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.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Administrator changes Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes Dennis Brown Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth

CheckUser changes Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos Interface administrator changes Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
• The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

• Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
• When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]

Arbitration

• Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

Hey, I'm trying to respond to your post on the Chinese GP, but for some reason I can't do it. I think it might be because of an error in your markup. It's weird because I can edit everywhere else. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mclarenfan17:, you're guess is as good as mine. I'm not currently expirencing any problems on my end.
SSSB (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I managed to tweak your comment. There was a tq template in there where the markup was broken. Once I fixed that, I could edit the page on the mobile site again. I've never seen a glitch like that before. Might have to go over to WP:VPT and report it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this ...

China is one of the better rounds on the calendar.

I didn't think there were many Shanghai fans out there. It's certainly not the worst circuit on the calendar (they literally had a blank slate and a blak cheque to build Yas Marina ... and look at what we got), but it's certainly not in my top ten events. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going to rank them but it in my mind Shanghai is a highlight of the early season. Shanghai is the best one (Bahrain a close second) till Monaco in late May (and I'm talking MON quali).
SSSB (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Australia is the highlight of the early season for me, probably because I am Australian. I'm looking forward to Vietnam, but then I always look forward to new races. My favourites would have to be Interlagos and Suzuka. Spa is okay, but Silverstone is overrated. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silverstone is overrated? That's about as common an opinion as China being one of the best races.
SSSB (talk) 07:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't get me wrong—it's a good circuit, but I don't think it's a brilliant circuit. Every time a new circuit disappoints, people point to Silverstone as an example of what it could or should have been, but most of my memories of Silverstone are of dull, processional racing. If you asked me to rank the ten best circuits on the calendar, Silverstone would be there, but it would be closer to number ten to number one (and only saved from a worse fate by the demise of Singapore).

I will admit that part of my dislike of Silverstone is driven by the way the BRDC has managed it. I've often felt that they're more interested in the history of the British Grand Prix than the future of it. And when they took MotoGP from Donington and World RX from Lydden Hill, it felt like they were trying to stop other circuits from having a drawcard event. I'll also admit that it's driven my dislike of Lewis Hamilton and the attitudes of British fans. I often find them frustrating to deal with because they forgive him just about anything.

Also, I have never been able to string together consistently good laps of Silverstone in video games. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with some of that. Any notion that Silverstone is the perfect circuit on which all tracks should be modeled is laughable. But to me the British Grand Prix excites more often than it doesn't.
SSSB (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's because I'm a bit older, but a lot of my early memories come from the 1990s and 2000s. The 2010 redevelopment was desperately needed because the old section through Abbey and Bridge was slow and narrow and fed into the snail-like Brooklands and Luffield complex. It was dull and single-file-only racing. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SSSB,

I think you need to dial back the use of WP:PROVEIT in your edit summaries. It comes across as pretty aggressive, especially when that's all you put in your edit summaries. It's like you're challenging other editors rather than working in the spirit of collaboration. After all, there's nothing stopping you from adding those sources in. As the saying goes, you'll attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. It might also be worth reading WP:BLUESKY. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUESKY concerns common knowledge. Also as WP:PROVEIT very clearly explains it is the editors responsibility to provide evidence for additions. But I will try for a softer approach. Maybe Please provide sources before adding this content?
SSSB (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that is fine. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I probably ought to use {{cn}} and {{ncg}} more.
SSSB (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nicholas Latifi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iranian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just reverted an edit of yours at McLaren MCL35. Unfortunately I left a horrid edit summary. It particularly bad considering it was concerning grammar. My mention of aesthetics is irrelevant as well. So I dropped by here to explain.

I could not find anything from a Google search that would support using the indefinite article "a" in this case. For example, it is "an MIT graduate" not "a MIT graduate", unless there are groups of people out there consistently pronounce MIT as "mitt". In which case it could be either an or a MIT graduate.

I doubt people vocalize MCL35 as "Makel35" or even "McLaren35". That would make the full name, McLaren MCL35, redundant. --DB1729 (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]