User talk:SSSB/Archive 3

Section sizes in User talk:SSSB/Archive 3 Section size for User talk:SSSB/Archive 3 (47 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 239 239 2019 Singapore Grand Prix 965 965 Administrators' newsletter – October 2019 4,578 4,578 Buy: Some bubble tea for you! 352 352 Please re-upload a deleted draft 1,579 1,579 Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 9 3,124 3,124 Accuracy 1,817 1,817 Administrators' newsletter – November 2019 5,291 5,291 Two years of editing 848 848 Happy First Edit Day! 691 691 Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 10 2,378 2,378 Your GA nomination of Formula One drivers from India 681 681 Your GA nomination of Formula One drivers from India 833 833 Stop 4,322 4,322 ArbCom 2019 election voter message 1,985 1,985 About BMW i Andretti Motorsport Formula E team 911 911 Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks! 1,425 1,425 Your GA nomination of Formula One drivers from India 803 803 barnstar for you! 680 680 McLaren MCL35 3,549 3,549 Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 11 3,593 3,593 Speedy deletion nomination of 2019 London Bridge attack 2,375 2,375 Administrators' newsletter – December 2019 4,476 4,476 Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion 668 668 F1 5,951 5,951 Robin Millar (politician) moved to draftspace 3,066 3,066 A barnstar for you! 634 634 Disambiguation link notification for December 15 610 610 Your GA nomination of 2018 German Grand Prix 652 652 Name (politician, constituency) 998 998 Lance Stroll 1,188 1,188 Angela Rayner 1,525 1,525 A reference on WP:ANB 95 95 Administrators' newsletter – January 2020 5,825 5,825 Disambiguation link notification for January 9 557 557 Numbers discussion 2,869 2,869 Wikiproject F1 1,759 1,759 Cheeky request 324 324 Editors changing font sizes in tables 546 546 Administrators' newsletter – February 2020 5,321 5,321 Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 12 3,214 3,214 Proving it 1,225 1,225 Chinese GP 4,118 4,118 Disambiguation link notification for February 23 540 540 Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 13 2,543 2,543 Administrators' newsletter – March 2020 4,280 4,280 A MCL35 vs. An MCL35 4,642 4,642 Total 100,645 100,645

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

The page is messed up because baby missfortune removed the race section JamesVilla44 (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

JamesVilla44, I'm sorry, whats the problem. It looks alright to me.
SSSB (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

It was the revision as of 13:40 that it happened JamesVilla44 (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@JamesVilla44:Sorry about the late reply, Ive been quite busy this last week. However, I'm not sure what you want me to do. I have never been aware of what Babymissfortune put in his edit summary. I strongly disagree with it but there is not much I can do. Worst comes to worst update it whilst keeping it hidden and then reveal it at the sessions end.
SSSB (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

---

thanks u. Msangjunboon2018 (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I am requesting a re-upload of my deleted draft named: "Tom Gibson (character)". I just got my character and series confirmed and trademarked. I have all the info and features ready for the draft. If there is something you suggest, something that I am missing, or if you re-upload the draft, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page.

                                                                                                                              Signed,
                                                                                                                       User:Shaddai Wright

—Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 6 October 2019‎

@Shaddai Wright: I'm afraid that I don't have that ability. I can see that after I moved it to the draft space it was nominated for deletion through MfD and subsequently deleted after this discussion. However, if you believe that significant new information has come to light since the draft was deleted you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion at User talk:Premeditated Chaos. After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. Thank you.
SSSB (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I think that is accuracy with the use of the template is a very relative notion. If one of 20 drivers misses the Grand Prix than we should change the string in his infobox. According to the past two seasons we have pretty stable team line-ups, so we are doing excessive actions, while it all could be managed by the template. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Corvus tristis: so what your saying with the above and this edit summary is that it will be automatically acurate after 95% of GP (it also records Championship wins, i.e. someone will need to edit it after Ham is 100% confirmed for his title) and therefore we should just be wrong (rather than out of date) for a brief amount of time after the other 5% of GP as it would be accurate most of the time.
SSSB (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it will be a very brief amount of time and it helps to the keep edit history with less different versions. But if you disagree with my position, I can revert my reversion. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Corvus tristis:, I still disagree with this but given that the last race column already uses {{Latest F1GP}} (and appears to have done so for some time) I am going to let this go. If it already in use in that column then doing the same at the top will hardly make any difference. Thank you for being willing to revert though, most editors are too stuborn for that.
SSSB (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

---

Hey, SSSB. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!
SSSB (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!
SSSB (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Formula One drivers from India 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 MrLinkinPark333 -- MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The article Formula One drivers from India you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Formula One drivers from India for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrLinkinPark333 -- MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Do not add chassis names to the F1 season articles until they are confirmed by the teams. Lazer-kitty (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Why? We don't require official confirmation, only relaible sources, StatsF1 is a relaible source, StatsF1 states that these will be the chassis names, other relaible sources also agree with them.
SSSB (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

We absolutely, objectively, indisputably do require official sources for chassis names. StatsF1 has no source - they are simply assuming the naming patterns won't change. This is not good enough. Lazer-kitty (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Where does it say that we absolutely, objectively, indisputably do require official sources for chassis names? I'll let it go because it is indifferent but Seidl has refered to it as MCL35 so that should be good enough for everyone.
SSSB (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

If you ever again accuse me of being "stubborn" just because you don't understand properly sourcing information you're going to find yourself reported to the admins for personal attacks. Not acceptable. Lazer-kitty (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Lazer-kitty, sorry, calling you stubborn was an error in judgement, my apologies.
SSSB (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

But this has nothing to do with me understand[ing] properly sourcing information.
SSSB (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

We require official confirmation of chassis names because it's literally impossible for anyone to know what a chassis is going to be called until the team tells you what it's going to be called. We know the McLaren car will be the MCL35 because Seidl said it; all other names are simply conjecture at this time. StatsF1 is only assuming the names won't change. They have no official sources and no actual reason to believe those are going to be the chassis names.

You keep saying things like "I'll let it go" but it is imperative to me that you understand why you're wrong because this is truly elementary to how Wikipedia functions. You can't just add whatever you want. Lazer-kitty (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't just add whatever I want, you need to assume good faith and accept the fact that this is apparently the only time StatsF1 could be guilty of WP:CRYSTAL, the rest of the time they are considered extremely reliable and it is therefore not unreasonable to assume that they did have the source. Perhaps in hindsight I should have looked it up...
SSSB (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

StatsF1 is primarily a stats website that aggregates data from elsewhere. They may be reliable for stats but they are not gonna be breaking stories, that's an absurd assumption. Plus anyone who has spent any amount of time around F1 knows that car names are typically not officially announced until the cars are released, which happens next year.

I am more than willing to assume good faith provided you support that assumption. By continually arguing over something that literally and objectively cannot be argued you are really stressing the limits of that assumption. Just admit you made a mistake without making more excuses and without finger pointing and move on with your live, dang. Lazer-kitty (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I have admitted to a mistake Perhaps in hindsight I should have looked it up... is me saying I should have checked if StatsF1 were extrapolating information by googling Racing Point RP20 etc. to see if the information was reflected elsewhere and therefore I am admitting a mistake on my part with that. This discussion is now starting to go round in circles, move on please.
SSSB (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 [email protected], 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 [email protected].

Thank you!

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

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)

		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)

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)

@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)

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

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 contest this deletion 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)

@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)

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

@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)

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.

---

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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 birthdaydate of birth is 14 Decemeber 2001 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)

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)

Issue resloved at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Entry table proposal. (At least from my point of view)
SSSB (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Robin Millar (politician), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Celestina007 (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Celestina007, everything is verified, he is clearly notable, what more do you want? He fits all the inclusion criteria.
SSSB (talk) 09:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello @SSSB: hey it was under-sourced for a BLP on Mainspace I think only two was listed in the page & both didn’t discuss subject of your article with in-depth. I don’t think there’s any rush to this. It could be in your draft space whilst you keep working on it before finally moving to it to Mainspace.Celestina007 (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Celestina007:, only two was listed in the page & both didn’t discuss subject of your article with in-depth. - that's not needed for an article to be sufficently sourced, that is required for the subject to be determined as being notable. Take a look at WP:BLP SOURCES. However notabillity is established as the sources say that he is MP, this makes him notable under WP:POLITICIAN, yes it is a stub and yes it needs expanding but there is no reason to move to draft.
SSSB (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: I’m sorry I mean no disrespect but I honestly couldn’t comprehend most of what you wrote. But I do think I see where you are going with this, I disagree with you dear colleague, for a BLP, sources are most imperative pls I hope you understand.Celestina007 (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Celestina007:, sources are most imperative, which is why the article is sourced. I didn't include any unsourced content. You claim you moved it becuase it was insufficently sources, in reality you moved it because you felt that there weren't enough sources to establish notability which is not an accepted reason to move to draft, if this is the case you take it to AfD. And I meant to link to WP:BLPSOURCES.
SSSB (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your excellent work on the List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election and related articles. Nice one! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moray (UK Parliament constituency), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Douglas Ross (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The article 2018 German Grand Prix you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:2018 German Grand Prix for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zwerg Nase -- Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I know WP:NCPDAB says no abbreviations, but I personally think "MP" is so commonly used as hardly to count. If you disagree, though, the standard form already in use is "Name (constituency politician)", not "Name (politician, constituency)". Opera hat (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is an accepted naming convention. Please stop these moves. In order of preference, we use politician, British politician, English/Scottish/Welsh politician, Conservative/Labour etc politician, and [constituency] MP. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I had stopped after Opera hat's comment. But thanks for clarifying anyway.
SSSB (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello SSSB, I don't know if you remember the discussion on the talk page of Lance Stroll about his nationality, but the person we had the discussion with in March is constantly removing his second nationality from the article again and I don't know what to do about this. It's like this person is Canadian and just doesn't want his precious idol to have two nationalities instead of relying on sources :-) Maybe you can help me again? LesRoutine (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@LesRoutine:, if he does it again I'll leave a message for him at Talk:Lance Stroll and {{ping}} him to it (or leave a {{tb}}) and if he continues without discussion and overturning that previous consensus we can start leaving warning messages on User talk:Sportsfan 1234, but that is something I'd rather avoid if possible.
SSSB (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I added a hidden warning in the source text to prevent disruptive editing in the future, hope that sorts it. LesRoutine (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi SSSB, I'm somewhat new to editing on Wikipedia, but I just got the info from another Wikipedia page and wasn't sure if I needed to/ didn't know how to cite another page. If you could help me out that would be great. PS. I'm a huge F1 fan too, so I might pop up on some of those pages as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSgames2000 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@MSgames2000: hi. Let me start by welcoming you.

Now, most of the content you add will need citations (see WP:The sky is blue for why I say most and not all). However you can't use Wikipedia as a source for itself (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it) What you can do is use the same citation that was used on the Wikipedia page where you read that information (remembering to check that the source in question still says it and hasn't changed, and remebering to update the access-date parameter) or find another source. For this specific example I notice that Labour Friends of Palestine & the Middle East uses a valid source which validates Rayner as a member - you can just copy that one. Hope this is helpful and I look forward to seeing you around.
SSSB (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

A reference is added (not as the subject!) to your page:
==Notice of noticeboard discussion== There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Unas964 (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
• A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
• Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.

Arbitration

• The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
• Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

• This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!

---

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited King Charles I School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Berry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across to bluntly in the WT:MOTOR discussion. But I do think you are being too generous when you say Tvx1 and Pelmeen10 have provided some evidence because they have none—and what's worse is that they're both experienced editors, so they really should know better. Their argument so far has relied on a combination of original research, synthesis, cherry-picking and speculation. This is what WP:SYNTH has to say:

Do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.

They are taking the title of Article 26, which uses the phrase "seasonal numbers" to mean that the drivers must reapply for their numbers each year, even though a) the phrase never appears in the body of the regulations and b) there are multiple sources—including one from the FIA—that detail "permanent numbers". Now they're trying to argue that an unverified source proves their claim because one driver appears to have changed numbers, even though the source offers no context to explain this number change and is based on an entry list that has not been made publicly available. On top of this, they have refused to provide sources when requested, have ignored those requests or have claimed that they do not have to prove their claim and that the burden rests with everyone else to prove them wrong.

This whole business should have ended weeks ago once it became obvious that they could not support their claims. However, they have dragged it out and I suspect it is because they cannot admit they were wrong. If this was solely limited to the WRC, I'd leave it alone, but the discussion was pitched as affecting all articles within the scope of WP:MOTOR. If this kind of behaviour is allowed to continue, it could mean disaster. If they persist, I might not have a choice but to take it to ANI or DRN. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: forgiven. I agree that this is getting ridiculous. If you want my advice, start at DRN and then go to ANI as a last resort (and feel free to to those if you start them).
SSSB (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to hold off for the time being. As insistent as they are, they haven't tried to apply their theory to any actual articles yet. I know exactly what will happen if I do go to ANI or DRN—they'll dig in, drag things out and all but sit on the page responding at length to everything to make it difficult for admins/DRN volunteers to do their jobs. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you've been adding the F1 wikiproject tags to the talk pages of (F1) chassis redirects. I feel like adding this tag to non-F1 cars that competed in World Championship races is fine (Cooper T79, Brabham BT23, BT23B, BT23C and the Matra MS5) However I don't see the need to add these tags to F5000 cars (Surtees TS5 and the Trojan T101) that only competed in non championship races just because F5000 cars were allowed to participate. I see you've also added this tag to the Brabham BT23D and BT23E but both these cars are Tasman cars that never competed in Formula One races. Regards, Jahn1234567890 (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jahn1234567890: - I am simply adding the tags to the redirects listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Related Pages as a lot of the redirects are missing the {{WikiProject Formula One}} banner (hence the massive lists at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Formula One articles by quality log). Although technically any car that competed in an F1 race are in the scope of the project I understand your concerns. But, I've completed all the car redirects now anyway so it won't happen any more. If any have been tagged whcih are outside WP:F1's scope just remove the banner with an explanatory comment.
SSSB (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB: I have deleted the tags on the talk pages of the Brabham BT23D and the Brabham BT23E since the don't fall within de scope of WP:F1. As the other cars do fall within that scope I'll leave that be. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello again. I don't suppose you'd be willing to do an assessment on Charles Montier would you? The article is about an owner-driver/engineer who entered the first three Le Mans and several pre-F1 Grand Prix. --kingboyk (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi SSSB. In answer to the question you posed in this edit summary, I've always assumed that when editors change the font size in tables, they do it to make the table easier to read on their screen, not realising (or perhaps caring) that it might make the table harder for others to read. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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!

---

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)

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)

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

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

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
• A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

• Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
• The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

---

Hello. I just reverted an edit of yours at McLaren MCL35. Unfortunately I left a horrid edit summary. It was 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)

It is a MIT graduate. Google a vs an and you will see a multitude of sources which explain that it should be that way, similarly with a McLaren MCL35, or the abbreviated version a MCL35. (MCL35 is read as an Initialism by the way, the same way you might read URL and that makes no difference to the a/an argument). Also if you google an Mclaren Google will correct you by suggesting you meant a Mclaren. Finally, what people say when they say a/an McLaren MCL35 is irrelevant. We go on being grammatical correct, not on what people say.

You may be unable to find a source supporting the use of a but I have, or at least where you can find sources. Now can you provide a source which supports the use of an? Because I can't find one.
SSSB (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I just read your edit summary and you are right. I should have had coffee first this morning. Thanks for spotting that.
SSSB (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, for future reference, your edit summary was better than the above.
SSSB (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk pages are not my strong suit. I struggle with explaining myself clearly and it is something I need to do better. The few drinks I had yesterday made things worse. --DB1729 (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@DB1729: that's something we have in common.

If you ever have to do this again I would advise you simply state the definition of when to use a vs an, then state the phonetic pronunciation of the word in question and leave it at that. That was sufficent for me. Hope this is helpful.
SSSB (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Even better if I could've found a source or MOS link that states that rule exactly. I Google searched "a vs an before acronym" and found several Q&A forums on precisely this topic. They all said about the same thing: "Go by your ear." Use "an" before accronyms starting with M, F, S, etc. if the letters are individually pronounced. But they were Q&A forums, not reliable sources. I couldn't find anything in our MOS guidelines worth linking either.

I think there should be a MOS guideline. There are many acronyms that fall into a gray area. Probably most everyone would say or write "a scuba license" or even "a SCUBA license", but its closely related SCBA (a self-contained breathing apparatus not for underwater use) is always pronounced ess-cee-bee-a. Yet in the article Self-contained breathing apparatus, did someone else get it wrong? The first caption reads "Toronto firefighter wearing a SCBA". --DB1729 (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@DB1729: well there isn't a MOS guideline at present but I would assume you would follow the same rule with an acronym as you would with any other words. But as indicated above it is simply something you have to play by ear. There are even some words where a vs. an is a gray area depending on how you prononce the word (such as historical).^[1] Refering to your example, I would have read SCBA as scuba had you not pointed out it isn't pronounced that way, but I do prononce it as an acronym when preceded as an. Also note that the article contradicts its self, in the lead it says An SCBA.

I think a MOS guideline could be helpful but thats something that should be brought up at WT:MOS (I know nothing about how to start writing a MOS guideline) and drafted but even then there will always be a gray area.
SSSB (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)