User talk:Tvx1/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

MFD

I'm not sure what your edit here was doing but it was a massive change in the page that the bot then archived half the page with hundreds of discussions vanishing. Was this the discussion you wanted to add? MFD is heavily backed up at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what happened there, bit it clearly went berserk. You've solved it correctly. Thanks for that. Tvx1 19:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Some draft

Hi Tvx1, I have worked on improving the referencing of my topic, using reliable sources in the music industry frame. I have also looked at similar pages such as those of Seth Troxler and The Martinez Brothers. Seems like they use similar external sources as I have, including Resident Advisor, Mixmag magazine, Fact Mag, Discogs, and so forth. Links to these pages I am referring to are here below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Troxler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martinez_Brothers

I am talking about the draft for Catz 'n Dogz page, which you've recently reviewed. I have re-submitted my page and am waiting for review. However I am wondering why my draft declined since the sources are similar and have been accepted for the other pages, and not for mine. Would be great to get your thoughts on this, in order to help improve the article.

Thanks a lot, much appreciated.

-Tropicalpineapple — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tropicalpineapple (talk • contribs) 14:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't even know which draft you're talking about. Tvx1 14:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

French Translation

Hey there! I saw you listed on Wikipedia:Translators available and was wondering if you could help me out with a question. I was working on the Great Peace of Montreal article and saw that fr:Grande paix de Montréal had a table of all the signatories. While I know machine translation is never a good option, since it was very basic translation (and mostly just names of Native tribes and descriptions of what their pictograph signatures are) I was able to do it pretty easily. However one is giving me problem and that is the signature of the Wea ("La marque du village des Ouiatanons (nation miamie) est une carrière."). Is "carrière" supposed to be "quarry"? I cannot decipher the pictograph and it looks like in the signature itself it's spelled "carière." Any advice on how to translate it? Thanks! Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 17:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, quarry is a correct translation of carrière. It can also be translated as career, which obviously does not apply here. An other possible translation that could be the correct one here could be a furrow. Tvx1 18:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm now I have no idea whether that pictograph is trying to show a quarry or a furrow! Thanks for the help! Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 18:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Formula One season

Thanks for the save - I blew that one!!!!! Clicked the link to the US F1 Team article, saw "The team was fronted by former Haas CNC Racing technical director Ken Anderson", clicked the link to Haas CNC Racing to confirm that they were talking about Gene Haas - and promptly forgot that it said "...technical director Ken Anderson" at the US F1 article! Over 9,000 edits, and I trip myself up keeping (rather, losing) track across three degrees of separation.

Thanks again. Jmg38 (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Surtees TS14

I noticed you rejected it again. It's horribly ungrammatical too, sentences ending with commas and rogue caps etc... usual things. Also reference 19 goes to Motor Sport's report of the 1975 Swiss Grand Prix. He's put it after the 'key' for non-champ. races. No idea why, Swiss GP not mentioned. I believe he's just copied it from another article with non-champ races in and the reason why I spotted it when looking down the list of refs. is that I think I used it at sometime in the past. Checked and yep he's lifted it 'lock stock' from Hill GH1 where I used it (but not quite in the correct place)! So he thinks it's a ref for that year's non-champ races. Eagleash (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

WDF World Cup

Hey Tvx1

I see that you are from belgium so we can speak dutch haha

De reden dat ik het veranderd of beter gezegd upgraded is het om overzichterlijker te maken voor de mensen

)

Wel, ik vind jouw versie niet echt overzichtelijker. Je creërde twee lijsten terwijl alles nu duidelijk in één lijst staat. Ik zou je willen aanraden om zoveel mogelijk een bewerkingssamenvatting te geven. Zo zien anderen wat veranderd is en waarom. Tvx1 22:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Australian Grand Prix

Hey! Is there a specific technical reason why you paired the images to the tables? It looks quite horrible on my monitor to be honest... Obviously, that is a very subjective feeling. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Because they get aligned all over the place creating massive white-spaces on multiple screens if you put them in separately. By pairing them in the coding you ensure that they keep aligned next to each other whatever the screen size you use to access the article. Tvx1 15:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Lists of sources

Please do not remove lists of sources like this.

You know that many URLs/links go dead. We want to hold on to official materials as much as possible, so in the future if somebody wants to cite something, they can go to the archives in the talk page and do so.

I've been posting these kinds of archives for years in the talk pages of plane crashes (examples Talk:Air_France_Flight_447/Archive_directory_of_AF447_final_report_files and Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17/Archive_23#Mass_archive_of_Dutch_Safety_Board_MH17_related_material) - Read these carefully, and please understand why I insist on keeping these around WhisperToMe (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do not lecture other users like that. Contrary to what you believe talk pages are not suitable for dumping those sources. That no one complained about on other talk pages you did this, does not justify you doing it again now. Talk pages are for discussion. Nothing of what you have put there is used in the article. I can't see anything in the talk page guidelines that supports your stance. Wikipedia is not an internet archive. We have internet archives such as WebCite and the [http:/archive.org Internet Archive]. So if you want to archive sources do it there and not here. Just archive the page on the Egyptian's Transportation Safety Board's website that provides the links to all the press releases and you have your archive. As long as the sources which are actually used in the article are properly sourced were are fine here on wikipedia. Tvx1 18:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Firstly Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines says: "Share material: The talk page can be used to "park" material removed from the article due to verification or other concerns, while references are sought or concerns discussed. New material can be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article; this is an especially good idea if the new material (or topic as a whole) is controversial." - So "sharing material" is one of the purposes of the talk pages, even though in this case I am "parking" material that was not (yet) posted to the article itself. Also they are there for "Deal[ing] with facts" as in discussing "inconsistencies among sources" and having official material straight from the mouth of the Egyptian government, for example, can help with that.

• WP:NOTREPOSITORY in fact leads to a section talking about external links of an article page, not a talk page. Wikipedia:External links also is in the context of article pages, not talk pages.

The archive lists I posted on the talk pages are webcitation links (so people know where these archives are located), and in order to confirm that something is on archive.org you have to use the URL of the document (that's why they're lists of URLs, as you can plug them into the Internet Archive). In other words I am using WebCite and webcitation but the other users need to know the locations of the links and to verify that they've been archived.

"List it if you're going to use" is oftentimes not sufficient because you never know what you will need later until it's too late. The saying "it's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it" applies: Back it all up now and save the links on a talk page (so people know where the archives are) and you won't have to worry about coming short when it comes time to develop the article later and/or review the material to make sure the article content accurately reflects the sources.

Realistically the talk pages are dumping grounds too, because I established the practice and received approval through many other users doing nothing about it, or even leaving "thanks" messages (because a listing of archive files can be quite useful when the original website links all die). In an operation you don't only strictly look at the guidelines... you consider the practices that have developed. What do people actually do? What are the "unwritten rules"? In fact WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES was developed in order to make clear of a certain practice even though the guidelines didn't say that this practice must occur.

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The "parked material" the guidelines are talking about is very, very clearly prose. Text and tables and such. Your "material" does not in because it has been removed from the article and is being discussed, nor is their any discussion about newly adding it to the source. It's just an indiscriminate WP:MIRROR of all the official statements, because you and you alone think it might come in handy someday. That's is NOT the purpose of a talk page. The purpose of a talk page is discussing the article's content. The "parking" of material requires that as well. Removed material needs to be discussed for improvement. Material that could be added needs to be discussed as well. If you want to propose a source you do it by mentioning and telling why you think the source's content warrants a change to the article. Lastly, there is a way of providing a link to the official statements on wikipedia. Add an external (archived) link to the webpage that contains links to all the press releases to the article. That's how you preserve this for "future generations". Not by clogging up talk pages which are intended which are intended for discussing improvements on the articles. When the final report is released, the individual press releases will become redundant anyway. Tvx1 12:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I will respond at Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Using_talk_pages_to_link_to_sources_that_may_be_useful_in_the_future. - I think it's necessary to move the discussion at this point. BTW "an external (archived) link to the webpage that contains links to all the press releases to the article." - The Egyptian Ministry of Transport doesn't have a single webpage for MS804 - They just list press releases in the "news" section and those stories will give way to some other set of stories anyway. Also not all of them are in English (so they may not be easily found), and when you archive webpages you must do each individual HTML file/PDF/JPG/video file, or it may not captured by the Internet Archive which is spotty at picking them up. Early sources can be useful for historiography of the subject (what was believed initially, before more major discoveries were made).

WhisperToMe (talk)

Translation help

Hello, I'm user Tintor2. I wanted to know if you could translate this review to help expand the reception of Yu Kanda. Just focus on the parts from Kanda. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is the translation you asked for:

This issue finally arrives after a year long wait, but it was certainly worth waiting for! It's difficult to immerse yourself back into the universe of the series (updated by the author, who appears to re-boot the series) without rereading all the previous issues, because not doing so leaves you unable to understand much of what is happening (and like with every comic book series, rereading the previous issued while awaiting a number of newly announced once to be punished seems like a waste of time).

Allen loses and regains control over the "fourteenth" who reveals its intentions, the Né show a maximum of perversions and the exorcists are outdone (still). The tone oscillates between offbeat (and sometimes unwelcome) humor and an murky and violent atmosphere, which leaves us with an issue more "adult" than the series has ever achieved. This doesn't make it worse, as we're glad to find this special atmosphere we're familiar with since the beginning of the series and which made us believe it distinguishes itself from others. However, the majority of the issue is dedicated to a flashback from the youth of Kanda and Alma, the character who made his first appearance near the end of the previous issue. It's a dark and pessimistic flashback which shows us an already unsociable and unpleasant Kanda, but which appears really offset from the series precisely because it fits very poorly with what we knew already of Kanda.

Another point which got me lost entirely is the character Marie!. Who is she? Is she the same person as the one we already knew? If not (which would make sense), why introduce an other character with the same name? I have the very unwelcome feeling of having missed something...

To sum up, we got an interesting issue with a very pleasant tone and atmosphere, but you get a little lost in it and the time it takes for each new issue to arrive does quite help that.Tvx1 16:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'll try adding it to the reception section. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Tvx1 22:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Damir

http://www.klix.ba/sport/tenis/damir-dzumhur-dobio-zvanicnu-pozivnicu-za-olimpijske-igre-u-rio-de-janeiru/160609034

Here you have confirmation, stop reverting my changes, please. This entry list here is a comedy, someone forgot about protected rankings, and ITF exemptions TheLightBlue (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

He will be at the olympics, but not through the way you suggest. I can't see why they would waste a tripartite invitation on someone who has a direct entry. I'm well aware about Protected Rankings, but even trough months of searching I have not been able to find a source that details which players actually currently have a protected ranking. If you have one, please provide it. I would note however, that no-one can be forced to use their protected ranking for the Olympic event. They can perfectly save it up for other events. Tvx1 12:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Cant you see that this link I sent you consist of official letter sent to Bosnian Olympic Committee this morning, confirming allocation of Tripartite place? You are completely wrong saying they waste it on someone who has direct entry, because Damir doesnt have it. Many players who will be granted direct spot you crossed on Wiki, ignoring the fact they will be exempted from fulfiling DC crieria. And players like Del Potro, Monaco, Lu, Kokkinakis, possibly F.Mayer will use PR to get entry. Damir is below cut off and this letter is a confirmation. TheLightBlue (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

And this article on sarajevotimes is some joke, they took this numbers out of nowhere, listen to Dzumhur's press conference from Monday when he distributed all documents for Rio, when he said about expected confirmation of ITF Place because he is below cut off, being around 76-78. And today, we found out that instead of waiting for possible ITF Place, under the universality criterion he recieved Tripartite Commission Invitation. TheLightBlue (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

With the information we currently got, Dzumhur is above the cut off point. We can't just assume that everyone that has a protected ranking will use it. This are there so that players who been out with injury in excess of 12 months can reestablish their true ranking more quickly. Reestablishing a ranking requires ranking points. The Olympic event yields none. Use a protected ranking for that is simply a waste. For someone like del Potro, who won the bronze medal in singles in the last event, it makes much more sense to request an ITF place. Most importantly, can you provide a source that states who has a protected ranking? Without one there is not much we can do. Damir is currently 50th of 56 direct entrants, that's quite some leeway. Lastly, my source is based on the exact same source you use:Klix. So if it's unreliable for me it is for you as well.Tvx1 14:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

You dont understand what I am talking to you????? Bosnian Olympic Committee received an information that Damir Dzumhur received Tripartite Commission Invitation. End of the topic. They wouldnt give to someone already qualified base on ranking. It's not about PRs only but mainly exemptions, you say Dzumhur is 50th but you counted Nadal out for example which is ridiculous. Stop reverting my edits. ITF/IOC has its word, if you dont respect their letter, then it's pure act of vandalism. Dont force me to report your action to admin TheLightBlue (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

No my point is not ridiculous. They have received an invitation, yes, but you haven't supplied proof that they accepted it. Nadal does not currently qualify for a direct entry so we count him out. Nadal will get an ITF place as a previous Olympic champion and Spain's quota has not been filled through the direct entries. It's all in the rules. Please actually read the sources that are supplied in the article. And please drop your aggressive attitude. Collaborate with others instead of threatening them. Tvx1 16:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

http://www.okbih.ba/new/vijest.php?id=950 Here is the confirmation on the Bosnian Olympic Committee website. Nadal doesnt need ITF place, enough for him is to be exempted from DC appearances because of his injury. The same is, why do you consider the likes of Sock, Zverev, Fritz, Edmund, Pella as out? For me they are qualified to receive exemptions, for you - don't, and you just present your own position. Count them and others as IN, and Damir drops out - that's why he needed Invitation. I wont be aggresive if you wont be out of nowhere appearing on Damir Džumhur article and reverting my changes. TheLightBlue (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't appear out of nowhere. I have edited many tennis articles over the last few years. Secondly, we cannot take into account "ITF exemptions" as long as we don't have sources to support them. That's how wikipedia works. We need to support our content with sources. And you need to take a bigger look at the picture. You think that the cut off will only go up. But movements can also happen in the other direction. Five players have already declared they won't enter the olympics and more can always follow. For instance, Nadal is currently inactive due to injury and we don't know when will be able to return. Tvx1 17:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but you also dont take a bigger look making/supporting this current list on wikipedia. To be direct acceptance it's not only enough to have 3 DC selections, 1 of them in 2015-2016, and be in top4 in the country. You need to also be in good relations with your NOC, you need to declare to NOC that you are available, your NOC need to confirm you to ITF/IOC, there are protected rankings, there are exemptions - you don't include them, and that's why this whole list in such look and wikipedia regulations is pointless. Do you have source confirming that player "X" will participate? The only thing for 100% we know is that Damir will be one of 2 players with Tripartite Commission Invitation, IOC confirmed that with a letter, Bosnian OC confirmed that, and player himself confirmed that, and it's the news you dont want to accept. Before 30 June when first info will be made to public by ITF such "entry list" is only your guess. TheLightBlue (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

That's why at no point in the article there is a claim it is an actual entry list. It is a list of players who are currently eligible for nomination by their NOC's. And again, PR's and exemption aren't included aren't included because we lack the necessary info. If you have a source who has protected rankings, please provide it. If you have a source that someone received an exemption, provide it (like e.g. David Goffin). Collaborate instead of criticizing us for not including information we don't have. Tvx1 20:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, take a look at this [1] It's "slightly" different than this what you included in the table. Exactly like I said, protected ranking for Del Potro and Monaco, while Pella and Delbonis go via ranking. Im not gonna make any changes which are gonna be then reverted, just could you please call the section of Rio artcile somehow different, because, I say it for 10th time, Filip Krajinović is NOT a "qualified player". He can only be assumed as a "potential qualifier", if we ignore most of ITF qualifying criteria, leaving just DC appearances and limit per NOC. TheLightBlue (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. However, I have to point out that the very last sentence of if states clearly that it still has to be approved by the IOC and the ITF. You really shouldn't assume that every exemption that is requested will automatically be excepted. Why on earth would the ITF grant an exemption to a player like Pella, who is 26 years old, a pro since 2007 and has no other reason not have fulfilled the DC requirements than not having been good enough over the last four years not to have consistently been nominated and in granting him it, take an Olympic spot away from a player like Diego Schwartzman who has had a much more consistent good form over the past four years and even helped his country into and in a Davis Cup semifinal? Tvx1 12:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, exemption must be approved, protected ranking doesnt have to. That's why I believe it would be good to call the table somehow different, not so categorically, but instead something like "potential qualifiers" or so, and player like Pella could have been marked as IN but highlighted "pending ITF approval". So, anyone who read it can see that Pella has been nominated as is waiting for approval, if this is rejected then the next come in. I explain you now why Pella should have been granted an exemption - he fits perfectly to the "newcomer to DC" definition, his ranking has grown only in the last few months which made him highly enough ranked Argentinian for selection. And when his ranking grown he played for Argentina - in March this year. Why Pella should have Rio spot ahead of Schwartzman? Because he is 50th in ranking, not 69th. Criteria are important, but quality must be maintain as well. TheLightBlue (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, we'll need a reliable source for Del Potro and Monaco's exact protected rankings to add them. I find it difficult to find that information. And Pella "newcomer to DC"?? He's 26 and has been playing professionally since 2007. That's from before the 2008 Olympics and means he already competed trough the 2012 Olympic cycle. Anything but a newcomer if you ask me. Schwartzman is three years younger, has played two years less, has fulfilled DC requirements and has had a much more consistent ranking throughout the olympic cycle. I can see no good reason to exempt Pella at the cost of Schwartzman. Why have Davis Cup/Fed Cup requirements if you aren't going to apply them? Tvx1 16:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Age doesnt matter, but ranking, Pella reached enough ranking for DC selection when it was too late to gain 3 selections. PR you can calculate as average of first 13 weeks since the last event played, or take from the past entry lists where player entered with PR (here for example) - Del Potro is @7, Monaco @46. TheLightBlue (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Del Potro and Monaco need an ITF exemption as well, as neither of them fulfilled the Davis Cup requirements. PR alone is not sufficient for them to enter. So we have to await IOC and ITF confirmation after all. Tvx1 23:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You still not included Darian King in the table as Tripartite Commission Invitation awardee. Okay, some said "wild card" but it's obvious they meant this invitation, as ITF places have strict regulations of how they can be distributed. Here you have confirmation, El Salvador argues why it went to Barbados rather than to their Arevalo, ridiculous by the way their behaviour, they think ranking is the only factor in giving it to some player... TheLightBlue (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is a reliable source. Confirmation should come from the Barbados Olympic Committee. We have an announcement from the Bosnian Olympic Committee for Damir and that's why he is included and Darian isn't. Tvx1 14:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on UEFA Euro 2016 knockout phase. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Qed237 (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't be a hypocrite now. You are just as involved as me. Tvx1 13:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

You have been removing same sourced content over and over again and has been reverted by multiple users. Clear edit warring, so dont even try and put this on someone else and focus on your own editing. Qed237 (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

That content is sourced is not enough justification alone for it to be included in Wikipedia. You still have to provide even a single argument why the same content must be provided thrice. I've raised the issue on the talk page.Tvx1 14:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

And yet you can not remove it over and over again when multple editors have explained why it should be kept. Qed237 (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Him again

Hi, you might already know (via BB's talk-page) but, after some edit-warring and abusive activity yesterday I've had another go at ANI. IP boy has been (quite frequently and disruptively) editing whilst logged out and has deleted associated advice. You might think of SPI again? Eagleash (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Your change about mens & womens doubles tennis entry at the 2016 Summer Olympics !!!

Hi,

Can you explain to me for which reason you decide to destroy all the work that was complete by others regarding all the pairing that was already announce by a lot of NOC's like Spain, GB, India, ETC. I don't understand at all your acting. You mention that the information was unsourced which is totally bullshit and untrue... So please Cancel all your modification that's you made in the last 24 hours... because it's completely a waste of people time !!! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SYMON8 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

None of the pairings that were entered in the doubles tables were backed with a source. So my claim wasn't utterly untrue at all. Pairings can only be added if they're backed with a source, so no I cannot undo my edits. Tvx1 17:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The tables have now been filled in based on the entry list published by the ITF. Tvx1 03:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Janowicz

Seriously, I dont have energy to fight with you anymore... Just tell me for fuck sake, cant you understand that Janowicz wouldnt be qualified for universality place with his ranking of 120? Below the cut off of 81 (Kokkinakis' PR) we have top-in-countries as follows: Haase (82), Lu (97 - used PR: 79 - directly), Basilashvili (101), Chung (107), Albot (113), Janowicz (120). And? He was 5th! Not 2nd! To be 2nd he had to activate PR of 94, thus be ahead of Basilashvili, Chung and Albot and together with Haase receive that ITF Place under universality criterion. TheLightBlue (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

If you want to claim that someone has used a procted ranking, provide a reliable source to back that. Stop entering your own original research synthesis'. As long as you keep refusing to acknowledge the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia you will continue running into conflicts. The fact that you see this as a fight shows very clearly what's wrong with your attitude. Tvx1 16:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Provide me source that he didnt need PR, ie. confirmation that Basilashvili, Chung and Albot rejected Rio spot.TheLightBlue (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

That's not how this work. You wan't to add something, so the burden of proofing it's correctness lies with you. We don't have to proof that something didn't happen. Also, the ITF does not offer its ITF places which are then accepted or rejected. The NOC's apply for these on behalf of their players. So you'll need to proof that Korea's and Moldova's NOC applied for such a spot. And that is if Janowicz even received a universality spot or only two were used for that criteria. The spots reserved for the other three criteria weren't even needed, so they had to redistribute them to get the quota filled. Tvx1 17:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Universality criterion had only 2 spots available, remaining 4 places were distributed by ranking, one by one for those who were available, from 82nd place and so on - Dutra, Edmund, Brown and Elias. Your logic is sick, only because you were first in writing "120" instead of "120^PR" now we can't change it without source?? You dont have source, me neither, but use common sense... TheLightBlue (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I couldn't care less who wrote what first. Wikipedia doesn't work on common sense it works on reliable sources. It's something you refuse but will HAVE to accept. You need to admit to your self that sometimes your logic can turn out to be wrong. For instance, these are what you considered to be the certain ITF places one moth ago

ITF Places
57U1	79PR	Lu Yen-hsun	Chinese Taipei	615	1	18	0	2	2
58A1	80	Dušan Lajović	Serbia	691	4	5	0	4	1
59A2	81PR	Thanasi Kokkinakis	Australia	145	2	4	0	4	3
60U2	82	Robin Haase	Netherlands	685	1	16	0	6	1
61A3	83	Rogério Dutra Silva	Brazil	684	2	5	0	4	0
62A4	84	Kyle Edmund	Great Britain	676	2	2	0	1	1

And these are the actual ITF places that were allocated by the ITF.

ITF Places
57	82	Robin Haase	Netherlands	685	1	16	0	6	1
58f	83	Rogério Dutra Silva	Brazil	684	2	5	0	4	0
59f	84	Kyle Edmund	Great Britain	676	2	2	0	1	1
60	86	Dustin Brown	Germany	670	3	3	0	1	1
61	88	Gastão Elias	Portugal	657	2	13	0	8	3
62	120	Jerzy Janowicz	Poland	575	1	17	0	8	3

See the difference? THAT's why we HAVE to support our information with sources. Tvx1 18:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

First there are other eligible athletes between him and 88th place, second he isn't a host/continental/GS winner so the ITF place has to be reallocated to the next highest ranked athlete and third if they were going by ranking Juan Monaco (or Lu Yen-hsun) wouldn't have needed to use his protected rankings and would have thus qualified through the ITF Places. Also Janowicz has been injured since the Australian Open. JoshMartini007 (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

See the above as to why common sense synthesis can be wrong. You need to back up up your change with a reliable source. Do that or revert it.

Here is where it is stated that he went knee surgery, here is his ATP page showing that he has not competed. He is eligible for protected rankings and again it makes no sense for him to qualify outside of receiving a protected rankings. You are better off removing all of the other athlete's protected rankings. Using the above as an example is useless since we didn't know which athletes would receive an exemption from Davis Cup requirements.JoshMartini007 (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

He actually cannot have a protected ranking, because you have to be inactive though injury for six months and it hasn't been six months since his latest match yet. Tvx1 18:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

It will be when the Olympics begin JoshMartini007 (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Tvx1, it was my prediction, same as you predicted final list, should I remind you Krajinovic you marked as direct acceptance? Without source... And here is the reality, rank 100+ is not even enough for alternates... Regarding PR, of course six months you have to count from the last tournament till the start of tournament (Monday actually) for which he uses PR, not the day of entering with it, so he needs to be inactive for 6 months till 1 August - fulfilled. Lu and Monaco are direct acceptances, cut off is 81, so it's obvious they entered with PRs, that's without question.TheLightBlue (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

No it's not. It's all bases on your assumption that both the Korean and the Moldovan NOC's applied for an ITF place, which you failed to and refuse to prove. The list as it stood in the article was not a prediction, but the situation as it stood back then before any exemptions were granted. Once they were, it was updated with a source. Yours were predictions which aren't even remotely allowed on Wikipedia. Tvx1 19:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yours were predictions too :) everything until 30 June was prediction, difference was I was trying to include all qualifying criteria and you ignored everything except for DC nominations and NOC position :) TheLightBlue (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

No they were not by any means. It was a reflection of how the things stood back then. The future did not come into the equation at all. Tvx1 14:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

To both of you, I raised the issue on the talk page of the tennis project and a colleague was able to locate a source. A lot of this conflict would have been avoided if either of you would have made that effort straight away. Tvx1 17:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Race section British GP

Well, now you brought me into an edit conflict there, which was quite unnecessary... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I could advise you to use the {{in use}} template if your making major edits to an article. That will help avoid edit conflicts.Tvx1 16:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Tennis at the Olympics

Veronica is confirmed. It is referenced Paraguayan Olympic Committee President La Nación --200.119.95.168 (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You have the current rankings wrong for the summer olympics Tyler Linsmeyer (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

They don't use the current rankings. They use the rankings from 6 June and we reflect that.Tvx1 13:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Rio

I answered you in Rio talk page TheLightBlue (talk) 11:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

2016–17 UEFA Europa League

I have now opened a discussion regarding Partizani Tirana at the article talkpage. Please discuss there before reinserting the same material again without any consensus. Qed237 (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2015 Formula One season

The article 2015 Formula One season you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2015 Formula One season for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Relentlessly -- Relentlessly (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Tvx1, I think the article definitely needs alt-texts for the images before it can become FA. I have never done those before though, but I'll try to look into it as soon as I find the time. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't even know what you mean. Tvx1 15:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I mean Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'll take care of if tonight.Tvx1 10:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done I actually we should have them in all our articles, even those which aren't even GA. It has always been our goal to let our information reach as many people as possible. Tvx1 15:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

F1 Season Templates

May I ask why practice drivers are not on F1 season templates (Esteban Ocon completed 4 practice appearances prior to his first F1 race of 2016). Could we not show this on the championship standings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediaeditperson (talk • contribs) 19:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

No. The championship's standings are what the name says they are, a detailed breakdown of the outcome of the world championship. A free practice appearance has no bearing on that. We list the result of race driver entries only. That's the wikiproject's consensus. You can list Ocon's free practice outings on his own article. Tvx1 20:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Removing the list of schedules from the Major League Baseball on NBC article

The list of schedules are sourced! The sources of the schedules are from YouTube (where referenced) and http://sabrmedia.org/databases/network-tv-broadcasts/searchable-network-tv-broadcasts/ BornonJune8 (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, Youtube is not an acceptable source. Secondly, just because something is sourced does not mean it is suitable content for Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia and not a directory of every broadcast of every match of a sport's league that was ever transmitted by a certain broadcaster. Tvx1 11:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me ask you something, there are article on Wikipedia that detail the list of results for Monday Night Football and Sunday Night Football during its various incarnations. By that sort of logic, I guess they don't belong on Wikipedia either since they're literally a directory of every single broadcast of that particular medium. And more to the point, I suppose that this article ESPN College Football on ABC results needs to go since it's essentially a broadcasting centric directory too. BornonJune8 (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I've also noticed that you decided to junk the schedules that I put in on the NHL television articles (like the NHL on CBS one) without baring in mind that there are accompanying newspaper sources. My point is that if you insist on doing that, don't take the sources with them (or at least find another way to make then useful in said articles)! BornonJune8 (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The list of broadcasts if anything, aren't that far different than say, a list of episodes for a weekly, scripted episodic television series having its own individual article. The broadcast of said games are in essence, episodes of an on going television series also. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

All nominated for deletion. Tvx1 13:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You didn't even try or really bother to "listen" to my point/argument and just went bull-headed w/ or plans. BornonJune8 (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

CBS was the first American television network to broadcast National Hockey League games. If that doesn't register regarding its historical value to you than I don't know what will. Because many of these schedules were procured long before the advent of the network, where it's much easier to access the yearly network television schedule for any given sport/league, then these schedules simply shouldn't be looked at as not having any remote merit. Like I said before, these are in essence, episodes of an on going television series and not simply "statistical lists" or useless trivia. NBC for a good portion of the 20th century, was looked at as the "gold standard" in regards to Major League Baseball on network television. Many Hall of Fame announcers such as Joe Garagiola, Vin Scully, Curt Gowdy, and Tony Kubek as well as Bob Costas built a good portion of their reputations working NBC's Saturday Game of the Week from the 1950s on through 1989. These list honors them and their works/contributions as much it bolsters the year by year outline of NBC's baseball coverage. What's not to say that there are baseball fans/television historians who are curious about Major League Baseball's network television coverage from it's infancy? Take for example this site right here: http://www.tvhistory.tv/tv_guide3.htm BornonJune8 (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

If CBS broadcasting NHL is notable than we should have an article on that. Wait a minute, we have! However using that article to list every games they have ever shown is overkill. That's trivia. Many of the games didn't much significance for the sport, even for the fans of the teams who played each other. People who gained exceptional notability through that coverage can have their own articles. However we don't write our articles solely for baseball/basketball/football/ice hockey. And TV historians will be aware of much better venues for collecting their info than Wikipedia. And the TV show episode doesn't hold water. There are just as many TV show with Wikipedia articles which don't have every single of their episodes listed. Tvx1 15:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, give me an example or a few examples of weekly long running TV shows that don't have every single of their episodes listed? If it's overkill (listing the credits of very single production person is "real" overkill), then by that logic, there should be a separate page devoted to a list of schedules/episodes. And again, if you're going to say every game that has ever been shown, then you must or might as well also be talking about postseason games or preseason games or All-Star Games. And what do you mean they don't have any sort of significance? How exactly are you speaking for the majority (with your usage of we) in this regard? They're at least significant (if you want to look at a broader picture) for their teams' standings and for the simple fact that they were nationally televised in an era (i.e. the 1950s-60s) where that sort of wide-spread access was harder/more rare. If they aren't remotely significant in hindsight, then we say for example, people collect tapes or upload them to YouTube. Or why is there something like for example, ESPN Classic? And if you want to talk about "not holding weight", the announcers, who gained exceptional notability by having their own articles, isn't the ultimate point because that encompasses their entire careers (and not necessarily confined to a single sport, a single time of employment, and a single time frame in covering said sport). BornonJune8 (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's say Family Feud or Wheel of Fortune just to name two. The majority of MLB/NBA/NFL/NHL games are regular season games. Looking at quantity the postseason games are far lower in quantity of them having been played. However, they are the more notable ones. Only few of the regular season games gather lasting notability, while most of them merely become a statistic over the decades. A couple of games becoming exceptionally notable does not justify tabulating everyone ever played. Tvx1 17:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Your argument for game shows is apples and oranges. Since Family Feud and Wheel or Fortune (and by extension, daytime soap operas or the evening news) air in a weekday strip and don't have a clear cut episode identification outside of the day that they were first broadcast, it's much harder to keep track of than a once a week program. And if they're just regular season games, then I guess why should it matter that they were chosen among the pack to be broadcast on national television (that that doesn't have any remote notability lasting or otherwise) unlike any other regular season game!? BornonJune8 (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Funny how something is " apples and oranges" when I use it but not when you do. Your comparison of football games with prime time scripted TV show is just as much "apples and oranges". The picking of which match is played is simply a case marketing. The broadcaster just wants as much viewers as possible. Again this not a US exclusive practice. This hardly makes them anymore notable than others historically. Tvx1 22:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

That argument doesn't make sense. So a nationally televised prime time game or "match" as you put it, isn't notable than any other game during the regular year simply because of "case marketing"!? Of course the broadcaster (US or otherwise) will get what they perceive to be the most ideal match-up in order to draw in viewers/ratings. Ryne Sandberg, the Hall of Fame shortstop for the Chicago Cubs, referred to the old NBC Saturday Game of the Week as the Game of the World because at the time, it was outside of the playoffs/World Series and All-Star Game, the biggest television showcase that you could get for Major League Baseball. That's kind of part of the whole point in helping the league and the network. How is that different than say, a scripted television program trying to write compelling storylines to draw in the viewers any given week? BornonJune8 (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

More

Another one to keep an eye out for. User:Rowde/BBC F1 TV Schedule. Eagleash (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

And... Draft:Grand Prix Special. Eagleash (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Grand Prix Special is miraculously a good-faith effort but I think it lacks notability. Tvx1 18:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree on both counts. (My impression is that he's getting help from somewhere with grammar etc.). As someone who followed F1 closely at the time, I don't even remember the programme! Eagleash (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't remember it. Wasn't born yet. Tvx1 16:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this 'pinged' to you, but you might want to check this out if it hasn't. (Little point in replying at that page as tomorrow he'll have another IP). Eagleash (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hilarious. That's a clear PA. I'm not going to edit that talk page since I'm being named. And no it didn't ping. Tvx1 21:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Lance Stroll

Please explain to me how Stroll’s manager, the man who has personally overseen every stage of his career and bankrolled everything that he has done—such as purchasing Prema Powerteam and funding an extensive testing programme using old F1 cars—is in no position to comment on the next stage of his career when a) Stroll Sr. is being quoted by a reliable source and reported by a second reliable source and b) the wording of the article only states that Stroll will make his début and does not say anything that the reliable source does not. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You have stated on the article's talk page today that this sort of reporting is useless and now you're making your personal exceptions just hours later. Patrick Vandoorne made similar comments about his son this time last year. Yet the Belgian had to settle for just one stand-in appearance so far, while his full-time contract only materialised for 2017. Either you provide a reliable source that he has signed a contract with a team or it's a no-go. Please be mindfull of WP:Crystal. Tvx1 04:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The only thing missing from the source that I provided is a team name. It satisfies every other condition attached to a source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, you can't compare the Vandoorne situation to this. To assume that Lawrence Stroll's word cannot be taken at face value because Patrick Vandoorne's could not be is a logical fallacy. Everything I provided in the source satisfies the need for reliability and verifiability. Honestly, I think that the burden is on you do disprove why a source geberally acceptes project-wide as being reliabke should be disregarded. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No the only thing missing in the source is a statement that he has signed a contract to drive in 2017. Something which is present in the de Silvestro example you mentioned on Joseph's talk page. For convenience's sake let's continue the discussion on the article's talk page. Tvx1 12:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you even remotely realize what mockery you are making out of yourself? This is beyond ridiculous. I'm just implementing the long-standing project's consensus. Tvx1 12:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

F1 2014 and 2015 Season Review

Howdy! My 2 edits were reverted. What's a "Nostat"? Real tlhingan (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTSTATS.Tvx1 20:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Would these be more suitable on the team's wikipedia page? Is there an article somewhere about teams that dominated an era? I think that's useful to document, given the technical side of F1. Real tlhingan (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Captions

You know perfectly well that captions are designed to complement the content of an article, not replace it. The point of those two images is to show the reigning champions. Their plans for 2017 have nothing to do with the images. Those plans are covered in detail in the prose, which is a far more appropriate place for them to be discussed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, two things spring to mind: one, you know that the standard practice on motorsport season articles is for the images attached to the lead to name the reigning champions and nothing more; and two, it's recentism, placing undue emphasis on VM's withdrawal in an article that is focused on all events of the 2017 season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Well we have a rather rare situation here. I doesn't happen very often that a driver or his/her team retires after winning the title, let alone that they both do. I have tried to find out how these images were dealt with in previous situations (in F1) but haven't found much. There was no image on Brawn in 2010 when they did not defend their title and obviously both Mansell's and Prost's retirements as champions happened before the creation of Wikipedia. It might be worth raising this at WP:MOTOR to find out what the community thinks of it. Tvx1 13:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

You do realise that this is a pretty serious misrepresentation, right? You claim that the issue was discussed at length and all editors bar one were in agreement, and while that is true, it's true for an unrelated article. You cannot establish a consensus on one article and then try to enforce it on another without discussion, and you definitely cannot claim to have had that discussion. Can you at least try to engage other, regular editors of that article (and related ones) before you do the father-knows-best routine? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not an unrelated article. It's just as much an article season on an upcoming season of a class of motorsports. Moreover the discussion on your talk did cover the WRC article as well. Lastly, policies like WP:Crystal apply to all articles. If you are still interested in discussing the images and their captions, my suggestion of taking this to WT:MOTOR is still valid. Tvx1 21:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You know full well that the WRC discussion on my talk page was in a completely different context to the one you are claiming. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, Pyrope addressed your concerns there.Tvx1 21:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

For one, they were my concerns on another article. And secondly, it doesn't change the way it looks like you're resorting to underhanded tactics to justify changes on an article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Accessbility tags

You tagged 2012 ATP World Tour Finals, 2013 ATP World Tour Finals and 2016 ATP World Tour Finals with Template:Accessibility dispute. I'm sure there's a legitimate problem to be worked on here but I've removed the tags as they direct users to the talk page to see what this problem is, but no issue (as far as I can tell) has been raised? As I say I'm sure you've tagged it because of a specific problem but without whatever it is being referenced to on the talk page the tag is pretty defunct - perhaps you could put a note on one of the talk pages as to what the problem is? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah I've now spotted it on 2016 ATP World Tour Finals - for the others, please do put a quick note on the talk page when tagging in future, or at least something in the edit summary! Will put the tags back on. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Tvx1. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Running Man Barnstar
		Dear Tvx1, thanks for all the work you put into 2015 Formula One season to see it promoted to Featured Article status. Amazing job! Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think are many featured articles which are an example of a collaborative wikipedia effort like this one. Its current status is the result of the contributions of many users since this article first appeared as a stub in april 2013. Of course, I contributed to it myself through the years. However, my efforts of getting it to the current status were merely initiating the promotion procedures and ironing out the last shortcomings raised by the reviewers.Tvx1 17:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

That may be so, but unfortunately, those pieces of work (sources, consistency etc) are often the most neglected ones... therefore, the work you've done is all the more important! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

More...

You'll like this (not at all). Eagleash (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

F1 Families

Thank you for your comments on my article submission. I will go find 3rd-party sources, that should not be an issue. But your comments also mentioned that, as far as F1 Families are concerned, the table "isn't even halfway there." The table contains all the info I've found on this, using 2 different sources, both claiming to rank families by importance. The "least significant" family I've found in these sources are the Winkelhocks, which have 64 race entries between 3 people, with no wins, no podiums, no fastest laps, no pole positions and (obviously) no championships. Do you have a source for other F1 families I can add? Real tlhingan (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Just look around wikipedia. From the back of my head, I can think of at least six other "families" which competed in Formula One. Of one these, the son is currently driving in the sport and an other of those families has a race track used during the 2016 season named after them. The incompleteness is not the only issue however. You have made some mistakes too. For instance, for the Brabhams you managed to list the only one of Sir Jack's three sons not to have ventured into F1.Tvx1 20:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Nowrap template

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T152841

Hi Tvx1,

Your recent edits to the 2017 F1 season article has had some unintended consequences; the nowraps have stopped working and everything is out of alignment on mobile devices and tablets. I can't find the root cause - do you mind taking a look at it please? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

My edits have nothing to do with it. It seems to have stopped working altogether on all articles.Tvx1 20:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I just spotted it. It's a very recent thing, because the templates were working just fine when the numbers were updated, but stopped working before your edits. I've reported it to VPT. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Formula One on FOX

Just a heads-up (in case you're not already aware!). The page has been copied to User:Rowde/Formula One on Fox. He has done this before with articles that have either been rejected or XfD'd (and been counselled about it). Previously, he's moved some of them to mainspace again later probably trying to 'game' the system. Or to give the benefit of the doubt, he just wants to preserve the content maybe. There's also Draft:Formula One on ABC, Draft:Formula One on CBS, Draft:Formula One on ESPN and Draft:Formula One on Sky 'lurking' about in various stages of work in progress. Eagleash (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, Draft:Indycar on BT, Draft:Indycar on ESPN and User:Rowde/BBC F1 TV Schedule. Eagleash (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Motorsport season templates

Hey, you know how we have details of the champions in Template:F1 season? I'm wondering if the same information can be added to Template:Motorsport season, because I think that it would be really useful to have on any season article. But I don't know how to update the template; every time I try, I make a mess of it. Do you think that you could take a look at it for me? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Murray

Hello. I agree with you, he is British, however....my revert was simply to the status quo as I understand it and to ask the ip addie to open a talkpage discussion, which I did... there are abnormalities here on this wiki and hero figures like Murray are protected with great nationalistic fervor. If you like please open a chat on the talkpage, although I very much doubt the consensus will change, regards Govindaharihari (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion on Murray's talk page which I opened. Having strolled to the many talk page archives for Andy Murray, I wasn't able to find anything that actually demonstrates a consensus for the current version. I reverted you because your rationale was wrong. Andy Murray is equally out and proud British. The nationality section in his article point that out. He was the flag bearer of the Union Jack at the opening ceremony of the Rio Olympics and sang along to the "God Save the Queen" after winning the gold medal. He also helped Great Britain win the Davis Cup (an event which I attended). The reality is that for tennis players, the more relevant and notable nationality is British. They compete under the British flag and for British national anthems (e.g. in the Davis, Fed and Hopman Cup). Considering the nationality field on Andy's passport states "British" he belongs to those players who play for Great Britain. At present, Andy Murray's article is the only one on a British tennis player not introducing the player in question as British.Tvx1 16:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• that talk chat is stagnant and minor and over since 3 months without any outcome or much participation Govindaharihari (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• Try to understand, it actually does not matter at all - I support British but I can and have easily reverted an ip to Scottish - and nothing changes - its nit picking worthless - forget about it, so many will come to change it Govindaharihari (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

If you have a clear opinion for either side, then why don't you simply contribute it to the talk page discussion?Tvx1 21:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Tvx1, your watch on this page, and jumping in to repeatedly re-revert alterations to the nationality, when you already know that there is no consensus for changing it, is disruptive and could be considered long-term edit warring. Edit warring policy applies even to those who carefully avoid WP:3RR.

Your argument of there being no consensus for it being "Scottish" is inaccurate, and irrelevant. What matters is if there is consensus for changing it to "British"? There is not. And so, in line with guidelines written for exactly this situation, it should remain as is.

Other that that, the rest of your arguments in support of changing it are old news. They have been discussed at length before. Repeatedly. This is an article about a notable person, who happens to be a tennis player. It is not a record of his passport or citizenship. He can be both nationalities, as he has personally stated more than once, and so the article strives to reflect that. Eradicating "Scottish" from the lead clearly unbalances the article. Your tally of flag waving does not outweigh his own self-identification. What works for other articles is not a reason for changing this one. Do not enforce uniformity. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

My argument about the consensus is not inaccurate at all. If it were, you would have been able to point to a discussion demonstrating it by now. I'm not striving to "enforce uniformity" by any means, so please stop accusing me of that. That essay isn't a trump card you can use to override anyone labeling a British person as British on wikipedia. What matters is how a person is notable. 90% of the times he appears in the media (and nearly 100% of the times in press from outside the UK), he is present as a British tennis player. Therefore introducing him in the opening sentence as "Scottish" is simply giving undue weight to that "nationality". His passport nationality is British and the UK is the sovereign state he represents in his professional activities. I have already given your more than enough examples of him proudly identifying as British. The nationality section gives his Scottish identity its due weight. Lastly, you cannot act as if anyone needs your personal permission to make a change to the article.Tvx1 15:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe I have ever questioned his "proudly identifying as British". He identifies as both. The article attempts to reflect that. You say you are not attempting to enforce uniformity, and yet you constantly make reference to what appears on other articles, as if to suggest this article should be in line with them. That's the definition of uniformity. What makes Murray notable is his standing in Tennis. It is not his nationality. However, what has been notable throughout his career, is discussion of his nationality. Yet you want the lead to be erased of any suggestion of his Scottish identity because you don't understand its significance. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

By constantly overvaluing his "proudly identifying as Scottish" you are questioning at least the level of his Britishness. I'm not attempting to "enforce" uniformity for the sake of having uniformity. My priority is not having all articles on UK people introducing all of them as British. My priority is describing a person as they appear to us in real life. I have never suggested to erase any suggestion of his Scottish identity from the article or even from the lead. Lastly, you're the one not quite understanding the significance of it because you are constantly overrating the significance of his Scottishness in complete ignorance of how this person is constantly presented to us in real life.Tvx1 14:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

RFC Murray

Hi you did see that I put this question to an RFC further down the Andy Murray British tennis player or Scottish tennis player RfC.--Navops47 (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I have contributes as well. Many thanks for the effort. Tvx1 14:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Your welcome.--Navops47 (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Tvx1: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 17:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

F1

No, I did not revert the wrong thing. I was reverting his disruptive editing again. I don't know why I'm banging my head against that wall for no reason...  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're complaining about. "Had to" is actually better wording.Tvx1 22:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that MordeKyle is editing based on who had previously worked on the page rather than what is in the interests of the article. A few days ago, I reverted some edits about the German Grand Prix with the comment that there was nothing particularly wrong with the original wording; indeed, I felt that it was stronger because the sentence flowed a little more smoothly. Some time after changing "must" to "had to" under the Imola dot point, MordeKyle reverted it with the comment that there was nothing particularly wrong with the original wording — it was exactly the same comment I had made when I restored the original version of the German Grand Prix dot point. It's pretty obvious that he's trying to throw my words back at me for no other reason than because I am the one making the edits, which is a violation of WP:AGF. It's little more than tit-for-tat editing, trying to settle a previous score. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Tvx1!

Happy New Year!

Tvx1,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Class455 (talk | stand clear of the doors!) 18:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

CSD G8

Templates can be used in more than one location, so the fact that one of the potential articles it could be used on is in the draft spaces doesn't mean that it cannot be used anywhere. Navigation templates are meant to be used in multiple places (to allow for navigation). It is not dependent on a page existing. Thus, G8 does not apply. This has been discussed multiple times (at WT:TFD and other locations) and there has never been a consensus to create an "unused" CSD criteria for templates. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

If you feel that the template should not exist, then nominate it for deletion via WP:TFD. Primefac (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

It took just as much time to resolve this than to post these warnings

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2017 Formula One season. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sjabloon:Efn

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Sjabloon:Efn requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Adem20 (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sjabloon:Efn

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Sjabloon:Efn, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It appears to be a test page. (See section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do, and take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
• It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 16:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Work needed

I have to ask:

"let's focus on what really needs some attention. For instance, the rally reports. They all are nothing but a collection of results tables. They could all do with the addition of actual reports presented in the form of prose"

Is there some reason why you cannot help out with this? You're quite happy to take a position of authority on what the articles need, but I haven't seen you contribute to the articles themselves. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Saw the Let's? That stands for let us and thus includes me.Tvx1 01:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

TFA

Would you agree that 2015 Formula One season should be Featured Article of the day on May 26th (the day the new season starts)? We could nominate it in two weeks time. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I mean March of course... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Articles for creation: Bus transport in Budapest

Hi! I can not accept your reject reason. What sources do you want to see? BKK is an organizer transport company of Budapest, it is not reliable?? Are you kidding me? In this subject where do you want a reliable source from? WP:ROUTINE says nothing about this case or I do not understand, please draw up your own words. Kemenymate (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing to accept or decline for you. If a submission is declined, it's declined. At no point in my reasoning did I claim that your sources are unreliable. Please actually read the feedback the reviewers write. What we need is independent, third party mainstream reliable sources. Only those sources will allow us to assess the subject's notability. The sources currently present are nothing but routine information. Routine information means basic information that is pertinent to a subject. In case of football matches that would be the team rosters, for a sports season the season calendar and for public transport authority it's basic information like timetables, routes, fare information etc. Source #1 is just the basic information for the commuters: timetables, routes, access information, fare information, where to buy and validate tickets etc... . Sources #2 and #3 are simply links to the homepages of the public transport authorities without any indication why the are mentioned where they are mentioned in the article. They are not related to the accompanying text in any way. Source #4 is the company in question detailing their history, which is again pretty basic. Source #5 is again a link to the homepage of bus operator, but it doesn't support the text it's partnered with either. Source #6 is another timetable (routine) and Source #7 is a routine list of the rolling stock they use. Source #8 is just a link to the part of the site were commuters can find out which bus(es) they have to catch to get to their intended destination and Source #9 is the routine information on a set of historical tours they offer. There is no evidence of notability here leaving us nothing to justify accepting it. In fact, I feel that anything that needs be told about Budapest public transport can be included on the relevant section on the article on Budapest itself.Tvx1 22:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Please tell me which source would be better than the original transport company. I am very curious. There are several articles with one or less sources, for example: List of bus routes in Malta or Buses in Prague. Are they OK, but Budapest is not? I really do not understand. Kemenymate (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

No they're not ok. There even is a tag on the Malta article pointing that out. But it doesn't matter, they are not being discussed here. And many wrongs don't make a right. What you need is a number of independent, third-party mainstream reliable sources demonstrating that this bus company is notable beyond the Budapest commuters. Wikipedia is not a travel guide Tvx1 21:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to List of bus routes in Malta, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Any uninvolved editor may remove a speedy delete tag, provided they offer an explanation. I have given one. You do not have the right to restore the tag and I say again: please take it to Afd if you wish to pursue this, as you did with the other bus route article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You have given none. You have simply said "take it to afd". That's no explanation or justification. Per the process' instructions you have to provide an explanation why it does not meer the selected criterium or declare your intent to improve the article. You did neither. Furthermore, there is no prohibition on restoring such a tag.Tvx1 01:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• I will say again that the speedy corp tag does not apply. You do not have the right to continue to restore it. a) I'm not convinced that all the routes in Malta represent a single corporation and b) we have a large category system of such lists at Category:Lists of bus routes. It requires an Afd, imo. Any deleting admin will see the edit history and my rationale, as well. This isn't going to work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Speedy_deletion I have clearly stated my objections. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Read the "renominations" part.Tvx1 01:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Have you? "It is typically taken to deletion discussions" -- that means to an Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Typically is not the same thing as mandatory.Tvx1 02:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

So unless you have a policy in front of you you're going to act like a jerk? That's great. I'm done wasting time on you. The matter is at Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You're the one acting as if 'd broken policies, without backing that with evidence.Tvx1 02:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Tvx1 reported by User:Shawn in Montreal (Result: ). Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Really, really, really unnecessary. You incorrectly assumed bad faith om my part and that I would endlessly reverting and that I would not have gone to AFD, while forgetting that you're the one who broke WP:3RR.Tvx1 02:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Knock it off, both of you. Nothing useful is coming out of bickering. The situation has resolved itself so I'm letting everyone off with warnings; I suggest you both take a step back and cool down for a bit. Primefac (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Rowde/My F1 schedule

Hello Tvx1. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Rowde/My F1 schedule, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: U5 only applies if the user has no or few other edits. Use WP:MFD instead . Thank you. SoWhy 11:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)