Wikipedia

User talk:SSSB/Archive 2

< User talk:SSSB
Latest comment: 5 years ago by SSSB in topic Talk:2018 German Grand Prix/GA1
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
This archive's most recent thread was archived 5 years, 1 month and 22 days ago.(Purge)

Question

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What if you had been the one who did a web search, to see whether Lionel Birnie measured up to our inclusion criteria? Geo Swan (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: I don't need to. A7 states an article may be nominated for speedy deletion if the article doesn't state what makes the person notable, at the time of tagging the article consisted of only a short infobox and the article therefore didn't (implicitly or explicitly) state why the person was notable, therefore it was elligable under CSD A7. SSSB (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Robert Milasch

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for the Robert Milasch talk page. Koplimek (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Koplimek, your welcome, just doing my bit. SSSB (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:2019 English Football League play-offs

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Could you give me some help and an update on the status for the page please? JamesVilla44 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

JamesVilla44, the article is now sourced but it requires significant cleanup. I would be happy to move it back where editors will be able to tidy it up. I will move it back now and start to do some cleanup for you. SSSB (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks SSSB — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesVilla44 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

JamesVilla44, no problem, just remeber to sign you comments with ~~~~ even if its just a few words. SSSB (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hashim Aslami

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptJayRuffins (talk • contribs) 11:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@CaptJayRuffins: what is this about? SSSB (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
A comment you added was removed by another editor, just a fyi, forgot the tildes..disregard CaptJayRuffins (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@CaptJayRuffins:, okay, for future reference you don't need to inform anyone about the removal of maintence tags. Just amke sure you include your reasoning in the edit summary if you are removing the tag. Further if you do notify someone about something simply putting in a header is not really helpful. Also remeber to indent your comments as explained at WP:THREAD. SSSB (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding CSDs

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I would appreciate if you didn't tag this article for CSD/A3 so shortly after I created it, especially when it has a {{in use}} template on there advising against editing or tagging the page since I was actively working on it, furthermore, it was a technical split by consensus, which provides even more reason not to tag it for CSD. Please keep this in mind next time, thanks. Rob3512 chat? what I did 13:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Rob3512, firstly, you shouldn't create an article, tag it only with {{in use}} and then publish before moving on, there needs to at least be some content. As for consensus, there was no consensus in favour of an empty article, there was consensus in favour of a completed one which actually had content, besides I havn't the time to go looking around for a consensus, if there is a consensus then you should have put that as your reason for speedy deletion not to be carried out rather than remove the template, which I might add you are not allowed to do on an article you created yourself. What I did follows Wikipedia policy and I did nothing wrong. SSSB (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that I should have included something along with that in use tag and shouldn't have removed the CSD tag by myself, but you could have checked the page history and waited for a bit before reinstating the CSD tag as I was editing it. Basically, yes, I didn't create the article perfectly, but you could also have given me some leeway and patience before re tagging it for deletion. Rob3512 chat? what I did 13:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Rob3512, I disagree, you should have added content and then added on the talk page that you had added content and therefore it shouldn't have been deleted. SSSB (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Captain John Misson article

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for the feedback on the article. I posted this article a little prematurely. I am new to the whole editing and and creating page thing. I am doing this for a school project. I am going to add more information and I would like you to review a draft of my article before I post it again.

IamArtVandelay21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamArtVandelay21 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@IamArtVandelay21: whilst I am willing to help you I am probably not the best person for job. You are much better off asking for advice at the teahouse (I notice there is a link on your talk page). Now, so long as your next draft follows the guidelines at WP:NPERSON and WP:V it should be kept in the main space, if you think your article does satisfy the guidelines but you are unable to do so in your first draft you are better off creating it in the draft space and then submitting for review (consider using the article wizard to help with this).
However please note that there is already a redirect on James Misson (which is the person for whom you originally created an article) linking to an article where he is already partially covered, therefore you should only create a distinct page for him if you find information on him which would not be relevant on the article where he currently redirects to. It is also important to remeber if you copy and paste from one Wikipedia page to another as part of this it would need to be disclosed (see previous wikilink).
Just be careful when you do finally create the article, there are several reasons why an article may be deleted at any time (see WP:CSD for details) and it may further be proposed for deletion or nominated for deletion, it is therefore important to try and follow Wikipedia's guidelines, most importantly WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:V, WP:NPEOPLE and making sure an article doesn't already exist (CSD A10). Hope this helps, SSSB (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

RE: Proposed deletion of List of United States tornadoes in May 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed your proposal for the deletion for the article List of United States tornadoes in May 2019 but I do not see a discussion page for it under today's articles for deletion. Should any deletion discussion go on the article's talk page? I don't know if it would be appropriate for me to put it on the afd page since I'm not the nominator. Normally, the template for deletion should only be removed if a discussion reaches a consensus to keep the article, or if the discussion goes at least seven days without a consensus. But if a tornado occurs within that time (which is likely), may I remove the template? TornadoLGS (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: I proposed for deletion, what you are thinking of is nominating for deletion, there is a difference. Proposed deletion is when an editor voices a concern over an article and the idea being that if the issue is not resolved within 7 days then the article can be deleted, the reason I proposed for deletion is per WP:TOOSOON, at this stage there is no content and therefore the page shouldn't have been created, meaning when a tornado does occur you may remove the tag. Hope this explains it. SSSB (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I suppose I did jump the gun in creating the article a bit soon. The article will be staying, though, as we are getting the first tornadoes of the month right now. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Article Konrad Wölki

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

You really jumped the gun nominating this be deleted. No it isn't sourced, --I indicated that will happen in the creation note. Please look at my created articles to see how much chance there is of this not getting sourced. Jacqke (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jacqke: No I didn't jump the gun. WP:V states that all articles must be sourced, it doesn't have exceptions that if the creator acknowledged it was unsourced and promised to add them later, nor that the creator has a history of adding sources later nor that articles are exempt from this at their first iteration. I would in fact say you were lucky that I only proposed for deletion, there are plenty of editors who would have moved it to the draft space instead. You need to make sure every article is sourced at that is your responsibility as the editor who has added content to/created a article and any information which isn't sourced may be removed at any time, (again WP:V). I didnt jump the gun proposing for deletion, I would say you jumped the gun on creating an article before you had the chance to add references. SSSB (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Slapping a delete tag on something newly created less than an hour after it was created is aggressive behavior. Yes I could have used draft space. Yes you could have waited to see if the editor was done before moving in for the kill. Jacqke (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jacqke:, aggressive, I think you're the one being aggressive. If your working on it that's fine, but all articles need to be sourced and you should have placed an appropriate tag to say you were working on it. If either of those 2 things were true I would have left it. However I had no idea you were still working on it so I proposed deletion in line with policy. SSSB (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

County roads in Cass County, North Dakota

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Hey just wanted to say I created the entire County roads in Cass County, North Dakota. I'm curious as to where at on the page you are referring to as "unreferenced". I have sources there, and used the same template that I did for another county road list page, which no one has said it is "unreferenced". I'm not upset, just want to hear your reason for saying "unreferenced", because that one word reason honestly isn't enough for me. Thanks GMoney0805 (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)GMoney0805GMoney0805 (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

GMoney0805, becuase when I proposed the deletion the article was as far as I could tell had no references to back up what the article was claiming, although it is possible that I missed them. If the article is now referenced you are more than welcome to remove it as mentioned in WP:PROD you may remove the notice at any time. Hope that clears it up. SSSB (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
"SSSB, no worries. Yeah right when I published it, there were no references. I did insert some eventually. I appreciate the help. Thanks! GMoney0805 (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)GMoney0805GMoney0805 (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm. Your prod justification was "Unrefrenced" [sic]. But doesn't the very first sentence of WP:prod say it is reserved "for uncontroversial deletion"? It seems to me this means prod should be reserved for when you honestly think the topic of the article does not measure up to our inclusion criteria, and no one else, even the article creator, if they thought about it, would disagree the topic did not measure up to our inclusion criteria. If you think that there is any possiility others would disagree with you, it is not eligible for prod.
{{blpprod}} is supposed to be used on BLP articles with no references. A change in policy was introduced, about half a dozen years ago, that BLPs were eligible for deletion, if no references had been supplied, without regard to the individual's actual notability.
Which policy do you think justifies deletion of unreferenced non-BLP articles on notable topics?
The main reason why BLP articles can be nominated for deletion for lack of references, while non-BLP articles can't, is that the unreferenced BLP represents a risk of damaging a real human being. Geo Swan (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Geo Swan: controversial is a relative term. Personally I would consider the deletion of an unreferenced article which isn't extremly notable uncontroversial as there is nothing to suggest notabillity for inclusion nor anything to back up the claims the article makes. Now WP:USRD implies that the content is itself notable, however WP:V states that everything in the namespace must be sourced and that was not the originally the case with this article thus I felt that if it were deleted it would be uncontroversial. SSSB (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
It might help you to understand deletion processes better if you'd realize that (with the exception of speedy), deletion is about the subject of the article; not the article itself. John from Idegon (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Also, you should never mark up an article for deletion within 10-20 minutes of its creation (some would say an hour). John from Idegon (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
John from Idegon, Thank you, this has been pointed out below with references to the relevent guidelines. I would also suggest you link to said guidleline when you inform other readers (for future reference it is here) SSSB (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Warning to cease patrolling of new pages and allied stuff

Latest comment: 5 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion
  • In a nutshell:- you are deleting stuff that is notable by a mile and introducing stuff that's non-notable.
  • These three threads are perfect examples of being a jerk -- wrong policy-wise and trying to be condescending, (on top of that), to longstanding users. This is astonishing (to be mild) even if I exclude the bitey tagging. Pathetic communication-skills, to be mildly put.
  • To conclude, consider it as a warning to refrain from any further patrolling activities (including but not limited to moving drafts to mainspace, tagging PRODs and CSDs et al) for an undefined period of time, unless you can exhibit your competency. ∯WBGconverse 13:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    Winged Blades of Godric ever heard of WP:AGF or WP:BITE. SSSB (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    Give these meta-activities a break and jump into writing quality content. You are making an absolute mess of it over these spheres and on the top of that, not learning from your mistakes, despite being continually pointed by others. Shall you continue, your editing privileges might be affected.
    I am noting this over your t/p (feel free to delete this message or whatever else you wish) for posterity and easy referencing in future, because your post-warning activities does not give me favorable vibes. ∯WBGconverse 14:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    Winged Blades of Godric, let's take these one by one:
    "This is a textbook-example of bite-y tagging and mis-interpretation of policy -- the title easily indicates the subject"
    Despite the second link not opening (apparently some account has been suspended) I get what you are getting at and the second link would appear to indicate notabillity but I would like to point out that I used A1 which quantifies an article where the article does not identify the subject. I don't recall what the article looked like but if I misunderstood the criteria as set out in WP:TWINKLE and WP:CSD A1 perhaps they need to be rewritten but I couldn't identify weather it was a person or a place (names don't usually have commas), appartly it was actually a acadamy that was named after someone, but I clearly couldn't tell when I tagged it.
    "Also, you are slapping an A7 a single minute after creation and moving stuff to draft-space after 8 minutes. Really?"
    Nowwhere (that I can find) does it say I shouldn't, as far as I am corcerned an articles credabillity is paramount and should be the first thing there and eight minutes is plently to starting adding sources.
    "This shows that you do not understand our notability policy; a subject is either notable or not and independent of the article-quality"
    I agree, but there were no sources, I didn't take article quality into consideration when I tagged it.
    "More lack of understanding about our notability guidelines is evident from your handling of Hamari Bahu Silk."
    That was the result of an edit conflict, when I started to move it was unsourced but during the move sources were added, as soon as I realised this I worked to rectify the incident.
    "Half of the PROD-log is filled with tagging(s) on an assumption of notability being dependent on the current conditions of the article."
    I know that notabillity isn't dependent on article quality but unsourced content violates WP:V and as WP:V states "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."
    "These three threads are perfect examples of being a jerk -- wrong policy-wise and trying to be condescending, (on top of that), to longstanding users. This is astonishing (to be mild) even if I exclude the bitey tagging. Pathetic communication-skills, to be mildly put."
    If I come over condescending I apolgise, thats not my intention, being a jerk? I respectfully disagree, I am simply doing the same as other editors (moving an unsourced article to draft space) this is fairly common on new page patrol. As for what you call "Astonishing", I moved to draft space, they blanked article, I requested speedy deletion per author request. As for pathetic communication skills, the above would indicate yours aren't much better, the above comment by you clearly violates WP:BITE and WP:AGF. Finally "longstanding users" - at the time I was unaware of WP:DTR but in anycase I don't think being expirenced warrants relaxing policy.
    "not learning from your mistakes, despite being continually pointed by others."
    Theres no point pointing out mistakes if the editors don't indicate with policy/guidelines what I am doing wrong, my activities may not follow policy but to my understanding they are because I simply don't know all the policies and guidelines, if someone were to point out my mistakes referencing guidelines and policy I would be inclined to change my behaviour because without it those threads look more like editor(s) complaining.
    "post-warning activities"
    Not much of a warning without refrences to policy/guidelines as explained above. SSSB (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you even read what you link? WP:A1 states :- If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, A1 is not appropriate. A simple GSearch would have enabled you to identify the subject.
Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#The_purpose_of_reviewing_new_pages states :- Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvios, vandalism or complete nonsense only a few minutes after creation may stop the creation of a good faith article and drive away a new contributor. WP:NPPCSD states :- Do not be too hasty to use CSD A1 (no context) and CSD A3 (no content); wait at least 15 minutes to give time to the creator to add content. Also, there exists a warning template for this particular abuse of CSD tagging.
WP:NEXIST states :- The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. Unverifiable content can be removed but removal does not mean deletion of the entire article.
Hamari Bahu Silk was a good move to draft-space, if not for it's rapidity. The bad part was that the references were all unreliable and we typically redirect tele-soaps to the channel, if there does not exist ample amount of coverage. Also, WP:TVSHOW, (in practice), pretty much prohibits having an article on a serial that is yet to air. ∯WBGconverse 08:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Kafka is a longstanding contributor, who has written ample quality content and her blanking was an angry reaction at your abuse of process; you obviously failed to see that. WP:DRAFTIFY states An unreviewed page may be moved to draft if ..... there is no evidence of active improvement i.e there is no evidence of a user actively working on it..∯WBGconverse 06:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric, see your last comment actually serves as effective because links explains my unintentional wrongdoing with references to policy and guidelines without breaking WP:AGF. Maybe we can both learn from this. I have learnt that my behaviour has been inappropriate and you have learnt that you can't effectively warn someone without referencing policy and/or guidelines and writting aggressively, as this will prompt similar behaviour from other editors. Let's both move past this and learn from our errors. SSSB (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
This's my last note over here. I am glad to note that you understand your shortcomings. There's a reason we have the patroller right (see WP:NPP) -- to screen users who are competent in this area for the affordable margin of error is tiny. There was even a proposal to restrict the entire tagging business to these vetted patrollers (along with the technical ability to let the web-crawlers access it), which didn't gain consensus (but you can get the vibes). Venturing into these areas, demands a complete awareness of all related policies. Also, when multiple longstanding users are telling you that you are doing stuff wrongly, it's almost always true that you are the one who's doing it wrong. User:Guy_Macon/One_against_many is an interesting read. Best, ∯WBGconverse 11:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric, behavior such as you've mentioned continues immediately following your post here with a misstated CSD on Avi Weiden. Now that's clearly a vanity bio of no merit, but SSSB tagged it A11. Deletion processes are not the place to learn as you go. I think a topic ban is in order if not a indef for WP:CIR. You've clearly done more groundwork so I'd hope you'd take the lead. John from Idegon (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@John from Idegon and Winged Blades of Godric:, firstly A11 also refers to someone the creator knows, this was even admitted on the talk page so A11 was the right tag, secondly WBG isn't even an admin so he doesn't have the right to implemet bans of any kind. Since the above message I have done nothing which I was warned against above. SSSB (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

And yet, here you are, arguing the correctness of your obviously incorrect action with an editor who has 100 times (+/-) your experience. But please, just keep it up. You'll make this easy. John from Idegon (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Let me make this perfectly clear. Stop marking articles up for deletion. You don't know what you are doing. John from Idegon (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

John is correct and he's been here for years. So, listen to him when he points out your mistake.
A11 states:- This applies to any article that plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the (article's creator) or (someone the creator personally knows), and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant.
The or is utilized to make a choice between the above two bracketed phrases. It's not (the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator) or (someone the creator personally knows) .... ∯WBGconverse 20:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric and John from Idegon:, sorry thats not very clear and as I said above don't point out a mistake without explaing what the mistake is and why its a mistake. SSSB (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but a base level of competency is required. That would include being able to comprehend written English at a high school graduate level. There is nothing whatsoever confusing about the wording on that template. If it confuses you, you lack the competence to edit here.
So, let's cut to the chase. Are you going to stop marking articles up for deletion and leave that particular task alone for at least the next six months? Yes or no please. John from Idegon (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: yes. Can you also please keep an eye on your indentations, i've had to correct them a couple of times now. SSSB (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@John from Idegon:, though you should probably read WP:CIRNOT. SSSB (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Charles Leclerc (disambiguation) for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles Leclerc (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Leclerc (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1976 Monaco Grand Prix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alan Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Formula 1 and FIA official documents

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. I'm very happy when I help you with pages of F1 Grand Prix here on English Wikipedia. For each GP, you have to see more information of FIA document's as notes and penalties from Friday until Sunday. For example, for the Azerbaijan Grand Prix, you have to see here for all official document of the event. For every GP, there is a section on site of the FIA called "event & timing information" where we can find all notes. For the future Spanish Grand Prix the same section as here. Best regars :).--79.25.41.16 (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@79.25.41.16: thanks, this will be very useful. SSSB (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your welcome in my talk page. I'm always the same person. I prefer to stay as IP. You can find all documents of Spanish Grand Prix here. Penalties by stewards are in Stewards Decision.--79.25.41.16 (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I notice that you added a comment on my talk page, though I thought it best to reply here so I would be certain that you would recieve it (you can't {{ping}} an IP). I am aware of the official FIA documents (I acutually have this on my favourites bar), thats why I didn't outright remove your addition. But like I said above if you wish to add information it is your responsibillity to add the appriotate references (see WP:PROVEIT), these can be from the official FIA documents as these are reliable. For information on how to add references see WP:CS. Hope this expains the above message a bit further. Thanks, SSSB (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC) (copied from User talk:79.25.41.16 to remove gap in conversation SSSB (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC))
Ok, thanks so much. Mee too :) For each GP, I add that link on my bar. It's the best way to find which you search very soon. W Formula 1!--79.25.41.16 (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok.--87.10.100.152 (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hi SSSB! You created a thread called Problem with data sort value at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

 

  Administrator changes

  Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

  CheckUser changes

  Ivanvector

  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

  Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just wanted to say thanks for combatting the vandalism that’s occurring after what happened earlier today. Keep up the good work. Admanny (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Admanny, thanks for taking notice, all in a good days work. SSSB (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
7,211   Zlatan Ibrahimović (talk) Add sources
1,566   Notre-Dame de Paris fire (talk) Add sources
381   British Grand Prix (talk) Add sources
4,452   Sebastian Vettel (talk) Add sources
943   Renault in Formula One (talk) Add sources
46   Leyland Bus (talk) Add sources
217   Didier Pironi (talk) Cleanup
130   Jordan King (talk) Cleanup
826   2007 Formula One World Championship (talk) Cleanup
15   Ferrari 315 S (talk) Expand
267   2018 Monaco Grand Prix (talk) Expand
545   Audi RS 4 (talk) Expand
31   Chase family (talk) Unencyclopaedic
246   San Marino Grand Prix (talk) Unencyclopaedic
144   Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (talk) Unencyclopaedic
173   Thomas Built Buses (talk) Merge
71   Peugeot Sport (talk) Merge
4   Walton St Mary Church of England Primary School (talk) Merge
655   2004 Formula One World Championship (talk) Wikify
2,686   2018 Formula One World Championship (talk) Wikify
30   Williams FW32 (talk) Wikify
2   Brandibelly (talk) Orphan
2   Trizer D. Mansueto (talk) Orphan
3   White City (band) (talk) Orphan
10   Reeve Burgess (talk) Stub
168   Edd Kimber (talk) Stub
11   Estate village (talk) Stub
101   Rocket League Championship Series (talk) Stub
987   Ferrari SF90 (talk) Stub
5   The Long Arm (TV series) (talk) Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You really need to read this

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please read List of Formula One driver records. F1 does not have a category for qualifying lap record, so please revert your edit to 2019 Canadian Grand Prix. You also need to read WP:SYNTH.Moriori (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Moriori: first of all, it not being an officially reconised record doesn't make it untrue or inaccurate (and race lap records aren't on there either). However your point on WP:SYNTH is accurate so I will revert until I find an explicit mention. Thanks for pointing that out. SSSB (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 German Grand Prix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steward (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Peter Revson

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I know this is a minor page maintenance point and maybe it doesn't even matter to administrators, but I notice your April 8, 2019 designation of this page as a biography of a living person is in error, as the subject of the article is, in fact, deceased. Seems like it's an easy fix. ShelbyMarion (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@ShelbyMarion: thanks for pointing that out, I've fixed it now. It was probably just a miss click in twinkle. For future reference you can fix this yourself, remember you are invited to be bold, if you are unsure on how to do this you can always visit the teahouse and ask there. Thanks again, SSSB (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hi SSSB! You created a thread called Accuracy of sources at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


French Grand Prix

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Yes sorry, my fault. Bye! --Foghe (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (2019 Swiss ePrix) has been reviewed!

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for creating 2019 Swiss ePrix.

User:Willsome429 while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Thank you for creating the page, much appreciated

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Willsome429}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Austrian Grand Prix

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry it wasn’t really clear. I’ll keep this in mind in future Grand Prix pages. JamesVilla44 (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@JamesVilla44: no stress. A general rule is to keep it chronological. If a driver gets a penalty due to an event in practice put it in the practice section, likewise with quali pens or race pens, put it in those sections. The problem is that if we put the heading as ===Penalties acquired before the weekend starts=== its just too long. Therefore we keep it short but slightly misleading. SSSB (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 7

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (June 2019).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 7th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

  Miscellaneous


Having published 6 issues of this newsletter, I decided it was time to move it out from my user space. It is now located at Wikipedia:Scripts++. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Drivers and Constructor Standings

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How do you edit the standings on the 2019 Formula One World Championship page? JamesVilla44 (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@JamesVilla44: they're templates so they can be edited at {{F1 Drivers Standings}} and {{F1 Constructors Standings}}. Hope this is helpful. SSSB (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

 

  Administrator changes

  28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

  Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

  Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 8

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hope everyone is having a good winter (or summer, for those in the northern hemisphere). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 German Grand Prix, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Grid and CEST (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi SSSB,

You seem versed in wikipedia policy, do you mind quickly outlining for me the process our current dispute Talk:2019_Formula_One_World_Championship#fuel_ footnote and ones like it should normally take, for my current and future reference? I have been involved in formal WP:ROCs before, but I find myself in situations on wikipedia where a formal process seems like overkill but an edit war would endure if I push the issue, so I often lets things go. This current dispute seems like a very good middle ground. What is the general etiquette if a user doesn't accept a WP:SNOW? After a certain amount of time (say one or two weeks to allow outside consultation), if the user is completely in the minority but refuses to concede, does the majority make a common sense edit, or is a formal ROC launched? If you can provide any general guidance it would be very much appreciated. Maranello10 (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Maranello10: I'm not really an expert and am not overly familiar with the protocal for closing a discussion but I'll try my best.
First of all if from this point the user in the minority (in the linked example Mclarenfan17 but will be known here as the minority for generaliry reasons) doesn't respond from here on out it is a fair assumption to make that the minority accepts that wp:snow applies, some editors (including me at times) have too big an ego to admit to this openly. If the minority continues then wp:close would say that we can go and make the edit anyway as it is obvious that this is what the majority of the discussion's participants want.
If the minority undoes the edit then I see the following as the best course to take (I couldn't find anything in the WP: space about the course to follow so the following is common sense). We get someone to formally close the discussion or, as it is a wp:snow, one of us could do it (per the footnote in Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Requesting a close). However I would recommend getting an involved editor in high standing to do it (possibly DH85868993 in the linked example as they are familiar with and expirenced in WP:F1 and Wikipedia generally and are uninvolved, Mclarenfan17 is very unlikely to reject his closure) to stop the minority getting upset and claiming bias etc. but we should definitly wait (see Wikipedia:Closing discussions#When to close discussions). If the minority then continues to revert then I would report them to admins for ignoring a consensus they know exists.
But again I am no expert and most the above is common sense not wp:policy nor wp:guidelines take the above with a pinch of salt. I would recommend reading the pages I linked and any others you see from there, possible start at wp:discussion and go from there, thats what I did. I hope this has been somewhat helpful, I wish it could be more so.
SSSB (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@SSSB: Thank-you so much! This is exactly what I needed... as I get more experienced at editing I find myself gravitating to the back-end of wikipedia more, so I feel I need to formalise my knowledge on policy, rather than working things out adhoc a lot of the time. This is an excellent starting point, and yes, I agree with everything you said in regards to the current f1 footnote dispute. Thanks again for taking the time. Maranello10 (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

No problems!

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey, I can understand what you did and I completely accept your apology for that! I'm taking all of the regulations and limits into consideration whenever I go to edit an article, because I have got back into editing here after a very long break. I didn't realise that there was a character limit for the edit summary, either, so I'll have to remember to keep everything short and simple: something that I can't do at times. No hard feelings! Mitcho2001 (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2018 German Grand Prix

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2018 German Grand Prix you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zwerg Nase -- Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous user rant

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ignore that guy. You are a great contributor to the WP:F1 and you’ve helped me to learn how to edit as well and defended me when other users are ranting at me. JamesVilla44 (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
(for future reference JamesVilla44 is refering to this) SSSB (talk)

JamesVilla44, thanks fot message of support, I appreciate it. I was going to ignore him anyway and to be honest the most prominant emotion I felt was slight amusment. This was clearly an attack by an editor who I'd pissed off for some reason and the fact that the'd critised me in the wrong place (critism directed at me should on my talk page), under an IP and the fact that he gave no evidence in his rant shows that it had no basis in fact and it makes the rant cowardly if nothing else. Again thanks for the support,
SSSB (talk) 08:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

F1 results and driver swap

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. First, thanks for the catch of the "extra cells" on the Scuderia Toro Rosso STR14. I don't know how I managed to put them there, but I didn't catch it because the table is little to wide on my slightly zoomed-in display and they appeared off-screen.

For the real reason I'm here, on the Red Bull Racing RB15 page, by "sort" I meant: sort firstly by order of first appearance and then secondly by last name alphabetical. This follows the way its been done in the past. (see for example the Toro Rosso Grand Prix results 2017 row and Red Bull Racing Grand Prix results 2019 row) This way makes sense in that it puts the replacement driver directly under the former driver. So instead of putting all that in the edit summary, I simply put "sort" in the hopes everyone will get what I mean. I think we should put the order back as top-to-bottom GAS, ALB, VER. 97.85.251.254 (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

My bad, didn't realise that way was the Wikiproject's convention.
SSSB (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I didn't know about that page. Good for future reference. I completely butchered the explanation by the way. Let me try again as it seems the project convention page, while showing great examples, doesn't actually spell it out.
Drivers for each team are initially sorted alphabetically at the start of the season. If driver changes are made, the new driver is listed in a new row directly below the former driver. Unless, such as in the case of 2017, (I know, bad example in my first post) the replacement driver has previous results with the team, and in that case the results would resume in that driver's row, albeit including the necessary gap.
That's my understanding anyway. 97.85.251.254 (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Closing Discussion

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi SSSB,

I read on the talk page of DH85868993 that he doesn't want to close Talk:2019_Formula_One_World_Championship#Fuel Footnote. I can appreciate you wanted to avoid going to the admins, but it has been almost two weeks without any further input from anyone so it seems time to end it. Since I started the discussion, if you don't feel like going through the process I am more than happy to do it if you can just point me in the right direction. Let me know either way. Maranello10 (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Maranello10:, per WP:CLOSE we can close this discussion oursleves which I have just done. If this needed and was eligiable for an admin close the instructions can be found Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure which obviously also applies to other cases.
SSSB (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Italian Grand Prix entry list

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

This is the official download link. This morning I added it on 2019 Italian Grand Prix replacing a little URL download link which was added by Bbb2007 user. He took the URL from another page inside FIA website, and not here. Now, can you re-add it inside Entries section on 2019 Formula One World Championship equaling it as other races entry list which were took from the same section on FIA website? Thanks.--87.17.106.213 (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't get why you want it to be replaced. So long as the link verifies the content, is reliable and the link works it doesn't really matter what the link is. What page the document is taken from doesn't really matter considering it is the same form. We don't even need to use official entry list, we could use another website such as StatsF1 and it wouldn't matter.
SSSB (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, now I explain better.
In Entries, on 2019 Formula One World Championship, until 2019 Belgian Grand Prix, you added the second style URL, took by Event&Timing pages on FIA website. Bbb2007 took the Italian Entry list from another page on FIA website, in fact it is a little different. For comparing the content, in my opinion, also the Italian Entry list must be as the rest of the style URLs entry list of the other races. So can you replacing the actualling URL with https://www.fia.com/file/93938/download on 2019 Formula One World Championship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.17.106.213 (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I still don't get the benefit but as they convey the same information there's no harm in doing it. Just bear in mind that in future this sort of request should be made on the talk page of the article in question. Thanks,
SSSB (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok thanks.--87.17.106.213 (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

 

  Administrator changes

  Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
  Floquenbeam • Lectonar
  DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

  CheckUser changes

  Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

  Oversight changes

  Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

  Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Woohoo!

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Hey, SSSB. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Mjs1991 (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC) 		 


Talk:2018 German Grand Prix/GA1

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

SSSB, I wasn't sure whether you had seen that the reviewer had finished their initial review, noting that significant work needed to be done, since there haven't been any significant edits to the article since they posted in late August. If you wish to pursue this nomination, some response and/or action will be needed soon. Best of luck with the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks I'll get on it straight away, I wasn't aware that Zwerg Nase had completed his initial review having never put the review on hold, therefore Legobot never informed me. Sorry about that, mayby I should have put the page on my watchlist, oh well.
SSSB (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SSSB/Archive_2&oldid=1033544479"