No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 177: | Line 177: | ||
::Both articles can be updated. [[User:Prisonermonkeys|Prisonermonkeys]] ([[User talk:Prisonermonkeys|talk]]) 10:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC) |
::Both articles can be updated. [[User:Prisonermonkeys|Prisonermonkeys]] ([[User talk:Prisonermonkeys|talk]]) 10:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC) |
||
==Response== |
|||
Response: I created that page and I'll do what I like with it, you cybernetic al-Qaeda wannabe. Nobody hijacks my pages and gets away with it. So kindly quit this or else. |
Revision as of 19:27, 27 December 2016
Edits made
Edits made as requested. Vips had a reference already.
Category:FIA European Formula 3 Championship drivers
Category:FIA European Formula 3 Championship drivers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. QueenCake (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
GP2 2015
Hey, do you mind taking a look at the team results table in 2015 GP2 Series season? Whoever added the second Bahrain round to the table removed a lot of markup from the Lazarus entry—markup that was used to align the two team names with one flag icon. I have tried to restore it, but I can't get it to work. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hi. Now it's fixed. Corvus tristis (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 14 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the List of 2015 motorsport champions page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 22 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the 2015 Eurocup Formula Renault 2.0 season page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Formula 3
I'm wondering what the point of that was Corvus tristis. Formula 3/Three was always interchangeable, depending upon the style of the day and individual publications style guides, so changing it really serves no purpose and is not in any way "correct". Remember, we use the common name, not the "official" name, so please don't make any similar changes on other articles. QueenCake (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- British Formula 3 Championship not only official name but is also a more common name than British Formula Three Championship. Corvus tristis (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Don't altogether agree that either version could be considered more common. QueenCake is correct that the terms are/were pretty much interchangeable. Some edits have produced anomalies with both 'three' and '3' appearing in close proximity which looks unprofessional and the page move is possibly one which should have been discussed before being implemented. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- In the terms of Wikipedia search, they are not interchangeable. For example, if you write FIA Formula 2 Championship instead of FIA Formula Two Championship, you wouldn't receive a direct link to the article in a tooltip. You are just making the search harder with this name, that was invented by some user. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Don't altogether agree that either version could be considered more common. QueenCake is correct that the terms are/were pretty much interchangeable. Some edits have produced anomalies with both 'three' and '3' appearing in close proximity which looks unprofessional and the page move is possibly one which should have been discussed before being implemented. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- There is now, because I just created it. That's not a reason to favour the number, just fact that whomever created the FIA Formula Two Championship page forget to create the redirect. I don't see any evidence that either is more common - while modern usage may have favoured '3', over the 60-odd year history writing out the number was often preferred. QueenCake (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
For creating the Formula 3.5 V8 article. Good idea! While it isn't exactly hard-sourced, it's a good way of showing the series continuity while separating it from the WSR. Urbanoc (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC) |
- Thank you! Corvus tristis (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Your third opinion request
The Third Opinion process requires that the dispute be thoroughly discussed on the talk page. I do not see any discussion on the talk page about this. First, try to resolve this through talk page discussion and if you reach an impasse, feel free to resubmit a request for a third opinion. Kingsindian ♝♚ 04:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- User:Vettelisthebest didn't want to disuss, he just reverts all edits. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I (Vettelisthebest) never said that I didn't want to discuss it. You do exactly the same thing as I do and that is revert the edit. And I don't revert "all edits". The only thing I revert is your redesign. Again, I'm not saying I don't want to discuss it, but you started redesigning the page and I didn't want that, so yes, I reverted it. You can't say I don't want to discuss it if you haven't even started the discussion yet. Vettelisthebest (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- You said that you stopped the discussion and then started to revert without any clear explanation. So, it looks like that you didn't have intention to discuss. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
November 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2015 Blancpain Endurance Series season. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Okay, enough is enough. I'm giving this warning to both you and your opponent. If either editor reverts again without extensive discussion, I will seek blocks against both of you. If the other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations made here. TransporterMan (TALK) 06:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Page moves
If you wish to move an article, as you did with Baku Street Circuit, then you need to provide a source to support the move, and you need to supply it in the article. Including it in the edit summary is not good enough. And if it is in a language other than English, then you need prove that the source is valid rather than just adding a raw URL. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- I am aware that there is no need for a source to be in English. But people might want to verify the sources for themselves. In this case, it's sonething relatively minor, but your actions set a precedent. What if we get a source that claims Red Bull will back out of the sport completely, but it's only available in Turkish? You may be the only person that can read it. That's what the "trans_title", "trans_quote" and "language" parameters in the reference template are for—so that you can direct the readers' attention to the relevant part of the source.
- And as for posting a raw URL in the edit summary and making no attempt at including it in the article, that's completely unjustifiable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
TCR Asia results
Im sorry if i made a mistake with flags in the infoboxes.
But why would you remove the TCR Asia results table from all the TCR Asia competitors?
We have one for the European Touring Car Cup, so why not for the TCR Asia? its a regional series just like the European Touring Car Cup. CGM 20 (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- @CGM 20 Because it is a non-professional racing series, which has only four full-time competitors. European Touring Car Cup (and SEAT Leon Eurocup) results should be removed as well, as it's also the amateur championships. See also WP:NMOTORSPORT and [1]. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Your meaning of being a professional driver didn't showed in the rules (It says only: Have driven in a race in a fully professional series. A fully professional series is one where prize money is not trivial compared to the cost of the series. For example, the SCCA Trans-Am Series is considered professional while the SCCA Spec Miata National Championship isn't.). if you read drivers' categorisation criteria for Platinum/Gold license that can receive professional driver you can see that it didn't has European Touring Car Cup or Seat Leon Eurocup achievements. So I prefer the FIA opinion, not that was made by a Wikipedia editor and based on nothing. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
December 2015
Hello, I'm D'SuperHero. I noticed that you recently removed some content from 2016 French F4 Championship season without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I have restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Dont delete as Wikipedia doesn't forecasts future. Read WP:Crystal SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 11:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
TCR Germany
Have a look at this, taken from the ADAC page;
regards --Falcadore (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I saw this. It's just a logo, not a WP:COMMONNAME. Corvus tristis (talk)
- Uhhhhhh - a logo WITH THE NAME OF THE CHAMPIONSHIP ON IT! Wow! WP:PRECISE would trump WP:COMMONNAME in this instance --Falcadore (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- "For instance, Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic." ADAC TCR Germany Touring Car Championship is too precise, while ADAC TCR Germany is precise enough. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Uhhhhhh - a logo WITH THE NAME OF THE CHAMPIONSHIP ON IT! Wow! WP:PRECISE would trump WP:COMMONNAME in this instance --Falcadore (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
GP3 table
While I understand your position on the GP3 table, I think your edits cause problems later on. For one, there's no indication of who scored which result, and if you simply leave it with the three rows, the implication is that cars scored results that they didn't actually achieve. ~~
- That's why the number's column was omitted. Now it hasn't any relation to cars, only three best results are shown. Other results hasn't any relation to the teams' championship.Corvus tristis (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that goes completely against the established practice on motorsports articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, then show example for "the established practice" of the teams' championship, where only one or two or three best results are included. I see only the opposite one, i.e. 2015 Formula Renault 2.0 Northern European Cup, 2014 Auto GP season. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that goes completely against the established practice on motorsports articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- That system is broken, and you know it. The best argument you have is "an AutoGP oage did it"? Rubbish. And I would thank you to stop characterise edits you disagree with as vandalism on the grounds that you disagree with them. Given your abject refusal to discuss the issue, the only person guilty of disruptive editing is you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- At least I provided an argument, while you don't. It's not my fault that the most of the open wheel racing seasons articles was made and updated by me. You deleted update of the teams' championship, this behaviour I can characterise only as vandalism. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- That system is broken, and you know it. The best argument you have is "an AutoGP oage did it"? Rubbish. And I would thank you to stop characterise edits you disagree with as vandalism on the grounds that you disagree with them. Given your abject refusal to discuss the issue, the only person guilty of disruptive editing is you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- "At least I provided an argument, while you don't."
I did provide an argument—it implies that one car scored all the results.
- "It's not my fault that the most of the open wheel racing seasons articles was made and updated by me."
You haven't given anyone else the chance to work on it. And while it might not be "your fault", you don't own the article.
- "You deleted update of the teams' championship, this behaviour I can characterise only as vandalism."
I work from a mobile device. What I can do in one edit is limited at best. If I want to make big changes, I have to do them one step at a time. If I reverted your edit, it was because another one was coming. You just assumed that I was being disruptive, and you didn't bother to check my editing history—I have a documented history of progressively making changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corcus tristis,
I'm working on the French article of Zsolt Baumgartner. I saw in different pages that he is champion. Zsolt Baumgartner is the driver who won the most races. In the opinion of Driver Databse, he has won at least three races, so... why does he have any points ?
https://www.driverdb.com/championships/standings/formula-renault-germany/1999/
Thanks. LoupDragon42 (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Price Racing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pierre Petit (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) 09:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
No evidence of consensus
How hard did you look? Given how quick uou were to revert those edits, I would say "not very", and that's being generous. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I had a plenty of time between these reverts and didn't find that. So, please provide the evidence, as articles (not only my GP2 Series examples) prove my opinion, not your. Corvus tristis (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- No they don't. 2010 GP3 Series is an even older precedent showing PM's way in use (for Daniel Juncadella at Tech 1). See also articles like 2014 and 1994 Formula One season to see that this is how it is done across articles on different motorsports championships. Tvx1 15:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- All your examples are different because Tunjo and Dillmann are back to back in the table, while Juncadella and other drivers have driver(s) between them. So it can't be counted as precedent. Corvus tristis (talk)
- Why are you being that pedantic? The convention is to list drivers separately for every car they drove. Whether or not that coincidentally puts the same name twice in two consecutive rows. Rowspanning over two car numbers looks just messy. And if you really must, see Slim Borgudd, Elio Salazar, Beppe Gabbianni in 1981 Formula One season. Tvx1 17:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- You tell me about convention, but you can't even provide the link to the discussion where consensus was reached. So it looks like there is no convention at all. From my point of view, putting the same name twice in two consecutive rows is much more messy than rowspanning over two car numbers. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Initiate a discussion somewhere if you really must continue to refuse to believe the convention exists. You have already reverted five times on that article which is anything but constructive. I don't think there was a dedicated discussion on that exact variety (with names on consecutive rows) because it's trivial and pedantic. The convention was always aimed at keeping the round columns in vertical chronological order per car. That's why drivers who drove different cars for the same team during different points in a season are listed separately for every car. Very rarely that leads to a name appearing twice in consecutive rows. That's hardly an issue to make such a fuss about. There are far more important tasks to execute on wikipedia. Tvx1 01:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- It was hard to believe because so many articles don't reflect the agreement. So I asked about link to the discussion where the consensus/convention was reached, not exactly discussion about consecutive rows. Before your last message was hard to understand about which discussion are you talking about. Now you made it clear, and I find the discussion. Cheers. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Initiate a discussion somewhere if you really must continue to refuse to believe the convention exists. You have already reverted five times on that article which is anything but constructive. I don't think there was a dedicated discussion on that exact variety (with names on consecutive rows) because it's trivial and pedantic. The convention was always aimed at keeping the round columns in vertical chronological order per car. That's why drivers who drove different cars for the same team during different points in a season are listed separately for every car. Very rarely that leads to a name appearing twice in consecutive rows. That's hardly an issue to make such a fuss about. There are far more important tasks to execute on wikipedia. Tvx1 01:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- You tell me about convention, but you can't even provide the link to the discussion where consensus was reached. So it looks like there is no convention at all. From my point of view, putting the same name twice in two consecutive rows is much more messy than rowspanning over two car numbers. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Why are you being that pedantic? The convention is to list drivers separately for every car they drove. Whether or not that coincidentally puts the same name twice in two consecutive rows. Rowspanning over two car numbers looks just messy. And if you really must, see Slim Borgudd, Elio Salazar, Beppe Gabbianni in 1981 Formula One season. Tvx1 17:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- All your examples are different because Tunjo and Dillmann are back to back in the table, while Juncadella and other drivers have driver(s) between them. So it can't be counted as precedent. Corvus tristis (talk)
- No they don't. 2010 GP3 Series is an even older precedent showing PM's way in use (for Daniel Juncadella at Tech 1). See also articles like 2014 and 1994 Formula One season to see that this is how it is done across articles on different motorsports championships. Tvx1 15:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Italian F4
Are you sure that "F4" is a common enough acronym to be used in an article title? Per WP:ACRONYMTITLE, acronyms should be used in article titles only when the subject is primarily known by the acronym, and when the acronym is common enough that a reader can identify what it means. I'm not sure if enough people will instantly know F4 stands for Formula 4, the FIA single-seater category, even if it is obvious to us. QueenCake (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Pretty sure. Because it's very rarely mentioned as Italian Formula 4 Championship (in that cases in articles across the internet we can also see the F4 acronym), and the people wouldn't search that title too much. They will search Italian F4 Championship. We didn't have any other Italian F4 Championship these years or even F4 meaning that could be part of the title of any other national/international championships, so the article title wouldn't be ambiguous. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1995 German Formula Three Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dirk Müller (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) 11:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 Macau Grand Prix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander Sims (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) 10:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Corvus tristis. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
GP2 tyres
Hi Corvus,
Reading the 2017 GP2 Series article, I am struggling with this line:
- "The front tyre size are 305/670-R13 and rear tyre size are 405/670-R13"
I think it's far too technical; I have been following motorsport for years and have no idea what that means. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hi. 305(width)/670(total diameter)-13(Wheel rim diameter). I agree, that it's too technical. Probably this information will be more understandable: "The front tyre, currently 245mm wide, will increase to 305mm, while the rear will grow from 325mm to 405mm.", but not sure if this should be really mentioned. Because in 2017 Formula One season article, we have only one sentence that states that the tyres will be wider. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Both articles can be updated. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Response
Response: I created that page and I'll do what I like with it, you cybernetic al-Qaeda wannabe. Nobody hijacks my pages and gets away with it. So kindly quit this or else.