Jump to content

User talk:SSSB/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Explaining

On Grand Slam (tennis), you actually misanderstood what happened. Allow me to explain: Hippo43 was the bold one by removing whole sections because he didn't like how they were being handled, but I disagreed with him and reverted it. Then, instead of empolying WP:BRD and starteing a discussion on the matter, he actually re-reverted me. So, to comply with WP:BRD, I started a discussion and restored the pre-bold status, in which you reverted. I hope this clears the whole situation. ABC paulista (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

ABC paulista I don't think that's really correct. It looks like you added the fairly large sections on Surface Slams and Channel Slams on 16 July, so you were being bold, and I reverted you, so you should have discussed before restoring your edits.
Anyway, I don't think it's too important how we leave it just now. There is a discussion ongoing now, which I hope will resolve this. // Hippo43 (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Hippo43, According to this, you never removed the Channel Slam section, but removed the Three-Quarter Slam section, which have been on the article since 2005 (the name of the section have changed over the course of years). So you didn't reverted me, you removed independent sections, some of them weren't introuduced by me. ABC paulista (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
OK. I don't think it's that important. Adding large sections, which you did, is being bold. Removing them, or some of them, which I did, is reverting. But I think it's more important to discuss the problem. I don't mind how the article is left in the meantime, as long as we understand there is no stable consensus for the current version. // Hippo43 (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Hippo43, If you only removed what I introduced, then it could be considered as a revert. That clearly was not the case, the main section that you removed was not part of my boldness, leading to the creation of a new version of the article that never existed prior to that, so per WP:REV your bold removal can be considered as a its own bold edit, unrelated to mine. ABC paulista (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I think you are being silly. An edit can be a revert if it changes more things than just one person's addition. But as I said, I don't think who did what first is most important here. We should discuss the article.
In order to do things your preferred way, I have reverted your additions of 16 July individually. // Hippo43 (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Hippo43 The discussion is underway under the premisse of your own boldness, please refrain changing the article until the discussion is over. Also, let's stop using this user's talk page to address this issue. If you want to discuss this policy further, you can adress me on my talk page. ABC paulista (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2021

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

  • Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Hi, I noticed you're active on F1-related articles. Just letting you know I've nominated this for GA, and I'd appreciate any improvements or a review. Thanks. --IronManCap (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@IronManCap: I'll have a look, but, I'm not great at biographies or good articles. I recommend asking User:MWright96 who has extensive experience with good articles.
SSSB (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. --IronManCap (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

Not three years, four. But given you've been very helpful this year, even starting the pages when the week is far from over:

The Teamwork Barnstar
For helping the Top 25 Report keep on working so well, while also contributing funny and informative entries. igordebraga 15:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2021

September 2021

WP:DNTTR GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't. Please read an essay before you quote it.SSSB (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

readded Jake Wartenberg
removed EmperorViridian Bovary
renamed AshleyyoursmileViridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Hi! Reply-link has officially been superseded by mw:DiscussionTools, which you can install using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. DiscussionTools, developed by the WMF's Editing Team, is faster and has more features than reply-link, and it wouldn't make sense for me to keep developing reply-link. I think the Editing Team is doing amazing work, and look forward to what they can do in the future. Thank you for using reply-link over the years! Enterprisey (talk!) 06:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Revival of sprint qualifying discussion

Reviving this disccusion;

Bottas' penalty as stated in the decision document here that occured during Friday qualifying clearly states that he must start from the back of the race grid, not sprint qualifying grid. Again, if Bottas wins SQ, he does NOT get pole position, and this must be distinguished in the results table by marking with the "P" superscript. Admanny (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Admanny: I am still of the opinion that (because such a circumstance is so rare, when was the last time a driver lost pole) we shouldn't use a p superscript unless a driver other than the sprint race winner gets pole, instead leave a note: "Unless otherwise stated, the sprint race winner was on pole." Then add a note next to Bottas in the results table(s), and a note next whoever inherits. SSSB (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@SSSB: Anything to say now? Not as rare as you think... Admanny (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@Tvx1: I invite you to participate here. Admanny (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with SSSB. There should not be a P unless the sprint winner does not get pole position.Tvx1 15:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
That implies a pole position was not taken. Inverse effect is seen at the 2019 F2 Spa round. A race wasn't held, but De Vries had pole. Admanny (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
To SSSB: I think anyone can agree that a 50% rate of sprint qualifying winner being on pole position is not considered "rare" at all. For the sake of consistency across all standings, we should keep the P superscript regardless of sprint race or not. Admanny (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
No it doesn’t imply anything and the note suggested by SSSB would deal with that perfectly.Tvx1 15:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@Admanny: 50%? You have made a distinction between grids determined by sprint qualifying and traditional quaifying where none exists. You are just as likley to get a grid penalty regardless of how the grid os formed. This year we have had 1 instance where the fastest qualifier/sprint race winner (whichever is applicable) didn't get pole out of 14 - that makes a shade over 7%. In 2020 (17 races) it was 0%. So it is rare. (Around 3% over the last two years) SSSB (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@SSSB: Because the problem only arises when a sprint race determines the grid order. Normal qualifying doesn't have this problem, because we simply assign who is pole. With more grid penalties coming down later in the season it would be intuitive that such a situation may crop up again. Admanny (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I'll repeat myself. The probability of someone losing pole during a sprint quali weekend is the same as someone losing pole in a "normal" weekend. I just calculated that probability as sitting in the region of 3-4% over the last two years. Such a situation may crop up again, but with a very small probability that I think a note will be better than using a pole marker and a sprint quali marker. The FIA have already said they don't intend to do this every race. Even if they did, the statistics suggest the problem we are discussing will happen at only one race every 1.5 years. SSSB (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Invisible Barnstar
For your valued work in the July 2021 GAN Backlog Drive, which, in a single month, helped to reduce the backlog by nearly 50%. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

2021 Russian Grand Prix

Remember when we talk about this fact at the beginning of the season. We said we would have mentioned this fact into the article page, rather than into the 2021 championship page.--Island92 (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Island92: I don't remember. But that's also beside the point if you can't provide a source which confirms the claim (without delving into WP:OR). SSSB (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
It could work.--Island92 (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
@Island92: as the Russian Grand Prix isn't explictly mentioned, you are still using WP:OR to interpret that the CAS ruling (which is quoted) is applicable. I would like a better source, it can't be that hard to find. SSSB (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
That source was never intended to be the official. I've been looking for something better so far... Let's see. Island92 (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The official race schedule being reported on F1.com says there won't be a national anthem (the ref ore Russian flag cannot be showed), but a "national ceremony". This source may have a connection with that. In any case, no Russian flag will be showed throughout the event. Island92 (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not doubting that there won't be a Russian flag, but your use of sources to support this fact is based on WP:OR. SSSB (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Ok.--Island92 (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

A difference is clear enough. As always in these pages we have to consider where they qualified. If GIO has qualified 18th but will start ahead according to his original position, the penalty is not in force. VER qualified 20th. If he set a lap or no it doesn't matter, he qualified last. Had he qualified 14th e.g., I wouldn't have put that sentence for him.--Island92 (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Island92: by all means mention that Gio gained places and that Verstappen qualified last (both of which are mentioned), but to say it "made no difference" is provably wrong. SSSB (talk) 10:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Why? "Made no difference" is related to where they originally qualified. GIO 18th, but also he even gained positions, not lost other places in base of the penalty. VER 20th and will start 20th. The penalty cannot work.--Island92 (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
@Island92: the penalty does work. Because the penalty still meant Gio starts 16th rather than 15th. In the case of Verstappen, the note should specify that he didn't set a time because of his penalty,[1] In the case of Giovinazzi, we can say that his penalty was nullified by the penalties of others (because he only lost one place to Mazepin and had a net gain of two places) as a compromise. But to say it made no difference is wrong, plain and simple. SSSB (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
A penalty is handed to a driver in order to have him penalised on the grid. Despite having a penalty Giovinazzi gained a position in contrast to where he originally qualified. The penalty cannot work. In the case of Verstappen despite knowing he was going to start last, he qualified 20th because of not setting a time. He will start 20th and there is no difference between where he qualified and where he will start. Island92 (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
@Island92: Giovinazzi is still penalised because he starts one place behind where he would without the penalty. In the case of Verstappen he is still penalised because he was forced to start from the back, the fact he exploited a loop-hole doesn't mean the penalty makes no difference. This is why I suggest the alternate wording that the "penalty was nullified", instead of "made no difference", the latter is both wrong and (even if it weren't wrong) less unencylopedic in language. SSSB (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Ok.--Island92 (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

References

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

Lance Stroll Edit

Hi I noticed you archived my edit on the Lands Stroll page for not providing sources. At that moment, the only reference available was for his penalty for the next race, which does not include the full picture. The only other link was by an unofficial YouTube video, which is not proper. Thank you. BMB YT 500000 (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@BMB YT 500000: with respect, if no sources exist to support the claim, it isn't suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. A source does exist for the Stroll-Gasly and the Vettel-Stroll collision, I'm not sure what more of the picture is needed.[1] Besides, the main part of your edit which required a source was "... a poor race for Stroll" - this is an opinion, and therefore requires a direct source. SSSB (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, I suppose. BMB YT 500000 (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
@BMB YT 500000: glad we understand each other. As an aside, remember to WP:INDENT your comments, and reply before the {{reflist-talk}} template, and not after it. Thanks, SSSB (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for 2012 Spanish Grand Prix

On 1 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2012 Spanish Grand Prix, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that after Williams won the 2012 Spanish Grand Prix a conspirancy theory emerged which argued that the team had been given special tyres? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2012 Spanish Grand Prix. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2012 Spanish Grand Prix), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

User

Hello SSSB. In my opinion, user Engine V10R looks like Stephen C Taylor, who was blocked in February 2020. An admin should look into him. Island92 (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Island92: you may be right. They do a similar thing with punctuation surrounding refs. For an admin to look into it we would have to open an investigation at WP:SPI. SSSB (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Could you do that? Island92 (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
@Island92: no, but I am happy to co-work on a draft SPI wth you - User:SSSB/sandbox/SPI. SSSB (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
@Island92: that is, you provide the evidence and I'll provide the argument. SSSB (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Ok. Island92 (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
@Island92: just let me know when you've compiled the evidence then I'll construct the arguement and submit it. SSSB (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Evidence has been compiled.Island92 (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
@Island92: that's not good enough for an SPI. Per the guidlines on WP:SPI:
Evidence is required. When you open the investigation, you must immediately provide evidence that the suspected sock puppets are connected. The evidence will need to include diffs of edits that suggest the accounts are connected. (This requirement is waived if the edits in question are deleted; in this case just provide the names of the pages that the accounts have been editing.) SSSB (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of List of governors of Texas by age for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of governors of Texas by age 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/List of governors of Texas by age 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.

List of governors of California by age has also been included in the nomination with List of governors of Texas by age. OCNative (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1998 San Marino Grand Prix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Goodyear.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Entrant

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.


Name team entrant reported into the table is Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow (as the season entry list). Note added to report that the team has entered with a different name for some rounds. Indeed, the team entered with a different name (only Scuderia Ferrari) from rounds 7-14, 16. The rest of them (1-6, 15, 17-maybe to 22) as Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow as reported in the table therefore is unnecessary to describe both cases. We have another similar case into the 2019 page season, in which Ferrari entered differently to the season entry list. They entered as Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow compared to Scuderia Ferrari as the table shows for some rounds. Island92 (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Island92: yeah, that's my bad - I misread the note. I thought it was Scuderia Ferrari [[Mission Winnow]]{{efn|name=Mission Winnow|[[Scuderia Ferrari|Ferrari]] entered rounds 1–6, 15, 17 as "Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow" and rounds 7–14, 16 as "Scuderia Ferrari".<ref name="entry lists"/>}} (bit I misread bolded for emphasis. SSSB (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
However, my confusion does highlight something - if I get confused it is equally likely that others will too, and therefore I still think it best to clarify. SSSB (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
What do we have to clarify exactly? Rounds show this information where the team has entered with a different name (7-14, 16). It is useless mentioning the others because the team as entered as the team name entrant in the season entry list. Island92 (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
The only exception is that the team has entered with a second different name (Scuderia Mission Winnow Ferrari) only for round 1. This is also reported because we are talking about a different name entrant compared to that of the season entry list (Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow). Island92 (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@Island92: it is worth clarifing because others may think what I thought - that we have neglected to mention rounds 2-6, 15 and 17 becuase "Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow" and "Scuderia Mission Winnow Ferrari" are very similar. If someone doesn't read very carefully they will make the same mistake I made - and highlighted above. SSSB (talk) 10:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think so. Rounds 2-6, 15, 17 are not reported because there is not a difference to the team name entrant. The reader must know it. As I said previously, Note was added to demonstrate where the team has entered with a different name. This is the only good reason. We did it in 2019. And this occurred for rounds 7-14, 15. Entry list for every Grand Prix is included. The reader can click on them. Island92 (talk) 10:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@Island92: I know why rounds 2-6, 15 and 17 are not reported and I agree with the premise. I am just saying that you have to read very carefully and slowly to notice the difference between "Scuderia Mission Winnow Ferrari" and "Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow" and therefore readers may miss the distinction and therefore readers may be confused by the missing rounds 2-6, 15 and 17. I therefore think a different approach is necessary for the 2021 table. SSSB (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any difficulty reading carefully. Readers can do it easily as well. I'd like @Tvx1: to give his opinion. He made some edit in previous season about this aspect. Island92 (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
(EC) I agree with SSSB here. There is a benefit here in being clear (even if it is obvious to you, it won't be to everyone as the names are very similar) and no harm whatsoever in including a bit more detail. A7V2 (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@Island92 and A7V2: with your permission I would like to close the discussion here and migrate it to Talk:2021 Formula One World Championship (WP:CENTRAL) rather than ping individual editors here (which looks like Wikipedia:Canvassing, I'm sure its not - but without digging, it looks like it) SSSB (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Ok. Island92 (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
No issues with me, I only came here due to the edit summary! A7V2 (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@A7V2: your last edit summary came to and WP:3RR to me. I don't see anything wrong. That Note information had been left that way for such a long time, until yesterday. If you want to have it changed as well as make a change discuss it in talk page and get consensus. SSSB suggested it and let's wait and see different opininions. Island92 (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2021 (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.

Changing titles of cited works

I think removing the space from "Alpha Tauri" in the title of an article that uses that style is fundamentally misleading. It gives the impression that the Red Bull-corporate approved stylisation is the one true way to write the name of the team rather than simply a possible way to write it. Over matters of style like this I find the changing of quoted text concerning, as it may give editors discussing how to handle stylised spellings the false impression that all sources are using that stylisation when in fact they are not. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Going further, I disagree strongly with the notion that "Alpha Tauri" is an incorrect spelling. A simple Google search shows that many sources (ie. BBC, France 24 ESPN, Motor1) don't copy the team's stylised logo and follow their own style guide instead. I personally think it's irresponsible to assume that all of these sources are just making typographical errors. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@HumanBodyPiloter5: spacing is not stylistation - it is part of spelling. Having a space is as wrong as writting AlfaTauri (Alfa instead of Alpha) SSSB (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

?

Is "Unexplained changes" a new valid reason to revert good faith edits or you just can't help abusing automated tools? --2603:301D:22B2:4000:1487:176F:89EC:3A9 (talk) 05:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

It is a valid reason, it has always been a valid reason, it's used as a summary for revertion all the time for edits where it is hard to determine the reason for the edit and/or it is hard to tell if they are constructive or not. You changed "2020" to "{{Currentyear}}" despite 2020 not being the current year, despite the 2021 (current year) report not being ready for publication, without an explanation of why. It was either going to be reverted as "unexplained", "test", "unconstructive", or "vandalism". It certainly didn't look useful, but on the off chance it was, I choose to assume good faith and went for "unexplained". SSSB (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

2022 Indianapolis 500 at AfD

Hello, I am sending notices to everyone who participated in the previous AfD that the article 2022 Indianapolis 500 has again been put up for AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Indianapolis 500 (2nd nomination). Have a lovely day. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

blocked address

This blocked person is vandalising Breast tax.[1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoachEzhupunna (talkcontribs) 13:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

Reversion of good-faith BLP objections and edits with no reason given

Please provide a source that demonstrates an unequivocal support among a left-right divide as stated, and further that the dichotomy of opinions are celebration vs. decrying a miscarriage of justice. In the article itself, which is probably biased synthesis, it doesn't even go that far. It actually provides evidence of contrary opinions. 67.174.115.222 (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You've completely mis-represented the reasoning of my edit. I partially reverted your change because your edit summary was partially misleading. You claimed it was a BLP violation (which it was in part, but not the whole), so I reverted the part which wasn't a BLP violation as you effectively gave no summary for changing that part. SSSB (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

F1 race article leads

When pointing out in the lead the cars driven by the podium finishers, why should the links be to the teams and not to the actual cars?

For instance, the 2000 Belgian Grand Prix, won by Mika Häkkinen in a McLaren-Mercedes with Michael Schumacher second in a Ferrari and Ralf Schumacher third in a Williams-BMW: why should the links be to McLaren, Scuderia Ferrari and Williams Grand Prix Engineering, and not to McLaren MP4/15, Ferrari F1-2000 and Williams FW22?

Is it *really* the case that most readers expect to be taken to the articles for the teams, rather than the cars, when they click on the links? 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:B437:AD65:8037:767E (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Is it *really* the case that most readers expect to be taken to the articles for the teams, rather than the cars, when they click on the links? - yes. The text by itself implies we are linking to Mclaren, Ferrari and Williams (because those are the physical words you wikilinked). When you consider the context of text (i.e. A Formula One race report). It makes sense for the links to go to the pages detailing the F1 part of those organistations (e.g. Ferrari and Mclaren) or the relevant page that deals with the F1 team, and someother article with the same name (e.g. Williams). However there is nothing to imply that the link will take them to the make of car.

The trick is to think: "when I read this text, what comes to mind?" When you read the headline "Hamilton leads Mercedes 1-2", what comes to mind is Mercedes the team, not the specific car, the same applies to wikilinks on Wikipedia. SSSB (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

removed A TrainBerean HunterEpbr123GermanJoeSanchomMysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration



Max Verstappen

Just a note to say that it really made me smile that you went back and corrected the syntax of your comment despite it being over a year old! Glad I'm not the only one who does that sort of thing... 😀 Pyrope 14:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Content

If you haven't noticed, I've just removed some content from the Ezhava article that seemed not much encyclopedic. Let me know your observations regarding the same. Thanks R.COutlander07@talk 17:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Outlander07: yeah, I'd noticed. You are right, it does seem a little WP:UNDUE without any indication of how many people hold this belief. It also stands on shaky ground. I simply added it because I didn't see any major problems with it, but I didn't scruntinse it as much as I should... SSSB (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Ezhava

Malayalee0121 is sock of Adithya kiran chekavar — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoachEzhupunna (talkcontribs) 13:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@CoachEzhupunna: you can't just assert that without any evidence. If you do have evidence, you have to bring it up at WP:SPI, who look into it further. SSSB (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&diff=prev&oldid=1059394730 . Malaylee's edit request in ezhava CoachEzhupunna (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@CoachEzhupunna: Ok, you have some evidence. But I can't do anything about it. You need to open an investigation at WP:SPI, please follow the instructions there. I'm not going to treat him like a sock until an WP:SPI investigation concludes he is a sock. SSSB (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Top 25

You already left something in this week's draft regarding F1, anything else you can add? (and of course, feel free to claim entries in the annual report) igordebraga 00:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: I joined wiki to write about F1, I could go all day! I have claimed some entries in the annual report, but I work in retail, so I doubt I'll be able to get to it till the week between Christmas and New Years. SSSB (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I thought you'd write about the other subjects too,but no problem considering your busy week (and sorry for not noticing you hadn't added the picture) - went to two crowded malls yesterday, are the holidays exhaustive. igordebraga 22:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Extra hours, extra customers. Normally I would write about other subjects too... SSSB (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 22

Merry Christmas

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

Hello SSSB, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022.
Happy editing,

JOEBRO64 03:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: Thanks! A belated Merry Christmas to you as well!🎅 SSSB (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive:
  • On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.

Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages.

--Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Is Mario Andretti Italian-American?

Several sources refer to him as Italian-American. --62.165.235.165 (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the status of Andretti's nationality. The place to discuss this is Talk:Mario Andretti, not here. SSSB (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

Your GA nomination of 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kpddg -- Kpddg (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix

The article 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 3 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2011 Bahrain Grand Prix for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kpddg -- Kpddg (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Circuit of the Americas

Hi, I want to know why would the previous edit removed, the IndyCar Classic or the AutoNation INDYCAR Challenge will not be happening soon. So, it cannot be the home to the INDYCAR Classic as it has been removed on the INDYCAR Calendar as of now. It's been confirmed by INDYCAR. On the other hand, it should be the home to Texas Grand Prix as well, with the Motorcycle Grand Prix of the Americas and United States Grand Prix and also the Americas Rallycross Championship ARX of Austin, folded in 2019. It doesn't even existed and it's still listed as home of that event. I don't know why this is considered vandalism as I'm just updating the information to be current. Rodrigo1198 (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Rodrigo1198 (talk) 19:26, 06 January 2022 (UTC)

That was my mistake, where I reverted too many revision by accident. It's been resloved, sorry about that. SSSB (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix

The article 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2011 Bahrain Grand Prix for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kpddg -- Kpddg (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, let's talk!

Hey buddy. I'm kind of new to the whole Wikipedia editing thing and I have noticed that you have corrected my date formatting based on the MOS. Pleasure to meet you. Would be good if we can team up and clean up some F1 related content; I'm sure there is a ton we could do. Sounds good?
N33dforsp33d.f1 (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, @N33dforsp33d.f1: great to meet you to. I see that you have already been welcomed to Wikipedia, but I can still welcome you to WikiProject Formula One, welcome to the team. There is certainly a lot to do, and I hope to see you around. SSSB (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That's great, I look forward to contributing to the Formula One WikiProject. N33dforsp33d.f1 (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Alex/Alexander Albon

This source, so far the most recent, shows Alex Albon. What we should do?--Island92 (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Island92: I've made my feelings very clear. We should follow the common name (the article name) in all cases (except quotes). We definitely shouldn't mix and match between the two or yo-yo depending on what the most recent source says. As I said in my summary, official documents will use his official name (Alexander) most other sources use Alex, making it the common name, and the name I think we should use consistently. SSSB (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Ok, don't worry mate. Shall I put everywhere Alex Albon then? Island92 (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@Island92: At the very least, I would insist on sticking to one variation within an article. Having one variation across two different articles (like 2019 Formula One World Championship and 2022 Formula One World Championship) is less of a concern, and not one I would bother actively correcting, just change it when you come across it. It would be particularly annoying for you if you changed them all, and someone else reverted it back. SSSB (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I will be updating tables, templates and standings, not for 2019 year. Is that a problem for you? Island92 (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, just changed my mind, which means I'd rather leave Alexander Albon in those articles I edited today. That's fine. Island92 (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Open date ranges

I mangled the edit summary when reverting your revert. I meant to link to MOS:TOPRESENT. Unfortunately you can't preview edit summaries on mobile :( Hairy Dude (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


PM list

[2]

Your statement is wrong. When I view this page in Chrome, "Charles Watson-Wentworth, 2nd Marquess of Rockingham" is all spread out on a single line. The coding I used is already used on seventeen other lines on the table: why should this one be different? 122.150.71.249 (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not wrong. The problem is with your browser - because on my phone it looks fine, on my laptop (which isn't big) it looks fine. SSSB (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't.

Don't comment on my talk page. Mind your own business, please.  F1V8V10V6!  10:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll defend whom ever I want, thank you. SSSB (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Max Verstappen

Hi. Two things: 1. the picture at the subject “RAW SPEEDVerstappen negotiates the first corner of the Hungaroring in his RB15 F1 car during the qualifying session at the 2019 Hungarian Grand Prix”: that’s not Verstappen but Pierre Gasly. You can See it by the yellow T-cam and if you look careful, you see Gasly number on it.

2. At his karting results: i dont remember he raced in the GERMAN CHAMPIONSHIPS wherry he finished 81st..

Greetings 2A00:BBA0:1100:F700:750E:1A94:2B68:12A2 (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The image has been changed. The karting result is cited (indirectly, this needs to be improved) to [3]. Hope this clears things up. SSSB (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Verstappen

Could you explain what you mean by ″this isn't the current date, this is the date that it last checked...″? I'm not sure you realize, but not everyone is tenured with using these templates and I'm only going off of what seems to be common sense here. Your vague frankly borderline passive aggressive edit summaries aren't really telling me anything. Also, when was it decided the article should use British English? --TylerBurden (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: firstly, sorry if I come across as passive-agressive. Firstly, it was never actively decided that British English would be used. In cases where there is no national ties to a variety of English (like here) the convention to retain the variety of English in use (British, in this case). As for the date used in the template - it is an as of date. i.e. "as of January 2022, all of this article's text conformed to British English." Changing this to February 2022 implies that all the prose was confirmed to be in British English at some point in February, this isn't (as far as I'm aware) the case with Max Verstappen. Hope this clears it up. SSSB (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense, thanks for explaining and sorry for the misunderstanding on my part. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Alfa Special

Hi SSSB. I notice that Draft:Alfa Special has been deleted. Do you think I should get it WP:REFUNDed? Also, I notice that in Peter de Klerk's results tables, the car is identified as "Alfa Special Special". Do you think it should just be "Alfa Special"? DH85868993 (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@DH85868993: I've no idea on both counts. The only thing I know on the subject is that someone changed the links [[Peter de Klerk|Alfa Special]] to [[Draft:Alfa Special|Alfa Special]] after that was reverted (by someone else), I created the redirect and had everything go through the redirect in preperation for the draft's publication (In fact I know so little that I confused Peter de Klerk with F. W. de Klerk at first)

Looking at de Klerk's article I would guess that the constructor was "Alfa Special" and the make was "Special" (like the constructor is "Williams" and the make is "FW43" to give "Williams FW43" in Nicholas Latifi's results tables).

As for a potential refund, I've no idea at the state of the draft. However, if the draft had any sourced content at all I would suggest (at the very least) merging it with Peter de Klerk, which currently makes no mention of Alfa Special, other than to say he drove thier cars. It makes Alfa Special an "WP:EGG redirect", WP:R#D10 would also reasonably apply (if you want to delete on those grounds just tell me and I'll request WP:CSD#G7 and save us all some time). SSSB (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

Pre F1 Grand Prix

On the List of Formula One Grands Prix page, I tried to create a link at the bottom of the page to show pre f1 grand prix's. You revereted my edit and suggested it wasn't relevant. How?. Granted grand prix racing prior to the 50's wasn't f1, but it is still very much relevant enough to at least put a link at the bottom of the page. Giving viewers access to the full history of grand prix racing (pre and post the creation of f1) is very much relevant. Xc4TNS (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not relevant at all. It is completely outside of the scope of the article (which if Formula One Grand Prix). SSSB (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


The Signpost: 24 April 2022

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration


Thank you

For the clarification on the "demented dictator" mention on the Top 25 Report. I removed the demented line from the March 2020 one too, per WP:BLP. --92.22.212.168 (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Red Bull Racing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Webber.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives.
Click here to opt out of any future messages.

(t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

Editing newsletter 2022 – #1

Read this in another languageSubscription list for the multilingual newsletterLocal subscription list

New editors were more successful with this new tool.

The New topic tool helps editors create new ==Sections== on discussion pages. New editors are more successful with this new tool. You can read the report. Soon, the Editing team will offer this to all editors at most WMF-hosted wikis. You can join the discussion about this tool for the English Wikipedia is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Enabling the New Topic Tool by default. You will be able to turn it off in the tool or at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

The Editing team plans to change the appearance of talk pages. These are separate from the changes made by the mw:Desktop improvements project and will appear in both Vector 2010 and Vector 2022. The goal is to add some information and make discussions look visibly different from encyclopedia articles. You can see some ideas at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project#Prototype Ready for Feedback.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

23:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
  • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2016 Malaysian Grand Prix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hi SSSB,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, (t · c) buidhe 17:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

Edit Request Tool changes

Hello, I just made some significant changes to User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool. Since you have the tool active, I am informing you of this since it may affect you. To open the tool you will now have to click the "respond" button. The tool will load a similar interface as before. There is now a live preview of the response. These changes might have introduced some bugs so if you have any concerns / suggestions or run into problems please leave a note at User talk:Terasail/Edit Request Tool Thanks, Terasail[✉️] 15:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Australia '97

Just to say, I am in no way condoning the IP's abhorrent edit summary, which, if it were reported, would be struck out. I do not wish to be seen as "on his side" in any way. I'm just saying what I think about the article itself. Unfortunately, my views coincide with the IP's. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I never thought any different... SSSB (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit request on Ezhava page

Hi, can you please add the edit request in Ezhava page on Thiyyar Regiment?


edit request link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ezhava 2606:69C0:5120:310D:E9AB:729F:EF09:84FF (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.

Revisions to 2022 Hungarian Grand Prix

Whilst I appreciate your suggestions for revision for the 2022 Hungarian Grand Prix article I have decided to revert it to a previous version as I think your edited lacked detail.--MKL123 (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@MKL123: no worries. You also thanked me for the edit, that's why I was confused. Can you please clarify specifically which parts you thought lacked detail? SSSB (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I thanked you out of politness . I think the statistical stuff particualrly the fact it was Mercedes first pole since the 2021 Saudia Arabian Grand Prix is quite signifcant for a team that was previously so dominant. MKL123 (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
@MKL123: I am willing to make the following compromises with regards to the content I removed from the edit in question (Special:Diff/1101492863)
  • "first pole for Mercedes since the 2021 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix" can be changed to "first Mercedes pole of the season". The problem with your wording is that generally speaking, this is not a long period of time, but using the words "fisrt" and "since" impy it was. Whilst it is true that this is a relatively long time given their recent dominance, there is no context within 2022 Hungarian Grand Prix for the reader to know this, and adding that context would be WP:UNDUE. I also think the same standards should be applied regardless of the time, for this exact reasoning: context. What the proposed wording does ("First Mercedes pole of 2022") is still make it clear that Mercedes have scored many poles in 2022, without having to supply the context to justify the implication that 2021 Saudi Arabian GP-2022 Hungarian GP is a long time to fo without a pole.
  • I am also willing to reinstate that Russell had previously qualified second twice, but without specifing the events this was achieved, as I fell this is undue level of detail.
Please let me know what you think of this, and if there are any other parts that "lack detail". SSSB (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • CapitalistroadsterSamsara

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.

Editing news 2022 #2

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Graph showing 90-minute response time without the new tool and 39-minute response time with the tool
The [subscribe] button shortens response times.

The new [subscribe] button notifies people when someone replies to their comments. It helps newcomers get answers to their questions. People reply sooner. You can read the report. The Editing team is turning this tool on for everyone. You will be able to turn it off in your preferences.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.

Happy Birthday!

Wishing SSSB a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee!   Chris Troutman (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022