I'm sorry for my conduct recently, but it seems that I have had more luck getting through to people when I'm abrupt and rude rather than low-key. Thank you for being so kind and respectful. I know the project will do the right thing if you're there. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC) 12:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. I'm nowhere near perfect, but I do my best whenever and wherever I can. I do admit that I might be too passionate sometimes. By the way, when I was still a newbie I wasn't really welcomed by Falcadore either. I decided not to take it personal and moved on. Tvx1 17:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tvx1, I did not want to start another subthread on the MOS talk page, but this edit represents an improper use of flag icons: [1]. Per MOS:FLAG, subsection entitled "Accompany flags with country names":

The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, as no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details. Nearby uses of the flag need not repeat the name, especially in a list or table.

Bottom line: The first use of a flag icon within an article should always be accompanied by the country's name which the flag represents. Cheers, old man. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well these flags are coded in such a way to solve that. Put your mouse over them and you will see which country they stand for. Tvx1 20:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tvx1, mouse-overs don't count for purposes of stating the country name per MOS:ICON; the text needs to appear next to the flag. This is pretty clear. Someone who inserted the flags knows the guideline. That's why the added the country names after the city names. {{flag|GBR}} renders the country automaticaly, as so  United Kingdom, but {{flagicon|GBR}} does not. The editor did this so he could insert the city name between the flag and country name. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have given my opinion over at MOS:Icons so we don't need to discuss this further here. It's more practical to discuss everything in one place. Tvx1 20:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tvx1. Please update my wording however it seems fit. I often only get a chance to write out a paragraph over the course of a few minutes and it is difficult to word everything in a way that doesn't incite challenges over a short time, so revisions and rewrites are most welcome. I included the Mercedes rebounding/putting to rest/responded in a way that highlighted the criticism the team had been receiving following their debacle in Monaco, as it was thoroughly discussed in just the previous paragraph. I just felt that simply saying "rebounded with a 1-2 finish" made it sound like the team failed in Monaco when they still had a 1-3 finish. Anyway, just felt I should explain myself in better detail here. Regards! Twirlypen (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We'll that is what the media made out of the Monaco debacle, didn't they? They acted like Mercedes had failed miserably, while they got a 1-3 finish. Anyway, the wording is much better now. "Squashed the possiblity of tension" was just not right. Tvx1 02:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have archived this discussion (the second editor to do so) as it is going nowhere. No-one else has supported your change, there is no chance of it gaining consensus, for the reasons given by other editors. Please do not un-archive it yet again, accept it will not happen and move on. As also noted in that discussion the tables you gave as examples have far more serious problems than the subtle differences between the skins. If you want to make them more readable then it would be easier and better to address those problems first.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some users have acknowledged my concern regarding the gridding. I admit that maybe I have not given the best example to start with. Hence why I gave another. Please give the basic courtesy of allowing users the time to look at it, the new example has even been there for 24 hours. I'm starting to get really concerned on they way this is attempted to be silenced as quickly as possible. Tvx1 11:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly? It's been there for over six weeks, and so read by hundreds if not thousands of editors. That’s the reason that archiving on such pages is set up to archive after a week – after a week if editors have stopped responding then there is simply not enough interest in the matter for policy to be changed. No-one else has posted in the thread for three weeks. Again, accept that there is no support for your change and move on, and perhaps look at fixing the other problems with those tables.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, others have acknowledged the issue even in that discussion. Take a look at the discussions I have linked to there as well. I just can't shed the feeling that I got opposition because I started from a bad example. Hence why I finally presented another. But then no one gets time to look and respond to to. There are tenfolds of threads on that page, so you can't expect everyone to have seen everything within not even 24 hours. The thread could get some interest if one would look beyond the initial I gave. I did not report an issue with one table on the entire wiki. The are tens of thousands of tables which are affected by this issue. By the way, you are an involved editor, so you should not be closing the discussion per the guidelines and the template's explanation Tvx1 15:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since we seem to have acquired a little history, I was resisting this, but since you presist... when the possibility exists to slip into edit warring I try to leave articles alone for a week and let others have their say. Wikipedia isn't a news site, so there is not a rush. --Falcadore (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]