Hello, I'm HMSSolent. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to 2013 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles Qualifying because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 03:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You and I have our differences, but that aside, I recommend not antagonising the MOSFLAG people, because they can make life very difficult for us if they choose to. I have had many, many heated discussions about flags with the editor you just addressed, and although I disagree with him, he is a decent editor. FYI, if they decide to club together and push their weight in our direction, rest assured we will have zero flags on F1 articles. None at all. And there won't be anything we can do about it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me why Formula One deserves to use sub and supranational flags when very few others in wikipedia do and none in sports. Why is Formula One so important? Why does it need an exemption? --Falcadore (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because they use them themselves in their sport and some Grands Prix are universally identified by them. By the way Motorcycle Racing uses these types of flags as well, even on wikipedia. Tvx1 (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know about the mess that is the MotoGP mob and I would hope that F1 would hold themselves to higher editorial standards. All they seem to know what to write is tables and infoboxes. But I want to know what is special about F1 compared to all other sports and their flags? Many sports have geographical names, plus all the other non-sporting articles as well - thousands upon thousands of articles - but don't use such flags in wikipedia, why is F1 so special that it gets an exemption? The reason you've given above is not any different from all the others. --Falcadore (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not an easy and straightforward issue. In general I do not understand why there is a general dislike towards the use of sub- and super national flags. Why is it such a problem to display them with subjects that use them in real life. Who are we hurting by doing so? Of course they cannot be displayed in every single instance. More specific to the Formula1 project, Some grands prix, as already pointed, have taken place under the flags of Sub/Super national entities waving these flags during those race weekends and playing those entities anthems ahead of the races. That's how they happened in real life. Those are FACTS. That's how millions of fans identify these Grands Prix. That's why I (and clearly some others as well) think they are relevant in this subject. A common argument I have found against this is that we would introduce loads of relatively unknown flags. But if you think it through we ware actually thinking about five to ten flags of which one, the flag of Europe, is very well known. Is that really that much? Furthermore those who fail to immediately identify those flags can find out more about the subject by ONE SIMPLE CLICK on the flag in question. I really can't see why it's such an unthinkable proposition. Tvx1 (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must first say the ONE SIMPLE CLICK argument works against you as much as for you. One simple click on San Marino Grand Prix shows in the second or third sentence of the article states the race is held in Italy rather than San Marino.

I think the problem is you see the flags as decorative colour (whether you recognise it or not) which is something Wikipedia generally frowns upon. Also that national flags have vastly wider usage than sub/supra. eg - national flags are widely used in sporting team purposes like for the Olympics where sub and supranational flags are not. There are no intercontinental competitions where Europe competes as a continent (except possibly in Golf although organisationally Ryder Cup and the like is quite informal). Sub-national competitions also do not use representative flags by the same purpose either, you would never see UEFA, NRL, NFL or AFL football competitions utilising the flags of their cities for the purpose, instead using team specific iconography like team logos, mascots and uniform colours for the purpose.

While the European Grand Prix does "use" the European Union flag, they use it for decorative purposes only, there is no European representation or organisation involved in the event at all. Indeed the European Grand Prix itself pre-dates the creation of the European Union flag. Additionally while it might be claimed that the various American city named events could be represented with civic flags, in truth they were not "used" (by your terminology) for these events at the time and usage of them now would be revisionism. The United States flag was "used" for all these races. No sub-national flag has ever been "used" officially to identify a F1 Grand Prix. The Abu Dhabi Grand Prix is another example of this, the UAE flag has always been used. In truth the only two GPs where your argument of usage stands up at all are Europe and San Marino and possibly Swiss/Luxembourg. Doing so for all races not named nationally would then create double standards where flags would then be retrspectively applied when no such thing happenned in the real world.

Wikipedias attitude has been that flagicons should be used in sporting only when specific national team organisations are involved like the Olympics or Football World Cups etc, which is why the folks at Flagicons view Formula One wikiproject as abusers of flagicons because no national teams are involved and if they chose to flex their muscle sufficiently they could take away all flags form Formula One articles and make it stick - hence the don't disturb sleeping dogs attitude.

I would personally not be adverse to removing all flags from the matrix tables, replacing with a three letter code, as has been done in several other motor racing articles. --Falcadore (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not entirely agree with you regarding the ONE SIMPLE CLICK argument. While, in this example, clicking on San Marino (it wouldn't do anything in the calendars, though) would allow to find out why it was held in Italy it would not explain our readers the meaning of the words San Marino for someone who has never heard of it. Clicking on that country's flag would bring the interested reader to the page dealing with San Marino and would learn the reader that it's actually an independent country encircled by Italy. Furthermore, my argument didn't only apply to the San Marino Grand Prix.

Regarding the use of subnational flags I would like to point out to you that such sports like football, rugby, golf, etc... do use subnational flags to identify some of their competitors such as the flags of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, etc... even though these are not in fact independent countries and their flags thus qualify as subnational flags.

Regarding the flag of Europe, you are right that the European Grand Prix (as a honorary designation) precedes the creation of the flag of Europe (I don't understand why you persist in referring to it as the EU flag as multiple users have pointed out to you it's not only the flag of the EU but more importantly the flag of the Council of Europe who created it as a flag to represent the whole of Europe, Vatican City being the only state not officially represented by it originally as the only other European non-members of the council, Belarus and Kazakhstan, were parts of the Soviet-Union, which was a member, at the time), but these grands prix who had the European Grand Prix as an honorary title in addition of their official title. The official titles of these grands prix are the only ones that are used by the articles dealing with these articles. I don't really see the problem there.

I do agree with you that it's possible that some grands prix that were named after a non-national entity didn't take place under that entity's flag. I'm not personally aware under which flags all those races (expect the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix which I know is held under ) and I can imagine that is certainly possible they were held under the flag of the nation in which they took place (Abu Dhabi is one such example). That's why I proposed to display the flags under which the grands prix were held and with which they have been universally presented in all media outlets; because that's what happened in real life. If there are grands prix which were held under the flag of the country in which they took place then so be it. I never made a problem of that. Some other users proposed to always use the flag of the entity after which the Grands Prix was named, which even I admitted is impossible because what would we do with the Pacific Grand Prix, for instance? I can't see why you claim my proposition would create a double standard as it would create one guideline which could be applied to every Grand Prix.

I have a lot of respect for your argument regarding the flags in the result matrices. I just find it peculiar that you didn't write that when Bretonbanquet made his proposals in the previous discussion about two months ago. You see, it's flags still being used in combination with grands prix names that causes this seemingly endless discussion to resurface every once in a while... Tvx1 (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of the words San Marino is not especially relevant as it is the San Marino Grand Prix article it links to, not to San Marino. And in any case the San Marino Grand Prix article explains all that making a link to San Marino the nation not only unneccessary, but distracting as the San Marino article is both quite large says next to nothing about Motor racing at all, let alone Formula One. The link to the SMGP article is more than sufficient to explain away the glorious myseries of event naming.

While you have a better reasoned argument than most, the reason it keeps popping up is the majority of those who object want a whole bunch of made up imagery for Pacific and Caesar's Palace and do no think races that were not F1 world championship matter, or even exist. They take the most simplistic argument that the flagicons are nothing more than colour to be splashed around to make things pretty.

There already is a standard for every grand prix, and indeed every race. The problem with "flag being held under" is that its incredibly arbitrary. Your "used under" arguement only really dates back as far as the mid 70s at best. Prior to that there was not the emphasis on decorative flags that there is now. There were no websites, no pretty media presentation, no digital TV graphics. Your reasoning is based entirely on WP:RECENTISM concepts. Its basis is based on who picks up what flag on the day for races. It's also based on what you "know" rather than on something easily proven that covers many decades and many races, not just in the world championship but also its predecessors, those using its regulations in non-champ races plus races that are not even Formula One in nature, like notable F3000 races, Pau Grand Prix, Macau, New Zealand, Mozambigue, Cuba, Sports car races, domestic races of varying forms and so on, rather than the essentially meaningless "used under" which you seem to have difficulty in defining beyond pictures in race programs and websites, both of which are recent traditions and not in use across all of Formula One or even motor racing. If you can't see a standard that has such severe limitations in how it has been applied to races, then I am at a loss.

--Falcadore (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really had to report me? Did I hurt your feelings that bad? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with feelings. When anyone breaks such a rule, that user gets reported. Tvx1 (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You saw I was warned. You wanted to silence me because I'm right. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't see that. I didn't see the warning on your talk page until after I reported you when I came to it to post the mandatory report. Do you think I have nothing better to do than to read user talk pages the whole day! Tvx1 (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. It takes one source saying that under conditions that have not been met yet, Sirotkin will race in 2014, and Sirotkin is on the article... for months. But when any source says the contrary, it's never enough. Nothing is ever enough. Do you see the problem here? This isn't about making Wikipedia better anymore or even making the article as truthful as possible, it's simply about tyranny. What you says goes forever. Now that you undid my revision first, I could report you eventually if you want to keep going. Should it come to that again? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because none of the other sources are acceptable in that they do not proof that Sirotkin's contract has been terminated or, for announcing a different driver, to be an acceptable source, they would need to name and quote someone in the team, who is in a position to speak for the team, or the driver himself. Tvx1 (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think you have proof of some kind, but you clearly don't. Why can't you understand that? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have proof. We have two reliable and verifiable sources which qualify as acceptable by the requirements explained to you but which you refuse to accept. Tvx1 (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on the Sirotkin affair clearly indicate a level of frustration with not getting your way that's now bordering on bullying. 76.90.20.73 (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is just ridiculous.... Please assume good faith in another user's contributions. I do as well. Tvx1 (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're also not seriously filing a 3RR report for something that was 2 days ago, are you? Blocks aren't punishment - 3RR blocks are intended to stop currently-occurring situations ES&L 21:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do realize the events took place 2 days ago. There are two reasons why it took me so long to file the reports. Firstly, I had some browser issues recently. Secondly, aside from Wikipedia I have something called "life" to attend to. This however does not change the facts. Two users have engaged in an edit war. One of them has already violated this policy on multiple occasions in the past. I have at no point directly requested a block of the users. Which course of action is the best is entirely up to the administrators.Tvx1 (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just closed both reports as stale. Please don't file reports two days after the fact. And what you're saying is not correct. Only one of the two reported editors has any block history, and then only one block a year ago. Also, bear in mind that it takes four reverts to violate WP:3RR, and you listed only three. An editor can be sanctioned for edit warring without violating 3RR, but it's usual for the reporter to make that clear in the report. Your reports did not include any comments. Finally, generally a report at AN3 is asking for a block, so the idea that you are reporting a problem but not requesting a block is a bit strange. If you're not requesting a block but just reporting a problem that requires administrative action, you should make that clear.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained why it took me two days to file the reports. What I'm saying IS correct. I did say that only one of the users violated WP:3RR on multiple occasions in the post. I didn't say both did and neither did I say that the violated got blocked on multiple occasions. Please do not accuse me of saying things I did not say. Could you clarify to me why it takes four reverts to break the violate the policy. The WP:3RR states that it's a bright-line rule an that, and I will cite directly from the page, " An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." I fail to see why it suddenly takes four to break the rule. Furthermore the same pages states that the administrators can choose from a range of actions to take including a warning, a block, protecting the disputed article,... .So please stop accusing me of wanting nothing else than the violating users to be blocked. Tvx1 (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for mathematical sake... "more than three reverts" means any number greater than 3. Thus, 3.1, 3.2, 4, or more. ES&L 13:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, if all you wanted was a warning, then YOU can do that - a warning from an admin means no more than a warning from a knowledgeable editor. The list of actions the admin can take are a "the admin can CHOOSE to...so don't be surprised if they don't get blocked". Normal process is this: at the exact moment that the editor REACHES the 3 reverts point, it's your requirement to warn them of that - we even have a template for it. If they continue past 3, you then go to the 3rr noticeboard. If it took you 2 days, it's too late ... you've lost your chance ES&L 13:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I was indeed wrong regarding the numbers. In retrospect I should have issued both users with a warning. This whole episode was embarrassing to say the least. Tvx1 (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I came here was to gently poke you to actually delete your reports so that you'd be less "embarassed". Nothing to worry about ... and yes, I might have actually blocked the two for general edit-warring, but not breaking WP:3RR :-) ES&L 16:13, 8 Januar

It's your perogative to revert content if you disagree with it, but please be careful what you revert. Your changes to the 2014 season page took out updates to the hidden results tables, which should not have been removed.

Also, I am not sure that describing the selection process is really all that necessary. The most important points to make are that a) the numbering system has changed, and b) the consequences for qualifying procedures. Describing the selection process before the latter in particular gives undue weight to it, since those consequences are the biggest change that has come about from it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intent to reverse the updates to the matrices. I can't see why you have such a big problem with that one sentence. What do we stand to lose by having it? I'd like to clarify that I added it BEFORE the official entry list was published as response to numbers being added over and over again despite no proof of FIA confirmation being supplied; and after having raised the issue on the talk page and after not having been met with any resistance. Now that the entry list has been released, its importance has diminished somewhat but I still can't see the problem with having it at all. Tvx1 (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:2014 Formula One season Joetri10 (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The content that I am referring to has been removed.

There are copies of this content on the internet, but they are all illegally post because the Formula One owners have not permitted posting.

I don't want to source an illegal copy because this could be copyright infringement.

WesleyBranton (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The final Grand Prix was held in 1955, the year before Tunisia gained independance from France. --Falcadore (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying Tunisia was not part of France and this is not a continuance of previous flag related behavior? Saying that protectorates are exempt because they are a protected state rather than a colony, despite examples like the Olympics where Tunisian athletes were regarded as being French? --Falcadore (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Kkj11210. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Irish-American 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 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. Thanks! KJ ^{click here} 23:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Irish-Americans, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. KJ ^{click here} 23:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 Formula One season may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | <span style="white-space:nowrap">[Hungarian Grand Prix]]</span>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I can understand why you've blanked the page, but until consensus is established, let's keep the page for now. Since there doesn't seem to be a consensus on the Talk:Irish American#Redirect page, following the essay WP:BRD, I propose that the redirect is kept until a consensus is established. For this issue, I will make my take on this issue on the Irish American talk page, but let's keep the redirect until then. KJ ^{click here} 00:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried it on the drivers table, and it doesn't look the same. Compare Spa-Francorchamps and Spa‑Francorchamps. I have no idea why this is, but unfortunately, it is not usable. —Gyaro–Maguus— 21:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I use Windows and IE and to me, on my laptop, there is a difference. The non-breaking hyphen is like halfway in length between the hyphen and an en dash (compare - ‑ –) Not only that, but the space between the non-breaking hyphen and the letters is two pixels, compared to one for the ordinary hyphen.

As for hiding the text, well, it is not that simple. If the word "Nat." is hidden, then the word "Circuit" would be off-centre and the table would look odd. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To me, on Chrome, it actually looks a few pixels smaller, BUT on my phone it doesn't even appear. So, not usable then...

The problem is the alignment of the word "Circuit". Because the "Nat." will be hidden, the bit that the word "Circuit" centres on will not be the centre of what the cell appears to be. Compare:

Nat.	Circuit

with

Nat.	Circuit

See. This is exaggerated, but it looks odd.

Also, as far as I am aware, Template:0 (which is the one that does the hiding) does not work on mobiles. But making the font colour identical to the header colour should work. But then again, the above problem happens.

And slightly off-topic, but just so you know, I do find discussing arguing with PM and Joetri to be painful. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Template:0 does work on mobile (just not on Wikia's mobile version). However, the alignment issue still exists. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but, that is basically impossible to get it right, and if all the difference browsers space spaces differently, then it wouldn't work.

I think Joetri just did a bit of tl;dr, saw I had written a fair bit, and made an incorrect assumption. PM, one the other hand, just needs a wikibreak. One of main reasons we solved the drivers table issue was because I went on one. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then feel free to edit The Phoenix, as I have titled the section. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using a ruler, that was perfect on my computer. But, agonizingly, it didn't work on my phone as it should have done. —Gyaro–Maguus— 01:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is bizarre, and very much frustrating. —Gyaro–Maguus— 20:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating the Portal:Formula One/Next Grand Prix‎ pages. DH85868993 (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]