Archives

April 2004 - July 2005 July 2005 - January 2006 February 2006 - June 2006 June 2006 - September 2006 October 2006 - December 2006 January 2007 - April 2007 May 2007 - September 2007 October 2008 - April 2010 May 2010 - October 2018 November 2010 - November 2020

I think you made a good faith mistake there.... --Urbanoc (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes sorry, I’ve explained at your talk page. Mark83 (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only used that because the redirect already existed. If you feel its needed, We can always change it to just "scandal". There's no OWN here, I just feel it is worthwhile mentioning another campaign against Virgin that used similar underhanded business tactics. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to your suggestion, I have moved it to a more general title. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The C of E:, I can tell from your tone here that I was way off with the WP:OWN suggestion, so I am sorry for that. Thanks for taking the time to message. I was going to suggest a summary of the Virgin Cola with a {{main}} link to the Virgin Cola incident at that article. However I have seen you have moved the article in the interim. I think that works too. It just needs the tweak to note the difference in the lead - Virgin Atlantic/Whatever Virgin company made the cola? Mark83 (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the related article referred to by my edit. I was surprised that amid all the adulation for Blair in that paragraph, it wasn't even mentioned, so I mentioned it. All the information is in the memo article. Please explain what is the problem? DadaNeem (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DadaNeem: Thanks for taking the time to message me. I don't want to appear dismissive, but surely you understand the problem? WP:V says "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced." and "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material..."

You seem to be suggesting that the reader should go to the Bush–Blair 2003 Iraq memo article and decide whether the sentence you added is verifiable or not, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Furthermore, that article is quite rightly marked as needing additional citations for verification. Mark83 (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who authored the adulation, but it certainly didn't allow any easy inclusion of other views. Do you think it would be fair to include such material? DadaNeem (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what you mean. Go ahead and edit as you see fit (and pet policies mentioned). If I have any concerns I’ll let you know. Mark83 (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mark83,
I'm not trying to come across as owny or anything like that, and I appreciate the intention behind your edits, but today is the second time in the past week you've removed accurate information from the article (removal of "corporate colours" statement, removal of T-wing addition). I believe it would've significantly more helpful to use a ^{[citation needed]} tag on the first and a ^{[clarification needed]} or ^{[further explanation needed]} tag on the second if you felt those statements were inadequate, rather than just outright removing information. Especially when there were citations on both statements to support the claims. There was nothing factually incorrect about either, there isn't even anything that could be challenged with the second source. I would appreciate it if you could use cleanup tags in future on this article. Thanks,
5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @5225C:. The first edit on corporate colours was incorrect though, or at the very least open to interpretation? The ref mentions the team colours, i.e. what they painted the car in. I don't believe we can automatically call that their "corporate colours". This may seem like semantics but I think important. My edit summary explained that. My choice of words was a minor change (and correct per ref).

I agree the further explanation tag was the way to go on the second. Both for that, and the mistake in not seeing the text mentioning the "t wing" in the source*, I apologise.

*To explain, I clicked on the Merc image at the top which opened a slideshow that didn't have captions. After another editor pointed this out I went back and saw the 2nd slide show below. Mark83 (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the ref there didn't explicitly state "these are our corporate colours" but your edit summary did say they aren't (or weren't then) "corporate colours", but by 2020 McLaren had used these colours as their corporate identity since 2018, which is why I added a ref to that effect. What I was saying is I believe it would have been better if you'd challenged the corporate colour statement with a ^{[citation needed]} tag rather than just removing it, but I agree that reading the ref that was there would give a slightly different impression, particularly if you weren't familiar with the MCL33 and MCL34. Anyway, thank you.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the thing though, I still don't agree that it was then, or is now, their "corporate colours". It's their livery, but I don't agree it's their "corporate colours", hence the choice of words in the edit. If you look at www.mclaren.com/racing/ it's only orange, no blue. And even the orange that forms the part of the logo is dramatically toned down from the papaya in the cars' livery. McLaren's corporate identity (including corporate colours) has been notoriously muted since the late 1990s, in contrast their cars have becoming increasingly 'flashier', first the shiney chrome cars, then papaya & blue. Just to be clear, not revising what I said above, message received and I should have been less heavy-handed. But I could see I wasn't clear on the rationale for the change of words on the first edit.

Thanks for your time on this. Mark83 (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
• The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

• The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless

Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
• Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news

• Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

• After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.

Do not ever put messages on my page your far too pompous and your attitude is a concern. I'm having to fix the mistakes of others including you. Now never communicate with me again.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Context for the record [1] and [2] Mark83 (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For excellent admin. support to other editors. Dormskirk (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]