User talk:Professor Guru

January 2022

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Murtala Muhammed, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

• Copying text from other sources
• Policy on copyright
• Frequently asked questions on Wikipedia's copyright policy
• Policy and guideline on non-free content

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

• Introduction
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

Hello, I'm Skywatcher68. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Jonathan Wheatley seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

That's much better. You might want to find sources to back up Twitter in case somebody has a problem there. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

You mean the original video from where the Twitter pages got their video clip? I just found the original... https://f1tv.formula1.com/detail/1000005250/inside-story-max-s-miracle-win-in-abu-dhabi I will add it

• No, don't do that. We need printed, secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Uhm...

Did you look at the references? I gave 6 printed different secondary sources in Footnote 9, 13, 16, 17, 19 and 20.

• • • Just so you're aware, the Daily Express and the Daily Mail are generally unreliable. Your contribution could get removed again on the basis that many of your sources are unreliable. –Skywatcher68 (talk)
    • No, I didn't, because I was looking at your "original video" of a Tweet. Also, please sign your name, and stick to convention for indenting posts on talk pages. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

--> Obviously... I do not believe that authentic and Federation of International Autosports confirmed (see reference from the FIA in the article) videos published in Mail Online and Express are "generally unreliable" sources (that's quite a sweeping statement, especially considering that good journalists with reliable sources work there and considering that BBC, The Independent and SkySports were made aware by Mail and Express about the video, the investigation and the statement by the FIA).

anyway... nevermind... however... I have now removed the Mail and Express articles sources and replaced them with BBC, Irish Post, and "The Independent", as well as Sky Sports articles. Cheers and kind regards,

Nomination of The Abu Dhabi Final Lap Scandal for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Abu Dhabi Final Lap Scandal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Abu Dhabi Final Lap Scandal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Democfest (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

the article outlines one of Formula 1 scandals in a growing list of Sporting scandals and F1 controversies

(see Spygate, Rascassegate or the 2007 Finance scandal),

List of sporting scandals

and

List of sporting scandals#Motorsport and Racing scandals

therefore the article shouldnt be deleted.

The article is well researched and written objective and neutral.

If there are specific areas of concern, please let me know.

I am happy to take any suggestions on board.

Kind regards,

Guru Professor Guru (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Small font

After I removed all of the inappropriate instances of small in The Abu Dhabi Final Lap Scandal, you've begun adding it back. Stop. Read WP:SMALLFONT, specifically Editors should avoid manually inserting large and small fonts into prose. Schazjmd (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Please do not edit. I am re-writing the entire article as suggested, and added an "In use" templete to prevent editing.

- removing quote boxes,

- removing funny language,

- removing, opinion tweets and

- removing depreciated links,

- removing small fonts

- removing italics

- and doing general cleanup as suggested Professor Guru (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Abu Dhabi Final Lap Scandal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page World Endurance Championship. 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) 06:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Welcome

I wanted to give you a more personal welcome. I know that you've had a ... rough ... start to your Wikipedia career. But you are a meticulous researcher and WP:F1 (and Wikipedia as a whole, but I'm biased) could really use that. I hope to see you around regardless of the result of the AfD of The Abu Dhabi Final Lap Scandal. SSSB (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks... much appreciated.

1. I keep getting editing conflicts. I fixed a type from unconvential to "unconventional"... and 2 minutes later it was back to unconvential.
2. Sorry but we need to change the first sentence back to Controversy(Debate?Scandal), and not the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix itself. We have to make sure that this is not an article about the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix (there is already a wikipedia page for that), but the controversy/scandal/debate/aftermath (whatever we might call it). if not we will simply have 2 Wikipedia pages about the same subject and that cannot happen.
3. I thought I added an "in use" template to notify people that I am still re-editing the page, why am I getting editing conflicts?

Professor Guru (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think this lead is a violation of MOS:REDUNDANCY, which is why I changed it to this. Just because the lead says "The 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix" doesn't mean that the article is about the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. The article's title indicates the subject. Whilst in most cases it is appropriate to start the article with the article title (or subject name). I don't feel it's appropriate in this case, because of the reasons outlined in MOS:REDUNDANCY. SSSB (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

ah ok... sorry about that... I didnt know about that... I thought the first sentence calling it 2021 Abu Dhabi would indicate that it was about the race.

didnt see that the in use had expired.

In any case. I have finished editing. not going to waste further time on that anymore.

I created an article about the new race director Eduardo Freitas yesterday (and his date of birth has disappeared). I`m not going to waste that either.

I will created a third article on the third race director after lunch.

Cheers and kind regards, Professor Guru (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

As for {{in use}}, I changed it to {{under construction}} (as recommened by {{in use}}) this morning, as you hadn't editied the page for several hours (i.e. your editing session was over, now you've obviously started another editing session. SSSB (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Why is 7-times World Champion removed for Lewis Hamilton, but 4-time World Champion for Alain Prost is still in the article, and 2-time World Champion for Mika Häkkinen remains? Some of the editing doesnt make any sense, or is borderline Vandalism.

On the topic of vandalism... is there a way you could lock the article for ONLY autoconfirmed users to edit? Sick and tired constantly having to delete garbage entered by trolls. Professor Guru (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm about to post a request for protection at WP:RPP SSSB (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

exceedingly grateful... much appreciated. Professor Guru (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

by the way... what happens with the

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

AfD thingy?

Is someone going to remove that (fairly) soon?

As you can imagine, I`m not "very thrilled" writing a good article for 2 weeks, and someone just deciding to delete it, in`it? Professor Guru (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It will be removed after the discussion has been reviewed and a decision is made. A decision will not be made until the discussion has been open for at least one week. SSSB (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Any way to change the title to "Controversy" instead of scandal? Professor Guru (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done SSSB (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Hello, I'm Jolly1253. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more of your recent additions to the page The Abu Dhabi final lap controversy because it appeared to be in a language other than English. We can only accept English-language text on this version of Wikipedia; if you would like to contribute to a Wikipedia in another language, please visit the List of Wikipedias and see if a version of Wikipedia exists in your desired language. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Jolly1253 (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

When I was reverting your edits to the article, I realised that you are the user that created this article. So now I'm curious as to why are you replacing the content in the article with other content(and even thanked me for the revert)? Jolly1253 (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

sorry was a mistake. I was writing a German article. I thought that was my Sandbox, but I mistakenly entered it into the Abu Dhabi main tab. Stupid mistake.

sorry was a mistake. Professor Guru (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

thanks for reverting it. I tried reverting it back to the original article, but then started getting half a dozen "conflict messages".

much appreciated. Professor Guru (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment about final lap article

I just want to say that I respect the huge amount of work, research, and time you put into your early version of the article. However the AfD turns out, I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Schazjmd (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

January 2023

I removed "I was very active on Wikipedia back in the day, and was an Administrator and Mediator until a few years ago." from your userpage. Please do not make false claims anywhere on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I lost my old login when my laptop was stolen in 2007. But I do not assume you would know that. Kind regards Professor Guru (talk) 09:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

What was your previous username?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Professor Guru, you’ve been actively editing Wikipedia and even this talk page, so I’m not sure how you missed the question by Bbb23. Also, how does your claim of losing your account in 2007 match the claim that you were an admin/mediator until “a few years ago”? starship.paint (exalt) 03:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Killing of Tyre Nichols

Please slow down and stop adding cruft. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

sorry about that. Finished for today. Professor Guru (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean "not supported by source"?

its supported by source and the video Professor Guru (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Gnome edits

Hello.

• Certified death certificate is not a tautology
• Chief of police Davis does not satisfy our MOS regarding titles that preceed proper nouns
• Grand jury stuff does not need its own section or bullet points

I edit in good faith. Yes, I make mistakes, but not in these cases. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 00:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Dood,

1. a death certificate is... already certified (harharharharharharharhar)

2. I have nooooooooooooooooooo idea who Chief of police Davis is, nor did I use any of his or her proper (or improper) nouns or titles.

3. Grand Jury needs a section, because they make the first legal & evidentiary findings (compared to just the police).

It seems you make mistakes (especially in these cases).

Anyway never mind... I`m not touching the article anymore. the changes I wanted to make (police report etc. I have made, because the entire article lacked some neutrality and objectivity).

Cheers and kind regards, Professor Guru (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Since you have not responded above identifying your past account, I have opened up a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User claiming to be former admin but not identifying past account. Please participate there. starship.paint (exalt) 03:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Leading paragraphs with dates not ideal

Hi Professor, there's a WP:MOS, guideline, or essay somewhere about working dates into the paragraph prose instead of leading every sentence with a date. I tried to work the date into the prose with this edit and you basically reverted my attempt here. I assume good faith, so that's why I'm discussing it with you. No worries. I'm not mad or anything, and hoping we can get on the same page. Thoughts? Also, section headers usually start out plural (as in 'References') to future proof them, and we do them in sentence case, unless they are proper nouns. You changed my generic header edit of 'Hearings' to 'Court Hearing', which is title case, and singular. Final thought: The lead says 'allegedly', so the body must support that. But, you took out every instance of 'allegedly' so now the lead is not supported by the body. The officers have pleaded not guilty, or are appealing their dismissals, so until that is all adjudicated, everything is alleged, even if on video. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 18:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Dood... I`m not going to argue logic with you.

1.

- If I punch a person in the face in front of threetousandeighthundredandfiftyseven witnesses and onehundredandsixteen video cameras. thats not an "alleged" punch... thats a factual punch.

- If the DA accuses me of assault, then that is an "alleged" assault, because the jury hasnt decided if that (legally) is assault.

Please learn the difference.

2.

A hearing in a court room is a court hearing. Its not a school board hearing. Its a precicely a court hearing. For example A law school graduate is not a "school" graduate... he is a "law school" graduate to be precise.

3.

I also assume good faith (for now), even though it is starting to wear thin.

Cheers and kind regards,

P.S. Encyclopaedias have to be neutral and objective, and free from any agenda or any attempts to embelish facts. Any attempt of dilution will be edited, because you`re trying to avoid calling a spade a spade. Professor Guru (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Your response here is obnoxious. Just calling a spade a spade. You should bear in mind that civil collaboration is a core part of this project.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Quote: "You should bear in mind that civil collaboration is a core part of this project."

--> I 100000% agree. so is precise language.

I`m all for civil collaboration, until someone tries to call an apple, an orange. Professor Guru (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)