User talk:Mclarenfan17

Mclarenfan17, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Mclarenfan17! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Wicka wicka (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Supercars Manufacturers' Championship

Regarding this edit, there is actually a manufacturers' championship for Supercars, awarded to the manufacturer that scores the most wins over a season. It just never gets any proper recognition outside of the awards night. See List of Australian Touring Car and V8 Supercar champions#List of V8 Supercar Manufacturers' Championship winners. I have never really thought about incorporating it into the season articles, though in the past someone has added it as a single sentence after all the results matrices. It might be worth using a table similar to that used on the NASCAR articles. – Ky ta bu 00:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I reported Alex95-Ukraine to the admins and warned him on his talk page. SSSB (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SSSB — I think WP:ANI would have been the more appropriate place to report him. This feels less like vandalism and more like really aggressive editing. I've run into this guy before and he's well-intentioned but does not take people disagreeing with him terribly well. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mclarenfan17:, agreed that would better, I'll do it now, for the record he has accused me of being as well in one of his reverts. SSSB (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Y done. SSSB (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avengers

Please don't abuse the term "censorship". Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies — I think it is a form of censorship. That's what these editors are doing: removing the plot of the film to protect people who have not seen it from spoilers. WP:CENSOR is the reason why the red spoiler tags were removed years ago. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's way too strong a term for this. The editor was claiming, by they way, that they removed it because it was unsourced. Pointing them to MOS:PLOT takes the politics out of that argument. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW my boy is playing some racing game where apparently he could get a McLaren F1. Foolishly he chose a Toyota 86... Drmies (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies — in all honesty, given the way McLaren have been performing in the past few years, I don't blame your boy for picking the 86. Being a McLaren fan now is a bit like being a Chicago Cubs fan: equal parts glutton for punishment and deluded for thinking next year they will recapture their former glory, even though there is no earthly reason for thinking it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, thanks, I'll tell him that. Could well be that he's smarter than me after all. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Your recent editing history at 2020 Formula One World Championship shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. SSSB (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indentation

Just some advice on the use of indentation. At the WT:RALLY discussion you keep indenting to your own comments. That's not necessary. Doing that effectively means you're having a conversation with yourself. You only need to indent when you reply to someone else's comment. WP:THREAD contains the explanation. Regards, T v x1 09:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits @2019 World Rally Championship

Please do not continue with edits (edit war) such as [1], [2], [3]. I remind you to reread this:

User:Mclarenfan17 has now moved the campaign back to the article talk page, and is arguing there that there is a consensus. Since they opened this thread, this has aspects of forum shopping. I may be the "wrong" editor for this dispute, because I initially sent the disputant parties off to an RFC, but the resultant RFC is a mess, and I can't tease a consensus out of it. Maybe a wiser closer than I can resolve it, but if User:Mclarenfan17 keeps insisting that there is a consensus, in spite of vocal disagreement, then my own opinion is that Mclarenfan17 is trying to game the system and force a consensus. Can an uninvolved administrator please either find some consensus, or close the RFC with a finding that a new RFC is needed, or something? My own opinion, which is only my opinion, is that User:Mclarenfan17 bungled the RFC and it needs to be restarted. In any case, by insisting that there is a consensus when there clearly is not a consensus, they are being stubborn, and something needs to be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Please do not continue with these edits with claims of some sort of consensus, when Request for closure (started by yourself) is still active. I will report you if you continue with this behaviour. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the guy who forgot about the discussion for two weeks, insisted that the discussion was still open, then forgot about the discussion for another two weeks. It seems like the only way I can get you to keep having the conversation that you insist on having is to make those edits. At this point, it's pretty obvious that you're deliberately trying to prevent a consensus from being formed. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2019 World Rally Championship into 2020 World Rally Championship. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mclarenfan17 reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: ). Thank you. T v x1 11:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mclarenfan17. You've been warned for edit warring per the result of the complaint. You may be blocked the next time you revert at 2019 Formula One World Championship unless you have previously obtained a talk page consensus in your favor on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Your recent editing history at Tenet (film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Cognissonance (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a tit-for-tat warning because I referred to to 3RR. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited No Time to Die (2020 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terence Young (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Please refrain from attacking other editors as you did to Speedy Question Mark at WT:F1#Mexico City Grand Prix as I know you know this sort of behaviour is counterproductive to Wikipedia as a whole and could lead to a ban. So stop attacking editors who disagree with and discuss the issue at hand.
SSSB (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that his edits are made in good faith, but for all his admissions that he is not the best at editing, he makes no attempt to improve. My comments my read like personal attacks, but they are really intended as bluntly-worded advice. Most editors who know they aren't the best learn from their mistakes. SQM does not. He hides behind his inexperience, using it as an excuse to avoid putting in the effort. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to stop reverting content to how you think it should be when there is still an ongoing discussion like you did here. That is highly disprupitve behaviour. The whole point of talk page discussion is to that this doesn't have to happen. I know SQM did the same, but that doesn't mean you need to do it as well.
SSSB (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you yet to become anything resembling a human being with character, PrisonerMonkeys? Or will you continue to pretend the problems you cause are not your own doing like a selfish child? 01:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:C883:EA00:355F:35D4:D6F9:B0EE (talk)

Dude I found out so much about you:

“I'm going to chip in here because unfortunately I have detected a wider pattern of poor behavior against other users by the reporter editors. They have the unfortunate habit of resorting to rather aggressive personal attacks whenever they feel things are not going their way in a discussion. Their most common tactics then are to either question the contributors competence/intelligence or simply trying to devaluate the other party's comments by claiming they haven't made enough contributions to the subject. Here is a selection of diffs from the recent history showing such behavior against numerous users: Klõpps [20], [21]; Me [22], [23]; Fecotank [24], [25]; Pelmeen10 [26]; Unnamelessness [27], [28]; Sabbatino [29]; Pyrope [30], 12; Speedy Question Mark [31], [32]. Note that these diffs strem [sic] for either when they were still editing under their original name, Prisonermonkeys, from when editing logged out, and most recently from editing as Mclarenfan17. I feel know that this continuous behavior finally merits some extra attention.”

“The reason he is so quick to volunteer to "not engage" with me is because his entire MO is based around subtly instigating conflict with other users. He doesn't even have to directly address them to achieve this goal. This is day one trolling, and he's been doing it for a very long time, as evidenced by the examples provided by Tvx1. I can't even comprehend how you can approach his statements in good faith when he says things like, "though I now appreciate that while I had the time to recompose myself, maybe he needed more." This is explicitly intended to get under my skin, to make himself look better than me, to set the tone that I am angry but he is not. Again - day one stuff. Really, really, ridiculously obvious. It's the internet equivalent of your younger brother who breaks the TV and convinces your parents you did it. Unfortunately this is not uncommon on Wikipedia. You say above, "I don't think it's trolling because we can back this up with sanctions if it happens again." It has happened again. This is not the first time. Far from it. If sanctions aren't applied now, we're just gonna be back here in the future. This is not an issue between myself and Mclarenfan17, and it does not get solved simply by the two of us somehow not engaging with each other. There is a clear pattern of misbehavior and he is the person involved in every example. I would strongly request input from an administrator because I cannot imagine this is behavior they want to tacitly encourage.”

“Mclarenfan17 himself is very hard (childish) person to discuss something. Afaik, he has never (or rarely) had an intention to achieve a consensus, rather than talk and repeat his first opinion. Some discussions are just wasting everybody's time, when everybody has already expressed their opinion and one user singlehandedly is blocking a consensus (which he sometimes accuses of others). I'm not assuming bad faith, very happy for his enthusiasm. But sometimes feel he lacks empathy - not a person who is up for a teamwork (which Wikipedia is all about!). And worst of all, Mclarenfan17/Prisonermonkeys (or IP editor in between) is very eager to jump into editwarring, when things are not to his liking. Everybody can check the histories of 2019 World Rally Championship, 2018 World Rally Championship etc. But with Tvx1, I've never had any problems. I feel he is much more of a teamwork person. He takes more time to discuss, and often expresses things to McLarenfan17/Prisonermonkeys that I'm not able (my English vocabulary is just not that good). Anyway, this ban/block seems ridiculous proposal - just discuss and move on.”

Discussions

Please check the talk pages of the articles before posting on talk pages of users. Sparkle1 (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy thst says this is required. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No there isn't. Its common sense and common courtesy. Its clear you have not checked the talk page or you would engage in the discussion I have started. Sparkle1 (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already have, but given that you are a (relatively) new editor, a reminder of policies on your talk page would not go astray. There is no need for you to be defensive—we all want the same thing here, even if we go about it differently. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

In you recent post on WT:F1 are you starting a new discussion of advertising the current one.
SSSB (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SSSB: both, sort of. I feel the discussion has outgrown the 2019 article and should be moved to the WikiProject. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Entry Change

I'm glad you changed the entry table for 2020 as I think it is much simpler and easier to understand. It will also avoid the Sponsor controversies with what entry name to have that we've had this year JamesVilla44 (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]