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.
You just refused my article because no change was made since the last submission... which was totally logical since the last reviewer had made a mistake and told me to just resubmit.
Before that, I had added lots of references.
Here is what I was told to do :
@user:NRCBeng. I made a mistake there. Feel free to resubmit it again. » Shadowowl Marcos Rodriguez | t | SPI | AIV | Sandbox | Helpdesk » 17:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Could you please re-review my article on that basis ?
I've realized that in the meantime. I don't know where that came from. Is there a report somewhere. Also don't forget that their IP ranges are still able to edit.Tvx1 21:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
No I don't know how it came about either, maybe Favonian spotted something and decided to investigate a bit. As he has been banned for abusing multiple accounts, the thing about edits by blocked or banned users (socking) being reverted would seem to be be particularly applicable. Eagleash (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Goffin Top 10
Hi, i understand that ATP is the main and obvious source to take information about rankings. But if you know how the ATP Ranking works, you should know that the 90 points of Halle will be replaced for the 300 for Rotterdam final. I will not change it, until you verified this information tomorrow with the official ranking.
I don't think they will be. If a player has a result that could be replaced within his maximum of countable tournaments, the points for that tournament would be listed in the "Next best" column in the ATP's official rankings. You can cross-check this for all players who have a points value in the "Next best" column. For Goffin there is a 0 points in the "Next best column". This indicates that there should not be any replacing. Tvx1 00:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I hope you will check again in the ATP rankings the position of Goffin this week. As advice do not change things in the encyclopedia, if you are not sure. Kleyw (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
You were just as unsure as me (and for the record, I was sure of my edit). As it turns out his Monte Carlo points were substituted. The real lesson we should learn from this is that the should not list future ranking positions anymore at all in any case anywhere.Tvx1 13:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey Tvx1! Could you take a look at Talk:2016 European Grand Prix/GA1 over the next couple of days and see if you agree with me that some of the stuff this reviewer demands are just either too much for just a GA or in worst cases stuff that we, by WikiProject standards, do not include in race articles at all? If it comes down to it, I might even need some assistance here convincing them that they are asking for unreasonable things, but I'll see what the response on my first edits are. Anyway, a look from you would be much appreciated :) Hope you're well (and not too worn out by a certain F1 editor yet...)! Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Still not happy with the wording of leads in season articles. It currently reads like this:
"The 2018 Formula One season is planned to be the 72nd season of FIA Formula One motor racing. It is scheduled to feature the 69th Formula One World Championship, a motor racing championship for Formula One cars, recognised by the sport's governing body, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars."
"The race is planned to mark the eighty-first race in the combined history of the Australian Grand Prix—which dates back to the 100 Miles Road Race of 1928—and the twenty-second time the event [...]"
It's the line about the "combined history" that I like. Even if the title of the article is "2018 Formula One season", the subject is very much the 2018 World Championship. Talking about the history provides context, but in its current form, I think the lead puts the context before the subject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think "combined" is being correctly used there. Combination of what? I think whomever wrote that meant "overall" as they are referring to the overall history of the Australian GP. Now, how would you apply the wording to the season articles?Tvx1 01:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
That's what I am trying to settle on. The combined history of Formula One racing—all racing, dating back to Turin in 1946. But I keep hitting a brick wall; that's why I posted here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
How about this?
"The 2018 Formula One season is planned to be the 69th running of the Formula One World Championship, a motor racing championship recognised by motorsport's governing body, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. It will be the 72nd season of competition in the combined history of the Formula One racing—which dates back to the 1946 Turin Grand Prix—and will see teams and drivers contest twenty Grands Prix for the World Drivers' Championship and World Constructors' Championship titles."
It's still not perfect, but it's a start. The "combined history" part works because the Turin Grand Prix wasn't the first race of the 1946 season—it was run in September 1946. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that is a good proposal. However I would tweak "is planned to be" to "is planned to see", replace the wills with is/are scheduled to and replace "combined" with "overall". Combined is not linguistically correct in that sentence.Tvx1 15:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Template:F1stat
Hi Tvx1. Thanks for updating Template:F1stat. In case you do it again next year, be aware that the template is used in places other than the driver articles, e.g. List of Formula One drivers and the "Formula One drivers from <country>" articles, so those articles also need to be updated when removing drivers from the template. I think I have fixed all the articles which were affected by your change. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Our friend the completionist is back, guessing at power outputs and insisting that Geoff Willis is actually "Geoffrey Willis". I'm also pretty sure he's spilled over into McLaren MCL32, where he's inventing job titles for the various team personnel. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
French translation
I just completed my translation of Musée Saint-Raymond and wonder if you would proofread it as I see you listed as a French-English translator. My primary concern is the sense of the three quotes, whose text is linked in the notes section. Besides that and a general grammatical review, it could use some more sources and I have added some links on the talk page. Ping me if you have any questions. Thanks in advance. ww2censor (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Race 1 of the World Championship was not always Race 1 of the Formula One season
No we don't care about the country which issues the racing license. Per the FIA's International Sporting Code, F1 drivers use (one of) their passport nationalities. If you look at Andre Lotterer, you'll see that his racing license is actually issued by Belgium, yet we list German in the infobox since that's the nationality he raced under. However all of that only relates to the infobox. A biographical article needs to provide accurate information in its body and its lead. Look at Jochen Rindt (a FA) for instance.Tvx1 20:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Just in case it wasn't clear
Hi Tvx1, sorry I did this revert, but I don't think it's good practice to alter a comment, even if it's your own, after the discussion has moved on. It can change the context of later contributions, and even render them illogical or make them look silly. You could however (of course) add a postscript or a new comment to explain or update an earlier one. -- de Facto (talk). 16:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
How do I handle an edit warring user?
Since you weighed in previously on the massive lists created by BornonJune8, I'd thought I'd ask for help. I have no experience with dealing with an edit warring user. He said "quite frankly, I need to get in an "edit war" because I'm right on this one." [1] so how do I continue a discussion in the face of that? He also edited his talk page to change around dates and what I said and what I signed, if you look at his talk page history it's pretty convoluted but I'm pretty sure that's not right. Please help, thanks. LAroboGuy (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
okay. They haven't actually violated 3RR yet. So I guess I'll wait, for now.
What exactly does my personal talk page history have to do with this particular discussion at hand (isn't that kind of convoluted within itself)? It seems like you're using what went on elsewhere regarding whatever past issue that I had on Wikipedia as immediate justification. BornonJune8 (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I have noticed they have created a bunch of list of Stanley Cup announcers and broadcasters of baseball teams. They fail and WP:NOT and should be deleted.Tvx1 17:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Not that I'm necessarily 100% right on this past issue, and not to be ignorant or disrespectful but bare in mind that when TvX1 was essentially looking at past American network television sports broadcast from a decidedly European lens. And not to rehash too much but here's what I said when trying to state my own case a few months ago.:
I seriously don't have the time or energy for this. The guy is relentless. I can't keep up, as some of his edits are legit, but he's going off and claiming that he's right in everything he does and doesn't seem to care what Wikipedia policy is. I don't know how you dedicated editors do it, and I applaud you, but this just isn't for me. I'm sorry. LAroboGuy (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I never exactly said that I was "right in everything that I did" (like I don't care to listen to an opposing view what so ever) so don't put words in my mouth. In that regard, what I may have meant is that I have enough confidence and evidence to back up whatever point in detail that is in one particular article or another. Maybe I shouldn't be so blunt when saying such a thing, but I would appreciate it if you try to take a more "open mind" before jumping to conclusions. And if I'm being relentless (since when is trying to argue my own rationale being decidedly "relentless") than wouldn't it be fair or logical to say that I would be prone to think on the contrary. And if you quite frankly, have an issue, then why can't you say it to me directly rather than complain and confided to another editor for whom I may or may night have had a debate with!? BornonJune8 (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Can you please not use my talk page to fight out your indifferences. Do that at yours or go to the administrators if that's warranted. And could you also put your replies were they belong, below the previous comments and not in the middle of them. Using fake timestamps is not going to hide were a reply belongs.Tvx1 09:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Sandbox
1) Use your sandbox before making changes to articles. Your edits created visibility issues for mobile devices.
I will once you stop reverting and stop assuming bad faith. And I don't have to go to my sandbox to make an edit I can check beforehand using the preview button. The sandbox is just handy to fill in tables and copy them later in whole.Tvx1 12:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
2019 Formula One season
Someone has brought to my attention the state of the 2019 Formula One season page and the information that is currently standing. I figured you boys would want to do something about it if you hadn't noticed already. *JoeTri10_01:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Where did I say that Goffin lost the entire match due to one line call? Anyway, it was proved by review that the call was erroneous. Rovingrobert (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Your text quite literally stated it. "Goffin lost against Nadal on the back of an erroneous line call." How else than "Goffin lost the match because of an incorrect call." do you think the lay reader will interpret that? It was unnecessary to highlight one call out of an entire match in such a way.Tvx1 08:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
If on the back of implies what it does, then I can honestly say I had no idea. Sorry about that. Maybe I've been reading too much poor journalism. Anyway, I will still highlight the call, but in an unmistakably neutral way. Rovingrobert (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Why? Why are you so determined to highlight a call on one of the 108 point played in that match? Why do you think it had such an immense impact in that match? Goffin had plenty of opportunity afterwards to make it not have any effect at all. It even happened on game point for David. This means that he could still have won that game after that point. So your describing it as costing him the game is still POV. I really don't see the need to highlight one point like this.Tvx1 12:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not the impact on the match itself necessarily, it's part of the argument for Hawkeye on clay and one of many famous spats with an umpire that has arguably gained more media attention than the match itself. Rovingrobert (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
But how is that relevant to Goffin? The article is his biography, not the report on that match.Tvx1 14:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Color format for oval/road/street circuits
If you do not agree with the current form, please change all relevant articles! It disturbs when some of the articles are in color format and some of the articles are provided with (O) or (R) notices. Thank you very much! In addition, I like the format of 2017 very well! --Mark McWire (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I intend to. But it takes time. You can see the amount of articles as well. Also one simply cannot change all these articles at the exact same time. There's always going to be some articles without colors and some that still have them until they have gradually all been dealt with. That is no justification to reinstate colors in already tackled articles. It would have been far more constructive to have made some of these articles compliant with the guidelines instead of reverting said actions.Tvx1 20:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I've already done some now. I updated the 2017 article with the results of tonight's race as well while I was at it, as well as having watched the closing stages of the race. The remaining articles will be dealt with as I find time. You're always welcome to help.Tvx1 23:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
In Race 1 qualifying, Rahal was fastest in Group 1, Helio was fastest in Group 2 (despite losing his best lap). Both received a bonus point. In Race 2 right now, RHR was fastest in Group 1, Sato was fastest in Group 2. Both will receive a bonus point.
The final box score already has the cars arranged according to their groups, with the fastest group (Group 1) lining up in the odd positions; and the slower group (Group 2) lining up in the even positions. Here's the T&S reports with the group details. It will be the same with Race 2 which has just finished (so Sato P1, RHR P2). TheChrisDRants•Edits15:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. There was no way to know that from the Wikipedia article, though. Our readers should be able to full understand everything, so I added an explanation.Tvx1 15:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I would like to hear your reasoning on this. Takagi was officially classified as 20th in the race, but he was also "excluded" following lap 135 for taking out Jimmy Vasser as he was being lapped. https://web.archive.org/web/20030125190808/http://www.cart.com:80/News/Article.asp?ID=803 So which is more correct, classified as 20th or disqualified? Or both? Would an asterisk on his 20th place with a footnote underneath explaining he was excluded be more appropriate?
Per the official results of the race, he was classified 20th and that's how we should list him. Disqualified and excluded are not the same thing. Takagi was excluded from racing any further after 135 laps. He was essentially forced to retire from the race. However in Champ Car and IndyCar even cars which don't finish are classified.Tvx1 03:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
IndyCar 2017
This isn't a debate, this isn't an argument, this is what you're going to do. You're going to post on the talk page of that article and you are going to SUGGEST the changes you made. And if people agree those changes are good, we will make them. You do not get to unilaterally decide to make those changes. You know full well that's how this website works.
I do not care one bit about wiki guidelines. They are non-binding and I will ignore them as such. They are almost universally poorly thought out. You will explain why you think your changes are for the better, you will support your arguments with real evidence, or you will move a long. Act like an adult. Eightball (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
How fitting. Your request me to act like an adult while at the same time throwing such a tantrum about a simple issue. Guidelines are their for reason. If you want to ignore them you will have to provide a good justification for doing so. Accessibility guidelines are very important ones. Coloring these entire rows doesn't improve the table a tiny bit. It does not add any information which is not already there with the letters. If anything it makes the table more difficult to read. It's hard on the eyes and is utterly distracting. Moreover, there are people who can't even see colors. So stop adding them.Tvx1 23:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I will say again: this isn't a debate. You made these changes unilaterally at the beginning of June. I have correctly removed them. If you would like to remove the coloring, you WILL open a discussion on the talk page. This is the end of it. Do not revert the changes again or you will be reported to the admins. p.s. guidelines are guidelines, not rules. Eightball (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
You need to provide a good justification not to adhere to guidelines. No talk page discussion or consensus is needed to implement guidelines or policies. They ARE the community's consensus. You are no the owner of said articles, so you have no right whatsoever to put demands on other users. Stop your disruptive editing.Tvx1 13:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
You will be reported to mods for your abusive editing. You do not own these articles. You do not control them. You are not the sole arbiter of how content is designed. Your behavior is shameful and hypocritical and it will be stopped. Eightball (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm on the same page as Eightball. You will talk in the talk pages and get this approved by the majority instead of acting like you own the place JoeyofthePriuses (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Go and read the ANI discussion Eightball initiated. The administrator disagree with their stance and disapprove of their behavior, not mine. The administrators have repeated what I already stated here, one does NOT need a talkpage consensus at all to make an article comply with a guidelines or policies. You are both simply wrong and both of you are being disruptive.Tvx1 20:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Can you help verify translations of articles from German
Hello Tvx1,
Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from German to English Wikipedia?
This would involve evaluating a translated article on the English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original German article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:
There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages including German , using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown, including some articles translated from German. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.
If you can help out, that would be great. Here's a sample of the articles that need checking:
All you have to do, is compare the English article to the German article, and assess them "Pass" or "Fail" (the {{Pass}} and {{Fail}} templates may be useful here). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then assessing it, that's even better, but it isn't required.) Also please note that we are assessing accuracy not completeness, so if the English article is much shorter that is okay, as long as whatever has been translated so far is factually accurate.
If you can help, please {{ping}} me here to let me know. You can add your pass/fails above, right next to each link, or you may indicate your results below. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, as I said in my edit summary, Decugis won the French when it was not a Slam, so it has no bearing on Grand Slam records. Why did you revert me? I want to avoid an edit war and just talk it out. Gap9551 (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi how are you ? Rafa's page is locked can you change Nadal's result at the 2016 French Open from 3rd round to a WD as he Withdrew from the event. Leaving it at 3rd round gives the impression he was beaten in that round or retired from his 3rd round match which did not happen.The only reason 3rd round should be included is if he took to the court and he did not.A WD should be cited in this case as he has only ever lost two matches there and it is misleading. Can you do this please ?. 92.251.137.135 (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Regards
No, that would be against project convention. We list the rounds reached, and he did reach the third round. He did win his second round match and did receive ranking points and prize money for a grand slam third round.Tvx1 18:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
No it doesn't have to. We simply do not make a distinction for "withdrawn" players because it isn't made in real life. Reaching the third round is 3R.Tvx1 19:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
F1 2018
I know he's right, but it was tit-for-tat editing. He made no attempt to remove the image even though it related to the point he deleted. He wasn't removing it because it was in the interests of the page; he removed it to send a message to other editors. If we enable him, we're only going to encourage him to be disruptive. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Button
Show me the discussion, please. I distinctly recall you arguing that Magnussen didn't count as a notable driver because he never started the one race he entered. If a driver who starts a race and records a result doesn't count as a notable driver, then no driver is notable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
No we settled on a number of entries. The discussion is here. Button entered only one race and he did not achieve a result (he retired). He doesn't even hold a championship position because of that. Button has not made a notable contribution to the MCL32's history.Tvx1 11:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
No he doesn't. He's unclassified because he don't not get a classification in his sole race. The same applies to di Resta. See here, not Button or di Resta
There are so many rules attached to who gets classified as what in which articles that it's getting to the point where we're going to need a separate article to explain it because I strongly suspect you're the only one who understands it. To the casual reader, some of these articles are a convoluted mess. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing difficult to it. If you do not get a classification at the end of any race in the season, you don't get a championship position.Tvx1 21:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not talking about championship position. I'm talking about Button not being a notable driver despite starting the race and the circumstances under which he was entered. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
August 2017
Your recent editing history at Roger Federer 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. - Tom | Thomas.W talk21:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Why speedy deletions?
There is no way Federer–Murray rivalry or Federer–Roddick rivalry would ever qualify for a speedy deletion. Certainly you can nominate them for formal deletion, but that will almost certainly fail. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
You AFD'd it some time ago. The AFD closed as delete. It was recreated in defiance of that. That makes it CSD:G4 eligible.Tvx1 21:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Sauber-Alfa Romeo
Do you have that Sauber-Alfa Romeo story from motorsport.com? If we can post it—and quote the relevant parts—we can offer it up as proof as to why anonymous sources cannot be trusted.
Hopefully we can do it before Sainz moving to Renault is announced, because I'm concerned that DeFacto, Wikipediaeditperson and GeoJoe10000 will take the announcement as proof that they were right all along. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Fight this out on your own talk pages
@Prisonermonkeys: I do not need to wait for any announcement. Today we have a reliably sourced (assuming motorsport are regarded as such) assertion of fact - that's good enough. No matter what future announcements might say, that will not change that fact - even if motorsport were wrong. What repeated false assertions might lead to is a review of whether the source is actually reliable. So you can rest assured, I will not be claiming any further confirmation as proof of anything - because no such proof is required. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Right now, all you have is an article that claims Sainz will join Toro Rosso, but offers no proof of it. If that is the standard of work from the publication, Autosport and motorsport.com fail WP:RS Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: I can't spot any parallels on that 5+ year-old page (other than your attitude towards contributions from others), can you be more specific please.
I don't think that the standard of a source's work is defined by any proof they offer for an assertion, it is more to do with how thorough their internal fact checking and editorial process is, and how often their published assertions actually are factually correct. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I'm trying to find that story from motorsport.com that you mentioned—the one that used Wikipedia as a source—but I have no idea where to start looking. I don't even know what year or what context it was in.
Would you care to explain this edit? When it was first made, you insisted on its importance, not only on the page, but across the broader scope of Wikipedia—and yet you have done nothing to address it despite your insistence. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Because it is an accessibility issue. I have done such changes on a myriad of motorsport articles. It would be much more helpful if you would be constructive and tackle some articles yourself instead of criticizing me for making content more accessible. I really cannot understand why you have such a hatred for this changes.Tvx1 14:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to the edit. I'm opposed to the approach that you've taken. You made the edits out to be of vital importance across Wikipedia, but you have done nothing to fix the issue except insist that it be applied to a single article, and then you expect other editors to go and do all the heavy lifting. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I've changed more than a single article. And do you really expect me to have done the whole of Wikipedia in just a pair of months?? It's a slow and natural process and gradually all articles will be dealt with.Tvx1 14:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
No it merely acknowledges that the events it applies to are scheduled for the future. It's no up to us to claim the future is set.Tvx1 22:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Far from it:
"The 2018 championship is scheduled to see an overhaul of the sport's technical regulations to introduce the "halo" cockpit protection device."
Your wording clearly states that the overhaul of the regulations will not happen until 2018 when you mean that the introduction of those regulation will not come into effect until 2018. Once again in your haste to avoid WP:CRYSTAL, you have engineered the meaning out of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Deprecated hacks
Just because people are too stupid to understand how HTML works and decided to pollute tables with "hidden" stuff that ends up in search indexing, screenreaders, offline versions of the content, siri/alexa, etc.. doesn't mean we should be encouraging them to use that. We got rid of Wikipedia:HiddenStructure for similar reasons. Bad technology usage should be discouraged, no matter how much people like to use it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
That’s not for you to unilatterally decide. Discuss instead of personally declaring something deprecated.Tvx1 20:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
dont do unusual edits you are vandalsing wikipedia stuff
worst encyclopedia editor i have ever seen i can use abusive language too dont remove flags and dont undo edits on terrosim why you are vandalsing edits i will report your account if you keep doing this stupid stuff you have no right to do that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.3.8 (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
i am sorry about that tvx1
i called you stupid and thought you are vandalising stuff on terrosim in 2017 i have a question i mean you are admin or editor so why removing flages in terrorsim aticle it will make article much more good and informative why you are doing that please i will advise you not to remove falgs every editor want to make thsese articles much more better without flags it will not look good you are doing it for more then 1 months before that there is no flages removing i mean explain it i will apoligize you for calling you stupid i am sorry
There was discussion here and here showing clear agreement not to use flags in these articles. My edits followed these discussions. We never decide about content based on how it looks.Tvx1 16:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Rally page moves
Hi Tvx1,
I notice that you have moved a number of pages related to World Rally Championships. These were changed back and then you changed it back again. As far as I can see, you haven't tried to discuss this anywhere. I recommend you discuss this at Talk:2018 World Rally Championship#Article titles.
Especially given the number of articles involved, if you continue to move pages without discussion, you could quickly find yourself being blocked.
Why are you taking this out on me? Prisonermonkeys is the one who started unilaterally moving these articles without any discussion to a version in clear breach of policy. I merely reverted them back to a version following policy. I don’t need to discuss prior to reverting actions in breach of policy.Tvx1 11:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Prisonermonkeys moved pages "per discussion at WT:F1", which presumably means as discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Season article names. I can see that you raised objections there. Perhaps I was too hasty in assuming that the discussion there had reached a consensus. Of course, consensus is not unanimity... but the number of people involved in the lengthy discussion is small, which makes judging consensus hard.
I don't know where you go that? I don't see any "per discussion at WT:F1" in their edit summaries on the moves of the World Rally Championship. Those moves were undiscussed as far as can I see as well as being in breach of policy. That's why I reverted. I don't know why a consensus achieved at WT:F1 would apply to articles on Rallying, a different sport altogether which has its own dedicated wikiproject.Tvx1 15:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
You were involved in the discussion about the order of the Toro Rosso drivers on the page: 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship. Unfortunately we have been unable to resolve this issue and I have decided to take this to DRN. Given your involvement in this discussion, I have included yourself on the list of involved users. You can find the information of the dispute below. Thanks.
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
Yes I am. It took nearly nine months for this GA review to be started following the nomination. So this should really be able to take more than a week to fix the issues. I had a very busy week last week, but this week I should have the time to tackle it.Tvx1 12:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Like I said in my edit summary: either the quote/source is reliable or not. If not, then remove the reference altogether, don't leave it in the article at all. I don't think you can pick and choose what in the source you believe, and what you don't (unless you have other sources – in which case then replace this reference with another source everywhere it's used in the article). cherkash (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Tvx1. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi Tvx1. I'm aware the issue has been discussed at WT:F1, but my reading of the discussions (1, 2, 3) is that there was no clear consensus, although we have ended up with a situation where the current standard practice is for the chassis name to be displayed (in race reports and season summary articles) as "Red Bull" before 2014 and "Red Bull Racing" from 2014 onwards (although I'm aware there are exceptions, for example in 2017 Mexican Grand Prix, the chassis name is given as "Red Bull Racing" in the qualifying, race result and championship standings tables, but "Red Bull" in the infobox). I won't revert your change to 2011 Belgian Grand Prix again, but I don't see the sense in changing one article to be inconsistent with all the other articles for that year. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
There, tackled the entire 2011 season. Took just three minutes. Not that much effort. The sources are quite unanimous on this. There constructor name and has been Red Bull Racing on all entry lists. (On the individual races' entry lists they are literally listed in the "constructors" columns as "Red Bull Racing-Renault and more recently "Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer".Tvx1 20:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
You need to check your automated edits a bit more closely, as you've also changed some piped links within the text, which changes the sentence. Tables can be changed without much harm, if it's necessary and not just being anal, but prose should be left as is. QueenCake (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Hamilton
"[Hamilton] has a contract to drive."
Not according to the article:
"Lewis Hamilton is scheduled to start the season as the defending Drivers' Champion"
Like I said, every time we use the word "scheduled" in the article, there is always a contract involved. Hamilton is not contracted to be World Champion. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but you need to find another wording, even if it is only for three days. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The “scheduled” relates to him driving. He has a contract to drive and is thus also to defend his title. If he doesn’t drive, he wouldn’t be the defending champion. Just like Rosberg last season. And it’s not for three days. The season starts in March.Tvx1 02:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
No. It only has a lead and one table with content. There isn't even remotely enough for an article. It should never have been submitted.Tvx1 15:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
New champions
This was discussed at WT:F1. The discussion has been archived, but the general agreement is that the champion becomes champion from 1 January of the following calendar year. Furthermore, when we moved the articles from "season" to "championship", it was agreed that "season" refers to everything in the calendar year whereas "championship" is the specific events. Although the championship has not started, the season has—Formula One lists Hamilton and Mercedes as defending champions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Still don't know the difference between a reigning champion and a defending champion, do you? And that for someone who claims to be an English teacher. They currently are not defending their titles in any way. Moreover if either of them finds themselves unable to take part in the season, they wouldn't defend their title at all. Also Formula One does not list them as defending champions, bit simply as champions.Tvx1 12:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I do know the difference between "defending" and "reigning". I also know that we use them contextually and that WT:F1 has not enshrined their usage as a convention of the WikiProject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with context or Project convention. This is only basic language. Mercedes and Hamilton have neither started the season nor are they defending their titles. What you were writing were quite blatantly factual inaccuracies.Tvx1 13:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
They are nevertheless the reigning champions. In the context of the sport, "reigning" means holding the title. Hamilton and Mercedes do not suddenly become the defendimg champions once the championship starts. They are the reigning champions and the season has started since they're building their car. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
No it hasn't. The season starts once they are entered for the first race. Currently preparation for the season is underway, not the season itself. And you never referred to them as reigning in your edits. You wrote that they were defending, which they currently aren't. If either of them pull out now and do not compete at all in 2018, they would not have defended their title.Tvx1 14:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Toro Rosso and Renault
Hi,
The reason for the Toro Rosso name as the engine on the entry list in 2017 was that Toro Rosso was supposed to rebadge it, but they didn't go on with. Like I have said numerous times, the official Toro Rosso website shows that the engine was a Renault - 2017. Go see for yourself at https://scuderiatororosso.redbull.com/en_INT/car/str12, you can't have a better source on this one. RafaelS1979 (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The entry list still uses Toro Rosso in the updated version from september as well as on all the individual entry lists for all the races up to and including the last one. Engine and Constructor name were the same.Tvx1 19:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Toro_Rosso_Grand_Prix_results 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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.
No. It’s still not anywhere near a wikipedia article. And show some respect towards other contributors. Agression doesn’t help you in any way and if you continue you will be referred to the administrators.Tvx1 19:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Bozalegenda
Bozalegenda Serbian ultra-nationalist in his recent contributions is reversing all world and Olympic constellations from Yugoslavia to Serbia, it is more confirmed that he defends the ideal of Greater Serbia in disregard of other Slav peoples.
User:74Account —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I was aware that the person is quite passionate about. However, if they persist against consensus, they should be referred to the administrators.Tvx1 01:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stan Wawrinka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ATP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Wikipedia is not about you and what you want. It is about all of us working together to make each article as best as it can be. Engage in discussion before unnecessarily reverting any further edits. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
You have made six reverts over these colors over the last few days, so this bullying is pretty hypocritical. At the very least give people time to post a reply.Tvx1 17:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I fully understand that I violated 3RR and I understand that can attract a block. I do feel however that the whole situation is a bit of an overreaction. As I already explained at the report, the violation was a stupid mistake on my part. I'm very resolute about not breaching said policy and I never before have. You can check my edit history for that. Another incident from last week was referenced. However, I did make a violation then. That too was an overreaction and the other user and I actually fairly quickly came to an amicable solution which has now been uncontroversially implemented. In tonight's case I'm being criticized for not seeking dispute resolution, but really there just isn't a serious dispute warranting that. It's a simple disagreement an talk page discussion only just got underway. I'll point out that the reporter reverted before going to talk page, despite lecturing me of just that. Lastly, the other party isn't really engaging in dispute resolution. In summary, I acknowledge my stupid mistake of breaching the mentioned policy, but have no intent to cause any further trouble. I would like to kindly request for my editing privileges to be restored. I ask for this because I'm partaking in the GA review of an article (you will some edits from me to it in tonight's editing history. I already got a reminder that it's taking too long and I finally had a reasonable spell of time available tomorrow to devote that and this block looks to be going to negatively affect the changes of the article getting promoted. The last thing I would wan't to happen is for that article to suffer from my stupid mistake on an other one.Tvx1 8:44 pm, Today (UTC−5)
Because they edit-warred over four articles, I made four reports at WP:ANEW using twinkle to quickly collect all the diffs and merged all of them into one big report. This had the unfortunate effect of automatically listing a separate notice on their talk page each time. I have cleaned that up in the mean time.Tvx1 14:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Please don't do that again. If Twinkle can't handle the complexity of your report then you'll have to add it manually. Posting four identical messages looks like harassment. --NeilNtalk to me14:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the mess. That was no the intention. I will pay more intention in future. Though I hope I don't have to file another report like that again. In the mean time I found another article they severely disrupted. Added it to the report.Tvx1 14:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Basketball
You can come and give your arguments at the talk page of articles. You can not just come and revert something after more than decade. We must have consensus for this. And you two guys are not enough to change all this. FIBA html code table is not reliable because per that table Zaire/DR Congo or Formosa/Taiwan/Taipei or FR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro were different countries and that is not CORRECT. That table is full of mistakes and its not relevant.--Bozalegenda (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I have given more than enough arguments on the talk page. You on the other hand have not posted a single comment there. You have nothing supporting your cause. So stop your hypocrisy. You cannot declare a sport's governing body irrelevant.Tvx1 21:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Flag
I've noticed that you are an AfC reviewer but don't yet have the New Page Reviewer flag. Can you please head over to PERM and request it? Please mention that you are an active AfC reviewer in your application.
As part of a larger plan to increase cooperation between New Page Patrol and Articles for creation, we are trying to get as many of the active AfC reviewers as possible under the NPR user flag (per this discussion). Unlike the AfC request list, the NPR flag carries no obligation to review new articles, so I'm not asking you to help out at New Page Patrol if you don't want to, just to request the flag.
Of course, if NPP is something you would be interested in, you can have a look at the NPP tutorial.
I'm sorry, I don't understand the point of the discussion and really don't know why I would have to request something I'm not interested in at all.Tvx1 17:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Several key things. One of the big questions at AfC is "would this page make it past New Page Patrol" so some familiarity with NPP is preferred for AfC. Some of us would like to eliminate the user list for AfC and just make it a rights based thing. We also want to blunt the criticisms of those who claim AfC reviewers are not qualified to assess proposed pages. In the long run we may make it so accepting a draft marks it patrolled as well since it has already been approved by a NPR right holding editor. As a NPR holder I can already mark the Draft patrolled before acceptimg it, amd so could you. Legacypac (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Tvx1, this message was generated when the article and talk page were moved, but the GA review page wasn't. The bot thought the nomination had failed because the review page, so far as it could tell, no longer existed. I've moved the GA review page to the new name, so everything should be back in order shortly. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I just only the time to move the articles this afternoon. I intend to move the related subpages as well.Tvx1 19:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Just a reminder that there is still a sourcing issue hanging fire with this nomination, and it seems to be the only remaining issue. If you could give this some attention in the very near future, that would be great. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
False accusation.
You recently nominated one of my articles for deletion (List of Formula One drivers who have achieved a podium finish and several people have since added their opinion to this debate including 81.102.239.214, however, you then made the completely false accusation, with no evidence against me, that 81.102.239.214 was simply me contributing again but logged out. As much as I am against people adding multiple votes to discussions, unless you have evidence you shouldn't accuse users of this as this is both rude and a direct violation of no personal attacks against two users no less, not only am I quite angry about this but I would also like to know how you reached this conclusion and why you decided to set it upon yourself to mention it in the AfD. SSSB (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Nothing is coming from this apart from unfounded bad faith accusations against me. This is more harrassment than I’m being accused of.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey, I noticed you reported Prisonermonkeys (talk·contribs) on WP:ANEW for a supposed edit-war in which you were not involved, in a topic area you never edited in, then when the report was rejected you posted there again with a new complaint in the same vein. Just so you know, it's generally considered bad form to report people on AN/ANI/ANEW without good reason, especially when it might give the impression that your actual motivation for doing so is your having had unrelated disputes with them in the past. The fact that you have never edited the Avengers: Infinity War article or talk page yourself, combined with your extensive history of interacting with them in the completely unrelated topic area of F1 racing,[2] suggests that you may be hounding them. If this is the case, I would strongly advise you to lay off, and perhaps remove their talk page from your watchlist (as it seems your immediate impetus for reporting them was the bad-faith warning placed their by the user PM was reverting). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I think you have completely wrong thought of my actions. I saw a lot of disruptive editing on the article and when Prisonermonkeys made five similar edits removing recently added content in quick succession I reported them for violating the relevant policy. The main issue I noticed was a lot of back an forth editing and little discussion. Prisonermonkeys has been blocked for such behavior many times and should know much better by now. The participants should have engaged in a constructive discussion to find a plot summary which satisfied everyone, instead of engaging in quick fire reverting. I also feel they were overly-strict on the 700-words -guideline. While it is true that a plot summary containing 690 words should not be filled up to exactly 700 words, it is equally true that one containing 704 words is not the end of the world. That I was not involved in either the editing or the discussion is something I consider a good thing, not a bad one, since it meant I was a neutral observer and did not stand to benefit anything from anyone being blocked.Tvx1 12:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
But why did you notice a lot of disruptive editing on the article in the first place? You don't seem to have a lot of interest in superhero movies and you never stepped in and edited the article yourself. You are not a "neutral observer" if you were only watching it because you have a grudge against one of the parties, and this is borne out by the fact that you reported PM rather than the other editors who were reverting them against consensus. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Just because it don’t edit certain articles it doesn’t mean I don’t read them. I reported Prisonermonkeys because they broke a strict policy regarding edit-warring while the others didn’t. Besides how can you claim they acted against consensus when there was little discussion regarding the plot to begin with? I’m here to help build an encyclopedia. I don’t hold any grudges and I’m not interested in engaging in any personal conflicts.Tvx1 00:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
If you think the "three revert rule" is a hard and fast policy and those who break it get blocked while those who do not are not, you have misunderstood the "strict policy". PM did not edit war, as he was urging R9tgokunks to use the talk page; R9tgokunks did edit war, as he ignored PM's urging. But more importantly, I don't think this is a good-faith misunderstanding of the policy: I think you have conflicted with PM on unrelated articles (about F1 racing) and as a result you have either added his talk page to your watchlist or are monitoring his contribs, and when you saw that he broke the three-revert rule you immediately stepped in and reported him. I have not actually looked at your earlier interactions with PM, and I gave you the chance to explain to me how they were all positive and you are not holding a grudge, but you have not done so -- why not? Are you unable? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
If I say that I don’t hold a grudge, I don’t hold a grudge. I don’t need to be told by someone else how I feel. I also have no obligation whatsoever to justify my actions to you. I have given you an explanation above and if you don’t want to accept it that’s your problem.Tvx1 00:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
You have not given an explanation. Your only connection to that article that I can think of was PM, and you have not given any other explanation. If you were watching his edits and decided to report him on ANEW rather than any of the other multiple possible ways of intervening, in this case where PM was not edit-warring, that is almost certainly hounding and is forbidden. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
racing team
Alfa romeo formula article is general article and covers 4 teams and other data, you cannot say where the "team" is, because its not article for any particular team -->Typ932T·C16:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Still that doesn't mean they were based in the same place as the car manufacturer which operated them. We don't assume things, we prove things with sources. There is nothing wrong with requesting a source.Tvx1 18:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Still u cant citate it is it so hard to understand?? we dont add idiot citation needed tags here, its wrong to ask citation if its impossbile to add, either you edit the article or dont add those citation needed tags when its not possible -->Typ932T·C21:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
There is no need to be so aggresive. If the content cannot be supported with a source, that’s a strong argument not to include it all. Otherwise it’s perfectly reasonable to request a citation. I really don’t understand what your problem is.Tvx1 23:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you realise how silly this is? Firstly, the article is titled "Alfa Romeo in Formula One", not "Alfa Romeo as a Formula One constructor". Hence, yes, this is the total involvement of Alfa in the sport of F1. Besides which, Alfa's most recent involvement as a constructor was through their Autodelta division. Apart from the very first few months of its existence, Autodelta has been based in a suburb of Milan. An infobox is not the place for a detailed, specific run down of the company's histry, that's what the prose section is for. The infobox is there for quick transmission of basic data. As far as that is concerned, and as far as a general reader will need to know, Alfa's F1 involvement was and is based in Milan. If you desperately need a quote for this sky-is-blue statement, go find one yourself. Pyrope19:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I really don't know why requesting a source is treaded as such a drama. We cannot assume that the general reader knows the detailed Autodelta history, so we cannot assume their base to be common knowledge.Tvx1 21:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The issue isn't whether an uninformed reader would know where it is (else, why put it in an infobox anyway?) but whether the information is in any way controversial or otherwise contentious. In this context it simply isn't. There is no controversy, uncertainty, or ambiguity. Alfa and its F1 teams have been based in Milan for as long as there has been F1. Only prior to WWII were their Grand Prix race team based elsewhere, when it was operated by Scuderia Ferrari, but this wasn't an F1 team. Why add visual and code clutter by adding a reference for a simple statement of long-standing fact? Pyrope21:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Because were are no TV Guide. It just doesn’t matter which TV channel showed a race within the U.S. thirty or forty years ago. Nearly no articles on any other championship of any major racing category lists this information.Tvx1 20:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Most articles about the individual races, whether it be NASCAR or IndyCar or others, list what TV broadcaster did each year, and that doesn't make including it redundant. There's even a detailed article about the broadcasters of the Indianapolis 500, for example. MVBoys2 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but what you're claiming is just not true. Those individual articles do not mention anything about TV broadcasters (e.g. This, this, this, this, this and many many more). The reason for that is because that information is really not important. What matters is who won and how. Likewise with the season articles. U.S. TV channels one could possible have watched those races on years ago are just not important to the season calendar. Especially since many of the seasons you added it to had only one or two televised races. What matters is which races were staged, when and where. Those are facts which actually affected the championships.Tvx1 23:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Corvus tristis (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
You've commented on the Red Bull Honda situation before and I wondered if you could give your opinion on our new RfC at [3]. Thanks, RhinosF1 (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
