QueenCake

De728631 (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi QueenCake, I noticed you reverted my edit. I agree that it should be written a bit more moderate, but the infor should still be reintroduced to the article. Perhaps you can rewrite and introduce it ? Also mention the WorldFirst F1 car, made by the people behind the Eco One.

91.182.197.249 (talk) 08:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

The team logo on {{RenaultF1}} needs to be changed back to the renault f1 team logo of 2010 to stop the confusion of it looking like lotus f1 in 2012 the template is changed back to yellow and black

Hi. When you recently edited Renault in Formula One, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyrrell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for informing me. QueenCake (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for restructuring Mercedes-Benz in Formula One. I was meaning to do it ever since the article was renamed, but never got around to it. I feel like we need to add something to the lead to make it more obvious that Mercedes has a current F1 team (therefore making this article different to all the other "xxx in Formula One" articles), but I can't quite work out how to word it. If you (agree and) have any ideas on suitable wording, feel free to update the article accordingly. DH85868993 (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Honda RA300, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Honda Racing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well thank you very much, very kind of you :) QueenCake (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

SPI case is here - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lucy-marie Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I know this is a silly question, But what does HRT stand for? I allways thought it stood for "Hispania Racing Team" (HRT) But people keep saying it stands for nothing. Im confused!!! It must stand for something. Daniels Renault Sport 14:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I already explained this to you. It used to stand for "Hispania Racing Team", named after Carabante's business, but when Thesan Capital bought the team they rebranded it as the "HRT Formula 1 Team" (not "Hispania Racing Team Formula 1 Team"). It's like BP – used to stand for British Petroleum, now stands for nothing. It happens. — Jon C.^ॐ 09:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

That troll definitely looked familiar to me somehow, and I too thought about the erstwhile Eff Won. I saw that the IP was from Germany though, and also that it didn't seem to be Eff Won's usual turn of phrase being used, but I'm fairly sure that IP's first language is English, not German or anything else. Plus Eff Won wasn't re-blocked until after that IP started that Webber argument. I mentioned it to an admin who weighed in at the talk page, and he reminded me not to feed the trolls, which is sound advice. The move request isn't going anywhere, but let's see if this IP or Eff Won pops up again somewhere else. It seems to be non-stop trouble, as you say! Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Popped up again here. Pretty sure it's the same person. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I agree. Definitely someone we've upset somewhere along the line! Seems a bit aggressive even for Lucy Marie, and she's usually a bit more scatty than this guy appears to be. I don't remember any German users being blocked... it's odd. We'll have to keep our eyes open, especially when the ridiculous Mark Webber move thing is over – he'll probably try something else. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Test_and_Reserve_Drivers.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article 2011 Canadian Grand Prix 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 GA bot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

The article 2011 Canadian Grand Prix you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:2011 Canadian Grand Prix for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

The article is talking on the same subject: Formula One. This main article could be developed by merging. It is easy for any reader when relevant information is addled into the same place. If this still needs to be where it is, please add a disambiguation link to both articles. In here you can add the article. Thank you!— Precedingcomment added by Andrew Eugene (talk • contribs)

In the future you should labor to read things, particularly when you wade into edit warring — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.233.68 (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'll explain everything, right from the beginning.
I know the idea isn't to put each row on one line, but it is to ensure that the text is not line-broken into unsatisfactory ways. Putting the flags in the circuit column and then trying to get the circuit names as neat as possible is very hard. This is because one of two circuits, such as Spa-Francorchamps have hyphens. Non-breaking hyphens are read inconsistently across browsers. On Chrome and Safari, it is same as the hyphen; on IE, it is halfway between an hyphen and an en dash and on my phone the non-breaking hyphen doesn't show up. This being unusable means that nowraps have to be used. The nowraps sort of ignore cell walls and often overlap into other cells, but on the ones in the circuit column, I can get away with using them because "Sochi International Street Circuit" is the widest piece of text in the column. So, to ensure no hyphen-caused line breakages or cell overlaps, I have to use one or two nowraps and non-breaking spaces on Sochi. The problem this causes is that the table is far too wide to fit into the mobile phone view – so the table is scrunched up as best as possible. This is why we need the non-breaking spaces (though I'm sure you knew this). Flags, for whatever reason, do not obey non-breaking spaces or, more frustratingly, nowraps. Hence, even with the non-breaking spaces on Sochi, you would get something like:

While the line break between the circuit name and the place is acceptable, the line break between the flag and the text is not. And since a few of the circuits can fit the whole cell of text in the space of "Sochi International Street Circuit", some rows are inconsistent. The only way to solve this is to put the flags in their own column. If you do this without a column heading, the flags are treated as if they are 1 px wide on mobiles, and overlaps the text. I would advise viewing the below table on your mobile:

So, to fix this, a visible column header of text is needed. This needs to be visible because otherwise, the word "Circuit" will not be centrally aligned (see this, which also has the non-breaking hyphen comparison), which doesn't work consistently on all platforms (see my sandbox table called "The Phoenix" on both PC and mobile). So, a word or abbreviation, about the width of a flag, is needed. "Nat." fits perfectly, giving the flag column enough width to make the table work as intended on mobiles. It is purely a technical issue that I would love to have a better solution for, but until WP fix these issues regarding nowraps and flags (which I intend to go to WP:VPT about in April, once my Uni term is over), we must use the "Nat." to make the table work on all platforms. —Gyaro–Maguus— 18:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

The two pieces of text can be on two separate lines because that can look organised and proper. In the full table, all the circuit names and their locations are coded to allow this to happen, hence it can look neat. However, it just looks messy if it is 'flag, line break, text'. I'm trying to make the table a readable on mobiles as possible; seeing each row take up to four or five or more lines of text is not very readable.

As for bringing it up to the powers-that-be, I'm not too sure who you are referring to, so I'm going to cover all possibilities. I'll start by referring to WP:VPT. Even if they have no current plans to fix the issues, they are still issues. I'm not happy to sit at my computer and just hope that in the future, these problems get fixed. So why not highlight them? Why not say "oh, in creating tables for the 2014 F1 season, I came across these issues that I think ought to be looked at"? Hell, they may even think these are some big problems, or more likely, they'll just tag a few bugzilla tickets and all will be solved. And while there are thousands of articles with mobile-broken tables, that isn't my concern at the moment, this article is, and if those specific editors don't want to address the issues, then so be it. Next time, I'll let you try making Prisonermonkeys happy.

I would also like to bring to your attention that the "Nat." column appears (twice) on the teams and drivers table, and everyone was fine with it. For 2014, we luckily have every race being the race of its country (well, ish, if you include the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, which, unless I am very much mistaken, markets itself with the UAE flag) so there cannot be any confusion over the contents of the column anyway. —Gyaro–Maguus— 20:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'll admit words like "broken" are a bit strong. Maybe "messy" or "disorganized" would have been better. Anyway, I shan't waste any more of your time either. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Tvx1 has started a DRN discussion here - Talk:2014 Formula_One_season#Race_Title_Language - which he has specifically not included you in, for some unfathomable reason. Just checking that you know about it. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

No worries :) I'm pretty sure you can post in the bottom section, the general discussion section, even though Tvx1 kindly decided you weren't worth a section of your own! Ridiculous. I agree, the F1 WP was always one of the smoother ones, especially when compared with music or football etc. Now it seems to be a total warzone. Vandal fighting sounds very peaceful in comparison! I'm fairly sure that one of our sockpuppeteers is still there, and very active indeed. Hard to prove though. She He has learned to avoid the usual sockpuppeteer traps. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Exactly who is being accused of being a sockpuppet now? Tvx1 (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I accidentally put GA1 instead of GA2 and that's why it looked like I had deleted the previous thing. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steward. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

What a classic mid-90s website. "This site is optimized for Netscape 1.1" - LOL. DH85868993 (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I think it's a bit to early to add the Marussia car name to the 2015 season article. They have not announced the car yet and while we know it's a modified 2014 one we can't be sure it will have the same name as well. Just think of some past examples like Benetton B191B, McLaren MP4-17D, Ferrari F2004 M etc. It's better to wait until they announce it. We're in no rush to add it by any means. Tvx1 17:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's reasonable enough @Tvx1:. We have the time to spare. QueenCake (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've noticed you removing the wording "Cornwall, England, UK" from articles. This wording was adopted by the Cornwall Wikiproject as a compromise after edit warring between various nationalis factions. you can read the guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Guideline. DuncanHill (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello QueenCake,

Thanks for your edit on EMW. I was going to change the unref. tag to refimprove after I'd finished with the page this morning. However I lost patience with my recalcitrant laptop and saved what I'd done and then never got back to it. But I digress... the page has only one reference still and that is for the race retirement detail I added today. Everything else previously in the article is still without refs. I would reckon it should still be tagged refimprove, but if you think its OK as it is then that's good by me! Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Eagleash. Ideally it probably should have more refs, but since it's only a short article on a fairly clear subject, I was a bit unwilling to add the refimprove banner and throw it onto the million-odd article backlog! I must admit, I've probably edited articles right after you quite a few times now, as if I see someone make a large edit to a page on my watchlist, I tend to go check up on it. So this is probably coincidence - and almost certainly not wiki-stalking! All the best, QueenCake (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

No problem; I'll leave it as it is then. Can't say I've noticed you editing after me — there's someone else does that a lot — and one who just has to change something every time I put up a new football article. Happy editing. Eagleash (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it isn't speculation. It is maths. It is fact. Do the same calculations from the results on their pages (from 2012, 3 years ago) and the same result will come. I can also tell you who isn't eligible. Holdenman05 (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Holdenman05, I don't doubt your maths, merely the inclusion of such information on that article. We're not in the business of compiling information ourselves, which is as stated synthesis, and even if you could source this to another publication, Wikipedia is not the place for such a collection of statistics. QueenCake (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Surely primary sources regarding a contract extension is the most reliable one out there? Is there some principle I don't know about, because I can not for the world understand why it wouldn't? :)

Lommaren (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Lommaren: it is simply Wikipedia policy to prefer secondary sources over primary ones As stated in WP:PRIMARY: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Although I normally wouldn't rigidly enforce the policy for something as simple as a driver contract, I have noticed in the past that F1 teams are not very fastidious about archiving old news stories, and links to team webpages often suffer link rot within a few years. Using a secondary source from a news agency is generally the better option. QueenCake (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi QueenCake, I undertand that you have deleted the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Banking_Process_Framework. May I know which content was considered as advertisement/promotion? Thank you for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delicatedamsel (talk • contribs) 02:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

For 2016 season, Carlos Sainz Jr. will be possibly to move from Toro Rosso to Haas. 2402:6B00:23ED:6280:318A:2BFD:BE02:9810 (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I spotted your post on Corvus talk page. I noticed several Formula Three to Formula 3 wording changes earlier today which looked wrong, as Nos. appeared in the text and in some cases Formula Three (the racing class) was in the same sentence or para as 'Formula 3', (linking to the British F3 championship). It seems Corvus has moved the British F3 championship page from Formula *Three* to *3*, which may be seen as a 'controversial' page move and possibly some discussion should have taken place. (Though I don't know where this would occur?) I earlier mentioned the changes on DH's talk page. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Eagleash, I just noticed your post on DH's page! Yes I agree, this should definitely be discussed (WP:MOTORSPORT perhaps), and the usage of Formula 3 and Three on the same page does smack me as inconsistent and possibly against guidelines - though as these are proper names I don't think MOS:NUM necessarily covers it. Give me a bell wherever this discussion goes, we are quite literally on several different pages here. QueenCake (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Disc. now started here. I pinged you but also better to leave note I feel... Eagleash (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

No evidence for 2004? Did you look? [1] [2] [3] regards, --Falcadore (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Falcadore:. I've now restored it to the page. It wasn't on the FORIX source provided on the page, and I couldn't find the event on Motorsport Magazine database either, and after checking the page history and seeing it was added unsourced by an IP, I wasn't confident that this was indeed the same event. QueenCake (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you move the article for the new designation without "season", could you change the template "Motorsport season" into "Motorsport season2"? This new template, don't add season at the end of the article. At least the most recent season, should be modified so, the next season (2016 or 2017) will be created without the season part (and no need to make a move). I'm doing now in the articles I'm moving.Rpo.castro (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Rpo.castro: Thanks a lot for creating that template. I was unsure of how to change the default behaviour in the Motorsport season template to remove the "season" links and title, so that is a real help. QueenCake (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I do not understand though why pages were already moved by Falcadore (talk), while no decision was made by anyone. Since I did not get a reply after a week and more people wanted the word "season" to stick in the Wikipedia-page titles than people who wanted the word "season" to be removed, I made the decision to move the pages back that Falcadore moved earlier. I also do not understand why you still want "season" to be removed as the majority wants the word to stay. I thought majority ruled? Vettelisthebest (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

The³5₉ (Talk) just explained to me that not necessarily the majority rules. Fair enough, I did not know that rule existed here on Wikipedia.
But I do not understand why you and others have more power or something like that over me and those who agree with me. Why do you and others get to decide that pages should be moved? Why don't I and others get to decide that pages should NOT be moved?
Those who decided to support the removal of "season" said they find the word awkward and peculiar and it feels better with out it. THAT is a personal opinion. Those who decided to support to stick with "season" behind Championship/Cup/Series made a good point that Championship/Cup/Series belong to the name of the series. THAT is a fact.
Also I would like to thank you for stopping the "moving"-progress while this discussion is going on, I appreciate that. Vettelisthebest (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

And what is it that makes it worth it to spend hours, days, weeks, months of slightly changing titles of pages?
We (those who think the word "season" is not redundant) do not see it as tautology, because Championship/Cup/Series is part of the series name. Also if according to you "consensus is formed through strength of arguments and the views of the participating editors", who decided the strength of the arguments? Vettelisthebest (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

The template was a quick solution to avoid the problem. I agree with you. Probably its the best to have just one template, if possible, but we cannot use only the new one, because there will be always articles with "season" (Formula 1, or the articles which weren't renamed). It will be needed some "if" conditions, probably...Rpo.castro (talk) 09:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're absolute right! I didn't have realize that before. This means, we can change change motorsportseason, and delete motorseason2. Another subject, Template:F1 season has 20xx F1 World Championship season, although the articles are just 20xx Formula One season. We have to correct that also.Rpo.castro (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

For the template work, we must use: {{Motorsport season |title= [[World Rally Championship]] |link= World Rally Championship |year = 2015 }} This mantain the link, and remove season from the template.Rpo.castro (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Wildlife Trusts may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *[[Brecknock Wildlife Trust]]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I noticed your edits to move the 2016 Super GT season to "series" seem to have made the links to the previous season (in the wee box at the top right corner of the article) unusable, as is also the case for all other pages for previous seasons. Could this be as a result of the name change to "series"?

I always thought "season" was the better term to use for this article, as "series" does not appear in the brand name as it were of the competition in the same way that other official names use it in lieu of "championship" (eg Indycar Series, GP2/GP3 Series) if you know what I mean. Since in Japan it is currently referred to as "Autobacs Super GT", I thought it would be more appropriate to use "season" when I started the 2016 page and not add "series" since it does not appear in the official promoted name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin92 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Colin92. Yes the links are (unfortunately) broken right now on the Super GT pages after the page moves, but this should only be temporary until Template:Motorsport season is changed in the near future. In the meantime I've fixed the link manually on the 2016 Super GT Series article.

The reason I've moved the articles is due to a recent discussion on the Motorsport Wikiproject, where it was decided to discontinue the use of "season" in article titles and find alternative names for most of the season articles. The 2016 Super GT Series seemed the most appropriate title in this case, as it appears to have at least some use the website; note the series logo, and the news reports "The OKAYAMA GT 300 Km RACE, opening round of the 2016 AUTOBACS SUPER GT series". It is also logical, as Super GT is a motor racing series. QueenCake (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is important information regarding drivers securing a super licence. It is not trivial as you mistake it to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.112.129 (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if there is already a discussion somewhere with a consensus, but why is the word "season" being removed from the title if it actually is a season as in 2014 Pirelli World Challenge? It seems like odd wording to me without it. Any explanation would be appreciated, or just point me to the discussion. Thanks, Bahooka (talk)

Hi @Bahooka:, the consensus to remove season from motorsport article was established back in February, as a result of this discussion. It's quite long, but the rationale was that naming articles in the format "Championship season" was poor English due to the tautology it introduced, created an unnecessarily long article title, and was often imprecise, as many articles do not cover a season of racing but an individual event or championship within it. QueenCake (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Great, thank you for the information. Best, Bahooka (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Queencake, I just reverted your changes re the above subject. The British Sub-Aqua Club is and has always been the NGB; the British Underwater Sports Association only exists to allow access to international competition. Please refer the following link for a table entitled 'Sporting Activities and Governing Bodies Recognised by the Sports Councils for more information - https://www.sportengland.org/media/10266/uk-recognised-ngbs-and-sport-list-april-2016.pdf. If you have any questions about the above subject, please reply here. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the information Cowdy001. I've been carrying out various updates and maintenance tasks on British sporting bodies, so added a category I presumed was correct based upon the information on the article. I welcome any corrections from those who know the subject better than I do! QueenCake (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I Have noticed your request for the speedy deletion of our page. I am now aware of the guidelines and will immediately make the necessary changes so that it reflects an informational page rather than pushing company advertisement. We do want to be apart of Wikipedia and will take the necessary steps to make sure that it complies with your regulations. I apologize for any violations that we have made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenenergyefficiency (talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Social conservatism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservative Party. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Howdy! Added links to external sources discussing the significance of these events when they hapened. Real tlhingan (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Real tlhingan, this still seems rather trivial, but if some media outlets have considered this to be a notable record, we're rather bound to accept it. QueenCake (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your concerns, but have you seen some of the stuff Benson produced following the race? Here's a selection of headlines from the aftermath:

1. "Champion Rosberg will never be Hamilton's equal."
2. "Champion - but does Rosberg deserve it?"
3. "Is Rosberg a worthy F1 world champion?"
4. "Hamilton denies using 'dirty tricks'."

I know it's the BBC and that part of this is writing for a British audience, but in the hours before the race, Benson produced an opinion piece that suggested Hamilton would be entirely justified in deliberately crashing into Rosberg if it meant winning the title (and that he would get away with it). It might be the BBC, but the stuff that he has been producing is low-grade tabloid crap at best.

Back when Sauber signed three drivers for two seats, I was opposed to the use of GP Update because I felt that it was taking Giedo van der Garde's side. The consensus that was formed was that the publication was acceptable as a source, but editors should use their discretion when considering individual articles.

Having read each of the articles that Benson wrote, I stand by my comments about them being character assassination. It's little more than a thinly-veiled attempt at discrediting Rosberg as somebody who lucked into the title while the most-worthy driver was denied what was rightfully his through no fault of his own. Even if the article in question is a straight race report, I would still regard anything written by Andrew Benson in relation to the race as being highly suspect. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Prisonermonkeys First, I would like to say I did not notice originally you were only reverting your own edits to the article. Had I done so I wouldn't have intervened, as etiquette generally allows editors to freely remove their own recently added content. A protocol error on my part there.

On the main subject, and for a start, much of the content on the BBC website is in fact uncredited to any writer, which appears to be standard for BBC News outside of feature pieces, so you can only consider articles credited to Andrew Benson. Secondly, standard practice in journalism is that the writer only contributes the article itself, not the headline or byline, which will be the editor's role, who may not know the subject, and has to attract attention with limited space.

Now taking those points in consideration, no I don't see anything that can be described as "character assassination" in his articles. Just because someone has won something, the media is not required to write uncritical and sycophantic pieces on them, and questioning the worthiness of Nico Rosberg is no different to how many other champions across sport have been questioned over the years. As for his points on this season, well it's simple fact that Hamilton would have won with mechanical retirements removed from the occasion, a valid point any other writer should include. Saying Hamilton is a better driver than Rosberg is also completely legitimate. On any quantifiable metric, Lewis beats Nico, and on more subjective matters, well any of us can see Hamilton is still the better driver. It's again fact to write that.

Now, you are perfectly entitled to choose which reliable sources not to use, but I cannot see any justification to do so other than your own opinions. QueenCake (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)replyReply

Please don't empty categories in order to have them deleted, as you did with the subcategories of Category:Defunct motorsport venues in the United Kingdom. If you think the categories should be deleted, feel free to nominate them at WP:Categories for discussion, so that the community has the chance to express any objections. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Od Mishehu:. Frankly, I was just trying to save time. The categories were created half abandoned in the first place, were never properly used, and only contained one subcat each. Since splitting things by country categories into things by national sub-units always ends in deletion if there aren't enough articles to justify a split, it seemed uncontroversial. There's a massive lag in getting anything done the proper way, and I was informed that not all admins are that fussy... QueenCake (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, if a child category needs a category for a specific region, so does the parent category. Of course, it's quite possible that the community would disagree with me; however, that's for deciding in a CFD discussion, not by unilaterally emptying it and tagging it for deletion as empty. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

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.

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. The discussion is about the topic Talk:2017 FIA Formula One World Championship. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

There are steps before unilaterally removing unsourced information. 1. Pointing out that a piece of information is unsourced. 2. Starting a discussion on the relevant Talk page. 3. Apply some effort to go look for a source. 4. If a source cannot be found and consensus in the community is that the information should be removed, then it is removed.

You skipped 3.5 steps and unilaterally decided to remove information. The good people that contribute to the content on Wikipedia put in a lot of work and effort, you can't just come in and destroy everything without due process. Real tlhingan (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

No, no-one skipped any steps. These rules you cite simply do not exist. Anyone can remove improper and/or unsourced content at will. Many of the content that was removed had had citation needed tags for well over a year. There has been more than enough time to address that. Discussion and certainly consensus are not mandatory at all. QueenCake's and my edits were perfectly justified and your reaction of characterizing them as vandalism was utterly uncalled for. You clearly have no idea of the meaning of the word vandalism. Your attitude is appalling and you have to stop acting like you own that article and we need your approval to remove content from it.Tvx1 15:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just wondering if there’s any feature on this wiki that shows you how many edits you’ve made. Also, how did you get those info boxes? Thanks. Caleb Hur (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia talk:F1. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia talk:F1 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply