This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tvx1. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks for that. I've been working that article, trying to prove that Dential is a sock of Tvx11 and Darrandarra, given that he apparently knows all of us and events from three months ago despite registering this week. But you had to jump in and play policeman, didn't you? It's obvious that he is a disruptive editor, but since that's the only article he's editing, that's the only place we're going to get any evidence from. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Even so, there was no need to revert them thrice. You should have left the article alone and gone to the relevant noticeboards. I wouldn't class an editor disruptive simply because they reverted your edits. And some of their edits to the article were improvements as well. The best tactic would be to disengage concerning editing the article. You should have drawn them to discussion on the WIkiProject. They have found the way by theirself by now, so I would let the discussion run its course now. There's no rush to have a consensus an certainly not to edit the article based on one. If you let the discussion pan out you'll end up with a much stronger consensus that everybody's happy with. The last thing you'd want to do is to feed the trolls. Tvx1 17:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not classing him as disruptive because he reverted my edits. I'm classing him as disruptive because he's in the same vein as the likes of Tvx11 and Darrandarra—he knows us. He's a first-time editor, but look at the edit summary he gave for his first revert: "to keep the peace!". It's a direct reference to something that happened months ago. How on earth would a first-time editor know that? And he jumped on it within hours of the edit being made. I was going to go to SPI today, but SPI makes it pretty clear that you need solid evidence to start an investigation, and one edit isn't enough. Now, you're right in saying that I could have drawn him into the project discussion, but I didn't want to give him the chance to do more damage. He's clearly someone who reads talk pages, so I can't bring others in on my plan, because if he's like Darrandarra, he slinks away the moment he thinks he has been caught. And given that the account seems to have been created solely to edit that one article, how else am I supposed to gather evidence? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
In the end I don't think that much disruption has been caused, actually. Tvx11 was blocked after just two edits. Darrandarra made two talk page comments. Dental is by comparison the most active one and made three reverts, a talk page comment and three other edits. Really not much damage to the entire project. When the Tvx11 thing popped up, I was seriously concerned and I asked the blocking administrator whether I could pursue it more thoroughly. The administrator gave me the advice to wait a bit to see if furthers attempts were made to discredit me and if not just forget about it. That's what I did and it worked out for me so far. Bottom line: just don't feed the trolls. Tvx1 23:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry for my conduct recently, but it seems that I have had more luck getting through to people when I'm abrupt and rude rather than low-key. Thank you for being so kind and respectful. I know the project will do the right thing if you're there. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC) 12:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words. I'm nowhere near perfect, but I do my best whenever and wherever I can. I do admit that I might be too passionate sometimes. By the way, when I was still a newbie I wasn't really welcomed by Falcadore either. I decided not to take it personal and moved on. Tvx1 17:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Improper use of flag icons without country name
Tvx1, I did not want to start another subthread on the MOS talk page, but this edit represents an improper use of flag icons: [1]. Per MOS:FLAG, subsection entitled "Accompany flags with country names":
The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, as no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details. Nearby uses of the flag need not repeat the name, especially in a list or table.
Bottom line: The first use of a flag icon within an article should always be accompanied by the country's name which the flag represents. Cheers, old man. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Well these flags are coded in such a way to solve that. Put your mouse over them and you will see which country they stand for. Tvx1 20:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Tvx1, mouse-overs don't count for purposes of stating the country name per MOS:ICON; the text needs to appear next to the flag. This is pretty clear. Someone who inserted the flags knows the guideline. That's why the added the country names after the city names. {{flag|GBR}} renders the country automaticaly, as so United Kingdom, but {{flagicon|GBR}} does not. The editor did this so he could insert the city name between the flag and country name. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I have given my opinion over at MOS:Icons so we don't need to discuss this further here. It's more practical to discuss everything in one place. Tvx1 20:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
NPOV
Hello Tvx1. Please update my wording however it seems fit. I often only get a chance to write out a paragraph over the course of a few minutes and it is difficult to word everything in a way that doesn't incite challenges over a short time, so revisions and rewrites are most welcome. I included the Mercedes rebounding/putting to rest/responded in a way that highlighted the criticism the team had been receiving following their debacle in Monaco, as it was thoroughly discussed in just the previous paragraph. I just felt that simply saying "rebounded with a 1-2 finish" made it sound like the team failed in Monaco when they still had a 1-3 finish. Anyway, just felt I should explain myself in better detail here. Regards! Twirlypen (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
We'll that is what the media made out of the Monaco debacle, didn't they? They acted like Mercedes had failed miserably, while they got a 1-3 finish. Anyway, the wording is much better now. "Squashed the possiblity of tension" was just not right. Tvx1 02:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Uniform tables
I have archived this discussion (the second editor to do so) as it is going nowhere. No-one else has supported your change, there is no chance of it gaining consensus, for the reasons given by other editors. Please do not un-archive it yet again, accept it will not happen and move on. As also noted in that discussion the tables you gave as examples have far more serious problems than the subtle differences between the skins. If you want to make them more readable then it would be easier and better to address those problems first.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds01:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Some users have acknowledged my concern regarding the gridding. I admit that maybe I have not given the best example to start with. Hence why I gave another. Please give the basic courtesy of allowing users the time to look at it, the new example has even been there for 24 hours. I'm starting to get really concerned on they way this is attempted to be silenced as quickly as possible. Tvx1 11:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Quickly? It's been there for over six weeks, and so read by hundreds if not thousands of editors. That’s the reason that archiving on such pages is set up to archive after a week – after a week if editors have stopped responding then there is simply not enough interest in the matter for policy to be changed. No-one else has posted in the thread for three weeks. Again, accept that there is no support for your change and move on, and perhaps look at fixing the other problems with those tables.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds13:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, others have acknowledged the issue even in that discussion. Take a look at the discussions I have linked to there as well. I just can't shed the feeling that I got opposition because I started from a bad example. Hence why I finally presented another. But then no one gets time to look and respond to to. There are tenfolds of threads on that page, so you can't expect everyone to have seen everything within not even 24 hours. The thread could get some interest if one would look beyond the initial I gave. I did not report an issue with one table on the entire wiki. The are tens of thousands of tables which are affected by this issue. By the way, you are an involved editor, so you should not be closing the discussion per the guidelines and the template's explanationTvx1 15:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Editing critique
Since we seem to have acquired a little history, I was resisting this, but since you presist... when the possibility exists to slip into edit warring I try to leave articles alone for a week and let others have their say. Wikipedia isn't a news site, so there is not a rush. --Falcadore (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 5 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Thanks for adding the missing races to the "Restarted races" table. I'll update the FORIX column within the next 24 hours (unless someone else beats me to it). Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
If have re-added 78 AUT, which you had removed, but to the other disputed results section since the sources don't all agree on the number of laps completed by the drivers. Once again I am unable to check what Lang and Forix say on the matter. Tvx1 14:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Minimum standards
If the minimum standards of participation for race drivers and FP1 drivers are different, then that needs to be expressed in the article.
Also, there is a contradiction - the driver table says Manor participated, but the results say they didn't. Personally, I think that omitting them from round 1 in the driver table and leaving the matrices as is would be the most accurate representation of the situation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I was wrong in my edit and self reverted. I have no objection to explaining this in the article. No opinion on leaving the driver's and constructor's results blank, but at least it would be consistent with the drivers' table. Tvx1 01:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
GA nominations
Hey, I'm looking at a couple of articles for a Featured Article nomination, but first I have to go through the GA process. Thought I might get your opinion on them beforehand because I do get carried away with writing up and editing down—I don't always cut content that should probably go.
The only one that's ready to go is 2014 Russian Grand Prix. I still have issues with the crowd figures, but I think it meets all the GA standards. I also want to get McLaren MP4-30 nominated, but that can't happen until the end of the year; having said that, I have focused most of my attention on that article since I got back. And of course I want to get Volkswagen Polo R WRC into FA status, but that's years away. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you have come to the right person for this. I have hardly any experience with GA and FA demands and it is not my highest priority. I think focusing to much on rewards for editing excellence shifts the attention from pressing needs. For instance, you have done excellent work on the Volkswagen Polo R WRC article in pursuit of a distinction for it, but at the same time the articles on this season's other cars are being all but ignored. Citroën DS3 WRC and Ford Fiesta RS WRC contain little content and no results tables, whereas Hyundai i20 WRC has just little content and its result table hasn't been updated for the 2015 season yet either. Of course you can't do all of that by yourself and won't be able to help because Rally is not in my main field of editing interest. What the rally articles really need is a wikiproject group of dedicated editors like we have for F1, because the quality of their articles needs massive improvement. Just take a look a the rally reports like this one and this one which are only one table really without even an overall results of those rallies. So I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to provide a helpful opinion for the nomination. Tvx1 00:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi TVX1,
I saw that you reverted my edit on Roger Federer's grand slam match win/loss. Why would we count qualifying losses? His website doesn't even show those results. Also, are you counting his qualifying wins?
I just think it makes no sense to mix qualifying with main draw matches, very confusing and also means we have to check qualifying results for all other tennis athletes.
peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Screamer73 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Roger Federer win/loss
Why would we count qualifying results? I believe for all other athletes we're only counting main draw wins/losses. Mixing qualifying with main draw is very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Screamer73 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Coding errors
Thank you for taking me at my word, looking into the issue and actually figuring it out. It's a damn sight more than some other editors have shown for me, some of whom seem to think that they can use my history of blocks to negate and marginalise my input. Which is unfortunate, given that those same people gave brought about a series of low-quality edits that have resulted in contradictory edits. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Nevertheless, you shouldn't have jumped to reverting Twirlypen's repositioning of the footnote. You could have fixed it instead. Just taking a look at the template's documentation, like I did, would have shown you the way. Patience and calmness are good things, articles find their way. Tvx1 15:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 Australian Open – Men Legends' Doubles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wayne Arthurs. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Could you please make more of an effort to think about the impact of the content that you are cutting in future? For example, you removed mention of the turbocharger from the MP4-30 article—but the MGU-H works with the turbocharger, and so for a more cohesive article, the engine section needs mention of the turbocharger. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Not sure about that. Just mentioning the basis engine type (V6 in this case) and the positioning should suffice for the infobox. Detailed working of the turbocharger can be explained in the prose.Tvx1 12:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not talking about a detailed working of the turbocharger—I'm talking about mentioning that there is a turbocharger in the first place. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Before I did the trimming, that field contained a detailed working of the turbocharged. Your new version simply states that it is turbocharged. That's much better. Tvx1 21:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll carry some of the details over to the technical analysis of the engine section.
Do you know where I would be able to find the dimensions of the car? I know that they hinge on the regulations, but I can't find anything.
Maybe this can help you with the dimensions? The steering field simple doesn't show because no such field is actually provided in the coding of the racecar infobox and I'm not sure it has ever been. Tvx1 00:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Still need to find axle track and wheelbase, but I'm pretty sure that I can get them from the regulations.
Sorry, but when did the MP4-30 run three different liveries? The second image is just the original design with black instead of silver. Nothing changed in the third inage except for the shape of the nose. The whole purpose of that image set is to show changes in the car's shape.
Also, that image has possible copyright issues as the author has attached a watermark. Even if it's a free image, I'm still hesitant to use it because it's my experience that these authors tend to do it to get credit and advertise. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I never said three liveries, I said three guises and that it is true. Original livery, reliveried with red nose and reliveried with new nose. It's interesting information to show our readers. I do not know about the copyright issues. I do know that it was reviewed and approved by the commons people, which should be sufficient approval. If you really think that there is a problem, you should go there and raise it with them. Tvx1 00:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
2014 Formula One Season reversion
Hello, Tvx1, you reverted an edit I made that removed the euphemism "passed away". The Wikipedia manual of style warns editors against using euphemisms, but it explicitly focuses on "passed away" and "died". Now, based on your reversion comment, you do not agree with this proscription, but I am interested in your complete approach about why you think "passed away" is more encyclopedia than "died". Cheers. fdsTalk23:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Never mind. I never said I didn't agree. Just that I didn't a good justification for reverting other than the editor's dislike of the words. I wasn't aware of the guideline, now I am. The original reason why that wording was chosen was that person in question did not die suddenly but rather succumbed to their injuries after spending months in hospital, not because of any euphemism. Tvx1 00:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for misinterpreting your comment, Tvx1; that was stupid of me. However, should the duration of one's suffering before death be taken into account when contemplating encyclopedic diction? It always will come down to describing a death, which is most succinctly put "X died". Other concerns involve identifying which death deserves what descriptor: What is an appropriate duration of suffering to use "passed away" in place of "died"? One week, one year or even longer? These questions would lead down an even less stable path. fdsTalk23:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I think Tvx1 has a point, Fdssdf. "Died" comes off like it happened suddenly, which wasn't the case by any stretch. While MOS discourages it, it doesn't necessarily prohibit the use. In this case, I think it would have been fine. Having said that, I am indifferent towards how it is ultimately worded. There's plenty of details surrounding his death throughout various pages. Twirlypen (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Twirlypen. All deaths are instantaneous: One second an organism lives, and the next second it doesn't. Jules Bianchi lived until July 17. To say that he was in the process of "passing away" after the October crash in Japan until July 17 would be a stretch because Bianchi could have escaped his coma. Tvx1 and Twirlypen, shall we move this discussion to the 2014 Formula One season talk page? Cheers. fdsTalk23:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 5 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Oh well, I have never such links before in any article. If any usable media for that article does exist on commons, I think I would be better to include the file(s) directly instead just providing a link. Tvx1 00:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
"Current project's consensus is to use this format. The issue is under investigation by the developers and until it is fixed we will maintain this."
by who and where? There is official design for tables by Wikipedia designers. And a style that breaks borders in one of few major render engines just cannot get into consensus. Elk Salmon (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Neither should a style that renders tables practically invisible on all the mobile browsers get into consensus. That's a much bigger problem and what we're trying to fix and until it has been, the current style we use is clearly the lesser of the two evils. I'll include a link to the bug report here. Tvx1 11:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
List of F1 Safety cars
Don't worry, not arguing here. For what it's worth, apologies for adding that "by me" and accusing you of nominating the above article for deletion. It was really an (unintentional) error on my part and thanks for also pointing the prohibition to edit that type of content anyway. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I also only just saw now the warning you withdrew! Please do not consider the above comment a consequence of that. In fact, had that warning been visible, I might not have left any mea culpa :) Thanks for withdrawing it anyway. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 20 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Wow, I missed that one! I've been away for a couple of days so sorry for not replying sooner. Is that guy satisfied now that the infobox should state Dutch? From the talk page, it seems he's happy now. If there's any further argument, let me know and I'll get involved. I think maybe we never had a general discussion on which nationality to use in the F1 infobox because we all thought it was fairly obvious... Verstappen's case has brought it all up again, and editors not familiar with F1 seem to have the biggest problem with it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems the issue has been resolved now. It really just was an overreaction to one IP making a few edits. Tvx1 07:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
F1 2014/WRC 2015
Hi, i sincerely apologize to the changes i made to the F1 2014 page.
I also admit i did the same in the page for the 2015 WRC Season.
I would like to expirement with the Wikipedia tables, but i have never ever again used wikipedia before, so don't really know
where to begin..
Sorry again, if you just let me to correct the edit i did on the WRC page...
P.S. Since there are people who "control" the content on the Wiki pages, how does Wikipedia isn't classified as a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.32.176.51 (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, If you want to experiment with tables, you can use the sandbox. You can simply copy the entire table you want to experiment with there and experiment with it after that. Regards, Tvx1 18:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Manor Marussia merger
Hey, it's been a week since the discussion on the Manor-Marussia merger wound down, and I think it's pretty reasonable to say that there is enough support to carry it out. Do you mind helping me out with the merger? Carrying the content across is easy enough, but I am trying to think of everything else that will be affected. So far, this is what I have:
2015 and 2016 season articles.
2015 race reports.
2015 WCC results matrix.
Marussia MR03.
List of Formula One constructors.
2015 season and constructors' templates.
Merhi, Stevens and Rossi articles.
Articles of anyone related to the team, like John Booth (but I don't know how extensive these are).
That may be sufficient, but it is still factually misleading e.g. Albania cannot qualify as the best ranked third-placed team, whereas it is said to. OlJa21:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
No it doesn't. It simply says they can qualify directly. Chichis true. They can still finish second in their group. Tvx1 21:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Euro 2016 Qualifying: Tiebreakers
Hi, thanks for your comment yesterday on Qed237's page:
"I'm going to disagree with you and partially agree with the IP. I cannot make any sense of criterium 5 as it is currently presented in the article. It looks like they are going to reapply criterium 1 to 4 exactly the same way and I can't see how that would produce a different result as the first time round. The IP is clearly not trying to modify the official rules, but rather to clarify. Moreover, nowhere is it suggest that we must copy them word for word. Quite in the contrary. Such an edit could be seen as plagiarism. We should really strive to make them obvious to everyone. Currently criterium 5 isn't obvious to understand at all. The IP attempted to help out, but didn't make a good effort. There clarification was unsourced and I can't see anywhere why and how a three-way tie would suddenly be whittled down to two. If there still is a complete three-way tie, how will the set be trimmed down. Which team will be dropped from a three way tie, and why, if they are all still tied? This really needs sources clarification. Tvx1 20:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)"
I too couldn't understand the repetition that is criterion 5. But after a while (not that the UEFA document was any help!) I realised it's to do with discarding more & more of the group results (the whittling away). So you start off with the group as a whole, & as there are some teams tied on points you need to apply a tiebreak - or 10. The tied teams are treated as a mini-league, so only those results are considered. Criterion 5 (C5), the repetition, *only* (emphasis) kicks in if C1 is applied to a mini-league of 3 or more teams; this is because if the mini-league is only 2 teams, 2 matches (like the usual Euro club knock-out 2-leg tie), if they're still level after C4 you jump straight to C6 (i.e. back to the group as a whole: first group goal difference (C6), then group goals scored (C7), & so on). So that's the point: repetition only happens when a second mini-league comes about - which means the tying has to start off with 3 or more teams tied on group-wide points.
The whittling to a second, smaller, mini-league happens, e.g., when 2 teams differ in how well they did against a third team (with no difference in the other results), so one of them drops out. So when you say "I can't see anywhere why and how a three-way tie would suddenly be whittled down to two" it's because the 3-way tie you refer to is due to the *group* results whereas the subsequent 2-way tie is due just to the *mini-league* results.
If I haven't made myself clear, please just say so & I can give a numerical example.
I made my wiki edit, adding the bracketed short phrase, to make it easier for every reader (& there's hundreds of thousands of them!) to understand when the repetition that is criterion 5 *is* needed. If you think there's a better phrase please replace the one I put in.
With my edit, criterion 5 appears as: "If, after having applied criteria 1 to 4, teams still have an equal ranking (e.g. three teams tied on points get whittled down to two), criteria 1 to 4 are reapplied exclusively to the matches between the teams in question to determine their final rankings. If this procedure does not lead to a decision, criteria 6 to 10 apply;"
In terms of practicalities, as far as I know, in any group in world football it's never been necessary to use criterion 5 - not least because I've never known a tie between 3 or more teams. Have you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.91.251.63 (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
When I said I can't see how criterium 5 would provide a different result in a three-way (or even more) tie, I meant a still remaining three-way tie after criteria 1–4 have been applied. Thus a three way tie in the mini-league. But it applies to a simple tie between two teams that stills remains after criterium 1-4 have been applied. How is it going to produce a different result?
And I will not be able to give you an answer to your final question, because I genuinely only follow the Uefa zone ,and within that zone my own country (Belgium)'s group. So I'm not familiar with every group ever played in international football. What I do know is that if Poland and Ireland draw their game on the last game day and Germany loses theirs, we've got ourselves a three-way tie. Tvx1 22:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Module: Sports table
Why would you want to make an unsupported change to the module that is being used on many articles. This affect more than a thousand articles, and very few has "final tournament" and "play-offs", for example that is not at all appropriate for league tables. Please think and find consensus before editing such modules and templates that is used on many articles. Qed237(talk)16:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Source #1 in the article lists the race as "Baku", and it comes direct from the WMSC and is more recent than other articles. Although the source uses, for example, "China", we can extrapolate the denonym "Chinese" from it. Baku fits same format as Abu Dhabi, which is the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix rather than the Emirati Grand Prix. Given the lack of any reference to the race being the European Grand Prix, I don't think that we can call it the "Baku European Grand Prix". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
You should know by know that the WMSC publications never tend to use actual Grand Prix names. You should have learned that synthesizing these sources is wrong from the whole "Grand of vs 'name) Grand Prix" debate. Moreover, if you look at the actual WMSC publication, you'll see that they list the cities and countries in which the races take place and no race titles. Note that your source #1 also lists Sochi for the Russian Grand Prix. And here is a source from just sixteen days ago listing it as the "European GP". Tvx1 16:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Template Hill
I note the IP editor has removed the speedy deletion template. I wonder if use could be made of it. I don't think there's a template or navbox for Embassy Hill already in existence. Maybe for such a short-lived and relatively small team it's a bit unnecessary. Any thoughts? Regards, Eagleash (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
We could use it I think. I have no idea whether there is any project consensus which teams should and which shouldn't. Anyway, that is not the way to create them. You can always copy it to your sandbox for later use. Tvx1 22:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
No obviously not the correct way to create them. (But I really don't know how to create them either!). He's done this before of course with the spate of Tyrrell and Embassy Hill articles (one of which took Bretonbanquet and I a week to sort out!) which were ultimately usable. Is the template any good as it stands do you think? If so I will copy it. Eagleash (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The basic layout looks good, but some of the titles need to be changed to match to those of other constructors' templates. I wouldn't move it mainspace just yet. Not whithout more input from the project. Tvx1 22:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
It's been deleted now anyway. But I could get it restored to my sandbox or somewhere, I suppose. No harm in asking, if it might be of use. Eagleash (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
You do know that there was no consensus to keep that image, right? The only consensus was to let the article grow, add more images in, and re-evaluate. Having done just that, the image in question is no longer necessary, and considering that nobody objected when it was removed "there was a consensus to keep it" misrepresents the discussion.
And you still haven't explained why an image of a livery change is so important to a series of pictures about physical changes to the car's design that affect its performance. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I've already answered that last question on the article's talk pages and I haven't changed my opinion at all. I never claimed there was a consensus to keep it. I wrote that there is no consensus to remove it and that is the truth. There was a proposal for US to re-evaluate. That is not synonymous with you making an opinion-based decision without seeking the others' opinions on the matter. Tvx1 22:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I have been thinking about what you said about it being difficult to show images of the MP4-30's performance, and I had an idea: a graph that shows the difference in top speed at each race between the fastest McLaren, fastest Mercedes-powered car, fastest Ferrari-powered car, and the fastest Renault-powered car. It wouldn't be too hard to make one up in Excel, but I don't know if it would be considered OR. All of it is based on reliable sources—we just have to make sure we take the data from the same place each tume; we can't use the speed trap data from the race in Russia, then FP2 in Austin and qualifying in Mexico—it's just data put into a visual medium. And Sky posted a chart showing the data mid-season in one of the references used.
I am also wondering if it would be possible to make a table in markup showing when Button and Alonso changed each part of their engines, but it would involve going back over the entire season and finding the necessary data and would probably be very one-sided. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I really don't see what the merit of that would be. Bear in mind that the McLaren was the second worst car of the season and that there hardly has been an improvement on performance throughout the season. There's no need to make such an in-depth analysis of a rather unremarkable car's performance. We are a general purpose encyclopedia, not a specialized Formula 1 magazine. This is not the right place for that sort of information. Perhaps create a McLaren wiki if you want to publish that. Tvx1 19:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The article keeps discussing its relative performance, but because it is in prose, it is naturally spread across the entire article, and there is no real way around that. Visual information can be easier to process than prose, so such a chart would compliment the content.
Also, do you have a source to say that the team brought updates to Spain? It's needed for the caption of the three images. I know they did bring something, because Spain is traditionally where the first big update comes, but the only thing I can find relates to the engine. If you have it, can you please supply it? And it might also be worth keeping the image, but separating it out from the other two. The Malaysia and Britain images should focus on the tip of the nose; the Spain image can be about the other aero updates. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
A minor point of grammar
Hi Tvx1,
I see that on the page '2016 Formula One season' you reverted a couple of my edits a few days ago. I know that it is an incredibly minor point of grammar, but just for clarity I would like to explain why the phrase "Lotus' participation" should more accurately be "Lotus's participation". As you correctly noted, it would be "their participation", but that is because the word Lotus is a collective noun, and collective nouns have different grammatical rules to an ordinary plural. The rule is essentially as follows: a team (Lotus) is a single thing, yet that thing is made up of more than one person.
To give you an example, if you were talking about the Belgian national football team you would say "Belgium were brilliant in the first half", not "Belgium was brilliant in the first half", even though the word Belgium is not a plural. In this instance (a team name) it is a collective noun.
Following the same rule, the team name Lotus is not a plural. It might be easier to understand if you use a team name that does not end in the letter S as a comparison. For instance, the name McLaren is not a plural, yet you would still say "their participation" when talking about McLaren, or write "McLaren's participation". The plural of McLaren is McLarens, for example: "both McLarens were knocked out in Q2". Similarly, the name Lotus is not a plural. The plural of Lotus is Lotuses, for example: "both Lotuses were knocked out in Q2". When using the possessive, Lotus, the team name, should be treated as a singular noun, and therefore "Lotus's participation" is correct. The possessive for the plural would be Lotuses', for example (when you were talking about both of the team's cars, rather than the team itself): "both Lotuses' front wings were damaged in the collision".
Finally, it might be worth mentioning that there are occasional differences in the treatment of collective nouns in Standard British English and other varieties of English, but all of the above rules are those of Standard English as found in Britain.
I hope that all makes sense to you. Well done if you read all of that without losing the will to live! I'm sorry to bore you on such a minor point, but I wanted you to understand why my correction was right, and hopefully you will know a bit more about collective nouns in Standard British English in the future. I hope you do not think I am being condescending, my aim is only to help; you appear to have very good English for a non-native speaker, but this is a complicated area of the language!
(talk page stalker) As also from Britain. I was always taught that there was no additional 's' after the apostrophe in the case of a proper noun when a final s in the name is sounded. As a sometime copy-editor for a well known F1 related magazine I can confirm that it is done that way in their output. However, this would indicate that either can be considered correct, but in this case Lotus' would probably be considered more conventional/traditional (IMO). Also the singular is creeping into sports commentary particularly with regard to Australians and cricket, where even on the hallowed Test Match Special Oz commentators will say Australia is 15 for 1 etc. (sounds just awful!). Eagleash (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not actually that black and white regarding the possessive apostrophe with singular nouns. That article matches what I was taught during my English lessons at school. And Belgium being n European country, our English lessons were British English oriented. I can remember quite vividly that were forever being told off by our English teachers about using American English expressions. Like is stated in the article I linked too, by Eagleash and in my English grammar book I still have and just checked, both version can be considered correct. I agree with Eagleash that the apostrophe only version seems more conventional. Tvx1 16:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
This is in reference to a relatively new umbrella article on en-wikipedia named Ceremonial pole. Ceremonial pole is a human tradition since ancient times; either existed in past at some point of time, or still exists in some cultures across global continents from north to south & from east to west. Ceremonial poles are used to symbolize a variety of concepts in several different world cultures.
Through article Ceremonial pole we intend to take encyclopedic note of cultural aspects and festive celebrations around Ceremonial pole as an umbrella article and want to have historical, mythological, anthropological aspects, reverence or worships wherever concerned as a small part.
While Ceremonial poles have a long past and strong presence but usually less discussed subject. Even before we seek translation of this article in global languages, we need to have more encyclopedic information/input about Ceremonial poles from all global cultures and languages. And we seek your assistance in the same.
Since other contributors to the article are insisting for reliable sources and Standard native english; If your contributions get deleted (for some reason like linguistics or may be your information is reliable but unfortunately dosent match expectations of other editors) , please do list the same on Talk:Ceremonial pole page so that other wikipedians may help improve by interlanguage collaborations, and/or some other language wikipedias may be interested in giving more importance to reliablity of information over other factors on their respective wikipedia.
I have no understanding of the source language you want me to translate from, despite having a couple of Indian relatives, so I'm not sure how I can be of any assistance. Tvx1 16:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand where this sudden attack on my editing skills has come from when all I've done is try not rush the whole Renault rebranding thing, I know that I'm far from the perfect editor but I'm learning with every edit and I'm starting to think a lot more before clicking publish so I feel like I'm far better then when I started but "apparently" I'm an idiot and my edit standards are low and disruptive, its really making my time on Wikipedia stressful when all I want to do is contribute. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry. Everyone will easily see through those comments. Just because you made some poor-quality edit years ago, it doesn't mean you remain a poor editor for all eternity. I myself wasn't as nearly good an editor when I joined three years ago than I am now. Anyway, I agree that we shouldn't rush in the Renault case at all. Time is our friend. Tvx1 15:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Eightball
Dear Tvx1, I have brought Eightball's conduct to admin attention here. I would have left it be if he would have stopped at calling me "incompetent", but calling both of us "liars" is just one step too far in my opinion. I would appreciate if you would chip in your opinion there. Regards, Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Zwerg Nase, the irony is that Eightball has launched another assault direct at another editor within the last 24 hours. While share their concerns about that user becoming an admin, I don't think the manner in which Eightball voiced their opposition is acceptable. Tvx1 17:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I only just now saw that Prisonermonkeys was blocked as well, which (I am sursprising myself here) actually makes me quite sad, considering his good contributions, especially to McLaren MP4-30. He was certainly edit-warring at 2016 Formula One season (as he so often does) but I still feel that at least he is not as bad as Eightball in his conduct and there could have been a way to work it out with him. What would you say if I tried to get his block shortened? And I know, things are often so much quieter without him, but I feel that also often his input goes into the right direction... Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
PM's attitude regarding the civility policy may have been better than Eightball's, although we shouldn't forget PM's personal attack against Speedy Question Mark, the displayed attitude towards the edit warring policy was just as bad. PM's is well aware of the consequences of ignoring that policy as their block history shows. I feel that a three-month block is already some sort of a concession to Prisonermonkeys as the only remaining option for the admins after their previous block was really an indefinite block. Furthermore the blocking administrator gave PM a good faith well-meant opportunity to avoid the block altogether, which PM refused to accept. Therefor, I don't think we should be standing up for Prisonermonkeys this time. Tvx1 15:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at 2016 Formula One season shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. I can see you are trying to reach a consensus, but you have now violated the three revert rule I see so many people being blocked for this reason, and i would hate to see you being blocked for it, so its better to warn you so in future, you don't do it again, otherwise it could lead to a block. Thanks for your co-operation Class455fan1 (talk to me) 20:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Class455fan1, don't worry. I won't drive this any further. My edit summaries should also make it clear that my goal is to move the action away from the article and onto the talk page. If you look at the discussion, you'll see very clearly that we're being constructive and that we are clearly getting somewhere. By the way. Edit wars don't often happen by a single party. In this case, Scjessey has reverted the disputed content three times. So is there any good reason why you gave me a warning and no the other party? That's not very neutral if you ask me. And I didn't violate the three revert rule by any means. I have not reverted that content more than three times within 24 hours by any means. Tvx1 20:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Class455fan1, if you'd bother to read the the three revert rule you'll find that one violates the policy if one performed more than three reverts (=at least four) within 24 hours. I point this out because I have been told off myself in the past for having warned another user for having violated the rule when the user actually made just three reverts. So no, I didn't violate it. And again, Scjessey made three reverts as well, so why didn't you warn the other party involved in the edit-war as well?Tvx1 00:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Tvx1 you are right! My error! However, were you behind the IP who left me an offensive message on my talk page? Not accusing you of anything but shortly after you replied, an IP happened to leave a rude message on my talk page. Anyway, please disregard this warning. Please accept my apology. Thanks Class455fan1 (talk to me) 00:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
No I'm not behind that IP edit. It's not easy to proof that but what could do it is that if you look at my user page, you'll notice I'm Belgian. I doubt the IP is as well. Anyway, thanks for your apology. I didn't disregard the warning though. Even though I didn't actually violate the policy, I did revert more than I should and your warning helped me stop before it was to late. So another thank you for that. Tvx1 01:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited WDF World Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Williams. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Huh. I thought I'd try using twinkle's talkback feature, but I didn't realize it would sound so weird. Anyway, I made a table that might address your concerns. —Hermionedidallthework (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. You just breached 1RR on a 1RR Discretionary Sanctions article. There is a big warning at the top of the talk page and I mentioned 1RR in my talk page comments. I'm not reporting you, just warning you so you don't find yourself blocked. Legacypac (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
You broke 1RR and you need to revert your edit, as I am not as nice as Legacypac. Did you ignore the giant warning box that said "Hey don't do this?" Lipsquid (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
You're actually the one being disruptive because you are changing the article from a two-month long consensus state despite the talk page discussion.Tvx1 23:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I declined you speedy on Renault System14 Turbo. It is unambiguously clear just = waat automotive engine it is. A1 is only for cases where you cannnot tell when tea subject is about. DGG ( talk ) 11:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
You know if you are in a dispute with one or more editors over content, including edit-warring, and you feel there is no way out, instead of reporting each other on the drama-boards it would have been better to seek dispute resolution. Tvx1 00:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
IP User Warning Misunderstanding
Hello.
My sincerest apologies.
You just added a warning to the IP Address -Removed- for editing my comments on the 2016 Formula One season talk page.
That IP Address is mine, I simply forgot to sign back in when I edited that section, so it appeared that an anonymous user edited it, when it was actually myself just not signed in.
I have to ask you to remove that warning, sorry for any confusion, and about my arguing in the Manor/MRT case. LumaParty (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC) LumaParty (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I will do that shortly. Thanks for notifying me over this. I apologize for the misunderstanding. The lack of an edit summary by the IP did not allow me to verify whether it was yourself or an unrelated person. Tvx1 21:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Can that talk page be completely deleted as well? That would be quite appreciated, once again, sorry for the mix-up here, I should have been signed in for those edits. LumaParty (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
So, using the IP Address, I should write "WP:UP#DELTALK or WP:DELTALK""? That's a little confusing, could you give me a little help? LumaParty (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
So I must request it on that page? It says if I want to request the talk page and/or archives, to request it there. Is that correct? Sorry for all these questions, I just want to make sure I'm not messing things up. LumaParty (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
By the way, you may wish to remove your two most recents edits in the Manor/MRT section on the 2016 season talk page, since I removed mine. LumaParty (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC) LumaParty (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
F8
That's exactly what I told him on his (today's) talk-page along with some other advice and subsq. further warnings. He blanked it. Eagleash (talk)
The F8 has been protected. It's quite 'hidden' too due to IP's messing with re-directs. The problem with that article was not so much notability but his patented dreadful prose/grammar/tense/puncs./caps. And what got me annoyed was after Ser Amantico (and then me) CE'd it he just undid it. Eagleash (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Arnold Hunter
I only translated the claims made in Belgian newspapers. These claims are also confirmed by Belgian former referee Robert Jeurissen. [2]
Belgian newspapers are unusable to report on that match since they have a conflict of interest since it feautured a Belgian team. Moreover you only wrote about his controversial performance in one match while not mentioning anything about his performances in other matches. That is failure to obey WP:NPOV. Tvx1 14:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
COI guideline only relates to COI editing, not articles that are biased like this. Furthermore, NPOV states that biased sources like this aren't inherently unusable, but it may be more appropriate to use in-text attribution (A Belgian newspaper wrote... an Italian newspaper disagreed, writing...). Read over WP:BIASED. Appable (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Regarding speedy deletions
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that in general, if a speedy deletion is contested by an uninvolved editor it's a good idea to let it go and move to a different deletion process. With the page Arnold Hunter I noticed you restored a deletion tag that I removed. While there may not be an indication of notability, it's clear that a FIFA referee, especially considering the citations given on the article and the talk page, is probably at least significant. Appable (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The organization he works for being notable is not even remotely enough. Our notability guidelines make it very clear that the subjects must be notable in their own right. On top of that, the CSD tag clearly stated that a claim of significance needs to be there in the article, which is just not the case. Lastly, the only two sources used fail the notability guideline's requirement of being independent of the subject. Anyway, I referred it to AFD now. Tvx1 23:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
That's the whole point of them. Determining whether or not a subject is notable/significant enough to justify having a dedicated article here. Tvx1 01:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Notability is not significance though. All notable articles are significant but not all significant articles are notable. All a credible claim of significance needs to do is show that there's a possibility of a person being notable, and does not require any sources. However, just the fact that there were some sources on the talk page immediately could count as a credible claim of significance — if any independent website thinks he matters enough to write about him, it's significant. Maybe not notable, but at least significant. Appable (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello Tvx1. I wonder if you have any more to add in the discussion over at Talk:Metrojet Flight 9268, which is still subject to 1RR discretionary sanctions? We are trying to reach some kind of consensus and I would appreciate your advice and experience. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Martin will not agree to any result other then Under Investigation and twists other editors points into things the never said. He now denies the plane exploded midair. [3]. We try to compromise but there is no give. Legacypac (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Official configuration used in 2016 Grand Prix is 5.412 km (3.363 mi) as 2005 Grand Prix. So why official lap record is 1:30.252 of Schumacher? And then in official initials before free practine, qualifiying and race, the official lap show is 1:31.447 of de la Rosa.--95.238.12.127 (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Do you have any source supporting your claim that the circuit had different lengths in 2004 and 2005? Tvx1 17:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably. I feel it just fails notability and the info is present (and will remain so) in the teams' articles and in the article of Geoff Lees. Tvx1 16:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
DH & BB both felt it was borderline - I'm undecided. IP is never going to make anything of it whereas a reasonable ed. could do. If it was ultimately accepted we could re-dir and (possibly) add to the the stockpile of similar articles waiting to be restored and fettled up (E.g. March 761 & Fitti F8). He's had three goes and will just WP:TE keep re-submitting till someone gets tired of it and deletes it somehow. Eagleash (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Like I said, I feel it just fails. The information is already present in the encyclopedia regardless. Keep in mind that cars do not automatically inherit notability of their drivers or their constructors and/or entrants. Tvx1 19:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I tend to agree I think. I don't reckon the fact that it was also known as the Boro or scored a solitary point (as mentioned elsewhere) makes it any more notable. I think I'll give it "one more chance" if it gets re-submitted again without fixes then certain MfD, and if it sneaks through somehow (!) then re-direct. Eagleash (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I know that you're not a follower of rallying, but I need your opinion on something: when does a new car become a new car?
The reason I ask is because the WRC is undergoing a revision of the technical regulations in 2017. Volkswagen have released images of their 2017 car, which is considerably different to the one they are running now. However, it is still called the "Volkswagen Polo R WRC". I'm wondering what you think the minimum standard is for a car to be considered a new car—and as a result, whether a new article should be created for the 2017 car, or simply expand upon the existing Polo R WRC article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea what FIA and WRC's ruling is on this, but I'd looks to me like it will be a new spec of the same car. A bit like the Marussia MR03 and MR03B in formula one. Tvx1 13:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
My understanding is that the car would need to be re-homologated. Especially if it is based on a new model of the Polo. It's a bit of a stumbling point because Hyundai used a three-door i20 last year, but upgraded to the five-door this year. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2015 Formula One season you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Relentlessly -- Relentlessly (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I am asking for some additional details to help me understand why the submission Draft:NEOS_Server was declined. When the submission was declined on 19 March 2016 by User:DGG, the review said that the subject is notable and the references are sufficient but the text was too close a paraphrase of the NEOS Server website. Prior to resubmitting the article, a colleague and I worked hard to rewrite the first two paragraphs to change the organization and the wording.
In the pink rejection box from your review, the reason says that the submission reads like an advertisement but your comment says that the previously raised issues have not been sufficiently addressed. Could you please clarify your reason(s) for declining the article? Is it that the wording is still too close to the website or is it that it reads like an advertisement?
AnneAvonlea, I copyedited to remove the somewhat promotional impression from an overuse of the name and unnecessary capitalization, and linking the same term more than just once, but I want to check tomorrow for any remaining copyvio before accepting it. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
It indeed still looks like an advertisement. The list of types is a basically an advertisement of all its possible uses. I also have to disagree about the subject being notable. The only sources in the draft are specialist publications. There isn't any more general, significant coverage. Most importantly I cannot see the significance of this subject. All in all, I doubt it merits a wikipedia article. Tvx1 12:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Tvx1, I'm not sure if you're aware but by the end of it's life as a TV channel the channel did use the new logo [1][2]
I personally agree the prev logos should be used however if you're reverted than you should probably know the above :),
Thanks & Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk14:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
From the source I make that the, while the tv channel was still on air when it was revealed, the new logo was created mainly with the online channel in their minds. So it should be ok to use the old logo for the TV channel's article. Tvx1 18:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello Tvx1,
I don't know if you have any experience in the art, specifically in the Soviet/Russia art? First of all, this article was not deleted. Just this Draft was rejected 3 times due to the same message as you put here. I need to supply more sources. But based on the prev. person, he put me to evaluate this article for more experienced editor in the Teahouse, and one person wrote that the subject is Notable, since she is an artist and immigrated from USSR, which gives her the needed status of notability. If you are not from Teahouse, or don't have the art experience, please find the experience person in this area, or look at that person in Teahouse. I agree that I need more editing in the article itself, and I need help in it, but it is the secondary for it now. Thanks!Toreeva (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Since you are the subject of the article yourself, you should not be editing the draft at all. I'll remind you that your article has been deleted twice before. Wikipedia does not exist to promote oneself and it looks like all your editing concerns promoting yourself and you art form. Tvx1 00:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello Tvx1,
The article was rejected for improving but not deleted. If you would look in the unofficial art in Russia specifically, where I made my input about other artists and the art groups, you will see that I'm objectively described the events, which are now the history. It is shame that without knowledge the art, just reject it instead of the better editing that the article may need, but definitely not rejection. I may be added to much in the English or Russian translations, may be the article just needed the original text, but I thought nobody can read in Russian, so I added how to read the reference source in both languages. May be this is extra effort, but rejection all? If the article can't be approved, how I can added the info to the big article "Unofficial art in Russia", where the reference is needed there. If I will add there, why it is rejected here in this article? Wrong...Toreeva (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The article has existed twice before it returned in this draft form and in that article form it was twice speedily deleted. Tvx1 12:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I think your role should be to improve the article and not reject it by word by word as the prev. person who declined my article. Can you ask him (Joseph2301) about another person name from Teehouse, who in his Talk told him that my status automatically can be notable. His conversation is deleted so I can't tell you his name. But don't you think if the artwork in Museums and published, it means nothing in that political time? Again, please look into the same kind of articles about the artists, for example Anatoly Belkin, who has only the couple of lines, and 4 of the References don't even open, but still was accepted by you, and suggest me what to do to improve the article. Not to have this kind of conversation, or don't have enough knowledge about USSR art, or to ignore the conversation, or just declined the submission because of your poor knowledge, does not improve the status of the article. It does not bring wikipedia on the higher level. Thank you.Toreeva (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a tool to promote Sovjet/Russian art (or anything at all). I haven't accepted anything, so your insinuations of me being biased are out of place. I'm a reviewer, so it's certainly not my role to improve drafts. That would be conflict of interest. Not every subject merits a wikipedia article. Tvx1 18:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Then would you be willing to ask someone from Teehouse (or ask Joseph2302, prev. reviewer) about the names in Teehouse who already looked into the article before I submitted again. It looks they know what I'm talking about and importance of the Art before the falling of USSR. And I'm not asking you to help in promotion of the art, and I don't do it either. I just want to give the information about art and artists at that time of 1970s, which is now the part of the history. And if you have no knowledge or interest in the Soviet art history, why you look into the article of NO knowledge of art on your part? Should the reviewer have some knowledge in it?Toreeva (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
No the reviewer should not have knowledge on the subject. That way the review can happen in a neutral, unbiased manner. You're insistence in getting someone from the teahouse looks a lot like an attempt canvass a biased reviewer in order to get the article accepted. The main problem is that there is not enough evidence that you're contribution to Sovjet/Russian art is significant enough for you to merit an article. Tvx1 11:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Rentalcars
Hi Tvx1, Thanks for your time on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rentalcars.com
It's been through some major changes, which is I guess why there have been so many submissions. Before this submission I checked with the previous editor and also went on the online help chat to make sure that it was worth submitting again. The previous editor was happy with it once I'd made some improvements, and the online chat editor also confirmed that if I made a couple of improvements (which I did) that they'd be happy with the standard. It would be really helpful if you could please advise of how you think it needs improving? Many thanks FishKat (talk) 08:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I just don't see the notability/siginifance of the subject. All the draft (and its sources) does is listing the structure and the location and identity changes it went through. I'm not sure about the significance of the awards either. All in all, I can't see why the subject merits an article. Tvx1 11:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
OpenFog Consortium Notability Question
Tvx1,
I saw that you rejected the open fog consortium entry for notability. I have looked at the criteria, and with international press coverage in Forbes, Infoweek, Computer World and Academic journals, growing membership from IT leaders including ARM, Intel, IEEE, Cisco, Dell, Schneider, General electricand 10+ universities driving research on the topic, I don't understand how this is not notable. Additionally other organization that do related work like IEEE , OPC Foundation , IIC (Industrial Internet Consortium) are deemed notable.
Thank you,Tvx1, for reviewing my page Draft:DR & AJU. I chatted with another editor about how to improve it. He or she kindly pointed out a line about the firm having a strong practice in reconstruction. I know that detail as a fact and since it was described that way in a page from a book about Korean law firms that was cited, in my mind, it was simply a substantiated description. But I now see how someone unfamiliar with the firm could justifiably see that as an endorsement. So I have changed it. Since the article is short, could you list any other words or phrases you find biased, please? There are already many law firms in Wikipedia, I would like to make sure non-Koreans covering cases that DR & AJU are involved in can find the same quick links to English source material about it that they can find about its partner or adversarial firms on Wikipedia. I would like to be sure the next submission complies completely with Wikipedia editors' expectations. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. LegalKorea (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
09:00:54, 19 April 2016 review of submission by Stupkamichal
Hi,
I've removed all links to the app creator sites except one (its homepage). I don't see any evaluating, praising, classifying or otherwise promoting language in my contribution. Could you please highlight parts that you consider making it a 'brochure' article? As for references, comparing to an article about similar app (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OruxMaps) that has been approved my contribution is much more referenced. Thanks.
Michal Stupka
Why certainly. The maps section advertising all the maps it displays, the features section, which advertises its functions, and the detailed overview of all the locations where you can buy it. Tvx1 12:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for comments on my draft of Wisconsin German.
When I previously submitted the article, it was still in its infancy stage. I've added more content and sources and plan to have a complete article finished by May.
I plan to resubmit the article, and would be grateful if you have any other input or suggestions. Jsylor373 (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Dimensions
I noticed you reverting the addition of dimensions on Merc FW05 & 06 (I think). I was wondering about that as the fields are valid parameters in Template:Infobox racing car and a fair number of car articles do have the dimensions included. (Not just ones our 'old', strangely missing recently, IP friend created). In fact I seem to recall raising the matter once before and the answer being there was no objection to dimensions being included if available. Eagleash (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
It think it's trivia. Infoboxes of other, non-F1 cars, don't constantly have them either. The Infobox of an F1 car should be the summary of its most important sportive aspects. It shouldn't be a full technical analysis of the vehicles. A large number of F1 car infoboxes is much larger than then article's body and that looks just ridiculous. Tvx1 17:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I think some dimension are important, wheelbase being one, but yes over-technical infoboxes are not great as we've discussed before — Mr. Rooney's contributions for example. (Noting that a suspension part is machined from a solid billet of metal is ridiculous). Double wishbone or whatever is sufficient... Eagleash (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
