User talk:Pyrope

If you happen to be bored... go reference something

January 2018

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

'larious. Reply left at the ANI board. Pyrope 16:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Well that was a sadly predictable episode that I invite any interested talk page stalkers to go take a look at. You might also like to look at the response that the OP left here following the close of the ANI, and then swiftly deleted. I will reinstate that in the continuity when I archive this, but for now best left alone I think. Bullies do not like it when their bullying is confronted, and they tend to turn nasty, but that does not mean they should not be. Ah well, life. Pyrope 13:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sic

Sic is used for unintended errors, not obviously intentional misspellings. See Krispy Kreme. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That's just not true Clarityfiend. As the documentation for {{sic}} states, it "is used where a textual error, or unexpected but intended text that may appear to be an error, has been faithfully reproduced from the original source." (My bolding.) In the case of Krispy Kreme the brand is known sufficiently widely, and the page includes graphical logos showing the spelling, such that a reader is not going to be in the position of confusing intentional 'erroneous' spelling for a mistake. In the case of a little-known aerobatic display team from the late 1960s, however, there may well be some confusion, especially where the name is used in prose on another page. Pyrope 02:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

How could a user possibly be confused by Simon's Sircus when it's a link? They're going to realize immediately it's a cutesy alliteration, just like Krispy Kreme. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Are they? You seem to think that every visitor here is au fait with Wikipedia convention, but we are building a general interest encyclopedia for everyone to use. The tag does not detract in any way from the readability and helps to clarify, for those not familiar, that the cutesy tautogram (Simon's Circus is already alliterative as the term refers to the consonant sound, not the actual letter) is intentional. Pyrope 02:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It just dawned on me that you applied it to things that aren't quotes. That alone undermines your position fatally. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You are quoting a title. I feel that it is a shame you look on this as some sort of competition, rather than an opportunity to learn. Do you want to try explaining exactly what it is that you have against this fairly common text tool? Pyrope 00:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This from the OED: "Used in brackets after a copied or quoted word that appears odd or erroneous to show that the word is quoted exactly as it stands in the original". Note that turn of phrase. Pyrope 00:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I am requesting a third opinion initiating an RfC at Talk:Simon's Sircus since you won't listen to me. Your snarkiness here also doesn't help. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not a case of not listening to you. I have heard what you are saying perfectly clearly, I just disagree with you. In addition, I have provided evidence for my stance, and asked you to clarify yours. This you have not done. There is no snark above, just a rebuttal to your points coupled to an observation about your tone. That you take it as such tells me a lot about you. Pyrope 11:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't be so mean to Clarityfield, Pyrope. 83.136.45.103 (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... and who are you? Disagreeing with someone is not 'being mean'. Pyrope 01:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Disagreeing *politely* with someone is not being mean. But you were not being polite when you said to Clarityfiend, "That you take it as such tells me a lot about you."

You've got to keep your cool and stay polite even in situations where a user who takes a view you don't agree with sticks rigidly and vocally to that view. If you start saying things to that user along the lines of, "Your views and actions tell me a lot about what kind of a user you really are", then you are not keeping your cool and instead you are resorting to being mean, impolite and snarky. And being mean, impolite and snarky is not going to resolve issues any quicker and more satisfactorily than if you keep your cool and remain polite. Bear this in mind in the future. 83.136.45.190 (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Please review the above and note the order in which the accusation of snarkiness and my subsequent (oops, that saved you some reading) comment appeared. I was being perfectly polite, but when someone decides to try and dismiss an argument by claiming that I "won't listen" to them (despite detailed, specific rebuttals of their falsehoods) and then accuses me of being snarky, forgive me if I draw conclusions about their disposition. Polite is as polite does, and I will note in light of that that you haven't answered my first question to you. You are obviously reasonably familiar with Wikipedia, so what are you? A banned user circumventing their block, or an involved party (Clarityfiend?) hiding behind an IP address? Misplaced admonishments from anonymous internet users will receive all the consideration they are due. Bear that in mind in future. Pyrope 20:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

A conversation you might be interested in

Hi Pyrope,

I was recently look at Buddh International Circuit and I noticed that your name was on the image of the circuit map as the person who uploaded it. Did you create this image, or just upload it?

The reason I ask is because I really like the image. I've noticed a lot of inconsistencies in the circuit maps, but the Buddh image (and the Silverstone image) are the best examples of what I think the maps should be.

Normally, I would create the images myself, but I lack the skills required to do so. To be honest, I have no idea how big (or small) a job it might be; I can barely draw a convincing stick figure. As an alternative, I'm trying to get support for some changes at WT:F1. If you're interested, or if you know of other editors who might be, we may be able to improve the quality of the images used. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi PM. I know this is something that you have been thinking about for a while (I remember you starting a discussion back in 2012 or something like this?) and it has also come up with others at various points in the last decade+. The idea is broadly a good one, but there have been two major stumbling blocks:

Firstly, it does take quite a lot of time and effort to get these things put together. As AlexJ pointed out to you at an earlier time, in addition to actually drawing the diagram there is quite a bit of historical research required to work out what the configurations were at any point in time, together with changes in the names of features, and make sure that a good version exists for any individual event. I have put together some for circuits that were severely lacking, such as Buddh, as you have found, and my recent time sequence for Brands Hatch and the earlier set for Snetterton, together with the improved Birmingham SuperPrix maps (see here for a full list of the limited number I've done). In each case, doing the research, assembling the maps and aerial photos, and getting the story straight took 5-7 days-worth of the time I have available for Wikipedia, then actually drawing the maps took 1-2.

Secondly, preferences will always differ from person to person. I'm with you in preferring a more stripped back, clean, diagrammatic style, but others aren't so minimalist. I had a discussion with Will Pittenger over at Commons when they were putting together their very prolific series of circuit maps during which we discussed issues such as his use of serif fonts and large quantities of visual clutter (not to mention odd page orientations and barking mad 'scale' bars) but he simply disagreed with my view. I have no problem with that, and considering that his diagrams were miles better than the others we had at the time (at least they did contain north arrows and scale bars), I wasn't going to argue to hard. But I think we can certainly do better.

Neither Will nor Alex have been regular contributors for a while now, so that doesn't leave many people with these interests or vector graphics knowledge. McKayF1 added set of really rather good Silverstone maps back in 2016, but they seem to be a one-off thing for now, and they haven't got any other obvious contribution history. Most odd. Demanding adherence to a strict set of 'standard look and feel' guidelines is tough when only a handful of people would be involved in setting those guidelines, and risks alienating someone that might make good diagrams but with their own flavour. For now I'd be happy to embrace the variation and let people go their own way. Pyrope 22:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pyrope,

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you on this. I guess I have underestimated the demands placed on editors making the images. I have asked around in the recent past and was led to believe that it was as simple as using some kind of overlay and Google Maps. While there seems to be a broad desire at WP:F1 for uniform maps, the appetite for change does not seem to be substantial.

What I had envisioned in all of this was editors such as myself who have little flair for imaging to do the research while the WP:F1 community decide the parameters for the images. That way we could put together a portfolio of the circuits and forward them to the people making the images. In the interests of time management, I thought we might prioritise current circuits and perhaps even ignore circuits—such as Ain Diab and Phoenix—that are unlikely to host a race again.

I can live with the differing styles for now. I actually quite like maps such as Albert Park since they give context to the surrounding area. But there are some, such as Yeongam and Long Beach, that have quite an errant style to them (ironically, they're unlikely to host future races). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

The Silverstone maps I put together will be a one off. I have resources and knowledge about Silverstone that I don't have for any other circuit (except perhaps Brands Hatch). It was a project I wanted to complete personally as I have always been fascinated by the numerous changes to Silverstone year on year since the late 1980s. The multi-coloured overlay of each configuration was the realisation of the project. I can't think of any other circuit in the world that has the history to produce a diagram of that interest.

Uniformity in track maps would be desirable but the style of that uniformity would be difficult to agree on. Some of the maps are shocking in their aesthetics (such as those maps I replaced, part motivation for my project). Even if a style could be agreed, to actually achieve a full catalogue of maps with uniformity, would I believe be impossible unless they were all produced by one artist. I do not have the time to be that artist however.

As a suggestion, I would base the style on that employed by FOM in the F1 broadcasts, but reduced to 2 dimensions. These show the track as well surrounding context. This could allow uniformity in displaying the actual track configuration and essential information, whilst giving character to each map: the parkland around Melbourne, the harbour around Monaco, the forests around Spa, etc etc. McKayF1 (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

McLaren Group

Hi Pyrope. I wasn't aware of the subtleties regarding McLaren Technology Group and McLaren Group - I thought it was a simple rename based on the recent update to the lead and infobox. I have no objection if you want to revert my page move and/or undertake other restructuring as appropriate. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi DH. No, I have no objection to the move. I've done more digging and it looks as though, so far as their public face is concerned, they intend the situation to be pretty much as presented on our page. Until a month or so ago the new company was actually called 'NMG Holdco Ltd.' (i.e. New McLaren Group) but was renamed from that to 'McLaren Group', and acts as a holding company for MTG and Automotive. However, Automotive still have a distinct public presence while MTG does not, and although MTG still exists as a legal (and no doubt fiscal) entity, its activities are being presented as those of the new company except for a couple of their own subsidiaries. I gave a fairly lengthy edit summary to make sure that the situation was captured somewhere and to assist other editors. All the best. Pyrope 13:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there!

Is your reading comprehension at a level to understand the difference between:

It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit... (Source: H:FIES)

and

You must provide a summary for every edit...

In any case, regardless of your ability to understand the difference between something that is suggested and something that is mandatory, I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks, and have a nice day. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, dear me no, Beyond My Ken, certainly not. As you have demonstrated a clear lack of concern for good practice and Wikiquette I feel under no obligation to extend these courtesies in your direction. I suppose that it must be more comfortable to waft through life on your own cloud of arrogant ignorance, but I see no reason why I need aid and abet you in this delusion. I notice you cut off your H:FIES quote just before it continued ...especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors..., didn't like that line? It may not be compulsory, and I never suggested it was (time to check your own reading comprehension?), but it is certainly the mark of a collegial and respectful editor. You are almost the polar opposite of that. Please expect no respect from me in return. Pyrope 21:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that was all sorted out. A salutary lesson on the value of actually contemplating edits before reverting, and the power of providing edit summaries to explain why you have done so if you do. We live and learn. Pyrope 21:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Grammar, and misguided revert

"Whereas" implies a contrast. It would be correct if his mother was not involved in motorsport. She was, and that is the point of the sentence, so "while" is the correct word. I am reporting the original reverter for edit warring. I trust that you do not wish to endorse their actions. Pe19 (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

And "cheap 'Discovery Channel' journalistic slang"? What a bizarre way to describe a fundamental English word. Are you a native English speaker? Pe19 (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)