? :)
  • Fair enough, but that was the 3rd race of the season, so plenty of time for it to have been introduced.

>> Was it really? Hmm. I don't remember dates but i always recalled the Brtish GP being in july-ish.

  • I don't have a review of the 1992 season to hand, so I'll accept this one for now.

>> Yep. The williams vehicles were far better than everyone elses, however.

  • Fairly massive injection of technical resources from TWR at around that time.

>> TWR? Those are huge leaps for a single year, man...

  • TWR = Tom Walkinshaw Racing. It was a global motorsports empire, most notable for running Jaguar's sportscar campaign at Le Mans and in the WSC, but also Australian V8 Touring Cars, British Touring Cars and general motorsports consultancy. It represents a pretty big improvement in the technical resources available. Went bust along with the rest of Tom Walkinshaw's investments when the Arrows F1 team that he later owned went bankrupt. 4u1e.

Ernham 16:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I still maintain that evidence is the thing, though! Cheers. 4u1e

Early 1990s appears to be a difficult time to get info for in F1! Finally found a race report at grandprix.com - a reputable source. See here. Turns out the Benetton traction control was introduced at the 1993 Monaco Grand Prix, which is consistent with the other references given above, and was a race before the Canadian GP where the FIA suddenly announced that it was illegal. There was still half to two thirds of the season to run, so plenty of incentive to keep developing it, which would explain why the book Skully ref'd above mentions the technology on the B193. On that basis I'm editing the article to read something like: "Despite not having the technology in the early part of the season". Cheers. 4u1e 18 October. Lunchtime.

Turkey

I guess I need the following explaining to me, because I think it contradicts itself, and I think it needs deleting:

He is the first Formula One driver to win at every track he has started on at least once, starting from his first world championship title year (excluding the recently introduced Turkish GP).

He hasn't won the Turkish GP, and thus hasn't won every track he's started on. Apathetic 07:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

He was won all, EXCEPT X. It's a common thing to say, you may see it as a contradiction and technically it is, but people use it on everyday situations and I don't really tink it's a problem. --Serte 23:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it rather a convoluted record though? He's won on every track except Turkey and Kyalami, Mexico City, and Donington (latter 3 all pre 1994)? Also it seems odd to set the time period to 1994 - 2006 (i.e. since his first championship), but include Estoril, where he hasn't won since 1993, outside the period in question. For my money it's there are too many caveats on this for it to be valid - what do others think? 195.137.77.175 07:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oops - that was me, got logged out and didn't notice. 4u1e 07:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
It definitely needs to be reworded. It's fine to emphasise how many tracks he's won races on, but I think "the first driver to..." has to go, because you could use the "except XYZ" to include anyone else you wanted in the record. Apathetic 07:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one's objected. I've deleted the sentence. I could have replaced it with something like "Has won on the majority of circuits that he has competed on", but thought that rather weak, and anyway I think I saw a comment round here somewhere that there were too many records mentioned in the lead. Just to reiterate the logic - too many caveats in the statement to say 'is the first to...'. The caveats are 1. since winning the drivers championship, 2. except Turkey,which is recent and 3. except Estoril, where he has raced, but not won since winning the drivers championship. --4u1e 21:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've also checked out out Fangio's record - one could say of him that he " won on every race track he started, except Pescara (only ever used once) and Aintree (where two of the British GPs during Fangio's career were held)". Very similar, but even less caveated, so one really cannot say that Schumacher was the first to achieve a similar feat. I suspect Alberto Ascari must have a achieved something similar as well, he went on a great winning streak in 1952-53. Cheers. --4u1e 22:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Shanghai 2006

Adding this, since there seems to be so much misinformation and speculation being spread in these sections, as well as complete NPOV nonsense, even from a mod?? Crazy. Discuss any substantive changes you thik need to occur to the sections here firstErnham 03:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My changes
  • Only Schumacher, reaffirming his title of the Rainmaster, would be able to put up a fight for pole position against the Michelin using team
How does editorialising about hyperbolic titles like "Rainmaster" count as NPOV? That's why I removed it. The note that Michelin had better tyres is noted, I have simply condensed sentences to tell you the same thing
  • "sunny" Shanghai - where did I state that? The race was wet, as is noted in the article - the drivers started on intermediate wets and as the race progressed, the track dried and the drivers ended the race on dry tyres.
  • I made the note about Alonso losing 3s per lap during the middle phase because that is what happened, after he switched tyres. How else does a car slow down by 3s, and when it rechanges tyres, it speeds up again (It wasn't a wing change or other fixes that were done). Every news outlet has noted this
  • I removed the part about the drivers supposedly blocking the whole track from the preceding edit because the track is at least 5-6 cars wide and one can't block the whole track.
  • The comment that Schumacher was the only Bridgestone car in the top 10 was removed because it implies give the impression that the rest of the Bridgestone cars dropped out of the top 10 because of tyres but Schumacher stayed in the top 10 due to sheer skill - Toyota and Williams are the other non-minnow bridgestone teams and they have been out of the top ten for the whole year.
  • I deleted the reference to Massa as he too started from way back and began to drive quickly and pass cars when Schumacher was doing the same. The old sentence implies that Schumacher was routing everybody whilst Massa was nowhere - if we note Massa's lesser skill everywhere, perhaps we should also note how many times Fisichella goes off the track and editorialise so that everybody sees that Alonso is better than Fisi?
  • Schumacher was 20-25s behind after passing the Hondas and Raikkonen had a breakdown.
  • How do we know that Schumacher was driving conservatively?
If he did say this, feel free to put back in.

Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

you have totally misrepresented reality. Massa was hardly doing anything that whole race. I think he actually lost a place, not counting retirements. I will clip everything over here and tell you what is wrong about it when i have time. However, for now i wanted to give a general apology to all involved as to someone altering the old edits. what happened was that the guy just below you added a lot of those things, such as "sunny" race condtions, and when I was trying to track them down, for some reason it looked like you had done it. Also, the paragraph was dramatically altered, so when I looked for where i expected it to be in yours, I didn't see it at first glance.Ernham 05:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

>>my comment

  • Only Schumacher, reaffirming his title of the Rainmaster, would be able to put up a fight for pole position against the Michelin using team
How does editorialising about hyperbolic titles like "Rainmaster" count as NPOV? That's why I removed it. The note that Michelin had better tyres is noted, I have simply condensed sentences to tell you the same thing

>>Is he called the "rainmaster"? Yes. Note that in the intro this is talked about, yet the article doesn't have too many demonstrations of why he earned it, so i thought it was a good idea to bring it back up. Did he perform incredibly well under wet conditions? yes he did. I don't see too much POV there, but I **could** see removing it and then demonstrating how well he did by facts. Gee, as a matter of fact, I DID JUST THAT-- you deleted it. (see below)

  • "sunny" Shanghai - where did I state that? The race was wet, as is noted in the article - the drivers started on intermediate wets and as the race progressed, the track dried and the drivers ended the race on dry tyres.

>>This was a mistake; it was the guy below you in the edit history. Sorry. You dind't add that.

  • I made the note about Alonso losing 3s per lap during the middle phase because that is what happened, after he switched tyres. How else does a car slow down by 3s, and when it rechanges tyres, it speeds up again (It wasn't a wing change or other fixes that were done). Every news outlet has noted this.

>>Was Alonso losing time or were other people gaining time in relation to current track conditions? Clearly you take a POV stance. The point is, however, you deleted an important section of qualifying, yet you add this. And what is this? PURE SPECULATION. You remove pure facts that apparently you dind't "like", for pure speculation you apparently "liked". Sure, it seems like the case it was his tires, but you don't KNOW that; you speculate. He said in the press conference that it was NOT A MISTAKE TO changed tires. Sure, they slowed him down, but he said he HAD to change tires. Why? Because one side was completely bald! Why were they bald? Because he was racing so aggresively the first 12 laps! His teamate didn't have to change, why? His tires weren't balding! He was slowing down the field to supposrt Alonso! Hello? Alonso's mistake was driving too aggresively, and he is well known for being to hard on his tires.

  • I removed the part about the drivers supposedly blocking the whole track from the preceding edit because the track is at least 5-6 cars wide and one can't block the whole track.

>>Yes, you can essentially block the whole or almost the whole track, unless you risk smashing into someone on the next corner. you could have changed the wording a little bit, mentioning their unorthodox blocking method to some degree. Instead you compeltely delete it. gee, go figure.

  • The comment that Schumacher was the only Bridgestone car in the top 10 was removed because it implies give the impression that the rest of the Bridgestone cars dropped out of the top 10 because of tyres but Schumacher stayed in the top 10 due to sheer skill - Toyota and Williams are the other non-minnow bridgestone teams and they have been out of the top ten for the whole year.

>>Top 12, top 12 cars. THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE MASSA COMPARSSION WAS GIVEN! He has essentially the same car/support/etc. No if ands or buts there. He is a perfect xomparisson for schumacher because of that. It was SHOWING how well Schumacher did given the circumstances he was in(and are you saying the "minnows" disproporionately use bridgestones??), see above if you have forgotten about "point one" above. This is total nonsense.

  • I deleted the reference to Massa as he too started from way back and began to drive quickly and pass cars when Schumacher was doing the same. The old sentence implies that Schumacher was routing everybody whilst Massa was nowhere - if we note Massa's lesser skill everywhere, perhaps we should also note how many times Fisichella goes off the track and editorialise so that everybody sees that Alonso is better than Fisi?

>>No he didn't. Massa did next to nothing in that race, even after their was a dry racing line about 2/3s into the race. He kept spinning out and going off the track on the corners, all the way up to his retirement. did you even watch it?

  • Schumacher was 20-25s behind after passing the Hondas and Raikkonen had a breakdown.

>>Umm, that's not what I recall. I don't recall him being aided by any retirements. And when he was finally in 3rd, the lead was about 8 seconds from him.

  • How do we know that Schumacher was driving conservatively?

>>Maybe because it was obvious? Maybe because the commentators(at least the ones here) all noted such? Maybe--mostly just maybe-- because in the press conference he said PRECISELY THAT if you bothered to watch it! He didn't say conservatively, but he said "Taking it easy". >>Ernham 06:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, no hard feelings about the vandalism incident
I did watch that race. Here's a report [3]. Massa had an engine change and was forced to start last. By the end of the race (when he was involved in the collision) he was battling for 9th and had passed the Williams, Toyotas, and was on the back of Honda and Coulthard and maybe 5s behind the BMW etc. So the prior comment gives an impression that he only did crashes/spins all day. His pace was not too bad, Martin Brundle noted that in the middle phase he also was getting close to the pace of the front three. Yes he also did a spin, but Fisi also did a spin in the last part of the race and lost 15s whilst Alonso did not. I personally feel that the comparison to Massa was particular obtrusive - it's true that Schumacher was the best that day but the amount of info added there gives me the impression that he was overdoing. I also note that in the Alonso article we don't note how far he is in front of Fisi. eg he was perhaps 40s ahead on the same car in Hungary despite starting in front and then Fisi crashed. I do think that the hammering out of Massa's relative lack of performance is somewhat excessive - we don't note the reverse in Turkey where Schumacher didn't keep pace after the first stop, or in the case of Alonso we don't harp on and on about how far he leaves Fisi behind.
As for the tyre changing thing, that's fine, I didn't get the part after the race as they were running late for the news and cut it off. The article will tell you that Raikkonen jumnped Fisi and then retired after, with Schu in 4 and Kimi in 2. For the blocking thing, did you mean the part where Fisi pulled side by side and they didn't pass? - That's true that they did that, but then Fisi drove straight past him and so did Schumacher, so I think it is irrelevant, as Schumacher didn't pass a double wall. The rainmaster thing is still hyperbole - we don't say - "the hat-trick proved that xxxxx is the golden boot" - that is unencyclopedic. Feel free to note that he did a very good job to minimise his losses in adverse conditions - I thought I already noted that with the Michelin superiority. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 08:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Suzuka 2006

Adding this, since there seems to be so much misinformation and speculation being spread in these sections, as well as complete NPOV nonsense, even from a mod?? Crazy. Discuss any substantive changes you thik need to occur to the sections here first.Ernham 03:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Ernham, I highly suggest you read up on WP:NPOV and vandalism before you make the edits/summaries that you have here. Your edit and summary are intirely inappropriate, as is this post. Wikipedia is not for narratives of seasons, but encyclopedic entries. Blnguyen's edits were paring down your POV editing. We welcome that you continue to contribute, but I have to revert the edit to the NPOV version before you wrote it. Don't continue the edit war, and that is final. Teke(talk) 04:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopedic is cutting out the fact that Schumacher was the only bridgestone user to qualify in the the top 12, yet adding an entire paragraph speculating about alonso's tyres, lieing about the race conditions? And the Wiki is about WHO, again? Not Alonso. Now you tell me what that says about his edits.Ernham 04:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This is not a forum for sports talk akin to the radio. I don't think you are right or wrong in your personal assesment of the race. You edit was inappropriate and filled with POV and words to avoid; the ones prior may be leaning POV, but your edit is definitively pro-Schumacher If the editing of a section on accomplishments is of such contention, remove it and hash it out at another time and not in the article space. I'm asking that you calm down (I've the experience to sight when a user is getting hot under the coller) and remember that this can be worked out with time. Continued pushing will result in a block based on the three revert rule, which exists to calms these fires. Teke(talk) 04:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
As per the rules, reverting vandalism and slander does not count in the revert total. It was claimed that the racing conditions were sunny. Oh really, that's why it RAINED AGAIN during the race? You ever heard your weather man say "It's going to be sunny with rain this morning"? Nah, thought not. An as said, deleting important information regarding schuamcher, FACTUAL information mind you(qualifying result), and adding several sentences speculating about ALONSO's tyres? Ernham 04:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Ernham, chill out. Your rhetoric is not working, what with the rhetorical questions and assuming bad faith in my answers. You are talking about a single controversy, not the grand picture of the article. This is my last nice plea that you have the sober realization that this is, in fact, a lame edit war to have. Tires and rain for a singular race will in no way diminish Schumacher as one of the greatest Formula 1 drivers ever (and I know of him, even though I don't follow Formula 1). Let it go now, take a few days off, or the adminhat gets put on and you are forced a few days off. It's not a threat, it's an option to you. Blnguyen won't be warring over it if you won't, even your edit summaries are hostile. Take a time out. Teke(talk) 04:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm hostile because I have to put up with 24-7 vandalism/slander, and when it comes ditectly from an admin, that's just ridiculous. It's fine you don't plan to reply, don't consider this or my following two posts in this section and the one above, either, but I'm going to through the original version of what was the verion Binguyen was trying to to pass off as reality, under the pretences of cleaning up NPOV no less. I urge you to read them, however. Ernham 04:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I smell abuse of admin powers. Binguyen had written that the Shangai race track had "sunny" conditions. Now that edit curiously no longer mentions this complete fabritcation, and instead it says what I had written there; someone edited the edit without leaving an edit stamp. This seems an outragous abuse of admin powers. Ernham 04:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
First off, let me tell you that admin abilities are only three extra functions: delete, protect, and block. Edit summaries cannot be changed as they are vital to the GFDL; not even developers can remove or change them. Oversight can hide libelous or copyright violations, but it is not possible that the edit changed.
Now, if you have contentions with a section, and encounter such conlfict, remove the section and use a summary along the line of "Let's take this to the talk page." The disputes only harm Wikipedia. I'm not saying that Blnguyen or yourself has it right of wrong, your edit summaries and hostility do not build the project. Also note that edits made by administrators are not usually admin actions; while we are the "official face of Wikipedia" we are editors too. Look at the summaries, and you will see the difference in tones taken by Blnguyen and yourself:
  1. (cur) (last) 03:46, 9 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs | block) (Reverted vandalism. You are clipping out huge chucks for no reason. You lie, calling Shanghai "sunny" and speculate all over. Change the tense, nothing else. Use the talk page.)
  2. (cur) (last) 03:30, 9 October 2006 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs | block) (I'm not lying and I'm not vandalising - some of the stuff needs to be cahnged for tense as it is now in the past)
  3. (cur) (last) 03:09, 9 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs | block) (Revert massive vandalism/total lies/complete NPOV non-sense. No more substantive changes to china/japan until you take it to talk page)
  4. (cur) (last) 02:58, 9 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs | block) (→1991-1993 - getting quite sick of the vandals.)
  5. (cur) (last) 02:25, 9 October 2006 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs | block) (→2006 - NPOVised, engine failures usually sudden, minimised stuff about other drivers, rm stuff about BSTONE wets, as Toyota is very poor car -invald comparison,CHina pass very easy LOL)
  6. (cur) (last) 02:11, 9 October 2006 220.237.166.222 (Talk | block) (→2006)
  7. (cur) (last) 02:03, 9 October 2006 60.240.81.55 (Talk | block) (→Sportsmanship)
  8. (cur) (last) 01:39, 9 October 2006 Patstuart (Talk | contribs | block) m (Reverted edits by 201.129.83.154 to last version by 201.41.243.253)
  9. (cur) (last) 01:37, 9 October 2006 201.129.83.154 (Talk | block)
  10. (cur) (last) 23:56, 8 October 2006 201.41.243.253 (Talk | block)
  11. (cur) (last) 22:49, 8 October 2006 GregorB (Talk | contribs | block) m (→Team orders)
  12. (cur) (last) 21:28, 8 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs | block) m
Blnguyen was trying to clean up the aritcle and didn't mean any disfavor to you in particular, your edit was a couple below IP contributions that also were edited. I'm off to bed, I do hope you see my point on your approach and that y'all will resolve the conflict peacefully. Teke(talk) 04:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
As I said, someone EDITED an edit, and it did not leave an edit stamp(those things you listed above I'm referring to as edit stamps), so posting those does nothing. As far as I know, regular users cannot do that, and it's not just the "sunny" part that is missing. Other sentences/words were also curiously replaced on the old edits.Ernham 05:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

When did I insert the word "sunny" into Shanghai? Can you substantiate your allegations? [4] nothing has been deleted/censored from the Schumacher article. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I've been working here and there, giving sugestions on this article to make it FA, checking it, but I don't know what happened. Is is just me, or the 2006 section isn't NPOV at all right now? And why delete valid references just as those for the formula1.com when you can leave it there? I don't know what happened but this is definately not a step forward no Featured Article status...--Serte 18:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention it (the 2006 section) is way too long. SubSeven 19:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Trimming down the 2006 section

I'm going to try to significantly trim this down to a approximately 4-5, maybe a little more on races that had controversial events, sentences per race, as opposed to the current, which ranges from 4-5 to 50+ sentences. Heh. If you don't like that I gutted/changed something, post exactly what was removed and why you think it deserves to be incorporated in the article. The section should be written in relation to schumacher. Outstanding, good or bad, events should be noted if they directly relate to Schumacher, but not overly dwelt on. So post exactly what was removed and your arguments for why it should be included, keeping in mind space is at a premium.Ernham 21:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'm going to hold off until the GP is over, as the results could significantly impact the summary-type statements of the entire season.Ernham 21:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/c/Talk%7EMichael_Schumacher_archive_5_74f5.html"