Aceracergirl

Aceracergirl, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Aceracergirl! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Sortable F1 championship tables

Hi Aceracergirl. FYI, I have reverted your changes to the 1996 and 2003 F1 drivers' championship tables to the standard Wikipedia format. You are welcome to start a discussion at the Formula One WikiProject. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you planning to say what exactly you objected to? Aceracergirl (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

My main objection is that it's a divergence from the standard format used for the 67 other F1 championship articles, which has been refined over a period of years (although I can see that you're a new editor, so you may not have been aware of that last point). I also think the change is unnecessary, in that it's pretty easy to see the finishing order of a race just by scanning your eyes up and down the table (it's not a particularly long table), assisted by the fact that the cells are colour-coded. Making the table sortable also increases its width (which is already an issue) and (depending on screen resolution) height, if the driver names wrap. But, as indicated, I'm more than happy for you to start a discussion at the Formula One WikiProject, to see what others think. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I found it amazing that you undid my changes without discussing anything first or even bothering to give a reason. The reasons you eventually did give are, quite frankly, ridiculous.

1. Of course I am not aware of these supposed years of refinement. But you think that you've reached a state of unimpeachable perfection? I see no evidence that sortable tables were ever considered before. Rejecting all improvements simply because they represent change is utterly contrary to what Wikipedia is supposed to be about.
2. It is not "pretty easy to see the finishing order by scanning your eyes up and down the table". It is not easy at all. That is the precise reason that I made the edits. Even if you genuinely find that easy, why on Earth would you want to prevent other people from sorting the table?
3. If you don't like how wide the table is, it is trivial to adjust the markup so that it is exactly the same width as before.

Seems to me you just didn't like someone editing articles that you think of as "yours". Well, you've convinced me not to waste any more of my time here, anyway. Aceracergirl (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)