User talk:Tvx1/Archive 1

June 2013

Hello, I'm HMSSolent. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to 2013 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles Qualifying because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 03:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Flags

You and I have our differences, but that aside, I recommend not antagonising the MOSFLAG people, because they can make life very difficult for us if they choose to. I have had many, many heated discussions about flags with the editor you just addressed, and although I disagree with him, he is a decent editor. FYI, if they decide to club together and push their weight in our direction, rest assured we will have zero flags on F1 articles. None at all. And there won't be anything we can do about it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Flaging

Can you explain to me why Formula One deserves to use sub and supranational flags when very few others in wikipedia do and none in sports. Why is Formula One so important? Why does it need an exemption? --Falcadore (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Because they use them themselves in their sport and some Grands Prix are universally identified by them. By the way Motorcycle Racing uses these types of flags as well, even on wikipedia. Tvx1 (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes I know about the mess that is the MotoGP mob and I would hope that F1 would hold themselves to higher editorial standards. All they seem to know what to write is tables and infoboxes. But I want to know what is special about F1 compared to all other sports and their flags? Many sports have geographical names, plus all the other non-sporting articles as well - thousands upon thousands of articles - but don't use such flags in wikipedia, why is F1 so special that it gets an exemption? The reason you've given above is not any different from all the others. --Falcadore (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's not an easy and straightforward issue. In general I do not understand why there is a general dislike towards the use of sub- and super national flags. Why is it such a problem to display them with subjects that use them in real life. Who are we hurting by doing so? Of course they cannot be displayed in every single instance. More specific to the Formula1 project, Some grands prix, as already pointed, have taken place under the flags of Sub/Super national entities waving these flags during those race weekends and playing those entities anthems ahead of the races. That's how they happened in real life. Those are FACTS. That's how millions of fans identify these Grands Prix. That's why I (and clearly some others as well) think they are relevant in this subject. A common argument I have found against this is that we would introduce loads of relatively unknown flags. But if you think it through we ware actually thinking about five to ten flags of which one, the flag of Europe, is very well known. Is that really that much? Furthermore those who fail to immediately identify those flags can find out more about the subject by ONE SIMPLE CLICK on the flag in question. I really can't see why it's such an unthinkable proposition. Tvx1 (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I must first say the ONE SIMPLE CLICK argument works against you as much as for you. One simple click on San Marino Grand Prix shows in the second or third sentence of the article states the race is held in Italy rather than San Marino.

I think the problem is you see the flags as decorative colour (whether you recognise it or not) which is something Wikipedia generally frowns upon. Also that national flags have vastly wider usage than sub/supra. eg - national flags are widely used in sporting team purposes like for the Olympics where sub and supranational flags are not. There are no intercontinental competitions where Europe competes as a continent (except possibly in Golf although organisationally Ryder Cup and the like is quite informal). Sub-national competitions also do not use representative flags by the same purpose either, you would never see UEFA, NRL, NFL or AFL football competitions utilising the flags of their cities for the purpose, instead using team specific iconography like team logos, mascots and uniform colours for the purpose.

While the European Grand Prix does "use" the European Union flag, they use it for decorative purposes only, there is no European representation or organisation involved in the event at all. Indeed the European Grand Prix itself pre-dates the creation of the European Union flag. Additionally while it might be claimed that the various American city named events could be represented with civic flags, in truth they were not "used" (by your terminology) for these events at the time and usage of them now would be revisionism. The United States flag was "used" for all these races. No sub-national flag has ever been "used" officially to identify a F1 Grand Prix. The Abu Dhabi Grand Prix is another example of this, the UAE flag has always been used. In truth the only two GPs where your argument of usage stands up at all are Europe and San Marino and possibly Swiss/Luxembourg. Doing so for all races not named nationally would then create double standards where flags would then be retrspectively applied when no such thing happenned in the real world.

Wikipedias attitude has been that flagicons should be used in sporting only when specific national team organisations are involved like the Olympics or Football World Cups etc, which is why the folks at Flagicons view Formula One wikiproject as abusers of flagicons because no national teams are involved and if they chose to flex their muscle sufficiently they could take away all flags form Formula One articles and make it stick - hence the don't disturb sleeping dogs attitude.

I would personally not be adverse to removing all flags from the matrix tables, replacing with a three letter code, as has been done in several other motor racing articles. --Falcadore (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not entirely agree with you regarding the ONE SIMPLE CLICK argument. While, in this example, clicking on San Marino (it wouldn't do anything in the calendars, though) would allow to find out why it was held in Italy it would not explain our readers the meaning of the words San Marino for someone who has never heard of it. Clicking on that country's flag would bring the interested reader to the page dealing with San Marino and would learn the reader that it's actually an independent country encircled by Italy. Furthermore, my argument didn't only apply to the San Marino Grand Prix.

Regarding the use of subnational flags I would like to point out to you that such sports like football, rugby, golf, etc... do use subnational flags to identify some of their competitors such as the flags of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, etc... even though these are not in fact independent countries and their flags thus qualify as subnational flags.

Regarding the flag of Europe, you are right that the European Grand Prix (as a honorary designation) precedes the creation of the flag of Europe (I don't understand why you persist in referring to it as the EU flag as multiple users have pointed out to you it's not only the flag of the EU but more importantly the flag of the Council of Europe who created it as a flag to represent the whole of Europe, Vatican City being the only state not officially represented by it originally as the only other European non-members of the council, Belarus and Kazakhstan, were parts of the Soviet-Union, which was a member, at the time), but these grands prix who had the European Grand Prix as an honorary title in addition of their official title. The official titles of these grands prix are the only ones that are used by the articles dealing with these articles. I don't really see the problem there.

I do agree with you that it's possible that some grands prix that were named after a non-national entity didn't take place under that entity's flag. I'm not personally aware under which flags all those races (expect the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix which I know is held under ) and I can imagine that is certainly possible they were held under the flag of the nation in which they took place (Abu Dhabi is one such example). That's why I proposed to display the flags under which the grands prix were held and with which they have been universally presented in all media outlets; because that's what happened in real life. If there are grands prix which were held under the flag of the country in which they took place then so be it. I never made a problem of that. Some other users proposed to always use the flag of the entity after which the Grands Prix was named, which even I admitted is impossible because what would we do with the Pacific Grand Prix, for instance? I can't see why you claim my proposition would create a double standard as it would create one guideline which could be applied to every Grand Prix.

I have a lot of respect for your argument regarding the flags in the result matrices. I just find it peculiar that you didn't write that when Bretonbanquet made his proposals in the previous discussion about two months ago. You see, it's flags still being used in combination with grands prix names that causes this seemingly endless discussion to resurface every once in a while... Tvx1 (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of the words San Marino is not especially relevant as it is the San Marino Grand Prix article it links to, not to San Marino. And in any case the San Marino Grand Prix article explains all that making a link to San Marino the nation not only unneccessary, but distracting as the San Marino article is both quite large says next to nothing about Motor racing at all, let alone Formula One. The link to the SMGP article is more than sufficient to explain away the glorious myseries of event naming.

While you have a better reasoned argument than most, the reason it keeps popping up is the majority of those who object want a whole bunch of made up imagery for Pacific and Caesar's Palace and do no think races that were not F1 world championship matter, or even exist. They take the most simplistic argument that the flagicons are nothing more than colour to be splashed around to make things pretty.

There already is a standard for every grand prix, and indeed every race. The problem with "flag being held under" is that its incredibly arbitrary. Your "used under" arguement only really dates back as far as the mid 70s at best. Prior to that there was not the emphasis on decorative flags that there is now. There were no websites, no pretty media presentation, no digital TV graphics. Your reasoning is based entirely on WP:RECENTISM concepts. Its basis is based on who picks up what flag on the day for races. It's also based on what you "know" rather than on something easily proven that covers many decades and many races, not just in the world championship but also its predecessors, those using its regulations in non-champ races plus races that are not even Formula One in nature, like notable F3000 races, Pau Grand Prix, Macau, New Zealand, Mozambigue, Cuba, Sports car races, domestic races of varying forms and so on, rather than the essentially meaningless "used under" which you seem to have difficulty in defining beyond pictures in race programs and websites, both of which are recent traditions and not in use across all of Formula One or even motor racing. If you can't see a standard that has such severe limitations in how it has been applied to races, then I am at a loss.

--Falcadore (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Report

You really had to report me? Did I hurt your feelings that bad? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with feelings. When anyone breaks such a rule, that user gets reported. Tvx1 (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You saw I was warned. You wanted to silence me because I'm right. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

No I didn't see that. I didn't see the warning on your talk page until after I reported you when I came to it to post the mandatory report. Do you think I have nothing better to do than to read user talk pages the whole day! Tvx1 (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it. It takes one source saying that under conditions that have not been met yet, Sirotkin will race in 2014, and Sirotkin is on the article... for months. But when any source says the contrary, it's never enough. Nothing is ever enough. Do you see the problem here? This isn't about making Wikipedia better anymore or even making the article as truthful as possible, it's simply about tyranny. What you says goes forever. Now that you undid my revision first, I could report you eventually if you want to keep going. Should it come to that again? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Because none of the other sources are acceptable in that they do not proof that Sirotkin's contract has been terminated or, for announcing a different driver, to be an acceptable source, they would need to name and quote someone in the team, who is in a position to speak for the team, or the driver himself. Tvx1 (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem to think you have proof of some kind, but you clearly don't. Why can't you understand that? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

We have proof. We have two reliable and verifiable sources which qualify as acceptable by the requirements explained to you but which you refuse to accept. Tvx1 (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Your comments on the Sirotkin affair clearly indicate a level of frustration with not getting your way that's now bordering on bullying. 76.90.20.73 (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

This comment is just ridiculous.... Please assume good faith in another user's contributions. I do as well. Tvx1 (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You're also not seriously filing a 3RR report for something that was 2 days ago, are you? Blocks aren't punishment - 3RR blocks are intended to stop currently-occurring situations ES&L 21:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I do realize the events took place 2 days ago. There are two reasons why it took me so long to file the reports. Firstly, I had some browser issues recently. Secondly, aside from Wikipedia I have something called "life" to attend to. This however does not change the facts. Two users have engaged in an edit war. One of them has already violated this policy on multiple occasions in the past. I have at no point directly requested a block of the users. Which course of action is the best is entirely up to the administrators.Tvx1 (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I just closed both reports as stale. Please don't file reports two days after the fact. And what you're saying is not correct. Only one of the two reported editors has any block history, and then only one block a year ago. Also, bear in mind that it takes four reverts to violate WP:3RR, and you listed only three. An editor can be sanctioned for edit warring without violating 3RR, but it's usual for the reporter to make that clear in the report. Your reports did not include any comments. Finally, generally a report at AN3 is asking for a block, so the idea that you are reporting a problem but not requesting a block is a bit strange. If you're not requesting a block but just reporting a problem that requires administrative action, you should make that clear.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I have already explained why it took me two days to file the reports. What I'm saying IS correct. I did say that only one of the users violated WP:3RR on multiple occasions in the post. I didn't say both did and neither did I say that the violated got blocked on multiple occasions. Please do not accuse me of saying things I did not say. Could you clarify to me why it takes four reverts to break the violate the policy. The WP:3RR states that it's a bright-line rule an that, and I will cite directly from the page, " An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." I fail to see why it suddenly takes four to break the rule. Furthermore the same pages states that the administrators can choose from a range of actions to take including a warning, a block, protecting the disputed article,... .So please stop accusing me of wanting nothing else than the violating users to be blocked. Tvx1 (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Just for mathematical sake... "more than three reverts" means any number greater than 3. Thus, 3.1, 3.2, 4, or more. ES&L 13:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Plus, if all you wanted was a warning, then YOU can do that - a warning from an admin means no more than a warning from a knowledgeable editor. The list of actions the admin can take are a "the admin can CHOOSE to...so don't be surprised if they don't get blocked". Normal process is this: at the exact moment that the editor REACHES the 3 reverts point, it's your requirement to warn them of that - we even have a template for it. If they continue past 3, you then go to the 3rr noticeboard. If it took you 2 days, it's too late ... you've lost your chance ES&L 13:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems I was indeed wrong regarding the numbers. In retrospect I should have issued both users with a warning. This whole episode was embarrassing to say the least. Tvx1 (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason I came here was to gently poke you to actually delete your reports so that you'd be less "embarassed". Nothing to worry about ... and yes, I might have actually blocked the two for general edit-warring, but not breaking WP:3RR :-) ES&L 16:13, 8 Januar

Reverting

It's your perogative to revert content if you disagree with it, but please be careful what you revert. Your changes to the 2014 season page took out updates to the hidden results tables, which should not have been removed.

Also, I am not sure that describing the selection process is really all that necessary. The most important points to make are that a) the numbering system has changed, and b) the consequences for qualifying procedures. Describing the selection process before the latter in particular gives undue weight to it, since those consequences are the biggest change that has come about from it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It was not my intent to reverse the updates to the matrices. I can't see why you have such a big problem with that one sentence. What do we stand to lose by having it? I'd like to clarify that I added it BEFORE the official entry list was published as response to numbers being added over and over again despite no proof of FIA confirmation being supplied; and after having raised the issue on the talk page and after not having been met with any resistance. Now that the entry list has been released, its importance has diminished somewhat but I still can't see the problem with having it at all. Tvx1 (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:2014 Formula One season Joetri10 (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

RE: WesleyBranton

The content that I am referring to has been removed.

There are copies of this content on the internet, but they are all illegally post because the Formula One owners have not permitted posting.

I don't want to source an illegal copy because this could be copyright infringement.

WesleyBranton (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Tunis Grand Prix

The final Grand Prix was held in 1955, the year before Tunisia gained independance from France. --Falcadore (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

So you are saying Tunisia was not part of France and this is not a continuance of previous flag related behavior? Saying that protectorates are exempt because they are a protected state rather than a colony, despite examples like the Olympics where Tunisian athletes were regarded as being French? --Falcadore (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Article Irish-Americans and Irish-Americans

Hello. I can understand why you've blanked the page, but until consensus is established, let's keep the page for now. Since there doesn't seem to be a consensus on the Talk:Irish American#Redirect page, following the essay WP:BRD, I propose that the redirect is kept until a consensus is established. For this issue, I will make my take on this issue on the Irish American talk page, but let's keep the redirect until then. KJ ^{click here} 00:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm Kkj11210. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Irish-American without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! KJ ^{click here} 23:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Irish-Americans, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. KJ ^{click here} 23:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 Formula One season may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | <span style="white-space:nowrap">[Hungarian Grand Prix]]</span>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Formula One/Next Grand Prix‎

Thanks for updating the Portal:Formula One/Next Grand Prix‎ pages. DH85868993 (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_90#2014_Formula_One_season regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

For God's sake, sign your comment on the noticeboard or else nobody will know who's saying what. This will be difficult enough as it is for whoever comes to help without making it harder. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That's patently obviously what I am referring to, whether you want to call it a comment or not. I'd rather you signed it, so that it can be easily attributed to you. It's a very long way from an even-handed overview of the discussion so far, don't you think? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Tvx, you wrote the dispute overview, sign it. —Gyaro–Maguus— 21:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Formula One RfC

I notice that you set up an RfC about the Formula One race title issue on the Formula One project Talk page. Because the RfC is on the project page and not the Talk page of the actual article where the discussion has occurred, you might not get a lot of comments. Also, not pointing the RfC to the actual Talk page means that editors on that page may not be aware that you've set up the RfC.

I also wanted to mention that the RfC statement is unclear. It says that you're searching for input but it isn't immediately clear on what issue you're looking to receive help (and the Talk page discussion is so very long). It might be worth closing this RfC and opening a new one on [1] that includes the current brief discussion and that perhaps also asks a question that people can respond to instead of asking for general input. Good luck! Ca2james (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your friendly message. It's indeed my goal to make as many users as possible stating their opinion. I do see that the RFC I posted might not be obvious enough, but I could still use some more specific advice. I had already provided a link to the talk page on which the article is taking place in synopsis underneath the tag. So is there any more specific way by which I can make the issue more clear? I want to add as well that I put the RFC on the Project's Talk page (and on the talk page of the broader Motorsports WikiProject) because I though more users would passing here that on the talk page of the article for one specific Formula One season. Tvx1 (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm no expert at this but I'll try to help. Generally, the purpose of an RfC is to help find consensus on an issue, not just to invite further comment on that issue. Therefore, it's better to neutrally describe the choices under discussion so that the community can support, oppose, or make comments. So instead of asking for general input, you could say something like "should official race titles be kept on the season calendar; if so, should they be in the original language or latinized" (or whatever the correct term is there).

With respect to your RfC link location, it isn't clear where the community is supposed to comment - the F1Project page doesn't seem right but there's no place on the relevant Talk page, either. If you linked the RfC to its oen section on the article Talk page, people would know where to comment and there would be no reason why you couldn't add a section to the F1 Project page describing the RfC.

I also see that you've opened up a DR/N case. It may be that the volunteer who assists you will want the RfC closed. Please wait before doing anything with the RfC until that volunteer has provided direction on the RfC issue.

Finally, it seems like you're asking for input in different places quite quickly. There was barely any time for the RfC to work before you went to dispute resolution. That's not to say DR is a bad approach! It might help, and I hope it does. If you do end up closing this RfC and opening a new one, I hope that consensus is achieved. Good luck! Ca2james (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The non-breaking hyphen

I tried it on the drivers table, and it doesn't look the same. Compare Spa-Francorchamps and Spa‑Francorchamps. I have no idea why this is, but unfortunately, it is not usable. —Gyaro–Maguus— 21:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I use Windows and IE and to me, on my laptop, there is a difference. The non-breaking hyphen is like halfway in length between the hyphen and an en dash (compare - ‑ –) Not only that, but the space between the non-breaking hyphen and the letters is two pixels, compared to one for the ordinary hyphen.

As for hiding the text, well, it is not that simple. If the word "Nat." is hidden, then the word "Circuit" would be off-centre and the table would look odd. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

To me, on Chrome, it actually looks a few pixels smaller, BUT on my phone it doesn't even appear. So, not usable then...

The problem is the alignment of the word "Circuit". Because the "Nat." will be hidden, the bit that the word "Circuit" centres on will not be the centre of what the cell appears to be. Compare:

Nat.	Circuit

with

Nat.	Circuit

See. This is exaggerated, but it looks odd.

Also, as far as I am aware, Template:0 (which is the one that does the hiding) does not work on mobiles. But making the font colour identical to the header colour should work. But then again, the above problem happens.

And slightly off-topic, but just so you know, I do find discussing arguing with PM and Joetri to be painful. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Correction: Template:0 does work on mobile (just not on Wikia's mobile version). However, the alignment issue still exists. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but, that is basically impossible to get it right, and if all the difference browsers space spaces differently, then it wouldn't work.

I think Joetri just did a bit of tl;dr, saw I had written a fair bit, and made an incorrect assumption. PM, one the other hand, just needs a wikibreak. One of main reasons we solved the drivers table issue was because I went on one. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Then feel free to edit The Phoenix, as I have titled the section. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Using a ruler, that was perfect on my computer. But, agonizingly, it didn't work on my phone as it should have done. —Gyaro–Maguus— 01:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It is bizarre, and very much frustrating. —Gyaro–Maguus— 20:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

On both my phone and on my iPod it is still misaligned. And it hasn't worked perfectly on the teams and drivers tables either. —Gyaro–Maguus— 19:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that each device, OS and browser will have a slightly different font and/or different font size. Hence, using non-breaking spaces will make it appear different for each thing, and I believe it won't work. The issue, more specifically, is that on my phone and my iPod, it is not centrally aligned. The "Nat." column works fine for the teams and drivers table, and well enough on the calendar. —Gyaro–Maguus— 21:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It is my intention to go to WP:VPT to get that flag cropping issue fixed, though I haven't just yet. A full explanation of the issues is on QueenCake's talk page. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I'm not entirely certain of why this was raised with me, but for the record that was in reference to former (and perhaps still current) sockpuppeteers DeFacto and Lucy-Marie. QueenCake (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Formula One/Next Grand Prix/Round xx

Hi Tvx1. I'm wondering whether it's worth updating the "Portal:Formula One/Next Grand Prix/Round xx" articles for the races that have been run (i.e. 01 to 03 so far) until the dates and (especially) order of next year's races have been finalized. One change to the order of the races could see most of the "Round xx" pages needing to be re-updated. But it's up to you. DH85868993 (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. When I had to update the entire Portal:Formula One/Next Grand Prix for the 2014 season I found it took quite an effort because I had to update every part of it entirely. By making an intermediary update after each race now it leaves less work to be completed once the calendar has been finalized. It provides no real problems now because next season's entries won't start to appear in the box until after this season's final race. Tvx1 (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Enjoy! DH85868993 (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

‎"Career points recalculated to current points system" table

Hi Tvx1. FYI, there is a discussion in progress at Talk:List of Formula One driver records#Points recalculated to the 2010 points system regarding the "‎Career points recalculated to current points system" table which you re-added to List of Formula One driver records. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Penalty order

Hi Tvx1,

Why are you rearranging tables in race articles so that penalties are listed in the order that they are given, as you did at 2014 Canadian Grand Prix? I know the FIA does it to prevent a repeat of the farce that was qualifying for the 2009 Japanese Grand Prix, but I cannot see how that is of any benefit in the articles, especially when it results in footnote #3 being listed before footnotes #1 and #2. And on top of that, any driver who fails to set a lap time only has his case reviewed by the stewards once all other penalties are applied. So even if Gutierrez got his penalties before Kobayashi, Kobayashi's penalties were applied before the stewards' verdict on Gutierrez. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Penalties are always applied in the order they have been issued, irrespective of the fact that it affects the grid or not. The note may appear out of order in the table, in the list underneath it they're arranged by number 1,2,3,... You are clearly wrong about drivers failing to post a time having their cases reviewed after all penalties have been applied. Just look at the sources I have provided in the article, which are the exact documents that were sent to the drivers and their teams. Gutiérrez received his verdict whether or not he could start on 14:52, his penalty to start from the pit lane on 15:06 and Kobayashi received his penalty on 15:12. So I have clearly put them in the correct chronological order. Tvx1 (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Chronological order does not matter. The table always reflects the final version of the grid after penalties are applied, irrespective of the order that they are applied. All you have managed to do is create a confusing situation where footnote #3 appears in the table before footnote #1 or #2. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It might not matter for this particular Grand Prix, but for others it does. For some Grands Prix this is the only manner by which to explain the grid order. That the notes do not appear sequentially from top to bottom in the table is easily solved by the sequential list of notes underneath the table. There has to be consistency between articles. Tvx1 (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 12 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 2000 Monaco Grand Prix page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to note...

...That notes go *, †, ‡, §, ‖, ¶. So if you start with †, the third note should be §. —Gyaro–Maguus— 17:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. I was't aware of the complete order. Tvx1 (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Well now you know. I will add that ‖ and ¶ are quite rare and normally the first four are repeated, so in extensive situations the order is *, †, ‡, §, **, ††, ‡‡, §§, etc. —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 Grand Prix of Belgium

Hi Tvx1. FYI, I've added all the other "2014 Grand Prix of XXX" redirects to the nomination - whichever way the discussion goes, I think it makes sense to do the same for all of them. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was planning to do it myself, but a lack time prevented me from doing it so far. Tvx1 (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries. DH85868993 (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Pescara-Gonfalone.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pescara-Gonfalone.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

A reply to your reply to my reply to PM

If believe the lack of colours in the cells is an issue purely to do with Wikipedia mobile view (check any of the cars articles in mobile view on your computer). I believe it is done to load the page quicker. —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I asked after this at VPT a while ago. They gave me a very technical response that I didn't fully understand, but the short version is that the bgcolor="#XXXXXX" is no longer supported by browsers. The new version is style=background-color:"#XXXXXX". It affects every single season, driver, car and team article in every motorsports discipline (and probably across the wider encyclopedia), so changing them over is going to be a massive, time-consuming task. Right now, the only articles that I know for certain that use it are the results matrix templates on the 2014 F1 season article (because I want to get everyone used to using it before applying it to all related articles from 2015), and the Volkswagen Polo R WRC article, because getting that to FA status is a pet project of mine. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That is just great! The "technicians" switch off the functionality of one code and request to replace it with another, but do not consider the massive consequences of their actions. And that leaves us with a huge mess to clean up... Anyhow, I'll try to address a number of them once I find the time to do so. Tvx1 (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, the old markup still works for PC browsers. It's just mobile users that are affected. Going back and changing sixty years' worth of articles is a massive task, and frankly, not worth it, as it doesn't break the tables.

Now that everyone is used to using the new markup in the 2014 season article, I would suggest that a more manageable approach would be to apply the new markup to all cars, teams and drivers racing from 2015. Some of those (like Ferrari and Williams and McLaren) will be huge projects in themselves, but considerably easier than doing everything. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi folks. I'd suggest going back to VPT, and try to get recognition that this is an issue which needs to be addressed, in which case some site-wide remedy can/should be implemented. Failing that, you could try lodging a request at WP:BOTREQUEST and get a bot to do it for, say, all articles under Category:Formula One (but if you go down that path, I'd suggest notifying WP:FORMULA1 first). Don't do it manually - this kind of thing is what bots are for! Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan to me. I'll head over to VPT as soon as I can. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That is a brilliant plan. Let's see what the guys at VPT have to say about this first, and we can then lodge a BOTREQUEST afterwards. All it really has to do is to replace bgcolor=" with style="background-color: in all of our season, driver, team and car articles. By the way, if have found that simply style=background:"#XXXXXX" works as well. Tvx1 (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

VPT

There hasn't been much action that I'm aware of. I do know that the issue has been logged as a bug, but the discussion has been far too technical for me to follow. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so as far as I'm aware, nothing has come of this. It has been recognised as a bug, but that's it. It might be time to go to BOTREQUEST and the WikiProject, but I'll wait for your thoughts before doing anything. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, but as DH85868993 suggested in the section just above this one, we might have to notify WP:FORMULA1 first. Tvx1 (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I believe that the bot route is the most efficient method, and I would definitely advise running the idea through the project first (so everyone knows what exactly is going on). —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I'll head over there soon. Then I'll do the BOTREQUEST, but I have never done one before, so I may need assistance. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 Singapore GP

You're quite right, my mistake. I thought it was common practice to cite F1.com at the bottom of the table, but I see it's only been done here for qualifying. I was using F1.com as a source as it agreed with FORIX so I figured it was fairly uncontroversial. Thoughts? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem. If F1.com isn't contradicted by other sources we can use it. Tvx1 (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Gutierrez and Sutil's seem to be the same across the board, Rosberg's is widely quoted as a wiring loom fault, and Button's seems to be the generic "electrical" or the more specific power box problem. Someone keeps putting "oil leak" for Kobayashi, and I feel that's unlikely as the car cut out on him on the formation lap, so "power unit" seems accurate enough. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great Britain Olympic football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roberto García. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Sorry about this. It appears that an edit conflict caused me to remove your comment, which I have restored. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 19:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Regel in ongenummerde lijst

US GP

Hey I just left the grid positions in place from when I imported the table a couple days ago and didn't remove it when I added Vettel's Q info. I explained myself further on the talk page. I should have noted that when I made the edit. Twirlypen (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all. If you are referring to my edit summary, that wasn't meant as personal criticism to you. It was just a general statement. Tvx1 (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

JEV

At what point can this be considered "discussed" and have this wild goose chase over with? If we are waiting for him to admit concession on the matter, we will be going at this until STR does make a definitive decision, which could very well not be until sometime in 2015. Twirlypen (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, we don't need personal approval. Consensus is not uninamity. With the number of users that have stated it's better to remove the sentence there should be enough to constitute consensus. Alternatively, we could search outside moderation through dispute resolution. Tvx1 (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Help us all! Twirlypen (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I have posted a request for closure for the discussion, so it shouldn't take too lang now before the consensus is assessed. Tvx1 (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There you go. An admin came in and determined the consensus. When the consensus in a discussion is not obvious or when one users keeps disagreeing in the face of otherwise unanimous consensus, the best course of action is to go to WP:AN/RFC. By the way, Prisonermonkeys has been blocked for the second time in one month for edit-warring in a dispute unrelated to the JEV discussion. I don't know what has gotten into that user lately. There has been a lot of frustration in PM's contributions recently. It's sad because it's generally a decent contributor. Tvx1 (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

F1 2015

Very much appreciating your support here. At best, that sentence was simply without value, and at worst it is an outright lie. It's simply not going to be in the article unless they provide additional sources backing up these claims. Eightball (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

RE: Grand Prix Organisers

It is late (nearly 3 am) so this will be brief.

The Motorsport Magazine search for the Luxembourg GP didn't go as planned. The Grand Prix Encyclopedia doesn't state its situation. The Wikipedia article has an interesting, but unsourced, story. I'm not too sure which of the other websites I frequent for this information will help me, so I need to Google the race, which I'll do tomorrow. If that doesn't lead to anything, then we don't know.

I also need to Google the Pacific GP because I have no idea who decided to take on that race.

And I know I have been neutral throughout, but I thought Breton would give in at some point, so I'm joining your side of the argument. You very rarely agree with PM, but since you agree with him, something on your side must be right (but seriously, I know what I intend to say). —Gyaro–Maguus— 02:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

There certainly is no rush to find out this information. It's better to do it good than (very) quickly. Regarding the Pacific GP, as far as I have been able to find out, that one was entirely initiated by Mr. Hajime Tanaka owner of the Tanaka International Circuit in Aida. I don"t how or why that name was chosen for the race. Oh and don't forget that that race has been hosted in the United States as well. Tvx1 (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This reply is very disjointed, as I researched my answer while writing it, and I hope it makes sense.

For my argument to work, an ASN has to apply for a race – a ruling backed up by the Sporting Regulations in Article 8, which says "An application to promote an Event must be made to the ASN of the country in which the Event is to take place, which will apply to the FIA." So whether it was the Japanese ASN or that of the another ASN is a different matter entirely, and one I want to know – the ruling that prevented the Italians (but not the Americans) from setting up two races is not written in the regulations any more. I also need to know which ASN applied for the European GP when it was held in Valencia.

As I was partway through writing this, I read the International Sporting Code, more specifically parts of Articles 2 and 3, which says that other racing clubs other than the ASN can have organizing permits. I'm thinking these were used in the Pacific and European GPs; and potentially the Luxembourg and later San Marino GPs.

As for more information on the Luxembourg GP, I can't find any on the internet just yet. I'm hoping Motorsport Magazine has something on it (and the Pacific GP), but I'll need to look harder than I did last night.

I won't go anti-neutral on the DRN until I have worked all this out (and anyway, I want to do the F1 Wiki's sake). —Gyaro–Maguus— 13:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct to apply the 2015 sporting regulations and/or the 2014 International Sporting Code to say the 1995 San Marino Grand Prix. We have no idea whatsoever whether the rules were the same back then. Regarding the Luxembourg GP. I'm still sure they were organized by the ACL and were subjected to Luxembourg laws. Some proof of that can be found in the fact that during the 1997 and 1998 German GP's the cars did not include tobacco advertisement in their liveries in compliance with the ban on such advertisement in the German law. However, during the 1997 and 1998 Luxembourg GP's the cars did carry tobacco advertisement (Benson and Hedges, Gauloises, Marlboro, Mild Seven, West,...) because there was no such ban in the Luxembourg law. Tvx1 (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to Talk:2015 Formula One season has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.

If you read the edit summary of my edit, then you will see that I did not remove any content from the talk page, a system issue that is called an edit conflict is what caused it. You'll also see in that notice that I said I would compare each of the diffs for the 5 edit conflicts I had to make my post, and I would make any fixes to re-add content that was removed by the issue. In the process of doing this, I got another edit conflict and saw that you posted a warning on my talk page. What I'm going to do here instead of assuming bad faith on your part (thinking that you were not assuming good faith from me), I'll just assume that you are not aware of the technical implications of what an edit conflict is, you are not aware of how to view the edit history to see what happened before you throw out wild accusations, and/or you just have not read through all of the guidelines and policies to get to the ones that address all of these issues. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

RE:Giving a barnstar

Hello, Tvx1. You have new messages at SPACKlick's talk page.
Message added 09:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Spectre

Please stop editing my talk page. That section is absolutely none of your business.

Now, I have asked you to stop making these edits in the edit summary of my talk page, on the 2015 talk page, and now here. If you continue to make these edits, I will consider them to be harassment and refer you to the admins. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm just giving you AGF advice for dealing with disruptive editors without getting yourself in trouble. How is that harassment in your eyes? I'm not remotely concerned with the article you were edit warring on. The only I thing I want is to prevent you from getting in even more trouble than you have already been. Do you really think you were blocked thrice in a short period because the administrators simply enjoy blocking Prisonermonkeys? Tvx1 (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If I want your advice, I will ask for it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Sporting regulations

I was reading through the regulation changes in the 2015 season article, and noticed that one of the dot points in particular—penalties for unsafe releases—was taken word-for-word from the WMSC statement given as a source. I checked the edit history and it looks like you made that edit, which was then tweaked a little.

You do know that that's completely inappropriate, right? Just because you have a reliable, verifiable source, that doesn't mean that you can just copy-paste straight across. Specific individual terms are fine, as are quotes if you are attributing them to the author in the body of the article, but you can't do it with slabs of text. You're effectively passing that off as your own work, and by "your work" I mean an individual editor's work (as much as Wikipedia has policies against article ownership, someone has to write them).

Can you please take a look back through that entire section, compare each point with the WMSC statement on regulation changes, and rewrite any that you think might be too close to the source's wording (play it safe—if you think they might be too similar, change them)? If you're uncertain about how to rewrite it, please list any dot points here or on the 2015 talk page and someone else will fix them up. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not passing anything of as my own work because each point of text I entered is combined with a citation attributing it to the source and thus not to me. Writing my own conclusions based on the source would be against policy because that would constitute original research. Anyway, I'll have a look if anything is still really literally the same as the source, which I doubt. Tvx1 (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not a case of integrating your own conclusions, but rather of your own wording. Look at the changes I made to the dot point on unsafe releases—the purpose has been retained, but the wording is paraphrased. And that's the line you need to walk. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

F1stat

Hey. Please check your edits. You are substituting the entire F1stat template ({{subst:F1stat}}), multiple times per particle, instead of the appropriate field for the appropriate driver (e.g. {{subst:F1stat|KOV|entries}}). Prolog (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Your example how I should do it is just how I actually did it and what produced the current results. I can't any explanation on Wikipedia:Substitution that says you can substitute part of a template. So at the moment I'm not sure we can solve this. Tvx1 (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I just tried it and you're correct. I don't know why the documentation suggests substitution if the parameter-based subst is very complicated or not working, but you should revert your edits as that huge template code can't stay in the articles. The transclusions can always be turned into the correct values manually. Prolog (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I reverted those edits already as I (correctly!) presumed those massive code dumps were a mistake. I wish I could help you with the template, but I'm afraid that is rather beyond my abilities here. QueenCake (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Give me specific examples or set up a sandbox to show expected and actual results and I'll help fix the template code to allow better substitution.  :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Going from the above example: What I wanted {{subst:F1stat|KOV|entries}} to do, is to provide the following in the codes:

{{#switch: KOV | KOV = {{#switch: entries | entries = 112 }}}}

Or in the worst case this:

{{#switch: KOV | KOV = {{#switch: entries | entries = 112 | starts = 111 | poles = 1 | wins = 1 | podiums = 4 | fastestlaps = 2 | careerpoints = 105 | seasonpoints = 0 | seasonposition = - }}}}

And display 112 in the article

What really happened is that the entire contents of the {{F1stat}} template was substituted in the article's code. Tvx1 (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• This change should resolve your issue. Let's do a quick test and see...

{{subst:F1stat|KOV|entries}} produces 112. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That was almost perfect, but for a hidden message near the top of the template that was still included. I've wrapped a <noinclude></noinclude> around that which seems to have solved that. Thanks a million! Tvx1 (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, you don't see too many of those these days! 'Twas no real hassle, I've made far more extensive mistakes using automated tools in the past. :) QueenCake (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Tvx1, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Benetton Research

I am currently at university and will not be returning home until the week of Christmas. I am therefore unable to check until then. I will double-check with my other books (some of which are from 1996, though no books on 1995) and report back as soon as I remember. For now, the STATS F1 website says the change happened in 1996, and I do believe I looked in the Motor Sport magazine archive but couldn't find anything. —Gyaro–Maguus— 02:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

So, I've finally got back home, and I've looked at the books. Basically, there is very little mention of constructor nationality whatsoever, especially as I was looking for a specific period. All I could really find was from the Grand Prix Data Book, which I personally consider to be the Bible of F1. I quote "The combination of Schumacher and intelligent team strategy paid off with both titles in 1995, although they seemed to miss their superstar the following season when the team officially changed their nationality to Italian". So I think that settles it. They changed in 1996, and I have put the reference in my sandbox. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Anything on the Luxemburg GPs? Tvx1 (talk) 11:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I'll check again anyway (because I did the research some time ago and I may have missed something), but I don't expect anything to appear. —Gyaro–Maguus— 18:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Tvx1!

Happy New Year!

Tvx1,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

General commentary

I decided to move the discussion here as it was off-topic. It looks like he deleted his entire talk page after your reply. I agree that it was a harsh penalty, but he ignored several warnings from several administrators - most of whom are completely unfamiliar with the project. Plus he tried lecturing me on AGF after he accused me of being disruptive and unwilling to compromise, which rubbed me the wrong way. So I don't feel that badly about it, and I'd be shocked if he won his appeal. Twirlypen (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It was a harsh penalty for this incident alone, but it's understandable as a penalty for a combination of this incident, the history of being blocked and the recents administrator warnings. In fact PM is very lucky not to have been indefblocked. Blanking their talk page is a strange action, given the fact that PM normally uses archiving. Anyway, the removed content is still there in the history for everyone to read. I can only imagine that the talk page was getting to big for his device to handle. Tvx1 (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps so, though it is peculiar given that GM offered to archive previous discussions to lighten the load. I can only guess he did not want what GM had to say regarding everything to be easily viewable for everyone though - but I'd be speculating. Anyways, hopefully he comes back for the better next month because when he's not entrenched on a disagreement, he is a useful and knowledgeable editor. Twirlypen (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) To be brutally honest I was basically saying his actions as a whole were wrong, I explained to him several concepts that to me are logical for any human being to follow, I did show the truth behind his actions and I did take up 6,933 bytes of data in just one edit. Very understandable reasons for him to not want it visible (along with the 15 of the 18 warnings for edit warring), plus right now he can't archive and maybe he just didn't want me to do it. —Gyaro–Maguus— 04:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, I wasn't aware that PM can't archive now. That's why you proposed that repeatedly. Tvx1 (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Luckily, he only blanked it because it because the page was way too long. —Gyaro–Maguus— 12:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys has now removed the entire section the administrators had added from their talk page. Tvx1 (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't consider that to be a wise idea... —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

He's flying a little too close to the Sun with that. Twirlypen (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not see THAT coming..... Twirlypen (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

See what coming? Tvx1 (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the subject of this section. I stopped by the talk page because I knew the block was soon to be lifted, if it hadn't been already. Twirlypen (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 22 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 2013 German Grand Prix page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox template

Hi Tvx1. Regarding your test edit to Template:Infobox F1 driver, FYI, that template has a sandbox where you can test proposed changes without disrupting the live template, thereby allowing you more time to test things. Regarding the actual change you tested, I think we probably wouldn't want to modify {{Infobox F1 driver}} to put the racing nationality above the "Formula One World Championship career" heading, because then it would appear there for all F1 drivers; if we want to be able to have just an F1 infobox on a page, we'd probably need to add an extra nationality field, so we could have "personal" nationality above the heading and racing nationality below the heading, to allow for cases where they are different. That's why I suggested using {{Infobox racing driver}} with an embedded F1 section instead, because the {{Infobox racing driver}} template can provide the extra ("personal") nationality field without having to modify {{Infobox F1 driver}}. DH85868993 (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, I wasn't aware of it. I must say it's pretty easy to overlook the links to the sandbox&testcases as they are in a small font near the bottom of the page. Tvx1 (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No worries. And upon thinking about it further, I think moving the existing Nationality field in {{Infobox F1 driver}} above the "Formula One World Championship career" heading and unlinking the word "Nationality" (thereby repurposing the field as "personal" nationality) is a probably a good idea; together with the addition of a new Racing_Nationality field below the heading, to be used if required. But there would need to be consensus first. (Actually, if I recall correctly, a long time ago the Nationality field used to be above the heading but was then moved below the heading in order to address the British/Scottish issue. In retrospect, that was probably a bad move; we should probably have added an extra field for below the heading). DH85868993 (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That proposal could work, but what would you then with drivers like Nick Heidfeld or Robert Kubica who have different sections for different FIA World Championships in their infoboxes? Would you add a racing nationality field below every heading? Bear in mind that there are drivers like, Nico Rosberg, who have represented different nations while competing in different racing categories. Tvx1 (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Good point. I think I need to think about this some more... DH85868993 (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) since I think extra input would be useful, I believe retaining the current position of the nationalities in both templates to be sufficient. However, in lieu of the fact that consistency is a good idea, I think moving the F1 nationality up to the same position as the racing driver nationality would be a good move. Another suggestion I would make is to ensure that the F1 driver template doesn't require the nationality section to be filled. —Gyaro–Maguus— 02:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BBC Sport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben Edwards. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Formula One team table order

Hello Tvx1. I just wanted to get clarification on the consensus. I wasn't around when this apparantly lengthy discussion took place, nor am I trying to rehash something that it seems everyone wishes to just forget, but going back to 2013, 2012, 2011, and so on, it appears that these tables reflect the standings of the teams their previous season. Of course, given that their car numbers reflected this until 2014, it made sense to order them by the car number. However, removing the visual guide of car numbers, why wouldn't we then continue to arrange the teams based on previous season's performance? I realize how I arranged it was based on the current season's final standings and would have been incorrect regardless. Thanks. Twirlypen (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Twirlypen, the pre-2014 tables did not use the team standings from the previous season. It purely went by the number order from the car numbers. There are clear examples of when these were different. Just take a look at 2010, 2009, 2008, 1997, etc. For instance in 2010 the order we used was McLaren-Mercedes-Red Bull-Ferrari-Williams-Renault-Force India-Toro Rosso-Lotus-HRT-Sauber-Virgin, while the previous season's team order actually was Brawn-Red Bull-McLaren-Ferrari-Toyota-BMW-Williams-Renault-Force India-Toro Rosso. See the massive difference there? Purely using car number order also allowed use to accommodate new teams which of course did not have a previous season's result. After a very lengthy discussion even featuring some edit warring between Prisonermonkeys, Joetri10 and Eightball and full page protection we came to the current consensus I explained in my revert of your edit. You can find these discussions here, here, here, here and here. At the time I preferred your view of ordering by previous season's team order, but having taking a step back since I have realized that that is not a good long-term view. If you would look back at the 2014 article in 10 years time, would it make sense to you to have a table with Red Bull on top for a season that was dominated by Mercedes? That's why I think if we should use a team order if should be the order from the season in question and, ironically enough, that's what you did with your edit. So I would support that but it would need to be discussed at the article's talk page or at WT:F1 first. This option was not considered during the discussions last year, however. Tvx1 01:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

F1 car results table format

Hi Tvx1. FYI, I've started a discussion at WP:F1 regarding F1 car results table formats. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Tidying tables

Hi Tvx1,

I've applied the new table format to my pet project, Volkswagen Polo R WRC, but it's still using the old table infrastructure with a separate column for flag icons. Do you mind going through and tidying them up please? I know it's a big job, but I don't know enough to be able to attempt it myself. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it tonight (or in your case, tomorrow morning) Tvx1 09:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done. All you have to do know is make it mobile-friendly. I have just one question, though. Why does the article refer to the Spanish rally as the Rally Catalunya, even tough it's know officially as the Rally de Espana? Tvx1 23:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe that's because the WMSC calendars still refer to it as "RACC Rally de Catalunya — Costa Daurada", but I will check it out. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Tvx11

Hey, just so you know, there's an editor running around with the user name "Tvx11". Going by their talk page, it's an "alternative account for fun", but their idea of "fun" is disruption - they have already vandalised Volkswagen Polo R WRC. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly not me. Thanks for notifying me. Tvx1 22:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The user was blocked but I get the feeling that it could be the start of something more, it takes something to impersonate someone without a cause and I know users don't just get randomly selected "for fun". Just my thoughts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Citations in the lead

It is not generally required to provide citations in the lead section of an article. As is stated in WP:CITELEAD, the lead section usually repeats information that is already referenced in the article, and with the exception of material that is likely to be challenged or concerning WP:BLP, citations are often redundant. In the case of a Formula One season article, there is little, if any, challengeable content in the lead that requires a reference, although for 2012 I have now re-included some for statements that did not appear to be supported anywhere else in the article. QueenCake (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It's indeed not a mandatory requirement, nor it's a prohibited. I just thought your action was a bit drastic, hence why I reverted it. Ideally it would have been founded by a bit of discussion which citations were redundant and which needed to stay. In that respect your second action is much better. Tvx1 23:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

VDG's case

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Surely this is going to come down to who actually shows up on race day. I'm by no means suggesting we make revisions to the article based on assumptions; I'm merely just disagreeing with the possibility that VDG went though all of this if there was the chance that the FIA would simply be like "the outcome doesn't matter, you can't race." Twirlypen (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sadly It's not your call to make. You don't govern the sport. It's really simple, Sauber are currently trying what they can to avoid having to have him race. So as long as this hasn't been sorted out, we can't confirm his entry for Australia. With the court's ruling stating that it applies all season we have enough to include him in the table, we just can't confirm the round number yet. Now let's return to the article's talk page because it's already confusing enough. Tvx1 03:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Your evil twin, Tvx11

I am going to avoid contributing to the discussion on VDG for a while. Your evil twin, Tvx11 is back with a new name, "Darrandarra" and he's clearly looking for trouble. I strongly suspect that if I say anything, he will use it. So when it comes to VDG, let's agree that because of the unprecedented nature of the court case, discussions of it in the article require multiple sources. That way we can have F1F and GPU and any conflict of interest on GPU's part is offset by an independent source in agreement with it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, I don think it's actually back. I think the person has already been around here for a long time prior to the appearance of Tvx11 and has never been "away". Their cynical and cryptic comments on the 2015 article's talk page are pretty revealing. Regarding VDG, I think your proposal is good solution. No guideline/policy instructs us putting exactly one citation per line. We can put more. In doing that here surely resolves any conflict of interest concerns that might arise. That's why I actually thanked you for you edit. I was planning to do that as well but you beat me to it. Tvx1 23:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

He's clearly been around for a while. He knew my block history, which, while not exactly Above Top Secret, is not exactly the sort of thing that you would expect a pure newcomer to know. And he tried to impersonate you as well - I actually missed it the first time he did it, because I saw "Tvx" in the edit history and didn't think to check it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

And they know that some of the project members, and even which ones, are Australian. Tvx1 01:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not hard to guess. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Blank tables

Hey, do you know if there is anywhere on the Wikiproject where I can stick blank tables for other editors to use? I have done up blank qualifying, race and top-five championship tables in line with the new markup that are currently hidden on 2015 Australian Grand Prix (and my sandbox), but it's a pain in the rear to copy a table over from one article and blank it in the next. So if there is a space where I can put them for everyone to see and use, it would help a lot. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys I guess this would be the place. That's where we keep all our tables. Tvx1 01:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Germany and Korea

So let me get this straight ... we can include details on Korea because it had a contract even though the FIA recognises that it won't happen, but we can't include details of Germany even though the FIA recognises that it will happen despite uncertainty over its contract? Don't you think that sounds a little bit contradictory, especially when the table lists Germany, but not Korea? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing contradictory at all. Nothing we state about Korea violates policy. Stating that Germany will host a race this season does at the moment. WP:Crystal to be precise. In fact, our article clearly acknowledges the uncertainty of the race. Anyway, a deadline has been set for a decision to be made regarding Germany has been set for this weekend, so we can easily wait until that has occurred. There's no rush to add the map. Let's just wait. Tvx1 10:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

And I think GP Update is a questionable source at best. You'll forgive me for being very confused when sometimes you argue for something because the FIA says it, and other times you argue for something despite what the FIA says. If it's CRYSTAL to say the race will happen, why is it in the table at all? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Because it's on the official calendar. But that ≠ it will certainly take place. The prose that we use in the section makes it very clear the the content is either on the FIA calendar or contracted, supported by sources. The caption of your map however claimed it will take place, which is a violation of WP:Crystal at this point. Regarding my source, I can't say I have ever come across any news from them that didn't turn out to be accurate. There simply the Dutch counterpart of Autosport.com. Regardless, the real source here is Bernie. Many more are reporting om him setting the deadline for this weekend. Google is your friend. Tvx1 11:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

{U|Prisonermonkeys}}, do you see now why it was to soon to add your map? We'll need a new one now that portrays Germany as a former host. Tvx1 18:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Upcoming Sports

Template:Upcoming Sports has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

F1

See, this [2] is why I'm done with editing F1 on Wikipedia. Merhi was patently 19th fastest in the session – clear for all to see – but at that point had not qualified because he was outside the 107% rule, so for some reason known only to the FIA he seemingly has no position in the session. Now we have just yet another (and there are hundreds now) inconsistency in Wikipedia's F1 coverage. I have some other dick at Max Verstappen edit warring with one hand and waving a Belgian flag with the other, and there's just no point to it. Good luck with it all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet At the end of the day, the governing body FIA makes the official classifications and the rules regarding them and not us. Their reasoning seems logic to me: not qualified=not classified. And we have no choice but to follow them, like it or not. Tvx1 16:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It's OK, I know why you made the edit, and I can see what the press release says. I'm not arguing with that. But the idea that a driver can achieve a valid time in any session of motor racing at any level, and not be given a position in that session is simply ludicrous. He had no position in terms of qualification for the race, but in that session he was 19th. Anyway, it's irrelevant. The problem is an increased tendency to slavishly follow sources regardless of their accuracy. They aren't even questioned, which is why we have that utterly stupid discussion about Verstappen not being Dutch. Thanks for your input there, by the way. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about the formula one world map

Hi Tvx1, da ich ja weiss, dass du perfekt Deutsch beherrschst (und das deutlich besser als ich Englisch), möchte ich dich auf Deutsch mal fragen, was du genau in der Diskussion meintest, bzw. ob das jetzt auch für dich o.k. ist. regards --Pitlane02 🏁_talk 14:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hallo. Das sieht für mich jetzt gut aus. Du könntest diese Version jetzt in List of Formula One circuits und eigentlich auch in List of Formula One races einfügen. Für die Saisonartikels würde ich eher eine Version ohne die eingefärbten Länder die in der Vergangenheit einen Großen Preis ausgerichtet haben zustimmen. Du solltest besser auch noch die Meinung einer Person die farbenblind ist. Gruß, Tvx1 15:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Supi, die Frage hatte ich ja auch noch in der Disk gestellt, ich denke, da wird auch Prisonermonkeys antworten... Bedankt, met vriendelijke groet --Pitlane02 🏁_talk 15:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)