User talk:Pyrope/Archive 2015

Fernando Alonso
Can we find a positive solution on this matter? Now it certainly is not time-sensitive anymore in my opinion. I do not want to engage in an editing war, since it is not a civil thing to do, but both facts carry relevance to the article, since Spain is a large country in motorsports and he is the only race winner, and 6th in the all-time list is pretty notable as well, I think all positions inside the top ten are.Lommaren (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, firstly I certainly don't intend on any sort of "edit war". As you'll notice, the first reversion to your edits that I made was on content, the second on syntax. Two different edits for linked but different reasons. The linking aspect is that you seem to be misunderstanding what I mean by "time sensitive" and how ignoring this factor makes problems and causes Wikipedia to become less reliable with time. I've been around Wikipdeia for a while now and I have seen these problems crop up fairly often.
 * First, using the formulation "currently..." means that things become inaccurate very quickly. That's precisely why when was invented. Go read the template documentation associated with that and you'll get some idea of why "as of XXXX" is poor editing style and why "currently..." is worse. Editors come, editors go, editors change priorities over time, and all sorts of variations on that theme. Even if you are currently absolutely positively certain that you are going to be the one to be checking up on that page every day and will alter the relevant statements as soon as they become stale, you probably won't. Bearing that in mind, by insisting on a present tense formulation for any data that is of only limited significance you are setting up that page for almost certain inaccuracies at some point.
 * The significance of a statement directly affects how robust it will be if entered using a present tense or even an "as of..." form. Those statements that are very significant will be monitored much more closely than those that are only of marginal significance. When another driver breaks or amends a headline record (the first..., the only..., the most..., etc.) then normally an editor will amend the new record holder's page and will automatically think to amend the former holder's page also. They will not usually then think to check out the page for the former second place person, less likely again to check out the third person, less again for the fourth, and so on. Sixth comes quite a long way down that list and so is almost entirely unlikely to occur to an editor when they updating the holder of the "most (whatever) in the history of (thingumy)".
 * The final point is how this specificity related to Alonso. Being the only Spanish driver to have won in F1 is a pretty significant statement for a Spanish F1 driver. Notice that I didn't change that statement on Alonso's page at any time. His total number of F1 wins is also significant, but this is contained in his infobox so is perfectly visible without having to be specified in the lead text. Even non-regular F1 editors will know to quickly update the infobox after a race, but scanning the text to look for other inclusions of the fact is less likely, so why set the page up for failure? Finally, yes, I'm afraid that in the grand scheme of things, being the sixth placed driver in terms of total wins is only very low importance for a modern F1 driver, especially one that already has two World Championships. If you have the WDC twice then you will likely have won a fair few races. For example, although Alonso may have won enough to be in sixth place, there are two other drivers who are ahead of him still competing! Your impression of what is significant and mine are different, fair enough, but to make that a time sensitive statement in the lead really is planting the seed of inaccuracy.  Pyrop e  23:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Although a bit late at night here so I could not concentrate on reading it all I think you've got your point across fairly enough. I have seeked to ensure my initial edit is as little time-sensitive as possible. If the positioning of Vettel, Hamilton and Alonso change in the near future on the wins stats, we all have a responsibility in the F1 Wikipedia community to amend that. For example, if Vettel or Hamilton tie or pass Senna for 3rd during this season, which is a probability given they have already won races so far and we're in April then that should be updated. Alonso's sixth place is relevant in Formula One stats in my opinion, since the top 10 is noteworthy in terms of race wins. Individual wins and championships do not always go hand in hand, since Mansell won 31, but just a single title. Granted, modern era drivers are helped by the number of official Grands Prix and some might argue that Fangio's insane win percentage is more important. Wins are still more relevant than points in the modern era, since that system's accuracy got butchered with the 'MotoGP' points system - one that I for one think ruined the simplicity in many things and just messes it all up. Alonso's record in that seems far less relevant due to the changes in the points system and seems more like trivia to me than race wins, which is a quantifiable variable. However, I think the text as it is now certainly stands the Wikipedia guidelines for how it should look. I appreciate your feedback and I hope we can agree to keep it this way until he passes those guys in front or is passed for top six position - which evidently would take time since Räikkönen is not winning every other week (although he may win this season given Ferrari's resurgence) and Massa has not won in seven years, Rosberg has 24 to go, Ricciardo 29 et cetera. So I think his position is pretty safe for this time being, especially going upwards vs Hamilton and Vettel given that he has not won a race in two years and McLaren are a long way off. So logic also contains that at the moment.


 * With regards!


 * Lommaren (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that differences of opinion exist, and that is why when you reinserted the reference to his relative position in the list of all time winners I did not delete it again, no matter that I do still feel it to be relatively trivial and certainly not worthy of a mention in the article lead. As you say, changes in both season length and the points structure through the years make absolute numerical records fairly meaningless. Such debates abound in any and all discussions about relative merit in F1 so I don't propose to do so again here. However, you still fundamentally misunderstand how Wikipedia's editorial community works. Nobody has a "responsibility" to do anything. A Wikiproject is just a loosely organized collective of like-minded volunteer editors, all of whom are active on Wikipedia for recreational purposes only. None of us is paid, and none of us is accountable for our choice of which edits to make or not. Expecting that you will be around yourself (either on Wikipedia at all, or interested in F1 articles) when Alonso's record is inevitably amended in the future is foolhardy; I have seen too many cases of once-prolific editors disappearing entirely in fairly short spans of time to believe that. Demanding that other volunteer editors monitor your inconsiderate inclusion of inevitably inaccurate information is not particularly collegial. Wikipedia has already been around for a decade, and technology and society seem stable enough that it should be around for many more. Although there are no immediate challengers for Alonso's position at number 6 this season, who can tell what might happen in the future. Put Ricciardo in a competitive Red Bull and he may be past Alonso in just a few months. The form of words that you have used on the article remains time-sensitive as it is written using the present tense "is". Going back to the template documentation for when, the first example sums up the situation nicely: "...any reference to the present "now" will be incorrect or misleading in a year or two. In fact, since Wikipedia readers cannot easily determine when a particular statement was written, any use of the present is immediately unclear as to when exactly is meant." As very few people (possibly just you?) will be monitoring the statement you make in Alonso's article, the benefits of pointing out such a dubiously significant achievement do not seem to me to outweigh the very high likelihood that the statement will become misleading in time.  Pyrop e  18:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

PC reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The right to reply
Actually no,, you are mistaken. In this case TRM was wrong. Either through haste or lack of comprehension, he thought that "fucking up" was something to do with being told to "go fuck himself". However, there is no meaning of the noun "fuck up" or its verb conjugations that means what he thought it meant. I appreciate that my choice of phrasing wasn't optimum, but I'm afraid that the descent into open obscene abuse was based on his error, and if you read all of my comments thoroughly you will see that I did not abuse him in those terms even once. I appreciate that the two of you either appear to know each other or else have interacted here on many occasions, and its great to have friends, but charging into a disagreement on your friend's side without fully informing yourself of the circumstances lessens you.  Pyrop e  22:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Prost's McLaren livery
Well spotted! The differences are subtle but visible... I hate it when they change liveries. So confusing! Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Cooper T51 (& ors)
Hi, the spate of edits to this page and others are the photo-mad talk-page-article-starting IP editor who has been active over the last few weeks and has been the subject of discussion on the project talk-page. He's also been discussed between myself, Bretonbanquet, Zwerg Nase and one or two others as well as seeking admin help/advice. I have a list of over a dozen IPs he's been using, all from the same area and if he'd continued being disruptive this weekend (which has happened) it was thought we'd take it to ANI and see about a range block. Could be argued should have happened some while back... Regards, Eagleash (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure that will fly, better to ask for wider input on how to deal with someone like that rather than outright seek a block. The major problem is one of interaction. How do you start a productive and useful discussion with someone whose identity (and hence talk page) changes daily? There are, as has been pointed out, some instances where the editor has curbed some of their most egregious excesses after engagement. Pyrop  e  18:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well yes we discussed it with admin. a couple of weeks ago and it was felt we'd tread cautiously for a while as he'd entered into limited discussion. But even after that and we'd tidied up he (in some instances) just undid all the work others had done. I will discuss it again with the admin. I 'spoke' to & see what he suggests — he did mention a range block in our previous discussion, but as you say when the IP changes daily or even more often it's a difficult situation. But, I'm thinking something like it has quite possibly happened before & if so somebody might well know the best course of action. Eagleash (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. If you'd like my input at any point just let me know where the discussion is happening. Pyrop  e  19:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * All suggestions welcome. There have been discussions in multiple locations, which is not ideal. Think best to try to keep it on the project talk-page from now on. Eagleash (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The Cooper T51 page has just had some more attention from our old friend. I can't figure out exactly what he's done. If you get the chance may need looking at by someone more familiar with the page. thanks. Eagleash (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

phoenix street circuit
Ok, sorry did not know. But you explained, now I will know how to do it correctly.user:haken Arizona —Preceding undated comment added 09:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC) I changed all of the words and you still undo, you are out of line. I did not even use information from NYT that you accused me of copyrighting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talk • contribs) 09:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)   e

Caterham F1 and André Lotterer
The editor who added Lotterer to Caterham has reverted first your and then my removal of his addition to the noted drivers. Tried explaining in my last summary but to no avail. It seems obvious to me that Lotterer should not be included, but I do not know if there has been prior discussion of this sort of thing &/or any sort of agreement or consensus. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015 newsletter
– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 23:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)