Jump to content

User talk:SSSB

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chuqqling (talk | contribs) at 15:14, 16 May 2020 (→User:Chuqqling). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Last edited by Chuqqling (talk | contribs) 4 years ago. (Update)

Regarding Porsche Supercup:

If I wasn't assuming good faith i'd say this was you trying to get around the consensus reached here.

That consensus was achieved before the pandemic led to mass cancellations.

If you are so against red links you create it.

I would, except I don't have any evidence that the championship is even happening. The most I have see was a story about Jaxon Evans hoping to stay in the championship for a second year. I can't create an article with no evidence.

Otherwise it will happen.

Where is your proof of that? The pandemic has changed everything. We have multiple sources from just about every major championship—including the five world championships and a slew of domestic series including Supercars, Indycar, multiple TCR series and NASCAR—about the pandemic. We don't have anything on Porsche Supercup, and we never had anything from before the outbreak. The redlink was included based on the assumption it would happen, so its continued inclusion amounts to "we're making the assumption that our original assumption is still true". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When the consensus was made is irrelvant. My take is that until a sufficent number of races are confirmed to be cancelled (or the whole series) it still qulaifies as a support series.
I see no evidence to suggest that the Porsche Supercup has been cancelled and unless you have evidence to suggest that the series is cancelled I don't see how that consensus could be ignored. A calendar was released, some events are clearly postponed or cancelled but some can still go ahead.[1] We will hear about Porsche Supercup when we hear about it, until then, due to a lack of evidence to the contary, we can assume that all the races that can go ahead will. More than half of the races are in support of Grands Prix that are still due to take place on the originally proposed date.
And just to be clear the otherwise it will happen refered to someone will eventually create the article if the season does indeed go ahead. I was not stating that the season would go ahead.
SSSB (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/2019/motorsports/porsche-mobil-1-supercup-2020-season-calendar-19381.html

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 15

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (April 2020).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 15th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Miscellaneous

Hope everyone stays safe. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

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

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monaco 1982

I have just watched the entire race on YouTube and the changes i did matched with the race Bomast (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bomast:, please try to keep the thread in one place. I'll reply to you on your talk page where I started this discussion.
SSSB (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Sainz jr

you removed my addition to the lead paragraph stating that my addition to it about charles leclerc wasn't important enough. id beg to differ as in my opinion that the drivers future team mate is very much important information which belongs in the lead paragraph cheers, barlow2604 —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 14 May 2020

@Barlow2604: no other driver has this in their lead and I see no reason why Sainz should be an exception. If you disagree feel free to initiate a discussion at Talk:Carlos Sainz Jr.
SSSB (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chuqqling

I've noticed that he's removed one of your talk page comments as well as consistently breaking protocol. He's on the fast-track to a ban but I'm not really interested in getting involved in those sort of affairs aside from providing evidence. Thought I'd let you know. MSportWiki (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed some obvious vandalism. I do not appreciate being attacked for carrying out a good deed. Quite why you are so in favour of vandalism is a real mystery to me, but you should get over that fetish quickly. Chuqqling (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuqqling: we didnt have a problem with your edits. We had a problem with the edit summaries which incorrectly identified those edits as vandalism. You need to look at WP:AGF and WP:VANDAL.
@MSportWiki: he is perfectly within his rights to remove content from his own user talk page (it is still in page history afterall). If he keeps incorrectly identifying edits as vandalism he can expect to receive a series of warning templates ({{uw-agf}} most probably) which will eventually lead to a report to admins. Personally I am more than happy to collect evidence but this does rely on people posting wanring messages on his talk page (for a user to receive a block for bad behaviour requires proof that he was warned and I am not going to actively look for reason to form a report) but I am willing to give him a chance to improve before we take it anywhere.
SSSB (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My edit summaries correctly labelled the edits I reverted as vandalism. They were obviously vandalism; they inserted false facts, removed information, and made the grammar nonsensical. And yet, you're spending your time attacking me for fixing up the mess. Your attitude is disgusting. Chuqqling (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuqqling: 1) making grammaticial errors is not vandamism. Accusing someone who made a grammatical error of vandamism is failing to observe WP:AGF. Please read it and follow it, I expalined this to you very clearly on your talk page. These two reversions: Special:Diff/956884180 and Special:Diff/956884134 are not examples of vandalism (the same could be said about several other edits you made). They are simply examples of WP:COPYEDITing and are perfectly accptable. Okay, content may have been removed but these are trivial peices of information which the coppyeditor in question obviously felt were not necessary and/or redundent, they didn't insert false facts and information wasn't removed. The content was simply re-jigged. Taking this edit to 2003 Italian Grand Prix for example, the only content that was taken from this sentence was that the race ws 53 laps. The editor clearly felt (and incidently I agree) that the number of laps didn't need to be specified in that sentence. I repeat, this is not vandalism. Also telling me that my attitude is disgusting is a personal attack and frankly hurtful. And for the final time we are not attacking you, and we are not saying your edits were necessarily bad, but your edit summaries were wholly inaccurate. Please take this oppurtunity to learn from those who are more expirenced and actually know what vandalism is.
SSSB (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your spelling is appalling. This may be a factor in you failing to distinguish between vandalism and productive edits. And your posting of trolling messages on my talk page after I have clearly indicated that you are not welcome to do so further diminishes my perception of you. Your attitude is, indeed, disgusting. You should have thanked me for dealing with vandalism, not spent your day defending vandals. Chuqqling (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuqqling: spelling has nothing to do with it and you need to stop being so patronising, you need to start assing good faith and you need to stop making personal attacks. And I am not defending vandals because they aren't vandals.
SSSB (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"assing good faith", haha. The edits were vandalism. You are defending them. You are wasting your time attacking me for fixing vandalism. It really is disgusting. Chuqqling (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SSSB&oldid=957012622"