Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

They are USA team. They just play USA's anthem after Sims won Race 2, so please don't revert the edit. Brianlampard (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brianlampard, that's not proving it. All they needed to do was provide this link: https://www.fiaformulae.com/en/championship/teams-and-drivers/bmw-i-andretti-motorsport in their edit summary. Per WP:PROVEIT it is the editors responsibility to provide evidence for their changes. This evidence must be a reliable secondary source. Personally testimony don't cover this. And it wouldn't be the first time they played the wrong anthem by mistake. It happened to Charles Leclerc a few years ago. I hope this prevents similar instances going forward. Thanks,
SSSB (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Formula One drivers from India you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Formula One drivers from India for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrLinkinPark333 -- MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Civility Barnstar
		Thank you for the civility you provided during the GA review of Formula One drivers from India. It made the review much more enjoyable. Keep up the good work and good interactions with other editors! :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SSSB,

This may include the reconfiguration of the rear of the car to more closely match the design seen on the RB15 and STR14.

I noticed you removed the above information from the McLaren MCL35 page due to "speculation". I take fault with this.

The provided source (Marco Canseco's article from Marca.com) cannot be challenged using Wikipedia's "crystal ball" policy, as it does not fall under one of the five mentioned categories that would justify its removal. It is, as far as I understand, allowed under the policy ("It is appropriate to report discussion [...] of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." and "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included [...]").

The article states:

The change in the design was seen already this season, with an elongation of the wheelbase and a large top cooling outlet (Red Bull style) and a more voluminous rear area that would end the overheating problems of 2018, some reminiscent of that 'size zero' with which they tried to 'hammer' the Honda engine into the chassis of 2015.

Although I am not a native Spanish speaker - and thus may have missed some disclaimer in the article - I cannot see why this could be removed as speculation. It appears to me that a sports website is highlighting a design change in the car and analysing the direction this could be taken in. Canseco isn't speculating, he provides evidence for his opinion, and I would not under any circumstances describe this as "purly [sic] speculative".

From a policy standpoint, the claim does not meet the requirements for unverifiable speculation.

I am inclined to revert your edit, but I would like to avoid that conflict. Would you agree that this is classified as "[...] speculation [...] stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field [...]" and is "[...] discussion [...] of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur [...]"? If not, what category of speculation does the claim fall under?

Thank you.

5225_C (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@5225C: upon second reading of the source you may be right. Though I think you should reworded to sound less like random speculation, perhaps Marco Canseco, a motorsports journalist has speculated that the car's redesign may include the reconfiguration of the rear of the car to more closely match the design seen on the RB15 and STR14 after design changes to the rear of the car were tested in 2018 to emphasis that this isn't just journalistic click bait and he does actually have some basis in what he is saying rather than wildly speculating.

I should also tell you that something doesn't have to fall within one of the 5 categories mentioned at WP:CRYSTAL to be removed for being speculative, those are just explicit examples.
SSSB (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that compromise.
5225_C (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SSSB,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Kingsif and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged 2019 London Bridge attack for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. You may find our guide for writing quality articles to be extremely informative.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Kingsif}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Kingsif (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: in future you need to use {{db-move}} for this kind of action rather than blank the page and nominate under A3. That way I don't get a notice I don't need to see and editors actually know whats going on.
SSSB (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - finding the exact template is often quite hard. Kingsif (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif:, try using WP:Twinkle, if you select CSD in the menu it then has a pop-up which lists all the CSD templates which may be relevant and you can choose the relevant one rather than go looking for the correct CSD template.
SSSB (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

By no stretch of the imagination did you achieve consensus to make such a change. You had a tiny group of editors and only a couple agreed with your changes. You will engage in good faith discussion to support your proposed changes or we will continue to include the engine designation. I tried to continue this discussion in good faith but you refused. You will IMMEDIATELY revert your most recent edit and join said discussion or you will be reported to the admins. Lazer-kitty (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Yes there was consensus. The number of editors is irrelevant, these are the editors who were interested in taking part. Besides my notice of closing the discussion has been over a month and would have been seen by the vast majority of those who took part and some who didn't, you are the only person who seems to disagree with my conclusion. Probably becuase you support the opposite view and are trying to justify your flogging a dead horse. I advise you respect that consensus rather than ignore that consensus because you were late to the party.
SSSB (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to continue this discussion in good faith but you refused. - I haven't refused anything and you're restarting the discussion.
SSSB (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was NOT consensus. My concern is not purely with the number of editors involved, but the fact that several disagreed with you and were simply ignored. The discussion clearly died out without ever reaching consensus and you chose to interpret that as backing your stance. You are free to be bold and make that edit but once I revert it you must go back and continue to make your case. So I will ask you again to revert your edits and continue discussing this productively, rather than being needlessly disruptive as you are now.

I am wiling to limit my report to dispute resolution but if you continue to bad faith accuse me of flogging a dead horse I will expand that to personal attacks. Lazer-kitty (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was NOT consensus. - let's agree to disagree. I read that thread, considered the opinions raised (Wikipedia:Consensus is not a vote) and that was the conclusion I reached after . I may have misinterpreted the discussion, however, if you believe this to be the case you go to a higher person, perhaps dispute resolution. It is not your place to unilaterlly decide that my conclusion was wrong, espically one month after a close on a highly viewed page and it most certainly is not your place to make bad faith accusations that I am ignoring other editors, its time you assumed good faith, besides 3 editrs stated they wanted it gone, a fourth I considered to be indifferent on the engine issue and if I was ignoring other editors don't you think I would have declred a consensus for the entrant column to be removed as well given that's what I argued for? What stands out to me most is that you are the only editor in the month that has passed who seems to think that I amade the wrong conclusion, among many highly respected editors who are not afraid to get their elbows out (and before you start, thats a compliment). bad faith accuse me of flogging a dead horse I will expand that to personal attacks. - I am not accusing you of anything, my exact comment on WT:F1 is this appears to constitues flogging a dead horse., this appear, which it does. WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass states if you continue to flog the poor old debate, if you try to reopen it, and If you have "lost"‍—‌sorry, hard luck. Now go about your business; don't keep reminding us that your "opponent" didn't actually "win" because of... whatever. both of which you are unequivocally doing. You may also notice that I told Mclarenfan17 the same thing, has he accused me of making a personal attack? No, becuase it isn't, its an observation of the discussion. You are more than welcome to try to change consensus but given how recently this discusssion closed you only have yourself to blame if others are short with you. If you miss the discussion that's too bad, if your birthday is 14 Decemeber you can't claim that the UK parliment is invalid and whilst I am willing to argue my case other editors may just ignore your arguements or tell you to move on and accept defeat, I regulary get shown discussions which had consensus I disagreed with.
SSSB (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that SSSB tagged me in this discussion, so I read on with interest. This—the second sentence—is as far as I got:

"You had a tiny group of editors and only a couple agreed with your changes."

The inference here is that a consensus is not valid unless there is a certain number of editors involved. No such condition exists in WP:CONSENSUS.

Furthermore, you also insinuate that SSSB somehow managed to manipulate the discussion to get the result he wanted, which both fails to assume good faith and requires a Machiavellian streak that I have never seen from him.

In the end, this is one big WP:IDONTLIKEIT and it is quite clear that you do not understand the policies you cite as well as you think you do. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]