Jump to content

User talk:SSSB/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8
This archive's most recent thread was archived 3 years, 10 months and 19 days ago. (Purge)

McLaren issues

Hey, firstly just wanted to thank you for updating everything regarding the McLaren withdrawal.

Couple things I'd like to ask-

On McLaren MCL35 you changed the results table to a style seen on drivers' pages - may I ask why? To me this is unnecessary, but we can stick with it for now. All of the cars' pages need to be changed to this way if you want it...

Secondly, should McLaren's, Carlos Sainz's, and Lando Norris' points total be 0 with their position being "NC" instead of 10th/19th? I'd like your input.

Again, thanks for the help. Admanny (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Admanny: no problem, always happy to lend a hand.
changed the results table to a style seen on drivers' pages - may I ask why? - because I thought it was done that way, but I was wrong. Please feel free to revert.
As for the McLaren situation I would have thought it would be NC with 0 points for the constructors and drivers championships (not 19th and 10th). But I can't think where any precedence for this has been set. I would go in more detail for my rational but I've got to go. I might go into more detail if I have time later.
SSSB (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
All good. I'll do a revert, probably. As for the second point, I checked the history of the F1 Drivers template, back to AUS 2017 at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:F1_Drivers_Standings&diff=772269977&oldid=772263679 (too lazy to properly link) but it shows Pascal Wehrlein withdrawn with points total as a dash and position (along with other retired drivers) as a dash as well. Revert to that instead? Admanny (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Edit: I think the situation is just overly complicated, for simplicity's sake let's keep 10th/19th, it'll either last a couple days if the race gets cancelled, or two weeks until Bahrain, if McLaren participates. Admanny (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@Admanny: when the fia release the championship standings on Sunday we follow that. (If the standings don't list them we put a dash for their positions and points). Until then it doesn't really matter.
SSSB (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

~Swarm~ {sting} 02:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Triple Crown of Motorsport

There is also a List of Winners of Triple Crown of Motorsport races page, which was created by the same editor as List of Triple Crown of Motorsport winners. I just want to notify you since you might have been unaware of that. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

1995 F1 World Championship

Just a remark with regards on the 1995 season article. Your edit is wrong with regards to your reasoning. The sentence you removed was correct until such the time the 2020 World Championship has started in the Americas. I will not revert it though as I do support the removal, but for a different reason. These sort of statements are really trivial as there are no reliable sources make a notice of it. It certainly doesn't belong in the lead of an article. We occasionally see similar statements that a season was the last time a driver from country X or Y participated and these are generally remove as non-notable facts as well. These are not on the same level as for instance a driver becoming the first son of former world champion to win the title himself which had lots of coverage in reliable sources. So don't hesitate to remove more of these trivial facts if you would come across them.Tvx1 17:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Broken references

Hi SSSB,

With this edit, you’ve corrupted a group of references that were connected to the notes you removed. Could you please fix this and insert the references if still required?

Thanks, MetalDylan (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done, sorry about that.
SSSB (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Flag icons

In relation to the flag icons I strongly believe that emphasis on nationality is of high importance, particularly in teams such as Ferrari where you can see that the design team gets progressively more Italian from 2006-2019. This is further shown in Alpha Romeo as when the team was BMW Sauber it had predominantly German engineers (eg Rampf, Zimmerman,Zander) but now as the team as badged Alpha Romeo it has mostly Italian engineers (Cincelli, Furbatto, Resta)

Another reason why flags are important is because it shows the array of nationalities that engineer the car and it also gives an insight into what the dominant nationality is of the team. Ralphster7 (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ralphster7:, 1) I have already responded at your talk page, please try to keep threads together and 2) this discussion should take place at a more centralised location. I'd recommend WT:F1.
SSSB (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I’m relatively new to Wikipedia and made a genuine mistake, sorry for any inconveniences. Ralphster7 (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ralphster7: no problem.
SSSB (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Aston Martin Logo Update - 31st March 2020

Hi SSSB, on the Aston Martin page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aston_Martin) I have added the new logo to be added.

Are you able to make the other changes I've requested? — Preceding unsigned comment added by K4garnish (talk • contribs) 09:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@K4garnish:, yes, I saw that. However the image you added was deleted as a copyright violation, I therefore need another image on wikicommons (which isn't a copyright violation) otherwise I can't add it. Also I dont see the necessity of the other two changes. I'm going to need some justification before I feel comfortable implementing those changes.
However it would be preferable to keep the entire discussion in a centralised location. If you want to contact me directly please use {{reply}} at Talk:Aston Martin to keep the discussion together. Thanks,
SSSB (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dirk de Beer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South African (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 14

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (March 2020).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 14th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Stay safe, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Aston Martin in F1 engine template

Just wondering why the engine template is needed on the Aston Martin in Formula One article considering Aston has never supplied engines to any other teams, Plus they only used their own engines for 6 races which isn't very notable enough for it's own template. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Speedy Question Mark: I am currently neutral on this. The only thing I will say for either side of the argument (you have one side covered) is that it isn't necessarily obvious that they are the only team that used Aston Martin engines. As it was Carfan568 who placed the infobox in the first place and who has argued for it remaining I advise you take it up with him (preferable at a centralised location (I.e.Aston Martin in Formula One) to stop it coming to a stand-off and so others can have their say) because as I said I am neutral on this (for the time being).
SSSB (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

1955 Syracuse Grand Prix

Hi SSSB. When you assessed the quality of 1955 Syracuse Grand Prix I hadn't finished what I had planned to do, and I'd say it's definitely not a stub, but I don't really understand the quality scales enough to say what it should be (and probably since I'm the only person to have edited the article it would be poor form to do it myself!). Could you have another look and reassess? I don't plan to do any more substantial edits (except maybe expanding/replacing the Background section with a more succinct entry list). Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@A7V2:  Done, I gave it B class, good work! For future reference you absoulutly can assess an article your self (up to WP:GA status), I assess my own contributions all the time! And the gradding scheme can be seen at Wikipedia:Content assessment.
SSSB (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll keep that in mind, I've added reports to a few articles and I never bothered changing (or often even checking) the rating, but definitely a few of them should be at least a C. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Canadian Grand Prix

Hi SSSB - regarding your reversion of my edit to Canadian Grand Prix; no probs from my perspective. However, the words "by convention" should be reconsidered this year, as 2020 has been anything but a "conventional" year. I would suggest that exceptional circumstances call for exceptions to convention.

Here's to hoping there actually will be Formula One racing this year!..............Regards, PKT(alk) 16:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Porsche Supercup:

If I wasn't assuming good faith i'd say this was you trying to get around the consensus reached here.

That consensus was achieved before the pandemic led to mass cancellations.

If you are so against red links you create it.

I would, except I don't have any evidence that the championship is even happening. The most I have see was a story about Jaxon Evans hoping to stay in the championship for a second year. I can't create an article with no evidence.

Otherwise it will happen.

Where is your proof of that? The pandemic has changed everything. We have multiple sources from just about every major championship—including the five world championships and a slew of domestic series including Supercars, Indycar, multiple TCR series and NASCAR—about the pandemic. We don't have anything on Porsche Supercup, and we never had anything from before the outbreak. The redlink was included based on the assumption it would happen, so its continued inclusion amounts to "we're making the assumption that our original assumption is still true". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

When the consensus was made is irrelvant. My take is that until a sufficent number of races are confirmed to be cancelled (or the whole series) it still qulaifies as a support series.
I see no evidence to suggest that the Porsche Supercup has been cancelled and unless you have evidence to suggest that the series is cancelled I don't see how that consensus could be ignored. A calendar was released, some events are clearly postponed or cancelled but some can still go ahead.[1] We will hear about Porsche Supercup when we hear about it, until then, due to a lack of evidence to the contary, we can assume that all the races that can go ahead will. More than half of the races are in support of Grands Prix that are still due to take place on the originally proposed date.
And just to be clear the otherwise it will happen refered to someone will eventually create the article if the season does indeed go ahead. I was not stating that the season would go ahead.
SSSB (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/2019/motorsports/porsche-mobil-1-supercup-2020-season-calendar-19381.html

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 15

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (April 2020).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 15th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Miscellaneous

Hope everyone stays safe. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Monaco 1982

I have just watched the entire race on YouTube and the changes i did matched with the race Bomast (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bomast:, please try to keep the thread in one place. I'll reply to you on your talk page where I started this discussion.
SSSB (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Carlos Sainz jr

you removed my addition to the lead paragraph stating that my addition to it about charles leclerc wasn't important enough. id beg to differ as in my opinion that the drivers future team mate is very much important information which belongs in the lead paragraph cheers, barlow2604 —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 14 May 2020

@Barlow2604: no other driver has this in their lead and I see no reason why Sainz should be an exception. If you disagree feel free to initiate a discussion at Talk:Carlos Sainz Jr.
SSSB (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

I would like to thank you for your massive efforts to try to keep this discussion and not have lost your own cool while doing so. In case you weren't aware, I can't take part because of this.Tvx1 19:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Schumacher

I cited a source from sky sports with Lewis Hamilton staying Schumacher should still be considered the greatest. Why was this removed? Stone cold lizard (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Stone cold lizard: because you claimed Widely regarded as the greatest Formula One driver ever which the source didn't support. The source said that Hamilton (1 person) thinks Schumacher should be considered the greatest.
SSSB (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
So have I been blocked from editing this page now? Stone cold lizard (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not aware of you having been blocked from doing anything
SSSB (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Dutch Grand Prix

Hi SSSB. Thanks for your recent edit to Dutch Grand Prix. I didn't realise those wikinotes weren't visible in the visual editor; that might explain why so many people have added "Not held" rows to various articles despite the wikinotes being there. I'll be sure to put notes like that outside the table markup in future. Thanks again! DH85868993 (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Chuqqling

I've noticed that he's removed one of your talk page comments as well as consistently breaking protocol. He's on the fast-track to a ban but I'm not really interested in getting involved in those sort of affairs aside from providing evidence. Thought I'd let you know. MSportWiki (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I fixed some obvious vandalism. I do not appreciate being attacked for carrying out a good deed. Quite why you are so in favour of vandalism is a real mystery to me, but you should get over that fetish quickly. Chuqqling (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Chuqqling: we didnt have a problem with your edits. We had a problem with the edit summaries which incorrectly identified those edits as vandalism. You need to look at WP:AGF and WP:VANDAL.
@MSportWiki: he is perfectly within his rights to remove content from his own user talk page (it is still in page history afterall). If he keeps incorrectly identifying edits as vandalism he can expect to receive a series of warning templates ({{uw-agf}} most probably) which will eventually lead to a report to admins. Personally I am more than happy to collect evidence but this does rely on people posting wanring messages on his talk page (for a user to receive a block for bad behaviour requires proof that he was warned and I am not going to actively look for reason to form a report) but I am willing to give him a chance to improve before we take it anywhere.
SSSB (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
My edit summaries correctly labelled the edits I reverted as vandalism. They were obviously vandalism; they inserted false facts, removed information, and made the grammar nonsensical. And yet, you're spending your time attacking me for fixing up the mess. Your attitude is disgusting. Chuqqling (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Chuqqling: 1) making grammaticial errors is not vandamism. Accusing someone who made a grammatical error of vandamism is failing to observe WP:AGF. Please read it and follow it, I expalined this to you very clearly on your talk page. These two reversions: Special:Diff/956884180 and Special:Diff/956884134 are not examples of vandalism (the same could be said about several other edits you made). They are simply examples of WP:COPYEDITing and are perfectly accptable. Okay, content may have been removed but these are trivial peices of information which the coppyeditor in question obviously felt were not necessary and/or redundent, they didn't insert false facts and information wasn't removed. The content was simply re-jigged. Taking this edit to 2003 Italian Grand Prix for example, the only content that was taken from this sentence was that the race ws 53 laps. The editor clearly felt (and incidently I agree) that the number of laps didn't need to be specified in that sentence. I repeat, this is not vandalism. Also telling me that my attitude is disgusting is a personal attack and frankly hurtful. And for the final time we are not attacking you, and we are not saying your edits were necessarily bad, but your edit summaries were wholly inaccurate. Please take this oppurtunity to learn from those who are more expirenced and actually know what vandalism is.
SSSB (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Your spelling is appalling. This may be a factor in you failing to distinguish between vandalism and productive edits. And your posting of trolling messages on my talk page after I have clearly indicated that you are not welcome to do so further diminishes my perception of you. Your attitude is, indeed, disgusting. You should have thanked me for dealing with vandalism, not spent your day defending vandals. Chuqqling (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Chuqqling: spelling has nothing to do with it and you need to stop being so patronising, you need to start assing good faith and you need to stop making personal attacks. And I am not defending vandals because they aren't vandals.
SSSB (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
"assing good faith", haha. The edits were vandalism. You are defending them. You are wasting your time attacking me for fixing vandalism. It really is disgusting. Chuqqling (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Not terribly surprised by the outcome to be honest. I would've taken part but I've been overly busy in the recent past and the discussion was outside my time-zone anyway. MSportWiki (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@MSportWiki: don't worry about it. I'm not surprised either, very few people will be.Such behaviour had to be stopped and the fact he kept sticking to his conclusions of vandalism after 4 other editors (2 admins) told him repeatedly told he was wrong made this inevitable. I think he got blocked when people gave up trying to tell he was wrong together with the realisation that letting him continue would be detrimental to the encyclopedia.
SSSB (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion notification

I have begun a discussion regarding the inclusion/removal of the double dagger on formula e results articles. please contribute to the discussion here. Sparkle1 (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Formula One races

Regarding [1]. I guess I'm still confused and need a bit more clarification. Why does our article call it the Mexican Grand Prix? --DB1729 (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just read the article. Thanks for confirming the IP's change. --DB1729 (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@DB1729: No problem.
SSSB (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If you wait 5 minutes

Dude, instead of calling this disruptive. )DO NOT POST STUFF LIKE THAT AGAIN to my talkpage!) Wait 5 minutes and see what people do. Then don't have hissy when they complete what they are trying to do. Let me make this clear do not post on my talkpage disruptive tags, cause you don't like something. That is clearly not what the tag is for Games of the world (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Games of the world: It was made very clear to you that those bold edits should be discussed, but you just went ahead and reinstated them with Now I'm making a bold edit which inserted the same thing. Now I admit I may have temporarily lost my cool but from where I was sitting it looked like a clear attempt to try and get around the discussion and consensus finding process which is disruptive.
SSSB (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@SSSB: If you don't mind, I'm just gonna chip something in here. @Games of the world: You certainly have the privilege to follow WP:BOLD. Specifically in this scenario, the third point, "Don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted." You are indeed open to discussing your edits on the talk page as said in "After the reversion of your bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war;...". Thus, I encourage you to follow WP:BOLD and be a good editor. Thanks. Admanny (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for acknowledging that the talkpage comment was a rather uncalled for. That's what I was upset with. I don't particularly care if I am reverted for good reason, cause I'm factually wrong or it can be phrased better. The original edit that McLaren reverted was not reverted with a good reason IMO seemed rather childish/POINTY particularly as he did not discuss on the talk page and I note that he answered a different editor with the same sort of suggestion with the same answer before the edit. Secondly at that point we ended up with 3 tables, I just wanted to show what I think the editor intended with his original edit (I doubt he wanted 3 tables). Wasn't intending anything malicious and certainly wasn't looking to war. Games of the world (talk) 09:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Games of the world: If it ever comes up, let the record show that, I should not have placed that message on your talk page, I failed to assume good faith, that was my bad. Mclarenfan17's reason for reverting wasn't great but in essence Mclarenfan17 is arguning that specfing the original dates for races isn't notable, But agin this should be discussed on the talk page.
SSSB (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to hop in here since my name came up and largely reiterate what Admanny has said. Games of the world, I get the feeling that you are treating WP:BOLD as some kind of free pass that allows you to make an edit that cannot be touched until it is discussed. That's not how it works; WP:BOLD is about encouraging people to make edits if they think it will improve an article. But WP:BOLD is part of the WP:BRD cycle: you make a bold edit, it gets reverted, and you discuss it.
For what it's worth, I don't think SSSB was out of line posting that warning to your talk page. He was perhaps a little premature, but certainly justified since you engaged in edit-warring. Your response here certainly did not help. All in all, you seem to be taking all of this rather personally. Please bear in mind that we all want the same thing—to make the articles as good as they can be. We just differ on what we think that is. Try to take the emotion out of it and you'll find the experience of editing to be much less of an ordeal. SSSB and I frequently butt heads, but we don't come to blows because we don't go into a discussion looking for a fight and then getting upset when we find one. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

2019WCCS

ok, so i don't know that i'm sorry, i think one row is for one driver but ok i would know now. sorry for that 😅 Nikodempias (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem, we've all done it at some point.
SSSB (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Romain Grosjean

Greetings,

This is in response to the removal of endorsements add to driver Romain Grosjean.

F1 racers in general are endorsers of various products. The endorsements they carry are not only critical to their personal wealth but at the same time important for the revenues of many F1 teams. An example of the usefulness of the topic is the repeated asking of others of what Sunglasses he wears. See Reddit article: https://www.reddit.com/r/sunglasses/comments/bpa0ba/looking_for_an_id_on_these_romain_grosjean/ . This is one of many posts on the same topic on reddit as people are genuinely curious, there is an interest in this information being available. Please also see driver Fernando Alonso who also has his listed endorsements as an example. I hope this helps bring more clarification on the listing.

also, could you please help me to understand the note mentioning something about cooking? I did not make that addition to the page and of course agree it is both irrelevant and not a topic that would be of interest to the driver.

thanks for your help and understanding, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcuello (talk • contribs) 19:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kcuello: Please see my response on Talk:Romain Grosjean where a similar message was posted.
SSSB (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the sentence about cooking. Something being WP:INTERESTING (or not) is not a reason for inclusion/exclusion. Intersting is subjective. I don't find endorsments interesting but the fact he has a cooking book, I do that interesting (note that this doesn't form any part of my arguement on the inclusion/exclusion of any matirial.
The reason the cooking book is mentioned is because it is covered in several sources therefore indication that it is notable, if you disagree you are of course welcome to start a discussion on the talk page of Romain Grosjean.
SSSB (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to RedWarn

Hello, SSSB! I'm Ed6767. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta my new tool called RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

RedWarn is currently in use by over 80 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 15:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Ferrari

Hi. For the first eight confirmed races (until the Italian Grand Prix) Ferrari should enter as only Scuderia Ferrari (maybe Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow for the 2020 Spanish Grand Prix, as the 2019 race). Then, according to a new hypotetical FIA calendar, we'll see. For example during the 2019 season Ferrari entered round 17-21 (from the Japanese until the Abu Dhabi GP) as Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow.--79.43.108.133 (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

That's all very well and good but you are engaging in speculation which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Unless this can be definitly proven it can't be added to any articles. In the meantime we must follow what the sources say. This currently means that we must show that Ferrari are going to enter all races as "Scuderia Ferrari" as this is what sources say on the matter.
SSSB (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. But according to the 2019 Spanish Grand Prix where Ferrari entered as Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow it could happen the same also for the 2020 race. So, FIA is able to re-update the official document prior to the Spanish race and then re-update it once again, before the next Grand Prix in Belgium. That's why Ferrari entered the 2019 Belgian Grand Prix as only Scuderia Ferrari. We'll simply see.--79.43.108.133 (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
We will. But we can't jump the gun.
SSSB (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

70th Anniversary and Styrian GP are only for 2020 due to coronavirus. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:7904:CCE0:A0CE:AEC7:EEF8:A375 (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

So? They were still under contract for 2020.
SSSB (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Stop me if this is a stupid question ...

... but why did you request a move of Formula 2 articles, but not a move of Formula 3 articles like 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship? Because now we have three related articles with three naming conventions:

  • 2020 Formula One World Championship (word rather than number, no FIA)
  • 2020 Formula 2 Championship (number rather than word, no FIA)
  • 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship (number rather than word, with FIA)

It's confusing and it's unnecessary. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: I didn't request a move of the F3 articles because I didn't look into it. Now that I have it would appear that there are multiple Formula 3 series in 2020. I assume that the FIA championship would be the primary topic? I will look deeper into it (and start a RM if appropirate) when I find the time (unless someone beats me to it). I also need to look at the individual F2 races which I will request to move sometime in the future.
SSSB (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it's the premier series. They use the newest model of car with a more-powerful engine. Most of the other series are classified as "regional", though some—like the British series—have special permission to continue billing themselves as regular series. Others, like the Australian series, get virtually no coverage. It's all part of a push by the FIA to consolidate the junior formulae into a more streamlined system, the FIA Global Pathway. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Formula 3

Hi, I think this discussion should be properly advertised. At least at WT:MOTOR. Currently it really doesn't have enough participation and there is risk it threads into a local consensus.Tvx1 20:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed and  Done.
SSSB (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 16

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past two months (May and June 2020).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 16th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

If anyone else would like to contribute to future issues, please comment at Wikipedia talk:Scripts++. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Practice

I'm a bit confused by your edit summary here. You claim practise with s is the British spelling of the noun, but the source you provide states the exact opposite. Practise is a verb.Tvx1 14:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It was a typo. My point was that British English does have the spelling of "practise.
SSSB (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Sam Bird's move to Jaguar

Hi there,

I'm confused why you reverted my cited edit about Sam Bird's move to Jaguar. You refer to the article saying that he is "set to" move - the article states: "The Race can reveal that Bird’s move to Jaguar has been agreed, meaning that he will exit the Envision Virgin team after the upcoming season finale races in Berlin." Can you clarify why my edit was reverted? Is this not an announcement that he will be moving? (However, I totally appreciate your revert on my other edit - sorry for the confusion, I definitely thought "Best Finish" referred to "Best Race Finish" and not "Best Championship Finish". Sorry about that!) A-Whitethorn-Tree (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I seem to have let a message explaining this on your talk page at the same time that you posted this on mine!
SSSB (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Race results

Non-qualifiers' race results are "DNQ", that's the result of their entry to the race. Saying that somebody DNQ'd in a qualifying table says they DNQ'd for qualifying, when they did not. These guys were 27th and 28th in qualifying, therefore their result for the race (their entry) is DNQ. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet, I disagree. For me saying DNQ in the qualifying table means they didn't qualify for the race and therefore they weren't in the race and by extension they weren't in the race classification. Like with 2011 Australian Grand Prix.
SSSB (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Well every other number in that column (in the qualifying table), for every other driver, refers to their position in that session (or those sessions when there was more than one qualifying session). So it should be the same for the non-qualifiers. It is very counter-intuitive to change it for the guys at the bottom. Autosport do it this way. Many readers go straight to the race result and skip the preamble. To find drivers absent is unhelpful. Regardless of whether they physically took part in the race or not, their result is DNQ. Same for drivers who DNS'd, for example injured in the morning warm-up or whatever. They weren't in the race either so by your measure should not be in the race result. Also, many articles don't have a qualifying table anyway. I don't mean to fight with you by the way, I've seen a large number of very good edits from you, but I feel strongly about this point. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Incidentally, a word to the wise – continuing to revert (or edit-war in some people's eyes) after a discussion is ongoing, is poor form. I've seen people blocked for it. We don't need to make a big fuss here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@Bretonbanquet: Firstly, I don't care how Autosport do it and incidentally formula1.com (the source cited) dont do it that way. If a reader skips the quali table and gets confused that really their problem and no-one else's, besides we are an encyclopedia, not a results database. My point about DNQ's not being in the race table is not that they didnt take part but that they weren't allowed to, there entry to the actual race (not the Grand Prix weekend as a whole but only the race) has effectively been denied.
Now, in the event that a quali table isnt present I do think it reasonable to list DNQ's in those tables for completeness but otherwise I find listing DNQ's in race results tables counter-intuitive (for reasoning for which can be inferred above). I have no wish to get into a drawn out argument and I am not going to fight you on this (it's clear we dont see eye-to-eye and I dont feel strongly.) But perhaps a more widely held discussion is needed at a centralised location?
SSSB (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
By that token, I don't care how formula1.com do it; the sheer number of historical errors they make render it useless to me. How they ever got preferred sourcing I'll never know. I disagree on this being the reader's problem; we are here to make it easier for the reader, not make him/her jump through hoops. We're not a results database, but these are very much just simplified results. The level of complexity on the season articles would be more of a cause for concern in that department. You've changed your rationale there but yes, they were not permitted to take the start, but their entry is still valid, therefore should have a marker in a simple, single event results table. In the absence of an entry list, we also place withdrawn entries in the results table, simply because there is nowhere else to put them. Also, in the articles I worked on, particularly with the pre-qualifying sessions, I made it very clear in the text who had pre-qualified and who had not, which is where manuals of style prefer explanations to be.
Quali tables should be present, of course, and it's a bit of a sad story that in 2020, many race articles still don't have them. I was planning to do them, but not if I have to follow rules I find counter-intuitive, which don't appear to have any basis in consensus. Some 60s and 70s race reports are just bare bones. But yes, I don't think we're going to agree. I'm happy to take part in a wider discussion. As I say, by way of good faith, I like your editing, particularly fighting vandalism and general idiocy. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@Bretonbanquet: I dont care how formula1.com do it either, I was just making the point that different sources present things in different ways. Like I said I am have this position, but I dont hold onto to it strongly and in the absence of any consensus (as here) I believe in maintaining the status quo so feel free to change it back pending a wider discussion. For what it's worth I am also a fan of your work here and if I come across an article without the table and I have time I do add it.
SSSB (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Ah, okay, fair point. Good, well that sounds more than fair, so thanks for your understanding. And thanks for the kind words. One day all the race reports will be of higher quality. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Likewise.
SSSB (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

John Walton page:

Hey,

You recently removed my editing of "MY Father's" wiki page! The original source that is used to claim he was married to Louise Goodman did NOT actually say that at all. And the reason it didn't say that is because he was NEVER married to Louise Goodman!! So, you have no issue with allowing false claims, as long as the reference used is cited correctly but the actual information in the citation does not exist??? HUM...

I have also corrected the error about where my father grew up. He did NOT grow up in Ballymun as cited in some online article but actually grew up in Coolock, as cited by the F1 blogger Joe Saward. You didn't seem to like this citation either?? So, what I'm getting from this is that you are far more concerned with correct citation formating than FACTUAL information!!

Please do NOT continue to edit MY FATHER's wiki page on his anniversary when his own children are merely attempting to correct the record.. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermeticpoet (talk • contribs) 16:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hermeticpoet: you being his son isn't relevant. All content must be reliable sourced and blogs are not considered reliable. If you can find a reliable source then by all means add it but until then you can't just change the information. The problem (and I'm not saying I don't believe you) is that anyone can claim to know someone personally so claiming that you know him doesn't add any credibility to your edits. WP:VNT and WP:SPS apply to your edits. Finally, you don't have the right to dicatate which pages people are allowed to edit.
SSSB (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok, come down off your high horse there pal. I am pointing out that there is inaccurate information on the site and you don't seem to care about that. So, lets at least clear this up, shall we? You can forget about my reference first because wikipedia's ridiculous policy of no real primary sources means that my father's birth cert, marriage cert, my own birth cert are apparently NOT good enough! Yet, someone online can make a FALSE statement and then use it as a source for a wikipedia page and that's acceptable??
The reference that is cited for Louise Goodman being married to my Father is wrong. The article does NOT say they were married. Therefore, that correction should stay on the page. If you insist on not correcting the place where he grew up because all I have is primary sources to contradict the inaccurate secondary source, then so be it. But the edit about him being married to Louise should be allowed to stand? Or do you have an issue with me pointing out the reference given does not actually say what the original poster says it does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermeticpoet (talk • contribs) 16:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@Hermeticpoet:
  1. The Goodman claim isn't in the article
  2. You can cite primary sources (though they can't be used to establish notability). The problem is with self-published sources.
  3. I do care if there is incorrect information but for all I know you are the one who is trying to add it which is why policies on reliable sources exist. This is a case of conflicting information as there is nothing to suggest that Seward is more reliable than Hamilton. In fact the opposite as Hamilton is established and reliable journalist (even if he makes mistakes), Seward is a blogger.
  4. Yet, someone online can make a FALSE statement and then use it as a source for a wikipedia page and that's acceptable?? - no, that would fall under WP:SPS. For all I know Seward is the one making False statements, Hamilton is relaible.
We have these policies to avoid the addition of incorrect information, although sometimes it backfires. I know it may be frustrating but unless an altenative relaible source can be found we must use the reliable sources present in the article, (even if the reliable source made a mistake because we don't know if he did).18:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Daniil Kvyat @ Austrian Grand Prix

Well, we live in a fake news era so I'm not surprised common sense doesn't mean much these days. FIA box score is obviously wrong and you might want to tell me where Daniil Kvyat lost those two laps if he clearly retired on lap 70? The Liberty-era graphics often make simple errors by listing everyone not on the lead lap with only one lap down even if they are lapped more times. A lie repeated a thousand times becomes a truth and I see you're fine with that. I'll check if FIA bothers to correct their error which you are repeating here. --Bullflower (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bullflower: I know it's frustrating but Wikipedia has policies against original research. These policies are designed to prevent the addition of incorrect/misleading info but sometimes it does the opposite. WP:VNT applies here. If you can find a source which shows that Kvyat was on his 70th lap (i.e. he had completed 69 laps) feel free to add that source and change it (race highlights aren't good enough as it doesn't confirm he was on the lead lap). Until then we have no choice but to leave it as is and see if Formula1.com make a correction.
SSSB (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
FIA's Lap Chart, History Chart and Lap Analysis all show Kvyat having completed 69 laps.Tvx1 14:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Then it can be changed if one of those is provided.
SSSB (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 Done.Tvx1 18:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad this has been fixed and common sense - and pure facts - have prevailed. --Bullflower (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
The FIA has allegedly updated their Austrian Grand Prix official result to correct the obvious mistake, but I have not been able to find the actual corrected result on their website.Tvx1 16:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@Tvx1: yes, I heard the same on the BBC commentary. But I couldn't find it either.
SSSB (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
FOM has changed it on the F1 site though.Tvx1 17:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

New Formula One Grands Prix

Hello. Why Styrian Grand Prix and Tuscan Grand Prix have not been created yet? I mean, the own article, such as Vietnamese Grand Prix.--79.43.108.133 (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Because the Vietnamese Grand Prix is due to run for more than one year. But all the evidence suggests that the Styrian and Tuscan Grands Prix will happen once making dedicated pages redundant as they will exclusivly contain info from 2020 Styrian Grand Prix and 2020 Tuscan Grand Prix respectively.
SSSB (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thank you.--79.43.108.133 (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Outdent

Just a word of advice with regards to the usage of the outdent template in discussions. You need to add a number or indentation text after a pipe to the template instead of merely including it. If you don't, the outdent line won't properly connect to the text. You can find out more in the template's instructions.Tvx1 19:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

2006 San Marino Grand Prix - Uncontroversial citing in lead

It's my understanding that if a statement is unlikely to be challenged it can be left uncited in the lead for readibility purposes (although this is not a Wikipedia policy) "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source" WP:MOSLEAD#Citations.

Although minor I really don't think we need to cite that it is the last F1 race to be held in Imola until 2020 as it's easily verifiable and is unlikely to be challenged, similar to how we don't cite that it's Schumacher's 7th victory at the San Marino Grand Prix in the body and how it's the last time to date that the San Marino Grand Prix has been held.

Again although this is very minor I'd like to establish some background info for other articles in WP:Motorsport. FozzieHey (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@FozzieHey: (based on my interpretation) WP:MOSLEAD#Citations is written with the assumption that all that is within the lead is included in the main body (as all elements of the lead should be) and cited there. WP:V states that all content must be verifiable and any unsourced content may be removed based solely on it being unsourced.
Is it strictly necessary, probably not (WP:V says everything must be verifiable, not sourced, I suppose my edit summary was a bit excessive) but I always like to err on the side of caution. If it ever goes to WP:GA you can be sure it will need to be cited.
The rule I follow is, everything should be sourced (we dont want readers to waste time searching for verification themselves) but dont repeat citations unnecessarily (if its cited in the body you rarely need to cite the lead.
You may also want to take a look at the essay WP:VNT.
SSSB (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
The section I quoted of MOSLEAD seems to be separate from the citations in the body part. Looking at the rest of the somethings aren't mentioned in the body as well, should we should also cite sources on it being Schumacher's 7th victory as well as his 5th win at Imola in 6 years? Actually looking at the article now it doesn't look like there's much citations at all (Race report is completely uncited) FozzieHey (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@FozzieHey: we could probably find a citation which lists all of Schumacher's wins, that covers two facts. We could probably also find a citation which includes a race report. Is still think that your quote from MOS:LEAD is predicated on content being sourced in the body, but I suppose this is open to interpretation. Like I said I like to err on the side of caution and cite everything even if (as possible in this case) it doesnt strictly require it. I probably shouldn't have made such a fuss.
SSSB (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Rob Marshall

Hi by mistake I made a separate article on Marshall called Rob Marshall (Formula One) however my article contains more detail and references therefore should this one be deleted or merged with the other one. Ralphster7 (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ralphster: you'll want to merge and then redirect. It doesn't really matter which one you choose to merge to.
SSSB (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Including "FIA" in support series

"FIA Formula 2" is listed as "FIA" in both 2021 Formula One World Championship and 2022 Formula One World Championship, if we're not gonna include it that's fine but why include "FIA Formula 3" instead of "Formula 3"? this doesn't make any sense and just looks messy. FozzieHey (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@FozzieHey: - FIA is necessary for Formula 3 because there are multiple Formula 3 championships in 2020. That's why the article titles are 2020 Formula 2 Championship and 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship. Therefore FIA is unnecessary for f2 (and f1) but this is not the case for f3. FIA should be removed for 2021 and 2022.
SSSB (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Generally it'd be presumed as the FIA championship and not other categories as those would include the country name, but I see your point. I'll remove it from the other articles. FozzieHey (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 2nd Silverstone Formula 2 round

This is why I was originally here... just so you know a user turned 2020 2nd Silverstone Formula 2 round into an article shortly after you nominated for deletion (in case you aren't watching the RfD page). A7V2 (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

A7V2, thanks.
SSSB (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Linkrot

Hello,

What do you mean by using full cite? I don't understand what I should change,

Thank you LuciusLightbringer (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@LuciusLightbringer: By full citation it means that you should not just have a url as a reference but include other information (such as title, date, accessdate, who wrote it etc.) I always use WP:Citation Style 1 and their relevant templates (full list of templates here) but there are other ways.
You should be able to find additional help/any other information at Help:Citations (or if you don't feel like reading feel free to ask here). I hope this has been helpful.
SSSB (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! It is some useful reading material. I will try to use that next time. LuciusLightbringer (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Explanation required

Remember this?

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036#User:Chuqqling_incorrecly_identified_edits_as_vandalism_and_is_refusing_to_acknowledge_this

You accused an editor of “incorrectly identifying edits as vandalism”. They were indefinitely blocked by User:Prodego, as a result of your efforts.

Here, though, you describe one of the edits you specifically used to get that person indefinitely blocked, as vandalism.

Please explain yourself. 46.233.112.59 (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I dont remember the specific case but I dare say it was a typo on my end (the was in above summary was probably intended as a wasn't). In any case I was (and still am) of the opinion that this edit of Chuqqling should have been kept. If I really did consider it vandalism I would have left {{uw-vandal1}} on the relevant user talk page.
SSSB (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
So to clarify then: you don't believe that that edit, made by a now blocked IP ([2]), was vandalism? 46.233.112.59 (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Correct.
SSSB (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
You're actually genuinely convinced that those edits, by a now-blocked IP, all of which turned good article text into nonsense, and all of which have now been undone, were made with the best of intentions? 46.233.112.141 (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes. It was just a recording. Incorrect tense, yes. But not vandalism. Why are you so interested in this? And what does it matter.
SSSB (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "It was just a recording" - what does that mean?
  • "Incorrect tense, yes" - not just incorrect tense. The IP removed information and rewrote good text to turn it into nonsense.
  • "Why are you so interested in this?" - it is an interesting situation. An anonymous IP made 11 edits on 2 December 2019. Every one of them was objectively harmful. Sadly, the harm was not undone until nearly six months later. But instead of thanking the person who fixed the damage, you decided to attack them, and you actually succeeded in getting them blocked indefinitely. The IP was later blocked, for the seventh time in 2.5 years, due to long term abuse. If someone had called those edits vandalism at the time they were made, then it might have been reasonable for you to say “hang on, they are clearly harmful but it’s ossible that they might not be vandalism”. But aggressively defending them ‘’six months later’’, and actually forcing the person who fixed the damage off Wikipedia, was so completely bizarre and inexplicable that I’ve been keeping an eye on you ever since to see what other bizarre and inexplicable things you might get up to.
  • "And what does it matter" - I imagine that the long term abuser who made the edits was overjoyed by what you did. You still seem proud of getting someone kicked off Wikipedia for fixing vandalism. I think the way you behaved was truly despicable and possibly the most appalling thing I've seen on Wikipedia. 46.233.112.125 (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I meant just a reordering. As for the rest of it, I am not going to repeat to you what you seemingly know I already told Chuqqling (talk · contribs).
  • This is starting to come close to Wikipedia:Harassment and you have just admitted to acting in such a way which could be interpreted as such.
If you didn't want to be held accountable for your actions, you shouldn't have acted. You are going to be scrutinized for what you so.
You have persistently misrepresented the edits made by the anonymous, and now blocked for long term abuse, IP. They were not "just a reordering". They were not just incorrect grammar. They took good article text and turned it into nonsense.
Your persistent misrepresentation, and aggressive defense of the IP almost six months after they made their destructive edits raises many red flags. What is the connection between you and the long term abuser behind the IP? 46.233.112.54 (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Your lack of response is noted. Your behaviour here is so bizarre on its face that this needs wider scrutiny. I will be posting to the administrator's noticeboard. 86.187.231.239 (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

3RR

As part of your bizarre crusade to force substandard, irrelevant text into Sergio Pérez, you have broken the three revert rule. Unless you re-revert your fourth revert, I'll report this at the relevant noticeboard. 51.6.138.68 (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Oops, lost count of reverts. Though I strongly disagree with substandard, irrelevant text. And thats not a reason for removal. I also don't appreciate being blackmailed.
SSSB (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Not to mention that 4th edit was a comprise.
SSSB (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  1. You think that text being substandard and irrelevant is "not a reason for removal"? Then you have no idea what you are supposed to be doing here.
  2. You think that being asked to follow the rules is blackmail? That's pathetic. You unambiguously broke the rules and I pointed out how you might avoid sanctions anyway.
  3. Your fourth revert was not a compromise at all. Even if it had been, that's irrelevant. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. 51.6.138.68 (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Just to let you know SSSB I remade your last edit (the one you self-reverted). IP, please discuss on the talk page if you want to remove this content as you haven't really given a reason for removal. A7V2 (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh great, another dishonest, disruptive editor. You may disagree with the reason I gave for removing the text; you may not falsely claim that I did not give a reason. If you do that, you make it clear that you are not here to write a quality encyclopaedia. 51.6.138.68 (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
If it's substandard rewrite it. Being substandard is not a reason for removal. And it isn't irrelevant, you haven't offered an explaniation as to why it could be considered irrelevant.
Being told "do this or I'll do that" is not something I appreciate. You should have politely remindemed me that I had broken the rule. The threat to take it to a noticeboard was unnecessary.
The fourth revert was a compimise because in the preceding edit summary you wrote: if you care that much about his supposed religious convictions, write a proper paragraph (Special:Diff/973304168) - I put it in a paragraph.
Finally common sense would suggest you discuss an edit after you found out it was contraversial, instead of insisting it go without proper discussion.
SSSB (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
If I encounter substandard material, I may rewrite it, if I think that will improve the encyclopaedia, or I may remove it, if I think that will improve the encyclopaedia. Either way, substandard material must be removed from the encyclopaedia. If you cannot understand, or somehow disagree with that simple notion, why the hell are you here?
I am under no obligation to tell you in any particular tone that you broke a rule. You broke it, I could have simply reported you, I gave you an opportunity to avoid that. Next time, I will just report you.
Your fourth revert was not a compromise of any kind, and as I explained above, that is irrelevant anyway.
Finally, your spelling is atrocious. 51.6.138.68 (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
If you encounter substandard material you rewrite, substandard is not a reason for deletion (WP:RUBBISH), you can always cite another reason for removal.
No, you are not under any obligation to use any tone but I would be nice if you were less aggressive, I also consider it an WP:AGF requirement to point out they violated this rule on their talk page as it can easily be done inadvertently, but I suppose that's up to you.
It was a comprise because I did exactly as you asked, I also never disputed its irrelevance.
I know my spelling is atrocious but one of the great thing about Wikipedia is there are plenty of people whose spelling isn't who can correct me (if I don't spot it myself).
Finally it's clear to see we disagree on some things here. But I don't see any reason for us to continue if we don't agree and are just repeating ourselves.
SSSB (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
A compromise is, by definition, a mutual agreement. You cannot simply declare your edit to be a compromise; and even if it had been a compromise, so what? I will continue to delete substandard material as and when necessary, and I hope that I don't encounter any more idiots like you, who spammed my talk page with templates instead of attempting any kind of actual dialogue, does not understand what compromise is or even how to spell it, and thinks that deleting substandard material is somehow unacceptable. It is clear to me that you are one of the breed of "editors" who has no real clue about building an encyclopaedia. You are obviously here merely to waste your own time and others. 51.6.138.68 (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I thought I'd best reply lest my silence be misinterpted again. I have acknowledged that I broke 3rr. At the time my (attempted) compromise satisified your demand but I acknowledge that this is not an excuse for breaking 3rr. As for the rest of it, I decline to comment. I will let other visitors to this page make up their own minds and I will let my edits, your edits and the edits at Sergio Pérez speak for themselves.
SSSB (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

F1cstat update

Hi SSSB. In your recent update to {{F1cstat}}, did you deliberately increase the "entries" value for Mercedes by 2? Or was that an error? DH85868993 (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@DH85868993: that was error I made (and have now corrected). Thank you for spotting it.
SSSB (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
No worries. DH85868993 (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 17

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past two months (July and August 2020).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 17th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Stay safe --DannyS712 (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion regarding your behaviour

Please see WP:AN/I. 86.187.238.116 (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment - the thread in question was taken off of WP:ANI by RickinBaltimore. Please re-inform me if it gets re-added.
SSSB (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

AFD

Hi, SSSB. Please, remind me how to correctly add the second article to the nomination? I have removed the second list from the header because of the bot's comment which tells that there should be only one article in the header. Cheers. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Corvus tristis: Honestly, I had no idea. However, after some searching I think WP:MULTIAFD should awnser all your questions. (They expalin much better than I could)
SSSB (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo

Then why didn't removed other correct links? "no benefit to bypassing a redirect" - never heard of it. Eurohunter (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: see WP:NOPIPE where it says It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects:
SSSB (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday!

Have a very happy birthday on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Not linking sponsors

Is "Sponsors should not be linked" a official guideline or something you came up with?

Also, you may want to check out for WP:SEAOFBLUE in the articles for the pre-2000 seasons since it doesn't follow the same linking pattern for the later seasons.

Horcoff (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Horcoff: it's an opinion. I don't see how linking sponsors is in any way necessary or the information on the other side of those links is in any way relevant. It's an issue which is covered in WP:OVERLINK. If the link doesn't help a readers understanding of the subject it shouldn't be linked.
However, there may be a potential compromise. I notice that the consturctors are already linked in the next column over. Therefore, the formating that can currently be seen here would be acceptable to me.
Also the faliure to follow WP:SEAOFBLUE in some articles is not an excuse to carry it forward to others.
SSSB (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
@SSSB:
Not using it as an excuse mate, but the fact that you simply reverted all of my edits in all pages except for the 2001 season got me thinking. If you were okay with simply linking sponsors, then why didn't you do the same for the other articles?
If you're okay with that formating you mentioned, I'll proceed to do the same to the earlier seasons. My opinion weights the same as yours, and I believe it may help readers understand that part of the full team name is actually just a sponsor. (For instance, one may think Orange Arrows is refering to a colored arrow rather than a sponsor)
Cheers. Horcoff (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
@Horcoff: If you were okay with simply linking sponsors, then why didn't you do the same for the other articles? - because WP:SEAOFBLUE takes priority and the compromise only occured to me when I got to 2001 (having not previously realised that construcotrs were already wikilinked in another column). I'm okay with all wikilinks (inlcuding the one linked above) so long as WP:SEAOFBLUE and MOS:REPEATLINK (within sections) is observed.
SSSB (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

added Ajpolino • LuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
renamed There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources needed - wherefore?

You added a box in this article. I can't find, which facts do need sources, but i could do the research easily. If the article still needs sources, let me know. --Amtiss, SNAFU ? 02:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Amtiss: A substantial number of sources have been added since I added that tag. Feel free to remove the box.
SSSB (talk) 09:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Driver results

Thanks for stepping in. Decided to go with a new key table after all... These F1 tables really need some looking at in order to comply with MOS:ACCESS... Let's brace ourselves for more heated debates in the WikiProject :D Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase:, no problem. I'm braced.
SSSB (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Heads up

Hi, just a heads up for you, I have reported Dwhately for edit warring, here. Cheers. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

List of Formula One Grands Prix

Hi, I strongly disagree with you with removing the actual list of Formula One Grands Prix, since it is a list that I myself check frequently for several reasons. My instagram is lance_stroll_no1 and I am open to peacefully debate the issue with you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mj4e (talk • contribs) 04:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mj4e: you may want to start by considering the arguments that have been made on Talk:List of Formula One Grand Prix (where the discussion is, and should continue, to take place).
SSSB (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

1974 Belgian Grand Prix
added links pointing to Trojan, John Watson, Token, Lola, Loti and Tyrrell

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

2021 Formula One World Championship

Hi SSSB, thanks for your suggestion, I will be sure to follow it. --Informatica2019 (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Informatica2019: given the apparent dispute on whether this should be included it might be better for you to start a discussion at Talk:2021 Formula One World Championship.
SSSB (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Hello! Thank you for editing other articles properly, especially in Scuderia AlphaTauri and Red Bull Racing. Mitzikarl (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you!
SSSB (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Editing and deleting it

It's not about what I tested and returned. I deleted the forwarding to link an article in wikidata. And then naturally returned the transfer back.Niilart (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 Formula One World Championship

I have undone your revert of the table formatting. It goes against no consensus, is widely recognised as improving readability, and moreover is not your decision to make. Please don't WP:OWN. Reach consensus to revert on the talk page if you wish to do so. -- AtomCrusher (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Your revert goes against WP:BRD, table formatting is as much my decision as yours and if you want to initiate a change the onus is on you to find a consensus. You are dispalying WP:OWN behaviour in this situation by insisting I find consensus to maintain status quo.
SSSB (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
My revert was because you were (I assume inadvertently) displaying WP:OWN behaviour with regard to minor good-faith visual changes. Your comment about the status quo backs that up, and is very similar to one of the example statements in WP:OWN. There is, of course, no "status quo" for articles, and your initial revert should have (per OWN) indicated what guidelines the change was against, rather than a vague "not an improvement." As it states there, "this has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version." And of course there's no requirement for consensus before a good-faith non-detrimental change is initiated, that's a bizarre stance to take considering the ethos of this site. -- AtomCrusher (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@AtomCrusher: my bad, I should have been more explicit. Firstly, an article does have a status quo (the existing state of affairs). Secondly, I can't help but notice that your revert of my revert doesn't contain any guidelines either, just an opinion, one which I happen to disagree with. As much as I agree that in some cases row spans are beneficially, I don't believe that this is one of those situations. And of course there's no requirement for consensus...considering the ethos of this site. - my implication of this point is another example of my poor comunication today, what I meant to say is if reverted the onus is on you to find a consensus. (per WP:BRD) My bad.
SSSB (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
If you plan or pursing this it may be more beneficail to you to start a discussion on Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship for a wider range of opinions that come with a centralised discussion.
SSSB (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Espically given Joseph2302 seems to side with me on this.
SSSB (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate some clarification there. However, I can't find a policy on the status quo being preferred; on the contrary I can find WP:SQS which would seem to suggest that it is indeed _not_ a justification in its own right. Now, if I did again revert the most recent reversion then that would be going against all sorts of things, but my initial revert I believe was still justified as there was no WP:REVEXP. As I mentioned above, the appearance of WP:OWN is I'm sure not deliberate, but nevertheless discouraging. And yes, I did notice Joseph's second revert, which itself arguably breaks BRD and doesn't solve the initial issues above. -- AtomCrusher (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I want to make clear, by the way, that whilst I'm bringing this up with you directly, I'm not trying to pin all of this on you. For whatever reason, I've noticed the F1 articles in particular are watched like hawks by others who occasionally exhibit WP:OWN behaviour. I've been on WP a little while, and it's distressing to see that it's become almost toxic in that regard. -- AtomCrusher (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Huh, seems like I'm the wrong. I suppose it's up to you how to proceed.
SSSB (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

added Izno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 18

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past three months (September, October, and November 2020).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 18th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Updated scripts Twinkle has made a number of improvements, including using a change tag to identify actions made with it and automatically filing edit requests for protected XfD nominations.
SD0001's shortdescs-in-category is now compatible with scripts modifying category listings, such as Equazcion's CatListMainTalkLinks
GhostInTheMachine's TalkHelper2 is a newer version of their prior script, TalkHelper
GeneralNotability's spihelper updated to 2.2.10, fixing a number of small bugs, automatically tagging globally locked socks as such in the sockpuppet template, and restoring open cases following an SPI history merge.
Enterprisey's script-installer gadget has been updated with more internationalization of messages, as well as addition of a user preference, window.scriptInstallerInstallTarget to allow controlling where new scripts are to be installed.

Open tasks

Miscellaneous

My apologies for the delayed issue. As always, if anyone else would like to contribute, help is appreciated. Stay safe, --DannyS712 (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Mick Schumacher

Number.--Island92 (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Island92: that's wonderful. Then WP:CITE it in the article.
SSSB (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@Island92:, seriously, you go to the effort of putting this here and then can't be bothered to put that link in the article? It is your responsibility! Not mine.
SSSB (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
As I said, you were faster than me this time, because I was editing, adding the same information, on another encyclopedia.--Island92 (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@Island92: Sorry if I came across a little aggressive. It would be helpful if you added the source immediatly, or specified that a source would be added imminently, this would avoid any potential future misunderstandings.
SSSB (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome. I tried to find another source written in English, more reliable, but that in Italian is good enough to be trusted on anyway.--Island92 (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sakhir Grand Prix

Official document.--Island92 (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC) And Norris has a penalty. No families allowed to attend here.--Island92 (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC) My mistake. Families present.--Island92 (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Island92: I owe you an apology. I un-did too many of your edits (I simply wasn't paying attention and hit the wrong button, I only meant to undo the Norris edit). Sorry about that. Unless I am being blind (and it is already cited) you don't need to come here and provide the sources on my talk page (you did that last time too), just add them to the article and that will be fine.
SSSB (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Island92 (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

2020 Formula 2 Championship

Hello, how are you ? I know you're the page manager, but you forgot to remove Current motorsports from the Formula 2 season. Could you please remove it? thank you ILR10111996 (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done although I'm not sure how I'm the "page manager". Wikipedia pages dont have "managers".
SSSB (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: User warning templates

I don't see any libel (it's just the typical cancel culture bandwagon), and even it it were, it is not a serious statement to overwarn. (CC) Tbhotch™ 14:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I have to disagree, but to each thier own.
SSSB (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Abu Dhabi Grand Prix FP1

Schwartzan won't attend for Haas, it's sure. Mick will drive in place of Magnussen and the other driver is Fittipaldi.--Island92 (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Island92: you keep saying that but so far the best evidence you have come up with for this claim was based on original research. That's not good enough.
SSSB (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Haas have confirmed it, thanks to this source. The entry list will confirm it as well. Schwartzan won't attend for Haas, unless he's confirmed for another team, but so far no announcements have been made about him.--Island92 (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
@Island92: - that is original research. Firstly, (assuming google translate is accurate) the writter isn't even confident that Schumacher will replace Magnussen. Even if he does, there is no reason why Schwartzman can't replace Fittipaldi, and these is nothing in the source to suggest he isn't. Schwartzman isn't even mentioned in the article. Finally, Haas haven't confirmed anything. They didn't write that source. The entry list will confirm wether this is the case or not and unless you provide evidence that isn't WP:OR we will have to wait for it.
SSSB (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

New F1 season parameters

Hi SSSB. Thanks for adding the 2021 parameters to the F1 driver/team infoboxes. A tip I've found handy in previous years: If you unhide the new season parameters in {{Infobox F1 driver/sandbox}} and {{Infobox F1 team/sandbox}} before updating the driver/team infoboxes, you can use the sandbox templates to preview the changes. The trick is remembering to remove "/sandbox" before saving the article, unlike what I did here. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for the tip.
SSSB (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

About List of PlayStation Vita games (A–L)

Hello, it is my first time to edit in Wikipedia. Thanks for your advice and I can provide the source:

https://nippon1.jp/consumer/galleria/

Please check if you still have concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WESLCH (talk • contribs) 15:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@WESLCH: I don't read whatever language that source is in so I can't really comment on if it's acceptable, though at first glance it looks alright. The idea is that you add the source to the article in your edit, if you do your edit again and add that url in the edit as well it should be all right.
SSSB (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Stop reverting team changes for F1 drivers

Their contracts have ended with their previous teams as the season is over. For example, Vettel is now a contracted Aston Martin driver. Tomhenwil (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tomhenwil: This is not necessarily true. In the past teams have blocked moves until the start of the calendar year. You are engaging in WP:OR. How do you feel about the compromise that I used in Carlos Sainz Jr. (Special:Diff/994168868)?
SSSB (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. Tomhenwil (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 19

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (December 2020).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 19th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Open tasks

Pending requests Pending requests

Miscellaneous

As always, if anyone else would like to contribute, help is appreciated. Stay safe, and happy holidays! --DannyS712 (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SSSB/Archive_4&oldid=1033544534"