User talk:2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:84AA:25AF:B30A:6B79

F1 tables
Adding colour to these tables is going to require a consensus. One editor has already voiced his concern to you about it in edit summaries, so that's two editors now who have issues with it. I also have issues with removing DNQ from the tables and adding an otherwise completely superfluous note. Please take it to the WPF1 talk page. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I'm sorry to say, User:Bretonbanquet, but it's instantly clear that you are not much better than User:Falcadore.
 * So *all* of my changes are wrong - even the changes I've made in places other than the qualifying tables? And especially the change I made regarding Morbidelli at the 1994 Brazilian Grand Prix?
 * And before I even get the chance to offer a compromise, as I was going to do by un-colouring the rows of the non-qualifiers (and I may as well tell you now, I got the idea for that from the pre-qualifying and qualifying tables for the 1989 French Grand Prix), you proverbially smother me down, including expressing more annoyance than you really need to here on this talk page?
 * Let me tell you, consider yourself fortunate that I don't use words like the 'F', 'S' and 'C' words. In the heat of the moment, I may forget that people can be colour blind, but I still remember that using those appalling words is unnecessary and can worsen situations.
 * Guess I'll be excusing myself from Wikipedia again. I'd hate to develop a holier-than-thou attitude (intentionally or not) and upset other users (registered or anonymous) by shamelessly displaying this attitude. I'd like to think Jimmy Wales didn't want to see a great deal of that when he set Wikipedia up, and still doesn't. 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:84AA:25AF:B30A:6B79 (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In your first sentence, you made an ad hominem attack on two editors: myself and Falcadore, who, in my many years' experience of him, is an excellent editor.
 * I didn't revert everything you did, in fact I went to some effort to retain nearly all of it apart from the changes to the qualifying tables that you made. I'll have a look at the Morbidelli point you raise. I expressed very little annoyance in my above message. I merely asked you to do what you're supposed to do when making serial changes to articles, changes that have already attracted opposition from one editor, and that's to seek a consensus on the project talk page.
 * As for your little warning there, maybe you should consider yourself fortunate that you didn't do that, as you would have been blocked by now. It certainly would not have had any other effect on me. I don't see anyone else swearing at you, so why bring it up?
 * If this is your response when other editors object to your work, then perhaps Wikipedia isn't the place for you just now, and your proposed break from editing is a good idea. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The Morbidelli edit you mention, an almost completely superfluous grammar change, I had already restored before opening this conversation. It might be worth checking before protesting about something. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I'm sorry to say, User:Bretonbanquet, but this latest response of yours just confirms that you have *really* let power get to your head - just as User:Falcadore has.
 * So you think he's an excellent editor? Maybe he is, but letting power get to your head definitely *isn't* an excellent thing. We don't need *more* power-corrupted people in the world when we already have that buffoon in 10 Downing Street, that businessman US president, and Bolsonaro in Brazil.
 * Nor is it excellent to make a token effort to restore some of my non-qualifying-related changes, *and* to describe my change regarding Morbidelli at the 1994 Brazilian Grand Prix as "superfluous".
 * I was User:ChupoKlasky1991, I was tempted back as an anonymous editor, and now I'm wondering why I even bothered. I have *never* liked people who let power get to their head, develop a holier-than-thou attitude which they're not ashamed of demonstrating, and come across as false when trying to act nice. Both on the Internet *and* in real life.
 * And it's clear that not only are there many such people here on Wikipedia, but also they hold a *lot* of sway. Rather like the aforementioned prime minister and US and Brazilian presidents, and those with diplomatic immunity. And if these people think highly of each other, then it almost comes across as some sort of clique.
 * Wikipedia needs to be policed, there's absolutely no question about that. But does it need to be policed by power-corrupted people with holier-than-thou attitudes, who tend to be friendly with each other but not so friendly with less prolific users (registered or anonymous) who make just one or two mistakes? I don't think it does, and I'd like to think Jimmy Wales wouldn't have wanted it either when he set Wikipedia up all those years ago.
 * I guess it's the Encyclopedia Britannica for me from now on. I may not be able to edit that, but there's certainly no worries about encountering people who have let power get to their head (except in articles about them), and it's arguably more reliable too.
 * User:ChupoKlasky1991, aka 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:84AA:25AF:B30A:6B79 (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think the point at which I am compared to Johnson and Bolsonaro is the point at which I must bow out of this utterly bizarre conversation. I am not an admin; I hold no power here, so your rant is misplaced. I have not restored your other edits – I never removed them in the first place. The exception being your restored Morbidelli edit, which is utterly superfluous. You replaced good grammar with different, equally good grammar. So there was no point to it. If you consider people who use policy and guidelines to revert you to be a clique of power-crazed zealots, I am amazed you lasted more than a week here without getting blocked. I hope you enjoy the Britannica. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you wish to achieve by pink highlighting DNQers? Why do it? What is gained?
 * I just want to know the importance for this amount of arguement and name-calling. --Falcadore (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Separate IPs
I see you are edit-warring with me using a different IP now, I suggest you stop. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

AN/I
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. (here) Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)