User talk:Prisonermonkeys/Archive5

For later

Attention any administrator who happens to be reading this section: I cannot locate my sandbox, so I am posting this here for a time when my block is lifted. This is NOT an attempt to influence the direction of any article, so if anybody happens to see this and add it yo that article, then they do so of their own volition, and I am not responsible for it.

The car was updated to include a brand-new gearbox and revised hydraulic system, a larger rear wing to generate more downforce, and substantial weight reduction, with over seventy-five percent of the car having been developed during the off-season. Ogier and Latvala contested the entire season with the updated Polo, while Mikkelsen started the season with a car built to 2014 specifications before switching to the 2015 build ahead of the Rally of Portugal.

Would you like me to add this to your sandbox? Tvx1 (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1, thank you, but it's probably better here for now.

Can you do me a favour? Given that I have just had the block extended again, this time on the assumption that I must be guilty of something and that I will be guilty in the future because I was guilty of an unrelated issue in the past, I suspect that I will be getting an indefinite block soon, unless the reviewing admin can see that the admin who extended the block went too far. If that happens, can you please keep an eye on Volkswagen Polo R WRC? I would really like to see it become a featured article one day, but if I get an indefinite block, I won't be around to keep working on it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I would love to, but I'm afraid I have to decline your request. The simple reason is that Rally is not one my main fields of editting interests. Therefore it would be unwise to commit to something I cannot guarantee I can maintain my commitment for. I'm sure there are other editors that are interested in Rally and the WRC and are willing to commit to your request. Tvx1 (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it until your block expires, but if you should get indefblocked, I'll have to hand it over to someone else. Tvx1 (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

December 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Prisonermonkeys (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block was issued because of four edits I made to the 2015 Formula One season article. Two of these edits were made to the "teams and drivers" section, and two to the "calendar" section. This is a violation of 3RR; however, the four edits were clearly intended as two edits. For the past two years (or thereabouts), I have been editing from a mobile device. Because of this, there are certain limitations that I must work around. In particular, I can only edit one section at a time—it was not possible to edit the "teams and drivers" section and the "calendar" section together the way I would be able to if I was editing from a traditional computer. During the second set of edits, I attempted to reformat the page to include a more appropriate set of footnotes. However, because the article has an extremely high volume of markup, the mobile browser cannot always handle it, and I regularly experience crashes. My solution to this problem is to edit in small doses, changing one thing at a time so that if there is a crash, I lose as little as possible. Sometimes the problem persists, in which case I leave it and come back to it later. Such was the case here, as I kept getting an error message. I came back to the article several hours later and managed to push the edits through and reformat the footnotes. However, the edit history of the article will show four individual edits made within minutes of one another; this is my attempt at working around the technical issues, changing one thing at a time. As I have been editing from a mobile almost exclusively for the past two years, these are problems that I regularly address. My edit history shows that this is a regular practice on my part, and so the four edits are clearly intended as two edits. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

While you technically have a point in that WP:3RR says that "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert", your edit history also shows that you're all too often edit-warring without regard for WP:3RR. And while 3RR is a bright red line, you can also edit-war without crossing that line. Given your history, I fully agree with Anna Frodesiak that yes, you were edit-warring once again. Huon (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Number changes

@Tvx1, @GyaroMaguus - there have been a few recent changes to the 2015 season page describing which drivers (Vettel and Hamilton) will change their numbers and why. Is that really necessary? It seems like an excessive level of detail to me. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This is discussed at length in the sporting regulation section of last season's article, as well as reliably sourced in the table. So, I noted this in the revision summary and removed the extra content. Twirlypen (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Twirlypen - I can understand why the editor made the change; I just think it was too much detail. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand too. Maybe if it can be reworded better, it can be reflected. But it was basically explaining a 2014 sporting change in the 2015 article. Twirlypen (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Its placement didn't seem right either. Plus, would we then have to include it in every subsequent season article? "Last season's defending champion Paul Olsen will return to #72, while the season champion Dennis Greenberg will opt to use #1, which is reserved for the champion."

Like I said, it seems a bit much since numbers and sources are included in the drivers table, but I wouldn't oppose a written statement if it can be worded appropriately. Twirlypen (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a footnote next to the driver name, but it's ultimately an inconsequential detail. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I had my doubts as well about the way, and especially the placement by which, this was included in the article. I didn't remove it because if have no problem with this information being presented at all in the article and I hadn't made my mind up yet how to include this. There is one interesting point this made me aware of: we put the number 44 for Hamilton, but there is no explanation or means of verification why in the article. So I wouldn't have a problem with including this in the article someway as long as it isn't give to much attention.

By the way, Prisonermonkeys, I don't know what went wrong but your ping didn't come through. I didn't receive any notification. Tvx1 (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I could be completely wrong on this, but I don't think he can ping users while blocked. The only reason I can think of that I saw my ping was because I posted here first. Twirlypen (talk) 04:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

My 6,933 byte message

I asked for a reply (or a few) to the message I wrote that was quite long, because honestly, I wanted clarification that you had taken my words on board. I'm trying to help you not get blocked again and so far you appeared to have ignored my help. —Gyaro–Maguus— 04:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I will get around to it, I promise. I just saw that the page was 173,000kB, which was causing slow-down problems. It seems that the critical mass issue that affects individual sections can also affect entire articles, if they're big enough. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

PM, I'm not one to tell someone how to do things, but when I'm not at work, I too edit almost exclusively by mobile. My device is nearly 2 years old (Samsung galaxy s4), and I very rarely have had my browser crash, by that I mean it may have happened once or twice while editing and likely had nothing to do with the text. I'm not saying that's not the case for you, but if you can't upgrade, try clearing your device's cache and/or the browser's saved data - mind you that the latter will restore the browser application to default, and saved passwords and the like will be lost. Twirlypen (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Tried it. Repeatedly. Mine's an old HTC OneXL. My contract expires in a few months, at which case I'm going to upgrade. Until then, I make do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was hoping that those were the reasons. —Gyaro–Maguus— 12:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, GyaroMaguus, it might be a couple of days before I get around to it. I'm moving apartments over the next few days, so I figure that now might be a good time to take a bit of a break from Wikipedia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

However long you need. It the final week of term for me for most of my responses will either be slow or written when drunk (like this one, though you can't tell). —Gyaro–Maguus— 02:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Forza Rossa

Hey Tvx1 or Twirlypen (or anyone else who might be reading this), do you mind taking a look at the 2016 season article? Someone just added Forza Rossa into the table, and I am not convinced that it should be there. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. The user had copied the Haas entry and altered the first two columns, keeping Haas' references, neither of which mention Forza Rossa. Since, when you think about, Forza Rossa neither were ever fully confirmed or have announced a start year, I don't think we can include them. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

GyaroMaguus - I started an AfD on the Forza Rossa article the other day. I think the page was created prematurely; I cannot find any evidence that the team exists beyond paper. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I had looked at that, but I didn't say anything, because I'm not 100% convinced that they either fail or pass the notability guidelines. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Your ping didn't work again. Tvx1 (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Tvx1, I wasn't pinged either. Like I said, unless you previously post in a discussion, I don't think PM can ping users while blocked. Twirlypen (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

When he pinged me in this discussion, I received the notification. I think for this it will just be easier for us to check our watchlists often. —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe that's because you had previously posted in this discussion. It was the same for me in a previous discussion here. I posted when you and Tvx1 were pinged. PM then pinged me and I received it. Regardless, if none of us can be initially pinged in a new discussion, it's best to keep an eye on our watch lists as you said. Twirlypen (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I have had a few issues with pinging in the past myself. I just figured it was another mobile issue, but didn't think much of it. Anyway, GyaroMaguus, Twirlypen and Tvx1, I'll keep pinging the three of you as need be, just it case it's not always working.

On that note, Template:Formula One teams needs to be updated. "Manor-TBA" should read "Manor-Ferrari", and Felipe Nasr is #12. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Also, I uppercased "One" because lowercase was redlinked. Twirlypen (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Block evasion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tvx1 (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As you have been editing anonymously as 203.38.105.161 continuously and for almost the entire duration of the block, I have reset it. The block will now expire one month from today. I have also hard-blocked the IP address for the same duration. Continued block evasion is likely to result in a considerably longer block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, Tvx1 — I'm sorry, but what's going on here? Somebody edited from an IP address, and because I have edited from that IP address eighteen months ago, you have come to the conclusion that it was me now? Why on earth would I do that with less than a week to go on my block?

Look at the edit history of that IP address. Sure, there's some cross-over with pages that I frequent, but the bulk of the edits have been in articles that I have never touched. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Please, don't take me for a fool. I've been doing this for a long time. That your IP address has changed and been reallocated is believable. That it was allocated to another Wikipedia editor who edits anonymously, shares your interest in motorsport, and took up editing during a period in which you were blocked stretches belief well past the point of absurdity. You can make an unblock request or ask for a review at ANI or ask for a CheckUser (though it probably wouldn't be granted), but I would strongly advise you not to dig yourself a deeper hole. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, I have never had my IP address changed that I am aware of. I edit exclusively from a mobile phone through a 4G network and sometimes through WiFi. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Prisonermonkeys (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have recently had one month added to my existing block for allegedly trying to circumvent that block (even though there was just four days left on it). According to the report filed at ANI, I have been accused of editing from an anonymous account. The only evidence that I have done this is from this edit in which I have edited from the same IP address and self-identified; however, that edit is dated July 2013, and I have not edited from it since. While there is some degree of cross-over between my editing history, the administrator who blocked me remarked that the editing took place "continuously and for almost the entire duration of the block", and yet if you compare both my editing history and that of the IP, the vast majority of edits from the IP are to articles that I have never previously edited. There is no explanation given as to why I would circumvent the block to edit articles that I have never expressed an interest in and ignore the range of articles that I frequently edit if circumventing my block was indeed my intent. It has been suggested that I request a CheckUser, and as much as I would like one to prove that those edits did not come from any IP address associated with me aside from a small handful of edits eighteen months ago, I don't actually know how to go about requesting one.

Decline reason:

Actually, almost every single edit by the IP since your block started has been to pages you've edited. Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

And what about all of the other edits? The ones that were made to other articles while I was serving blocks? Or did you just count back this block?

Looking up the edit that I made 18 months ago, I clearly identified it as a public terminal. Assuming it is still a public terminal, how does that prove that I made the edits, considering that I have moved to another suburb in the time since? I live in one of the most-densely populated parts of the largest city in the country; do you expect me to believe that I am the only person who is interested in motorsport? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

If I take a neutral look at the IP's contributions, I could actually distinguish two persons using this IP: One person who edited the TV stations' articles and another one who is you. This second one made a string of edits from 27 december 2014 until today to articles you have edited as well, and uses the same editing style as you. One of the articles the IP edited has edited during this string of edits, was edited during the string of edits from eighteen months ago, during which the IP self-identified as being you, as well. The edit request the IP made at 2015 Formula One season, is made regarding a type of subject you have contested on multiple occasions in the past and used a writing/argumenting style very similar to yours. This is what alarmed me, and when I discovered this IP had been used by you in the past I decided to refer the matter to the administrators. I think there is enough evidence to reasonably assume that the mentioned string of edits was made by you. I can understand why the administrators decided not to take any risks and decided for this course of action. Tvx1 (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

All you have is a coincidence and the cynical assumption that I have been trying to subvert my block. Given the dates of the only edits I made from that address, I have a good idea of where it is: a public library in a suburb I do not live in anymore. You claim he has a very similar style to mine, but you know as well as I do that novice editors will look to others when it comes to editing, which I don't think is an unreasonable conclusion to make given that requesting an edit to a protected page requires markup, which novice editors do not always know.

I cannot stress this enough: I did not make those edits, and I should not be blocked for it. Can I explain how someone edited from that account? No. Can I prove beyond a shadow of doubt that it was not me? Also no. But I will continue to press this point every day if I have to—that was not me.

Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand your position, but I understand the position of the administrators as well. I have been the only one so far that has been willing to consider that more than one person used that IP. Your suggestion that another person copied your style of editing, coincidently from the same terminal you have admitted you have been using in the past is incredibly far-fetched, though. In essence you're asking the administrators for them to take the risk that I wasn't you making those edits. So far, they have been unwilling to do so and I can understand why. Tvx1 (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how you come to the conclusion that he and I have similar styles. For one, he makes way more spelling and punctuation errors than I do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request 2

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Prisonermonkeys (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am requesting my most-recent block be undone (and the old one restored) as there is no evidence that I have actually done anything aside from someone with similar interests to me coincidentally editing from a public computer that I had edited from 18 months ago in a suburb that I have since moved out of. I have no history of attempting to circumvent blocks, and the IP address in question has been used to edit a range of subjects. Furthermore, it has been active both when I was blocked and when I had full editing privileges.

I requested a CheckUser be run as it will prove that there is no connection between me and the IP address, aside from my using it in July 2013 at a time when I did not have a regular internet connection. This was not performed when I requested it, as the administrator who reviewed the last request only considered the correlation between the IP address being active and my block. Furthermore, I would like a different administrator to review this unblock request.

I am not asking to have full editing privileges restored. I just want to have the original block - set to expire on the 15th - reinstated, as I did not make these edits and the block is based on a coincidence. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Overall, I consider what you're suggesting to be too much of a coincidence. PhilKnight (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@PhilKnight - I genuinely do not think it is a huge coincidence. Can you please humour me for a moment with this and look at it from my perspective? I haven't edited from that address in eighteen months - I don't even live in the same suburb - and I have no history of trying to get around any block that I have received. If we assume for a moment that I am being genuine when I say that I did not do it, then what can I do to prove it and have the block rescinded? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

CheckUser data expires after a few months, so if you really haven't edited from that address in 18 months, it wouldn't show up in a check. @PhilKnight: is a CU, so he could make such a determination, but it's entirely up to him whether he runs such a check and whether he discloses the results, especially given that it's not exactly what the tool is intended for. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, I'm not sure a CheckUser will yield useful evidence anyway, considering that Prisonermonkeys states that the IP originates from a public terminal and as a result, unless Prisonermonkeys logged in to their account while using that terminal, no match between the IP's the Prisonermonkeys account uses and the contested IP are to be expected to begin with. The fact is the contested IP has made a string of edits admitted to have been made by Prisonermonkeys and, ignoring the intermitting edits to the Australian TV stations' articles, the IP made another string of edits during the last two weeks which has a lot of similarities with Prisonermonkeys' string from eighteen months ago. So the question for the administrators is whether or not you want to take a chance it was not Prisonermonkeys making those edits. Tvx1 (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

And it is something that I absolutely, emphatically deny. Unfortunately, I cannot prove that I did not do it. In the past, I have contested every block I have received, usually on a technicality, but in this case, I have no answers. It is simply a coincidence, and one that I cannot explain. And yes, I am well aware of how ridiculous that sounds. But consider it from this angle - I am pretty much on my last lifeline on Wikipedia. Even if I disagree with the reasoning behind some of the blocks, that is the way of the world. In the past, both in appealing blocks and in debating on talk pages, I have always argued on the grounds of logic. Why would I make edits to articles three days out from my block being lifted, knowing that doing so would likely cause a block extension, if not a permanent block? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, can you please respond to this? What can I do in this situation? I did not make the edits in question, but I cannot demonstrate that I did not. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Prisonermonkeys (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I had a block extended for a month for allegedly trying to circumvent that block. This was based on an anonymous editor making edits from a public terminal at an IP address that I had made a series of edits from eighteen months ago, and which I have not edited from since. I completely and emphatically deny any involvement in those edits, and yet in my previous attempts at having the block reversed, I have been met with cynicism, the presumption of guilt and a steadfast refusal to even discuss how I can demonstrate that I am not responsible for the edits in question. Unfortunately, I cannot absolutely prove that I was not responsible, and while I appreciate that "it's all a coincidence" is not the strongest argument, I will continue to deny any involvement in the strongest possible terms. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You must think that Wikipedia administrators are pretty stupid, or else you must be pretty blind. I can see a number of pieces of evidence that prove way beyond all reasonable doubt that you are lying. Much as I would enjoy pointing out to you how obviously you have given yourself away, I shall not do so, as it would simply help you to be more clever at evading any future blocks. In view of your utter dishonesty about this block, combined with your history of frequent blocks for edit warring, I shall increase the length of this block. If experience teaches you that dishonesty makes things worse for you, it is just possible that you may decide to change your ways, whereas unblocking you would just encourage you to do the same again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

JamesBWatson:

"You must think that Wikipedia administrators are pretty stupid"

Not at all. Like I said, I am well aware that "it's all a coincidence" is a weak argument, but I can offer no explanation for the sequence of events. The problem is that there is no way to absolutely prove that I was not involved.

""I can see a number of pieces of evidence that prove way beyond all reasonable doubt that you are lying"

"Beyond all reasonable doubt"? The IP address in question belongs to a public access terminal in a library. I know this because the dates when I did edit from that address line up with a time when I didn't have an internet connection, and that was the only computer I ever used during those months. If whoever made those edits did so from the terminal next to it, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

"In view of your utter dishonesty about this block, combined with your history of frequent blocks for edit warring, I shall increase the length of this block."

For one, I have always maintained my innocence in this. And I will continue to maintain that position until the block is lifted.

Secondly, my blocks for edit-warring are a completely separate issue. While I do not deny those, there is no correlation between them and the accusation of subverting my block. Therefore, I think that it is extremely unfair of you to extend the block based on an unrelated issue, and I will be sure to raise it at ANI once the block is lifted (and that is not a threat, by the way, so please don't interpret it as one).

"If experience teaches you that dishonesty makes things worse for you, it is just possible that you may decide to change your ways, whereas unblocking you would just encourage you to do the same again."

Experience has not taught me that dishonesty makes things worse for me, because I am not being dishonest. You can accuse me of dishonesty, but that does not make it so. Therefore, unblocking me doesn't encourage anything. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Prisonermonkeys (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

While appealing what I felt to be an unfair block, a reviewing administrator chose to extend my existing block. For the purposes of clarification, this appeal relates specifically to that extension, and not to the block that I was appealing at the time. The appeal in question was to a block for attempting to circumvent a block. While reviewing that block, the administrator noted my "utter dishonesty" and my "history of frequent blocks for edit warring". The accusation of dishonesty is unfounded, with the administrator choosing not to substantiate it with anything. As for my history of blocks, they are completely unrelated to the issue. I was appealing a block for attempting to circumvent a block, not for edit warring. To have a block for one offence extended on the grounds that I have been blocked for other offences amounts to the assumption that since I have been guilty in the past, then I must be guilty in the present, particularly when the reviewing administrator refused to substantiate the review with nothing more than an accusation that I am lying and the assertion that there is proof even if he does not feel the need to provide it as doing so would supposedly help me avoid future blocks. I will see out any block that is given, provided that it is fair. But to be blocked on the grounds of "you were guilty in the past, so you must be guilty now, and you will be guilty in the future" is hardly fair. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Same reasons that have been stated multiple times by multiple administrators. Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• I have revoked your Talk page access because of your persistent, repetitive unblock requests. You may use WP:UTRS to appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23 — I am not appealing the block for circumventing a block. I am appealing the extension that I was given this morning when I tried to appeal it. The administrator in that case went too far: he extended it because I have a history of blocks, but those blocks are for unrelated offences. He also accused me of being "utterly dishonest" and claimed to have a wealth of evidence to support the block, which he refused to reveal at length as it would aid me in circumventing future blocks. In short, I had my block extended on the grounds that because I was guilty of something in the past, then I must be guilty of something else in the present, and that I will probably be guilty of something else in the future.

Could you please direct me to the specific policy that allows admins to extend blocks on someone will "probably break a rule at some point in the future"? And if no such policy exists, can you please direct me to a forum for having that administrator's handling of my appeal reviewed? If he thinks that his handling of the situation was somehow appropriate, then he should have his status as an administrator reviewed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The only reason you were able to add your last comments was because when I "changed" your block, I neglected to check the box that actually revokes your talk page access. As it states above, you may use WP:UTRS to appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Having looked over the edit history, seems to me you've been railroaded. The IP editor seems to have somewhat of an obsessing with the staff at Australian TV stations, something Prisonermonkeys has never shown an interest in. --Falcadore (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I also see stuff here which suggests to me that there is truth in what Prisonermonkeys is saying, but what irks me most is how a decent editor like Prisonermonkeys has been heavily punished for block evasion when there is at least some doubt over it, and that "best known for" IP has been (by his own admission) evading blocks for over ten years, while edit warring and spewing out personal attacks, whilst never having constructed a single paragraph on Wikipedia, yet he is blithely allowed to carry on with no sanction from admins. Bbb23 knows who I mean. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet and Falcadore, I understand your doubts. In fact, I, as the only one so far, have expressed my opinion on this talk page that two, not one, persons have used this IP-adress. One who made the edits to the television stations' articles and another one, Prisonermonkeys, who made an self admitted string of edits eighteen months ago and (most probably) the string from 27 dec 2014 until 11 jan 2015. All of the articles edited during that latest string have been edited by PM as well. That someone else used the IP to make unrelated edits in the time between those edits doesn't automatically exclude Prisonermonkeys from having made the recent bunch of edits. And if you take a closer look at those edits you can easily spot some "coïncidences" that are really beyond belief. Take a look at the edit history of Volkswagen Polo R WRC edit history. The contested IP edited that article during the mentioned string. Now can either of you please tell me what the chance is that another person edits an article that has almost exclusively been edited by Prisonermonkeys using an IP that Prisonermonkeys has used in the past? Basically, the administrators are faced with the question whether or not they want to take the risk that it wasn't Prisonermonkeys and give them a chance. Can either of you even remotely understand the administrators' reluctance to do so and their preference for Prisonermonkeys to sit out the block after which they will get a chance to proof that they have become a better contributor. As much as I understand that this is a very unfortunate situation for Prisonermonkeys to be in, I can understand the adminstrators' position. Tvx1 (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet, I know exactly who you're talking about, and I agree with that wholeheartedly. Twirlypen (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Please don't put words into my mouth. It is, of course, a gross misrepresentation of what I have written to suggest that I extend the block on the grounds that "because [you were] guilty of something in the past, then [you] must be guilty of something else in the present". There are features of your recent editing which cannot reasonably be seen as the actions of someone who accepted the original block and was patiently waiting for it to expire: they were clearly the actions of someone who had been evading the block. It is sincerely a matter of regret to me that I can't tell you what those features are, because I really really would prefer to make it clear to you that I am certain that you are lying, not just that I rather think you probably are. However, unfortunately, the disadvantages of doing so would outweigh that advantage. Your past blocks had nothing whatever to do with that decision. The relevance of your past block history is the following. Experience over the years shows that some editors are willing to budget for occasional short blocks, and regard it as a price worth paying for being able to get away with edit warring sometimes. This is especially true of editors who are willing to use any method they can think of to get out of blocks, such as using sockpuppet accounts, editing without logging in, making dishonest unblock requests. The only possible hope of changing the behaviour of such disruptive editors is for them to learn that it doesn't work: that each time they do anything of that kind, they are likely to have further obstacles put in their way. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Additionally why doesn't the "Tags:Mobile edit" show up when the IP editor posts? --Falcadore (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I edit from my mobile almost exclusively when I'm not at work. The tag never shows up for me. Twirlypen (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record PM, regarding other edits in question by the IP - specifically to the 2015 World Rally Championship season, they follow the pattern you use. Several small edits over the course of just minutes. Also, the semi-protected request made at the 2015 Formula One season talk page, the reasoning for the request was nearly verbatim to the reasoning you've used when reverting edits – "it amounts to 'it was going to happen, but then it didn't.'"

Also, the article you have expressed an interest so fond at the top of this page to the point that you've asked another editor to "look after it" for you, the Volkswagen Polo R WRC, was most recently edited by the IP in question. In this sense, I feel that you have blatantly outted yourself. Twirlypen (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Race map

Why did you remove my sentence regarding the impending removal of the German Grand Prix, which quotes the Formula One CEO, on the grounds of CRYSTAL while simultaneously ignoring the countless sources indicating its inclusion on the calendar is in significant jeopardy by including it on a map? Twirlypen (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Especially going so far as to indicate the Nurburgring will host it...? For the record, noting that the Formula One CEO states in a published quote that the event will be dropped if it's not resolved by a certain date is in fact NOT crystal. Twirlypen (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed it because it contains no new information. Of course there is a deadline - the race has a date, even if it doesn't have a venue. It's like the elaborate paragraph on everything Manor did to save their team, which ultimately told nothing new except "we're trying to save the team". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 14 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 2015 Australian Grand Prix page, your edit caused an empty citation error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Tables

I know tables, specifically on mobile browsers, has been a thing lately, but I have never really paid attention. I've been viewing Wiki on my cellphone (using Android Chrome), although doing very little editing, but I have yet to have a problem with tables in such a way that I'd recommend changing them. Obviously I know that some table cells get bumped onto two lines because of browser resolution, but it's never been anything that has bothered me.

However specifically on the 2015 FIA World Endurance Championship season alterations you made, I have been looking back at the old Wikitable format and I realize that, for the bulk of the charts (schedule, LMP2, LMGTE Pro, and LMGTE Am), my mobile browser does not have any problem fitting these tables. The only one that gets out of wack is LMP1 because of the location of the secondary key chart. But the alterations you've made now make the chart out of whack on my desktop browser, Firefox. The Nissan engine is on two lines, and the table looks horrible with a light gray outer border but black cell borders. The Wikitable version was uniform and easier to read. I also notice that there is almost no difference in overall width of the two LMP1 tables, and only the key has been drastically shrunk.

My main concern though is usability in terms of editing. There is a lot of additional parameters here, and a ton of cobbled together blank space and no wraps to try and get things to fit your browser, but these tables are not finite and there will definitely be the possibility of drivers with longer names appearing, and I quite frankly do not know how to edit these tables to fix your mobile browser. And mind you, I will have roughly 14 tables to deal with once the season starts, not the 3 that F1 has, so there are plenty of tables yet to appear that will be of varying lengths. I am not a coder and these tables need to be usable for me and the few who participate in the article to be able to edit.

Would any of this be improved by moving the location of the key? The³5₉ (Talk) 07:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The359 — the biggest problem with reformatting tables is that they all appear differently on various browsers. To be honest, we haven't solved the problem 100% just yet, and I have my doubts as to whether or not we ever will. Even now, the key is a problem that I have not run into before; it's used on Formula 1 season articles, but I don't touch the matrices since markup is time-consuming on a desktop PC, much less a mobile.

There is no uniform way of formatting them, so at this point, perhaps the best way forward is to keep them in a format that suits the regular editors of a page first. I do try and get involved when I remember to, but that's not always the case. Since you edit that article the most frequently, it might be better if I follow your lead here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I know that this mobile compatability has been spearheaded by you, so I don't want to simply nix it because I know you're limited on your access to Wikipedia. That's simply why I was curious as to how you're seeing the article from your mobile browser as, as I mentioned before, I don't have spacing issues on any of the tables except the LMP1/Key problem. Hence my suggestion, if I moved the key to the top of the tables, would you still have a spacing issue with the article in general? I realize that from my desktop I have tons of empty space to fill, which is why I put the key where it is now, but it's easily rearranged. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The359 — the spacing issue isn't really a problem. I have to scroll across to see the full width of 95% of tables on Wikipedia. The markup I added to the very top of the tables is simply there to make the cell borders clearer, and the nowraps and nbsps are to stop the cell contents overlapping the cell borders. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

On taking a second look on my phone's Chrome browser, it seems that the browser does adjust the width of the window to fit the widest table (LMP1/Key), but it does not adjust the text accordingly. The prose of the article, and in fact the very right hand border of Wikipedia itself fits within 90% of the screen, but the table expands out into the remaining empty 10%. Since I know the formatting worked before on my phone, I am going to revert the tables per your suggestion until a better solution can be found. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

2014 Russian Grand Prix

I see you've gone and delete the RGP attendance figures again. I find that fairly poor faith behavior after what went on before. --Falcadore (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Falcadore — I think that a sufficient time period has passed to warrant reconsidering it. The attendance figures that were given were vague, and there has been no attempt since that dispute to supply an actual figure for the event. The attendance figures are applied inconsistently across race reports, WikiProject does not even have a clear definition of what that field should include; sometime the figure given is for the race itself, sometimes it is cumulative across the three days of a Grand Prix, sometimes it is based on ticket sales while other times it is the number of people who pass through the gates (a point I was on my way to raising at the WikiProject when I got the notification of your message). Seeing as how I would like to nominate that article for GA—and maybe even FA—status, I feel that the figure and the reference given are insufficient for what that field is trying to do to the point where it will compromise the nomination. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of your reasons, I just remember what happenned before and when Haken Arizona notices the reversion wars will begin again and we'll have the same debate again to the same conclusion. --Falcadore (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dential_and_User:Prisonermonkeys_reported_by_User:Tvx1_.28Result:.29 regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Tvx1 15:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of three months for edit warring, as you did at 2014 Russian Grand Prix. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Your accusations of sock puppetry at WP:AN3 are unsupported by any evidence. I see a fairly clear behavioral relationship between User:Darrandarra and User:Tvx11, but I see no behavioral relationship to User:Dential. I have no opinion as to whether Dential is indeed a sock puppet of whatever account, but that misses the point. You are using the sock puppetry allegations as a justification for your reverts when your reverts have no policy justification. This is not only not the first time you've been blocked for edit-warring, it is also a repeat of previous reverts about estimated attendance issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23 — I am not making up the allegation about Dential, and I would thank you for recognising as much. As I said at 3RR, his very first edit caught my attention, as it included the edit summary "to keep the peace!" within twelve hours of my edit being made in an article that had been largely inactive for months. That caught my attention, because it suggested that he is familiar with both the WikiProject and the people involved, and that was the common denominator between Tvx11 and Darrandarra. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

For Falcadore

@Falcadore — Thanks for the heads-up. It's obviously not me, but what I find troubling is that this is the second time in as many months that someone has created an imitation account for an F1 editor; Tvx1 had an evil twin running around not too long ago. Whoever this person is, they're clearly a lurker, since they know us and know the events on the WikiProject. Which is actually pretty creepy. But if they've imitated Tvx1 and now they're impersonating me, I would keep an eye out for any others. I'm sure they'll show themselves pretty quickly. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going to tag Liz here to say thank you for taking care of this issue. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, @Liz, this edit makes it pretty clear that Darrandarra is a sock of the same account. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Nor problem, Prisonermonkeys, I was just responding to a complaint on a noticeboard. Since these fake accounts are quickly blocked, I'm not sure whether a sock investigation will be launched. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Liz — thank you anyway. This is not the first time that this has happened; there was another account impersonating Tvx1 a few weeks ago. Whoever it is, it's clear that they are familiar with the WikiProject as they refer to events from months ago. The Prisonernonkeys account was made a month ago, and the editor's comments on the 2015 season talk page and in the article reference discussions from around the same time. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

RA615H

Technical insight: Honda's radical Formula 1 engine for McLaren

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118626

Craig Scarborough, 21 April.

Tables

Hey, Tvx1, just so you know, someone is going around deleting the new table format. I noticed it at McLaren MP4-30, among others. It's making Wikipedia very difficult to read on mobile browsers. I can't fix it for obvious reasons. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm tempted to leave it like that for the moment. I'd prefer to make the wikitable style (recommended by MOS:TABLE) uniform on desktop and on mobile, rather than making this local fixes. I'm going to propose this on the relevant location. Tvx1 19:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

And I have. Tvx1 19:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess your block must have been expired by now, so just to keep you up to date, the problems with the tables you have been reporting are currently being discussed here and here. Tvx1 00:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Volkswagen Polo R WRC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Škoda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Teams and drivers

I agree wholeheartedly with your stance that only drivers who have taken part should be listed in that table and should only be included once they start to do so. This implicates as well that we should not anymore include a TBA-TBA-TBA replacement driver like was done for Marussia after Bianchi's accident last season. Tvx1 00:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — I think that the problem is this insane obsession with the idea that because the FIA says it, we have to include it. It's like the table saga when someone suggested that we were obligated to perfectly recreate the entry list published by the FIA, even though there was no apparent organisation to it except the order in which the teams submitted their entries. And now we have wound up in a situation where the article is hinging on a document published before the event took place that said Manor would compete, when in reality they never did, and there are plenty of sources to support it which are apparently completely invalid because they contradict an "official" document.

I'm willing to accept that, in cases like this and Bianchi and the Chilton-Rossi scenario at Spa last year, there is no real historical precedent that we can refer to in order to resolve the problem and that we are establishing case history so that we know what to do if it happens again in future. But the obsession with "the FIA is official, end of story" has to end. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It's only Bretonbanquet really. There are argument is even pretty hypocritical if you ask me. Every time there is a disagreement over a result between Forix and F1.com&FIA, they argue that is not right to stick with the official sources just because they're official and now they argue we must obey the entry list because it is official. This is just the German flag argument all over and over again where Breton kept dragging it on and on despite EIghtball being the one creating all the drama. I'm mean we even implemented compromises and it's still not enough for Bretonbanquet. Tvx1 16:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

What amused me the most about this little exchange is how Tvx1 accuses anyone of dragging things out. Incidentally, the article isn't hingeing on anything, because you guys have just carried on your own merry way, as usual. The inconsistencies in your arguments here are just as stark as they are on the discussion page. Incidentally, being wrong and/or misleading will never be enough for me, FYI. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Gf edit - 2015 Formula One season

PM, Bretonbanquet has very loudly voiced displeasure over a footnote in the table at the top of the article clarifying a clearly confusing situation being placed all the way at the bottom of the page. As far as what issues you're saying it causes, the only thing I can see is that it causes the footnotes in the table to be not displayed at the bottom. All other footnotes in the article beyond the first "{{reflist|group=N}}" still show up in the last tag at the bottom of the page. That is hardly an wiki-wide issue, and more of a personal preference. Twirlypen (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

No, the issue I have is the way you click on the footnote with the results matrices—the one explaining the count-back system—and the browser doesn't know which section to show. Kind of like when you have two sub-sections with the sane name on one page. It might be a by-product of the recent software updates. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Overlapping cells

Hi Prisonermonkeys, I need you to take a look at the following table:

Rd.	Grand Prix	Pole position	Fastest lap	Winning driver	Winning constructor	Report
1	Australian Grand Prix	Giedo van der Garde	Kimi Räikkönen	Kimi Räikkönen	Lotus-Renault	Report
2	Malaysian Grand Prix	Sebastian Vettel	Sergio Pérez	Sebastian Vettel	Red Bull-Renault	Report
3	Chinese Grand Prix	Lewis Hamilton	Sebastian Vettel	Giedo van der Garde	Ferrari	Report
4	Bahrain Grand Prix	Nico Rosberg	Sebastian Vettel	Sebastian Vettel	Red Bull-Renault	Report
5	Spanish Grand Prix	Nico Rosberg	Esteban Gutiérrez	Fernando Alonso	Ferrari	Report
6	Monaco Grand Prix	Nico Rosberg	Sebastian Vettel	Nico Rosberg	Mercedes	Report
7	Canadian Grand Prix	Sebastian Vettel	Mark Webber	Sebastian Vettel	Red Bull-Renault	Report
8	British Grand Prix	Lewis Hamilton	Mark Webber	Nico Rosberg	Mercedes	Report
9	German Grand Prix	Lewis Hamilton	Fernando Alonso	Sebastian Vettel	Red Bull-Renault	Report
10	Hungarian Grand Prix	Lewis Hamilton	Mark Webber	Lewis Hamilton	Mercedes	Report
11	Belgian Grand Prix	Lewis Hamilton	Sebastian Vettel	Sebastian Vettel	Red Bull-Renault	Report
12	Italian Grand Prix	Sebastian Vettel	Lewis Hamilton	Sebastian Vettel	Red Bull-Renault	Report
13	Singapore Grand Prix	Sebastian Vettel	Sebastian Vettel	Sebastian Vettel	Red Bull-Renault	Report
14	Korean Grand Prix	Sebastian Vettel	Sebastian Vettel	Sebastian Vettel	Red Bull-Renault	Report
15	Japanese Grand Prix	Mark Webber	Mark Webber	Sebastian Vettel	Red Bull-Renault	Report
16	Indian Grand Prix	Sebastian Vettel	Kimi Räikkönen	Sebastian Vettel	Red Bull-Renault	Report
17	Abu Dhabi Grand Prix	Mark Webber	Fernando Alonso	Sebastian Vettel	Red Bull-Renault	Report
18	United States Grand Prix	Sebastian Vettel	Sebastian Vettel	Sebastian Vettel	Red Bull-Renault	Report
19	Brazilian Grand Prix	Sebastian Vettel	Mark Webber	Sebastian Vettel	Red Bull-Renault	Report
20	Baku European Grand Prix	Mark Webber	Giedo van der Garde	Adrian Sutil	Force India-Mercedes	Report

Does this one have overlapping cells for you? Tvx1 15:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — no, but just to be safe, I would play around with the longest possible names. Right now, the Baku European Grand Prix, Pastor Maldonado and Force India-Mercedes seem to be the longest, but there may be some drivers and teams out there with longer names. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course, I always put a nowrap around the longest name in a column anyway. And for 2016 for the Grands Prix table those would indeed be Force India and Baku European Grand Prix for the Grands Prix table. We don't know which driver name yet as the 2016 field has not been completed yet. I used a table from the 2013 season's article because that one is complete. If the above solution, which was suggested to me, does not cause overlaps we have found ourselves a workable solution. Hence why I came to ask you to take a look. I'll put in those 2016 names by way of test and use Giedo van der Garde instead, which is even longer than Maldonado. Tvx1 20:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — that's why I suggested it: if it can fit VDG, VDG, VDG, FI at the Baju Euro GP without non-breaking spaces, it can handle anything. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Have another look. Tvx1 13:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — it's fine, but I think that there is a bigger glitch: apparently Adrian Sutil won. There's no way that's right. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

↑↑ Ba-ZING!! Twirlypen (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you mocking me? Of course I won't include this exact table anywhere. This is just a test version. Tvx1 13:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Perish the thought! Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited World RX of Norway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Per-Gunnar Andersson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Legal troubles in 2015

Hi. I separated that content because both were affected, albeit limited as you said, via Sauber being unable to practice in Australia due to an impending judgement, while Lotus could not practice in Hungary and had their entire collection held in Belgium for 4 days following the GP. Being somewhat similar in impact (former drivers suing team, threats of seizure, etc), I felt it would be better if these contents were together.

Although, as they have yet to impact the Championship, I didn't think that within the championship summary was the best location for them. I am indifferent on it however, because I can see both sides pretty evenly. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 00:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Drawing conclusions

You are drawing your own conclusions to the Manor discussion. That is why we don't use "debut" in the infobox, because it was confusing. Now we use "entry", which is black & white with little room for personal interpretations. So no, we don't use "name on a piece of paper" to define debut. We use it to define entry. Also, as I said in the edit summary, if you are going to facetiously make snarky comments in with your edits, then Rossi "debuted" in 2012, so try and be mindful of the facts. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 04:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Twirlypen—all I want is some consistency in editing. We come to a consensus on one issue, and it's taken as being project-wide, but then it gets ignored. That's how we wound up with a situation where Merhi and Stevens are considered to have taken part in Melbourne despite having done absolutely nothing that could be considered "taking part", and all because they appeared on an entry list published before it became apparent that they could not compete. The end result is that the articles don't resemble reality in the slightest. Anyone with the slightest trace of common sense knows that it's wrong, but because of the ridiculous editing practices, we're forced into a situation where we're hinging on a fallacy: the assumption that the middle ground between two competing options is always the best. So is it too much to ask that we simply apply our own rules consistently? Maybe then we can make some progress on a decision making process where we're actually making sensible decisions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The rounds column in the table is for events entered, not raced in. That is why it gets updated on Thursdays, not Sundays. Again, if you are going to be facetious and bitter at losing a past argument, then Rossi debuted in 2012 when he first took part in a GP weekend, or at the very least debuted in 2014 in Belgium. Cut it out. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 06:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Twirlypen — a purely semantic difference that would be lost on all but the most dedicated followers of the sport, even with something in the article to represent it. You seem to be forgetting that our first audience should be someone who clicks on "random article" and finds the page. They should understand exactly what is happening with no prior knowledge of the sport. If you look at the 2014 seasom article, you have Marussia apparently entering three cars with no indication of why, which is unsupported by the rest of the article. Is it really so difficult to bear your audience in mind like that? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

If 2014 doesn't have that in the driver changes information, then it should be added to reflect that Marussia entered Bianchi & Rossi, withdrew Rossi on Friday afternoon, and replaced it with Chilton before FP2. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 07:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Twirlypen — a detail which is ultimately inconsequential to the season as a whole. Tell me, how does a section that effectively reads "Marussia were going to do this, but then they didn't" contribute anything in the grand scheme of things? I think you need to take a step back and really, critically ask yourself, "what does this have to do with the article that I am writing?". Because it has to be said, under your watch, the 2015 season article has ballooned out to an insane level of detail. I know you want it to be a Featured Article some day, but during the FA/GA review process, they will point out that you have made it too long and have effectively made the race articles redundant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. Clearly you haven't seen any of the race articles of this season if you think the season report content makes those articles redundant. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Twirlypen — no, I haven't seen any of the race articles. Do you know why? It's because I don't need to! The season article is going into so much detail that there is no need to go to race reports. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Then that's your own perogative and frankly a solitary opinion. The readable prose of the season article is at about 4000 words (of which about 1700 is in the actual season report - meaning more than half of the content is dealing with regulations and changes, etc etc.), which is the lower limit of 4000-10000 words for what could be considered a "full article". The article itself is at 76kb WITH all of the markups, tables, and photos, so it is well under the limit as far as size. However, this is completely off the point. If you want the article to be split or condensed, raise the issue there. I have actually just gone ahead and raise it on your behalf, just to see what kind of opinions the rest of the community has. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You shouldn't be engaging Twirlypen over this. Bretonbanquet is our project member who refused to accept anything else but Marussia being counted for the Australian GP. Discuss with them. Tvx1 10:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1 — it's not just about Marussia in Melbourne. It's about the status quo of the WikiProject and the complete lack of consistency in our editing practices. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I think you are unnecessarily overdramatizing the situation. Marussia in Melbourne has been explained and I have pointed out that your claims regarding the 2014 season are wrong. I don't know what other "total lack of consistency" there is remainig, unless you're going to be more concrete. Tvx1 12:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1 — in addition to Marussia in Melbourne, we have multiple instances of drivers listed as participating in races (namely Rossi at Spa and Sochi last year) that they never drove in; we have a separate article for Manor Marussia when we did not for BMW Sauber in 2010; we have articles that imply drivers started the races when they were merely entered and there is nothing to differentiate between them in the articles; and so on and so forth. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I have already written how I think about merging those articles and that it is not being implied that Rossi started those races. Whitdrawn is shown everywhere he is listed. Again, you're making too much fuss for issues some of which can easily be fixed. Tvx1 13:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I added a tooltip for the rounds column that it was for "Rounds entered", but you deleted it because "it didn't work with your mobile browser". Which in of itself is very strange, because there are other tooltips used throughout the article and the project without objection. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 22:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Twirlypen — There are? I don't know about them because I can't see them. That's what I mean about Tooltips not working—they're completely invisible. There's nothing to indicate that they are there at all. Given that there is a policy of trying to meet the needs of as many readers as possible, I hardly think that Tooltips serve that end.

Do you know what would be an even better way to represent the situation? Using the column to represent the races started. So, rather than having your name printed on a piece of paper before you even get to the circuit for the first time—which you have to admit is pretty abstract—you line up on the grid, the lights go out and you start racing. That should be considered "taking part" because it is the most representative of what really happens during a race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

As you consistantly say, that's what the race articles are for - for what happens during a race. And please don't act like you don't know there are other tooltips in the articles. It's unbelievable and unbecoming. They are in literally just about every race and season article since 2008. If you are legitimately oblivious to their existance, then I am going to add it back right away so that the majority of readers know what the column is for. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 23:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Having seen that tooltips exist on the very next line of table language right where the Rounds column is, I am convinced that you are indeed not oblivious to the existance of tooltips in the articles, and that you deleted it simply in protest to the discussion that did not go in your favor. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 23:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Twirlypen — I have been using the mobile version of the site almost exclusively since 2011. Many articles are so large that I cannot access the source code without the browser crashing. Also, it's not, as you insist, a malfunctioning browser that is causing the issue. Wikipedia consciously chose to remove the Tooltip functionality from the mobile version of the site because it is incompatible with the format—Tooltips require the cursor to hover over the text, but as the mobile site has no cursor, Tooltips are not an option. Don't pretend that by restoring Tooltips, you have fixed the problem.

And don't use the "that's what the race articles are for" argument. As much as the season article is about the season as a whole, the races form 90% of the season. What do you think is more relevant to that: the list of names publishes on the Thursday before the race, or who lined up on the grid on Sunday? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Restoring the tooltip may not solve the problem for you, but it solves it for anyone who does have a cursor while simultaneously not inhibiting anyone else. Further, there is a notation for those who cannot access or make use of the tooltip. You're making an issue where there is none. Everything is explained. And so I am to understand that the "that's what race articles are for" argument is your proprietary property? Why is it okay for that argument to be used in your defense, but not mine? Especially when the race articles ACTUALLY DO explain the situation in further detail? I know you've already admitted that you don't bother to read them, but that really is why they are there and what they contain. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 00:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Twirlypen — it doesn't fix the problem at all, because it still hinges on a distinct definition between "entry" and "start", with nothing in the article to indicate the difference. We're now in a situation where teams and drivers can enter races without actually starting them, but the article represents them equally. So how is appearing on the entry list a) more important than starting the race, and b) the best way of representing what happened? Like I said, the entry list is an abstract concept and published before the start of the race. Things can and do change between the list being published and the race starting—and we have plenty of examples of just this happening.

As for referring readers to individual race articles, it's just bad editing. A reader should not have to go to Article B in order to understand Article A. Especially when it's to explain the difference between an abstract concept and the realised reality. Anyone reading the table could reasonably come to the conclusion that the drivers who appear in it raced during the season. Adding a Tooltip that says "rounds entered" does nothing to fix the problem, because the distinction between the two terms hinges on the connotations of each.

So please, explain to me the one thing that proponents of "entires" rather than "starts" have been unable to explain thus far: why is the entry list more important than the start of the race? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you genuinely suggesting that we explicitly define the difference between being entered in a race and starting a race? You're welcome to try to restart the discussion so that others can reiterate, but I am done entertaining this nonsense here. This has nothing to do with Rossi anymore (and very obviously never did) and is clearly your own bitterness at the result of a discussion that didn't result in what you wanted. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 02:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I can comfirm that tooltips don't work on the mobile site. It certainly isn't an issue with Prisonermonkeys' browser. On the other hand, I don't see a problem with using tooltips as long as users that can't see em are catered to as well. If there is a way to cater both at once, however, it's better to use that instead. Again, Prisonermonkeys, discuss the Marussia in Australia with Bretonbanquet. That's the user who objected to any other outcome. Both me and Twirlypen have supported both sides of the argument. As for your "use an actual start to credit them with taking part", that doesn't work at all. Drivers who DNS are also credited as taking part by the FIA. We use official definitions, we don't make up our own. Even if rarely it results in a situation that seems somewhat confusing. Take for example the fact that for a number of years drivers who retired prior to a red flag in the first two laps of a race would be listed as DNS despite having made a start. That will certainly seem weird/unnatural to some, but those were the rules. The first start who have been considered never to have happened and we have to follow suit in our reports. We don't listed them as retired in defiance of the official results because we prefer that. Tvx1 03:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Twirlypen — Yes, I'm suggesting that we define "entered" and "started" as two completely different things. Because they are two completely different things. "Entering" the race means that you have submitted all of the paperwork to the FIA; it means that you can start the race, but that start is by no means guaranteed. "Starting" the race means lining up on the grid. I suspect that our difference in opinion is down to differing interpretations of what "entering" means, because it can also be (relatively) synonymous with "starting".

@Tvx1 — I'm pretty sure I've said this before, but I think there's something in the sporting regulations about the minimum requirements a driver must meet to make the grid. I think that it's taking part in FP3 and/or qualifying (or seeing the stewards post-qualifying). If we're going by what the FIA says as an absolute rule, then I think that the definition of "taking part/participating" should be "meeting the minimum requirements to start the race" and results are dictated from that point on. Because let's be honest; everyone who shows up (except FP1 drivers) generally gets to start—it's only unusual exceptions to the rule that might prove different outcomes, but I think that approaching these on an as-needed basis rather than creating a one-size-fits-all approach is a better way forward.

And I am aware that Breton is the person to see about this. But given the way he reacted last time, do you honestly think that approaching him cold will achieve anything meaningful? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, we follow official rules, we don't make up our own. As established during the discussion a while ago, from 2015 you have to drive in FP session to be eligible to race. It was different prior to this season. On the other hand, we also established that according to the FIA, apparently, you are taking part in a Grand Prix event once you take part in the event's procedures. For the umpteenth time, you don't appear on the entry list simply because of submitting paperwork. Both cars and drivers have to pass scrutineering before thay are considered for the list. And once you start that scrutineering you're taking part. And yes I think you have to go Breton if you want any result. After all, their interpretation is in use now. Tvx1 03:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — If the entry list is paperwork to enter, then scrutineering is a check to make sure car and driver satisfy eligibility. Both amount to an entry, but neither guarantee a start—case in point, FP1 drivers who need to enter and pass scrutineering, but are not guaranteed a start. All of this is in the sporting regulations. The current consensus attempts to define participation based on the broadest possible definition of taking part, one that accounts for every playsible situation of how a driver might come to drive, even though some of these represent extreme outliers which are unlikely to be repeated.

Also, it doesn't really matter what Breton thinks. If we form a consensus independently of him, he'll have to deal with it. You have done it plenty of times without me; I don't see why the rules say anything different for him. It would be nice to have him on-board, if course, but it's not a prerequisite. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No. No sane person needs explanation in detail between "entering a race" and "starting a race", and to legitimately suggest it due to the rounds column meaning entered instead of raced, when there is a tooltip for those that can use it AND a note for those that can't, is quite frankly a reaffirmation of your personal bitterness at the result of the discussion. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 12:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You know, the more you claim "personal bitterness at not getting your way" the more likely it is that I will disregard your comments. What were you saying the other day about ignoring AGF being somewhat justified? Well, the same applies to you; you think "personal bitterness at not getting your way", but I immediately think that you have made up your mind about the way you want the article to be and look for any excuse to disregard any argument that disagrees. And if I'm feeling particularly punitive, I think you're trying to take ownership over the article and launching ad hominem attacks out of frustration when you fail to persuade someone of the merits of your case. So claiming that ignoring AGF is justified is a slippery slope.

So, instead of making broad, sweeping generalisations about the article and expecting people to simply accept it, how about you explain why it's okay to demand the narrow definitions of some words, but in other cases broad definitions are fine, given that you have made both arguments in the past week. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Because those are the official, sourced definitions. We simply report on what happens in reality and if the reality is very strict at times and broad otherwise so be it. We must follow them objectivly. Now, I will not take part in a local consensus formed on your talk page in complete defiance of the Wikipedia's established practices of consensus building. If you want to make your case for a new consensus you have to go to the WikiProject. But before you do so, I will advice you to stop requesting us to make up our own defintions. That's a major no-no. I you want to achieve success in your case, you'll have to find proof that Breton has misinterpreted the rules and that the the FIA doesn't consider Marussia to have taken part in Australia. Tvx1 17:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — look at all of the documentation that is produced over a Grand Prix weekend: there's the entry list and results from every practice session, qualifying and the race. The only place Manor appeared was the entry list, and so while the FIA might consider them to have "taken part", they didn't actually do anything or achieve anything. While it is technically correct to say that they participated, nothing that they did could reasonably be considered "taking part". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, that is why the rounds column gets updated when the teams and drivers arrive on Thursday, not when they race on Sunday. You have incorrectly assumed that the column was for races taken part in when it was always just for entries (the fundamental difference between getting updated on Thursday vs getting updated on Sunday). I don't get what is so difficult to understand about that. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 03:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — Because the column can clearly be interpreted in different ways. If you look at other racing series within the scope of the wider WikiProject Motorsport, it is used to denote the races, not the entries. Formula 1 is out of step with other, similar projects. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

One could easily ascertain that those projects are inferior in quality, and that they are the ones out of step. That is simply just a matter of personal perspective. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 04:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Twirlypen — "quality of the project" does not matter. What matters is that the standing majority of championships use the rounds column to refer to the racing, not the entry list, which in turn means that they are not "out of step" with Formula 1, but that Formula 1 is out of step with the wider WikiProject Motorsport. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The possibility of different interpretations of the column is simply negated by its well-sourced content. The included rounds and the supporting sources and in rare cases some notes as well as bullet points in the driver changes section make it very clear to our readers what the column means. Moreover, your solution creates more problems than it creates. It would require us to edit dozens of season articles. Limiting the inclusions in that column to "races taken part in" would result in us having to exclude more than just the Marussias in Australia. In fact, for that race alone, we would have to exclude Magnussen, Kyat en Bottas as well. You're not seriously suggesting that, are you? Tvx1 11:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — That's why I suggest that we use the same minimum standard as the FIA: enter, pass scrutineering, take part in free practice, and attempt to qualify. The entry list is well-sourced content, but so too are the race results, which are arguably far more relevant because they are produced after the race, whereas the entry list is produced before anyone even arrives at the circuit. The entry list is subject to change, whereas race results are far more fixed (they can be changed, but only with a lengthy appeals process).

Also, decisions should not be made based on how much work they create. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Except that is not the minimum standard the FIA applies. Even to be allowed to start your standard is wrong. They don't have to attempt to qualify. Only taking part in one free practice is required as long as they can supply a good reason to the stewards for not having attempted to qualify. As we have pointed out to you umpteen times, the FIA's minimum standard for having taken part in Grand Prix is passing the first scrutineering. You're claim as to when an entry list is produced is also wrong, which we have told you umpteen times as well. The entry list is produced after they have arrived at the circuit and crucially after both cars and drivers have passed scrutineering. Tvx1 12:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way, your claim that the F1 project is out of step with the other project is nonsense. To give a few examples, WP:AOWR fills the round column for the entire season before it even starts and WP:Rally updates the round column just like us based on the entry lists despite those lists often being published weeks before the rally takes place. Tvx1 20:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)