User talk:Pyrope/Archive 2014

McLaren

Morning! I see you reverted my grammar edit on the McLaren page. The original page was written with a grammatical error in it's use of Between and Among (reference). While use of the words can be confusing sometimes and depends on context, in it's current use it is incorrect and among should be used. In this use, Among is proper since it is used in reference to the McLaren drivers as part of the group that shared the trophies.

It would be fruitless getting into an edit debate on the McLaren page so it can be left as is guess.

Thanks! :)

Derekland (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This post made me smile, thanks. I love people who think they are being all efficient and proper and go about "correcting" grammar, but are in fact making it poorer. As the very reference you cite says: "‘Between’ can also be used to compare or relate more than 2 things, on the premise that they are individually distinct." Had the sentence at the McLaren page been phrased "the McLaren drivers took seven drivers' championships" then you would have been correct in using "among them". However, the drivers are listed individually so "Niki Lauda, Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna took between them seven drivers' championships" is perfectly fine. As, again, the reference that you cite makes clear, even going so far as to provide you with two examples in the third paragraph. The best bit is that not only were you in the wrong yet still came here to leave a somewhat smug and inappropriately condescending message on my talk page, in doing so you managed to use "it's" in a possessive sense not just once, but twice! Lovely. Misplaced didactic tendencies, incorrect grammar corrections, providing my argument for me, and incorrect grammar usage in a talk page message complaining about incorrect grammar. I think you have created the perfect storm here, and I envy you your ineptitude. To be able to pull this off with a straight face is some kind of talent. Pyrope 04:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't being impolite. I was trying to be constructive, and I don't appreciate having my motives belittled with a condescending attitude and name calling. Have a good day. :) Derekland (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Louise Goodman

Hi Pyrope. Thanks for correcting my error on Louise Goodman. The editor who originally added the birth date/place information is still trying to relocate their source for the date - hopefully that might confirm the place as well. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, you've corrected hundreds of mine in the last decade so this is just going some small way to repaying the debt! Bye for now. Pyrope 17:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Pyrope. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

DH85868993 (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Icons

Hi Pyrope. Thanks for this, although I note that point 1 ends with "(see", without details of what to see). Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I too want to thank you wholeheartedly for you recent most contribution in the flags discussion. I think it's fantastic that you've brought in some scientific research as well. What is documented in that research is exactly what I was talking about in the example I wrote on how I use these flags to scan tables and to find out information in a matter of seconds. I genuinely think that they increase accessibility. Bottom line, your recent points have comprehensively exposed their assertions they are trying to dictate as laws are nothing but personal opinions not supported by guidelines and/or policies. I comes very close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT if you ask me. What really baffles me is that these users that are trying to enforce a guideline now (and I still don't see what they are really trying to enforce, MOS:SPORTFLAGS perfectly allows flag usage)), were not involved in the formulating of MoS:Flags. Even if that was formed through a LOCALCONSENSUS, the original participants straightaway acknowledged the need for the use of flags in sports articles. You can see that very clearly in the MOSFLAG archives. It's not until much later that a small group of users, uninvolved in setting up MoS:Flags, appeared who are perpetually trying to enforce there preferred look of Wikipedia hiding behind MoS:Flags. Again, I massive heads up for they way you have been supporting our cause. Tvx1 (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi folks. Thanks for the kind words, but this is meat and bread to a working research scientist. Take assertion; examine evidence; debunk if required; repeat. I'll always rise to the challenge when somebody wants me to do something for reasons that boil down to "just because". Pyrope 16:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it's time . . . .

Pyrope, the present MOS:ICON RfC is a giant waste of time, simply because it proposed no concrete changes to the guideline. It cannot accomplish anything other than a show of support for flag icons in undefined sports articles. As I noted in my comments there, the real issue is removing the parenthetical regarding infobox use from MOS:SPORTFLAGS. I'm ready to prepare an RfC that will delete the parenthetical, and expressly permit flag icons for use for Olympic team members, members of other national teams (e.g., gymnastics, swimming, track & field), and sportsmen in international competition sanctioned by their national governing bodies (e.g., Formula One racing, golf, tennis). In trade, we should be prepared to sacrifice some of the more egregious examples of overuse/misuse of flags, like tournament brackets that use the same flag five of six times for the same player/team, succession boxes and navboxes. Please let me know what you think. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dirtlawyer. Sorry for the delay, but I have been trying to find time for a decently thoughtful reply but unfortunately the last week has been unconducive for Wikipedianing. I suspect that what we need is a draft proposal for a MOS:FLAG update to set people to talking, that should include most of the points of agreement that have arisen from the lengthy discussion throughout October. I am happy to put finger to keyboard myself, but it may take a few days to find time. Pyrope 18:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I (as talk page stalker in residence) feel that User:Dirtlawyer1's proposal is exactly my idea of the best way forward, in terms of the 'trade'. I feel like I've been arguing about flags for the entirety of my eight years on Wikipedia. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Pyrope, Breton, the position advocated by some sports flag diehards -- let us do whatever we want, and let the individual sports WikiProjects decide uses within a given sport -- will never garner a majority of !votes at an MOS talk page RfC. I'm ready to move on the basis of what uses MOS:ICON should permit (members of Olympic and other national teams, individuals in elite international sports), and omit commenting on the established uses for association football, etc., that fall outside those parameters. The anti-flag crowd will turn out to oppose a serious RfC regarding wider approved use for sports articles, but there does appear to be potential !majority support for the limited uses I have described. If we want to suggest limitations on use, then we should include multiple parts (and separate !votes for the permitted uses and the limitations on uses). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Scaniaman188

Why did you delete my edit for the 'Stirling Moss' page? There was no reason for it to be deleted.

I'll leave a reply at your own talk page so you have it for future reference. Pyrope 18:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel that your reason for deleting my edit is invalid. I was stating his main event, and I dont see how that is an issue!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.158.211 (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)