User talk:McIarenfan17

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

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

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


 * @ &mdash; I think WP:ANI would have been the more appropriate place to report him. This feels less like vandalism and more like really aggressive editing. I've run into this guy before and he's well-intentioned but does not take people disagreeing with him terribly well. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , agreed that would better, I'll do it now, for the record he has accused me of being as well in one of his reverts. SSSB (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

✅ done. SSSB (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

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


 * @ &mdash; I think it is a form of censorship. That's what these editors are doing: removing the plot of the film to protect people who have not seen it from spoilers. WP:CENSOR is the reason why the red spoiler tags were removed years ago. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that's way too strong a term for this. The editor was claiming, by they way, that they removed it because it was unsourced. Pointing them to MOS:PLOT takes the politics out of that argument. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW my boy is playing some racing game where apparently he could get a McLaren F1. Foolishly he chose a Toyota 86... Drmies (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; in all honesty, given the way McLaren have been performing in the past few years, I don't blame your boy for picking the 86. Being a McLaren fan now is a bit like being a Chicago Cubs fan: equal parts glutton for punishment and deluded for thinking next year they will recapture their former glory, even though there is no earthly reason for thinking it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ha, thanks, I'll tell him that. Could well be that he's smarter than me after all. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

May 2019
Your recent editing history at 2020 Formula One World Championship shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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

Indentation
Just some advice on the use of indentation. At the WT:RALLY discussion you. That's not necessary. Doing that effectively means you're having a conversation with yourself. You only need to indent when you reply to someone else's comment. WP:THREAD contains the explanation. Regards, Tvx1 09:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Tvx1 11:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Mclarenfan17. You've been warned for edit warring per the result of the complaint. You may be blocked the next time you revert at 2019 Formula One World Championship unless you have previously obtained a talk page consensus in your favor on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
Your recent editing history at Tenet (film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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


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

Disambiguation link notification for August 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited No Time to Die (2020 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terence Young ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/No_Time_to_Die_%282020_film%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/No_Time_to_Die_%282020_film%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

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

Personal attacks
Please refrain from attacking other editors as you did to at WT:F1 as I know you know this sort of behaviour is counterproductive to Wikipedia as a whole and could lead to a ban. So stop attacking editors who disagree with and discuss the issue at hand. SSSB (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I accept that his edits are made in good faith, but for all his admissions that he is not the best at editing, he makes no attempt to improve. My comments my read like personal attacks, but they are really intended as bluntly-worded advice. Most editors who know they aren't the best learn from their mistakes. SQM does not. He hides behind his inexperience, using it as an excuse to avoid putting in the effort. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You also need to stop reverting content to how you think it should be when there is still an ongoing discussion like you did here. That is highly disprupitve behaviour. The whole point of talk page discussion is to that this doesn't have to happen. I know SQM did the same, but that doesn't mean you need to do it as well. SSSB (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


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


 * Dude I found out so much about you:

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

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

“Mclarenfan17 himself is very hard (childish) person to discuss something. Afaik, he has never (or rarely) had an intention to achieve a consensus, rather than talk and repeat his first opinion. Some discussions are just wasting everybody's time, when everybody has already expressed their opinion and one user singlehandedly is blocking a consensus (which he sometimes accuses of others). I'm not assuming bad faith, very happy for his enthusiasm. But sometimes feel he lacks empathy - not a person who is up for a teamwork (which Wikipedia is all about!). And worst of all, Mclarenfan17/Prisonermonkeys (or IP editor in between) is very eager to jump into editwarring, when things are not to his liking. Everybody can check the histories of 2019 World Rally Championship, 2018 World Rally Championship etc. But with Tvx1, I've never had any problems. I feel he is much more of a teamwork person. He takes more time to discuss, and often expresses things to McLarenfan17/Prisonermonkeys that I'm not able (my English vocabulary is just not that good). Anyway, this ban/block seems ridiculous proposal - just discuss and move on.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:C883:EA00:355F:35D4:D6F9:B0EE (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussions
Please check the talk pages of the articles before posting on talk pages of users. Sparkle1 (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no policy thst says this is required. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No there isn't. Its common sense and common courtesy. Its clear you have not checked the talk page or you would engage in the discussion I have started. Sparkle1 (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I already have, but given that you are a (relatively) new editor, a reminder of policies on your talk page would not go astray. There is no need for you to be defensive&mdash;we all want the same thing here, even if we go about it differently. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
In you recent post on WT:F1 are you starting a new discussion of advertising the current one. SSSB (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * both, sort of. I feel the discussion has outgrown the 2019 article and should be moved to the WikiProject. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Ring-a-ding, baby! ;-)

 * I hope you get my reference to Fallout: New Vegas, by the way; I'm not sure if you play videogames or have played this one. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Editing behavior
I have interacted with you like three times on this website and every time it has been a struggle. There are a multiple warnings on this very talk page regarding the way you edit pages. And just now you reverted one of my edits where I very clearly explained that it was being discussed on the Wikiproject page. If you continue to be disruptive in this manner I will not hesitate to report you to the admins. This is getting ridiculous. Lazer-kitty (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * you claim that I am "objectively confused", then revert an edit and cite an ongoing discussion about an infobox, not the entry table, where no consensus has been achieved. You're right, that is ridiculous. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, your comment sounds a lot like "start doing what I want, or I'll go to the admins". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Mclarenfan, you may also be interested in the discussion currently ongoing at WT:F1 at the end of the discussion where consensus was/wasnt achieved. SSSB (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019
Hello, Mclarenfan17, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I had to temporarily use an IP account. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making that clear. You should disclose that information on your user page if you are using the IP to edit the same pages, especially if you are restoring disputed edits with both accounts. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit summarises
Hi, can you please watch what you put in your edit summaries. Edit summaries such as the one you used on this edit to McLaren MCL35 are not helpful to the encyclopedia and could be interpreted as biting other editors. Thank you, SSSB (talk) 09:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe. But to be fair, there is a small group of editors who vehemently argued to keep the article, and have done nothing with it since. It was a stub full of repetitive and empty statements (what the hell is a "design concept"? It sounds a lot like Williams' "aggressive design philosophy", which was never defined but saw them slip down the grid), most of which I suspect were added to give the article the illusion of content and save it from deletion. It was a mess and it needed to be cleaned up. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on 2020 World Rally Championship; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Administrators' noticeboard
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

British spelling
How is the difference between "it will" or "it'll" a matter of British spelling? Debresser (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not British spelling but rather a contraction. The Manual of Style says we should avoid contractions, so I have reverted. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * that was my mistake. I was changing "installment" to "instalment" (which is British English), not realising that I was changing "it will" to "it'll" at the same time. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thanks for the explanation. Debresser (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We all make mistakes. No problem. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

MCL35 date
How on earth is the reveal date “not important”? 5225C (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * the car is due to be launched on 13 February. So answer me this: how would anything about the car's performance change if it launched on 12 February or 14 February? The simple answer is that it wouldn't change anything, so the date of the launch is not important. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops, that should be @. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Simple. The date is vital because that is the date it will be revealed to the public, which will also reveal all the fine details of the car not currently known. Details don't have to be performance-related to be notable. 5225C (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * nope. The details of the car might be important, but it doesn't matter when they are revealed&mdash;only that they are revealed. Take a look at just about any car article and you will see that we generally don't cover launch dates unless it is particularly notable, such as launching after the first test. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL states "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." I don't see any reason why the date shouldn't be included. As an article about a future entry, it makes sense to provide the date more details can be expected. If that's not included on other car pages, maybe it's time to change that. 5225C (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not news. It would be inappropriate to include the launch date as a way of saying "come back on this day to learn more".
 * ''If that's not included on other car pages, maybe it's time to change that.
 * No, it's really not. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please direct me to the specific part of that policy where it says you can't give dates of future developments (2020 would seem to directly contradict your use of that policy). For the time being, the date is notable. 5225C (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

This discussion should be at Talk:McLaren MCL35, I am going to copy-and-paste the existing discussion there to allow other editors to join in if they wish. Please do not respond here in light of this thanks. SSSB (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

and...
I just turned down a contract at McLaren. I gave it to a friend who's more into it than I am. 2 months, maybe up to a year. Guy (help!) 22:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I won't hold it against you. To be honest, as much as I enjoy motorsport, I'd hate living and working in that world. I really only picked this username because I needed a username. If I had my time over again, I'd probably pick something like Yeatsfan17. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Bad reverts
Not sure why are you making reverts like this one to reintroduce incorrect punctuation and spelling (e.g., see MOS:LQ and British spelling of "instalment"). Please be more careful when you are editing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 00:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Evidence lengths
The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 1000 words and 100 diffs. Your presentation is around 1500 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 14:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have removed the most-recent addition to the project page and have requested to go over the word limit. I do apologise for this&mdash;it's my first time dealing with Arbitration and misinterpreted the instructions; I did not realise that any rebuttal I posted was included within the 1000 word limit. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , no worries. To clarify, everything in your section on the evidence page is counted for the purposes of the word / diff limit. All best, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 01:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 2022 Formula One World Championship


A tag has been placed on 2022 Formula One World Championship requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Articles for deletion/2022 Formula One World Championship. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I just removed the deletion tag given that significant events related to the season have occured in the since that discussion. SSSB (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks&mdash;I have alreasy contested it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of 2022 Formula One World Championship for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2022 Formula One World Championship 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 Articles for deletion/2022 Formula One World Championship& 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. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration proposed decision posted
Hi Mclarenfan17, in the open Motorsports arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 05:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports closed
An arbitration case regarding Motorsports has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * and are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So, we're far too late in the process to present evidence. The case was closed, and the iban (which includes commenting on the other editor) was enacted. I would not recommend repeating this. SQL Query me!  00:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to present evidence. I'm trying to present what I think and how I feel about the situation and what things are going to look like going forward. Especially since Tvx1 has made it pretty clear that he intends to keep editing those articles. I think a show of good faith&mdash;either by doing a lot more or doing a lot less&mdash;would go a long way towards helping that. Like I said, even if it wasn't his intention to make me feel like I'm being hounded, he has nevertheless made me feel like I am. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Your interaction ban forbids you from commenting on Tvx1. And vice versa. Please don't make me enforce that ban with a block . SQL Query me! 01:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about that. I'm new to the ArbCom process, and so when the section above titled "Arbitration proposed decision posted" was added to my talk page, I misinterpreted what it meant. I thought it meant that there would be a window where affected parties could seek clarification, and to be honest, I was expecting something a little more grandiose in terms of the IBAN coming into effect.


 * I do have some questions about how the IBAN will be policed and enforced, though. They mostly relate to the size of one of the WikiProjects involved. What would be the appropriate venue to ask these questions? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries
After seeing this edit, I'd like to remind you to use edit summaries, especially when reverting other editors' edits. Debresser (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please use an edit summary when changing articles. Some of your edits do not immediately make sense to other editors. There may be good reason for them, but without an edit summary your reasoning can only be guesswork for the rest of us. Thank you.  Timothy Titus <i style="color: orange;">Talk To TT</i> 15:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)