User talk:SSSB/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8
This archive's most recent thread was archived 2 years, 8 months and 27 days ago. (Purge)

Thiyyar wikipedia

Please approval to Thiyyar cast wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandanavijayan (talk • contribs) 07:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Ezhava and Thiyya cast is separate castes Nandanavijayan (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nandanavijayan: I don't understand why you are posting this here.
SSSB (talk) 10:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Nandanavijayan, Kalari Poothara, Othayoth shankaran are all same person and are blocked. Could you please reinsert this image? It has academic value. 2409:4073:2192:F88B:298F:E98A:E90E:ECD8 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 Done
SSSB (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Photo on Ezhava

Hi SSB,

Ezhava is a progressive community in Kerala, who organized under spiritual leader Narayana Guru.

Present-day Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan , opposition kpcc president Mullappally Ramachandran and Indian ruling party bjp president K. Surendran and even Indian foreign minister V. Muraleedharan all are from Ezhava community in Kerala. These are just some examples.

The pic you added in the Ezhava page is a defaming pic, maybe some IP vandal pushed you to add the pic.

Instead, you can add this Ezhava/Thiyya girl pic : A Pretty Thiyyar Girl ,19th century British Photograph


The other one you added is defaming the whole community. As the position of a woman shows the community progress and history it would be best to add this historical British photograph.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.78.249 (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I have added the image, but I have not remove the other as I see no evidence that it is defaming.
If you have concerns with any of the content in the article please note that the correct venue to adress those concerns is Talk:Ezhava, not here. If you would like me to comment or you would like to inform me of the discussion you can attract my attention either by using {{u}} or {{ping}} at Talk:Ezhava. Thank you,
SSSB (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


Made concerns in ezhava talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.78.249 (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
You may use this pic too A Thiyyar Moopan Painting by one of the disciples of Raja Ravivarma— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.78.249 (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The description and title of this image is academically incorrect/imprecise. The caption in the image itself says "Tiyans". They are a sub-group of Ezhava (although Thiyyans claim they are separate). Could you please correct it to Thiyya / Thiyyan / Thiyyar? 157.44.175.1 (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

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 2021.
Happy editing,
Tvx1 14:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

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

@Tvx1: thank you very much. A belated Merry Christmas to you too! And a happy new year!
SSSB (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: Minor edits

Why the assumption that I haven't read it already? It should have been fairly obvious that my edit falls under "Formatting that does not change the meaning of the page" and therefore was indeed minor. Simply adding "Sir" in any capacity surely shouldn't be worth using an anti-vandal tool and trying to reprimand me over? I will address the revert on the talk page in due time, just remember that Hamilton is the first active driver to be knighted, so I believe it'll be worth discussing new precedents. :] GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@GhostOfDanGurney: Quoting from WP:MINOR#What ''not'' to mark as minor changes, you will see your edit falls under the second bullet point Adding content...into an article, so it wasn't a minor edit (it wasn't formatting).
SSSB (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
So I added three letters and space in order to format his name to include his title, in only the first instance. Seems minor to me. If you want to keep wikilawyering so you can look good and try to make me look bad in an edit summary, be my guest, because I'm over people like you who have no authority and act like they do. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Alpine F1 Team

Hello. I understand but "Previous name" is missleading. Eurohunter (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: agreed. Perhaps "Previous constructor" would work better?
SSSB (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be easier to use constructor name. Eurohunter (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding George Russell selfie

Hey man, there was nothing wrong with the Picture of George Russell that I uploaded to the wiki and I dont like the fact that you had it deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImNotHamza (talk • contribs) 15:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@ImNotHamza: the fact that it was deleted (I didn't delete it, only nominated it for deletion) proves that there was something wrong with it: it was a copyright violation. Please read the message I left for you at your commons talk page for more details.
SSSB (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Australia Grand Prix

SSSB, no sooner had I put that cn tag on the page, and found the same source you put in, I realised there could be a source in the body text, and there was!
Edit conflict when I reverted myself & tried to do some other edits. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Regards, 220 of ßorg 14:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

What does "not remotely leadworthy" mean?

This was the description of your revert of my F2 2019 season edit. My primary language is not English so I did not understand.--Joél be back (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Joél be back: the purpose of the lead is to summarise the most important facts of the rest of the article. Raghunathan being forced to miss a round, for whatever reason, simply doesn't fit in that defintion. Raghunathan missing a round is not an important detail about the championship and therefore doesn't warant a mention in the lead, that's what I mean by not ... leadworthy. I hope this is a helpful explanation of my edit summary?
SSSB (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Understood. In fact I think that ban of a driver is a highlight of a season, compared to footballers or hockey players, who very often serve suspensions. However, I am not an active enwiki user and thus will observe traditional consensus.--Joél be back (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Simon Roberts

Hi I’ve created a Wikipedia page for Williams Racing, Team Principle Simon Roberts. Is it ok if you quickly check it out. Sorry for any inconveniences. Ralphster7 (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ralphster7: it looks good to me.
SSSB (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Living presidents of the United States

Thank you for proposal.That's what I'm doing right now Gudi129 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 23 January 2021‎

@Gudi129: given you are happ with that photo you might want to say so in the poll you started on the talk page.
SSSB (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 20

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (January 2021).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 20th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Open tasks

  • As a reminder, the legacy javascript globals (like accessing wgPageName without first assigning it a value or using mw.config.get('wgPageName') instead) are deprecated. If your user scripts make use of the globals, please update them to use mw.config instead. Some global interface editors or local interface administrators may edit your user script to make these changes if you don't. See phab:T72470 for more.

Miscellaneous

  • For people interested in creating user scripts or gadgets using TypeScript, a types-mediawiki package (GitHub, NPM) is now available that provides type definitions for the MediaWiki JS interface and the API.
  • A GitHub organization has been created for hosting codebases of gadgets. Users who maintain gadgets using GitHub may choose to move their repos to this organization, to ensure continued maintenance by others even if the original maintainer becomes inactive.

Pending requests Pending requests

As always, if anyone else would like to contribute, including nominating a featured script, help is appreciated. Stay safe, and happy new year! --DannyS712 (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello SSSB, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve,
Happy editing,
NASCARfan0548 ↗ 17:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Noteworthy Sources

I made a recent edit to the Max Verstappen wiki page adding information about his personal relationships citing information acquired from the source of his own instagram account. Other F1 drivers wiki's contain personal relationship in their wiki's so why was the edit I made not accepted given it did come from the verified source of his own instagram . Despite all this you declared it as Verstappen is a public figure and therefore his relationship information is I believe in the public interest. How can this not be noteworthy?--Brozovera (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Brozovera: Verstappen's two month relationship is a perfect example of the fourth bullet point of WP:NOTNEWS. We can mention personal relationships if the relationship is significant (they are married, have had children etc.) However, listing every relationship people havr is not encyclopedic, nor is listing their current relationship for no reason other than it being current.
SSSB (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Prost-Senna rivalry edit

Thank you for your edits! I could recognize the bias but didn't know enough about the subject to improve the text. The article is definitely better now. Cheers! --Baumi (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

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

Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Mazepin controversy category

Earlier in December you reverted my edit that added Category:Formula One controversies to Mazepin's page since it isn't F1 related. Would Category:Auto racing controversies suit better then? FMecha (to talk|to see log) 15:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@FMecha: not in my opinion. The contraversy surronding Mazepin is about his him, not motorsport, nor Formula 1, nor even sport. If he were a basketball player the situation would be exactly the same, just with certain sport specific terms (team names etc.) swapped out. If he were a news presenter, the contraversy would be exaclty the same, just with Haas being swapped out for whom ever he presents for.
SSSB (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

ezhava pic headline

hi ssb, thanks that you understood the thing and added the pic. the caption you added is 'A Thiyya man in British service'. but the original image caption is : Young Thiyyar gentleman in British service holding title of Amsham Adhikari,Rao Bahadur and Menon in south Malabar, late 18th century

This is important to history, as being untouchables and in low strata in hindu caste system thiyyar holded very high positions in British service, which can be cited as one prime reason for the social upliftment of this community.

kindly add the original caption of the image as such Young Thiyyar gentleman in British service holding title of Amsham Adhikari,Rao Bahadur and Menon in south Malabar, late 18th century in ezhava article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.247.201.31 (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I've done an edit to a similar effect. For future reference, please note that the correct venue for such a request would be Talk:Ezhava. It is on my watch list, so I will be aware of it.
SSSB (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ezhava, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Menon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Edits reverted

I added a "citation needed" tag to Lewis Hamilton's article and it's been reverted by you. Please can you tell me why it's been reverted because I think those paragraphs clearly needed citations. Thank you Robert Jamal …talk to me💬 17:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Robertjama12: I removed the request for citations because of what it says in WP:CITELEAD, namely the second paragraph. I simple don't see anything in the lead that is sufficiently controversial to require an inline citation. If you disagree, please feel free to start a discussion on Talk:Lewis Hamilton.
SSSB (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

"Excessive images"

I added some pictures to the 2013 Singapore Grand Prix which I took in 2013, but you deleted most of them due to "excessive images". Can you explain why? I thought images would be good for articles. How many images are too many? Anywhere where I can read a Wiki policy for images? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin Goetzinger (talk • contribs) 10:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Benjamin Goetzinger,
I should start by clarifying that "excessive images" is simply my opinion, I should have made that clear in my summaries, that's on me, my apologies. If you would like to challenge that opinion (but let's try to compromise here first) feel free to challenge it at Talk:2013 Singapore Grand Prix.
Secondly, the policies are outlined at Wikipedia:Image use policy and the subsection of interest is adding images to articles (thought I'd link this here in case you want to puruse).
The images of the light show and Vettel on screen in my opinion do not satitfy the first criteria of Wikipedia:Image use policy#Adding images to articles, namely I don't see how they increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter.
The five images (of which I retained two) were images of cars driving past where you were sitting (great view). I felt that these were a lot like a Wikipedia:Gallery (again, opinion), which is not what Wikipedia is for. I suppose that one compromise could be if those images were spread more evenly around the page, which would neglect the gallery issue?
SSSB (talk) 10:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi SSB, thanks for the clarification and the links, I read through them and agree with you that the many images do not meet the first criteria of Wikipedia:Image use policy#Adding images to articles. So I'm fine with your edit, and even if they are spread more evenly that still is against the first criteria. ;-) Best regards, Benjamin Goetzinger (talk) 11:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

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

Administrator changes

removed Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
  • Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

  • When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
  • Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Chassis constructors

Why is the name "List of Formula One chassis constructors" not uncontroversial? Constructors are clearly comprised of chassis and engine, therefore "List of Formula One constructors" does not unambiguously define the topic of the article. Carfan568 (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see my comment on your talk page and reply there if necessary.
SSSB (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Brazilian Grand Prix

"SSSB moved page São Paulo Grand Prix to Brazilian Grand Prix over redirect: Rvt undiscussed move which contradicts WP:COMMONNAME"

then you modified lead: "The São Paulo Grand Prix, previously known as the Brazilian Grand Prix"

Something is wrong here. If GP is "known as" "São Paulo Grand Prix" then what is the point of reverting name change? Eurohunter (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: Current name and commonname are not the same thing. The commonname of the event (as far as I can tell) is still the "Brazilian Grand Prix" even if the event is now called the "São Paulo Grand Prix".
SSSB (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
But how do you determine "commonname"? Source? Eurohunter (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I determined the commonname by googling. It may well have changed since then but back then google suggested that the commonname of the Sao Paulo/Brazilian Grand Prix was "Brazilian" (assuming they are considered the same event, which I am not convinced of). In the event that this has changed, or you disagree, fell free to start a RM.
SSSB (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I understand but maybe I'm just too demanding and would like references for everything (maybe too much). Eurohunter (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:2021 Portuguese Grand Prix

It can be delected. We already have the right page 2021 Portuguese Grand Prix.--Island92 (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. But I don't have the power to delete pages.
SSSB (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Ok. How can I add a template warning which explains that the page can be delected?--Island92 (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
You want to use {{db}} and then add a custom rationale
SSSB (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I reckon I did right. Now the article is expected to be called off by an admin.--Island92 (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Top 25

First of all, thanks for your contributions last week. If you want to add anything to this week's report, which already has some of your old comments as placeholders, feel free to do so. igordebraga ≠ 20:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: I'm taking a semi-wikibreak to focus on exams, but after that I'll be taking you up on that offer.
SSSB (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for 2021 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix

On 6 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2021 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after their roughly 320 km/h (200 mph) crash at the 2021 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix, George Russell slapped Valtteri Bottas on his crash helmet while Bottas showed Russell his middle finger? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2021 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2021 Emilia Romagna 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, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

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

Administrator changes

removed Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

removed Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 Spanish Grand Prix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Oprah with Meghan and Harry

Your edit summary was so long that it breached the 500-character limit. Please provide the full wording so that I understand what you are complaining about. 95.148.229.85 (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I've continued the message on Talk:Oprah with Meghan and Harry, I expect to continue this discussion here.
SSSB (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Your last edit to the talk page was on 23 March. If you can't explain to me why you keep reverting I will have to revert again. 95.148.229.85 (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have said, "I am continuing", it is there now.
SSSB (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:F1 Drivers Standings

Hi SSSB. I notice that {{F1R2021}} is not being used in {{F1 Drivers Standings}} (but it is being used in {{F1 Constructors Standings}}); do you know if there is a reason for this? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@DH85868993: when it was used in both, 2021 Formula One World Championship exceeded its transclusion limit. There was a discussion, if you are interested, which is archived at Talk:2021 Formula One World Championship/Archive 2#Transclusion limits reached?
SSSB (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes, I remember that now. Thanks for reminding me. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Shwartzman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prema.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

F1stats

Hello. I've been a little fearful of editing the F1stats template because of its use on many highly visited pages. The edits I noticed today at Lando's page spurred me to give it a try and help out.

Did I do it correctly?

Also on a more light-hearted note, I just realized I think it was your user page that I sort of copied to my own a while back. I just wanted something, anything really, to put on my page. An infobox seemed appropriate and I guess I just happened to be on a page connected with you somehow. I didn't really choose yours for any particular reason other than that:) --DB1729 (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@DB1729: I haven't checked throughly, but at a quick glance it seems alright. I wouldn't worry about making mistakes, I do so all the time and it will be checked by other editors, all be it at a later date (on Thursday i took about 50 entries off Williams total at {{F1cstat}}). On the note of the infobox, I take it as a compliment.
SSSB (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed my last set of changes haven't yet updated. I've tried a null edit and purge and neither helped. Is there something else that can done to help or prevent that? --DB1729 (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey nevermind. I figured it out. Where I was looking uses a different template (F1R2021) than what I had updated. And I'm glad you take the user page as a compliment! No reason you shouldn't. Thanks. --DB1729 (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

1973 Brazil

The first Brazilian Grand Prix to be counted in the world championship was in 1973. Read the article about the 1973 race, please. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@MCRainbowSupernova8196: I know that, but The race was the twentieth and penultimate round of the 2019 Formula One World Championship and marked the 48th running of the Brazilian Grand Prix and the 47th time that the race has been run as a World Championship event since the inaugural event in 1973. makes it sound like the first Brazilian Grand Prix was 1973, but it was 1972. (1972 Brazilian Grand Prix)
SSSB (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
The 1972 Brazilian Grand Prix was a NON-CHAMPIONSHIP RACE. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@MCRainbowSupernova8196: so? The event is the Brazilian Grand Prix. "Inaugural event" therefore refers to "Inaugural Brazilian Grand Prix". The inaguaral/first Brazilian Grand Prix was in 1972, the fact it wasn't a championship event is irrelevant when determining the inagural event. The first Brazilian Grand Prix was 1972, the change you keep making says that the first Brazilian Grand Prix was 1973.
SSSB (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Non-championship races don't count. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Non-championship races don't count towards the actual season and standings. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Just because the 1908 American Grand Prize was the first Grand Prix to be held in the US doesn't mean it was the first United States Grand Prix. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
There ya go. I fixed it so now you can't be mad. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't mad. But the text was wrong. The inagural US Grand Prix was in 1908, as the American Grand Prize was the original name of the American Grand Prix. Non-Championship races do count in terms of inaguaral, that is what all the infoboxes do.
SSSB (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Wait the article said the 47th time the race had been run as a Championship event, not as an event overall. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
So this whole argument is stupid. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh wait MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
No they don't count as inaugural because they don't count as real championship races. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
We are going in circles, there is no point in continuing this.
SSSB (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually if we're being technical, the first Brazilian Grand Prix was held in the early 1940s at either Interlagos or Gávea. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@MCRainbowSupernova8196: if you can find a source add it to the article.
SSSB (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Brazil held Grands Prix during the early parts of WWII at Interlagos and Gavea. Interlagos. Says it in the Brazilian Grand Prix article. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Ignore the error at the end there. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Brazil held Grands Prix doesn't make them Brazilian Grands Prix. The Styrian Grand Prix is in Austria, but they aren't considered Austrian Grands Prix.
SSSB (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

There's not much information on those races so who knows? They could've been called the Brazilian Grand Prix. Also what about the American Grand Prize? It's not called the United States Grand Prix but it's considered the United States Grand Prix. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

That's because American and United States are synonymous in this context, as are prize and prix.
SSSB (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Also the Red Bull Ring, where the Austrian Grand Prix is held, is in Styria MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 21

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past four months (February through May 2021).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 21st issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

My apologies for this long-overdue issue, and if I missed any scripts.
Hopefully going forward we can go back to monthly releases - any help would be appreciated. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

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

Administrator changes

added Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
removed Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, dude. Really helpful.

https://gpracingstats.com/drivers/rubens-barrichello/wins— Preceding unsigned comment added by MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@MCRainbowSupernova8196: it is your responsibility, not mine, to provide references for your contributions. See WP:BURDEN. This has already been pointed out to you (Special:Diff/1025494344).
SSSB (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Moving the discussion along

Please post my comment of 13:57 (which you removed at 14:17) to the place you think it should go. This allows others to chime in. Alternatively, respond here (I'll be watching both pages). If you don't respond that will indicate you're dropping your claim that the Daily Beast analysis is unsourced. 31.124.153.250 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done please make future requests at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. Continueing to make edit requests here may be ignored.
SSSB (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the term "original research". Searching the literature for sources is "original research" in the sense that nobody has done it before, but in Wikipedia terms it means no more than that the fact is unsupported by a reliable source other than yourself (although if you are an expert you are also a reliable source). The article should say that, while some sources interpreted the statement as meaning that the Wednesday wedding was not valid, Meghan and Harry have not stated that it was not valid, and if that was their belief they would have said so explicitly. Rebecca's paper relates to royal marriages generally. She makes the point that royal marriages are governed by canon law. I then said that since this marriage is a royal marriage it is governed by canon law. I did not source the statement that this marriage is a royal marriage but can do so if you wish. I suggest the following wording:
A follow-up response came on 22 March when a spokesperson confirmed to the Daily Beast that "the couple exchanged personal vows a few days before their official/legal wedding on May 19." She could have said "the couple exchanged personal vows a few days before their official and/or legal wedding on 19 May". This is the same as saying that the second ceremony was either the "official" one or the "legal" one or both.[1][2].While some sources interpreted the statement as meaning that the Wednesday wedding was not valid, Meghan and Harry have not stated that it was not valid, and if that was their belief they would have said so explicitly.

References

  1. ^ A tenancy agreement stated that the landlord would compensate the tenant for loss caused by the "failure of the electricity/gas supply". The electricity supply failed but the gas supply didn't, causing the tenant considerable loss. The landlord refused to pay, claiming he was only liable if both the electricity and gas supply failed at the same time. The court held he was liable.
  2. ^ A road sign at the junction of Brooke Road and Rectory Road in London warns "No access to A 107 via Evering/Brooke Roads." The forward slash indicates that the one is not the same as the other.
The discussion is at Talk:Oprah with Meghan and Harry, not here. Please keep the discussion in one location. If you can't edit that page, make a request at WP:RPP.
SSSB (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

2021 Azerbaijan

The results from Wikipedia are taken from F1 directly and the stats are correct. 2012 United States GP was the last time Mercedes finished both cars without points. I don't know why you keep deleting this as this is correct. Consider it an original research or something. You can see from all results that it is correct; changing this is not necessary. Formula 1 itself and other sources like Racing-Statistics.com put this as the last finish without points.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14ba:a301:296d::1 (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I keep deleting it because it is not cited. Using Wikipedia as a source is not acceptable, as anyone can chnage it. If is verified by Racing-Statistics.com, cite Racing-Statistics.com. The onus for adding verfibility is on the person (re)adding the content, not me.
SSSB (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
You're not getting my point. Do you think I should cite every single race that has happened in Formula One? There isn't a news article reporting on it. It is still true. I'm not citing wikipedia as a source. Just giving your head an example that it is true and verifiable with a very easy look at Formula One statistics. It doesn't change the thing that it is a fact. If this race is the first race a team doesn't finish in points for over 8 years I think it's pretty significant. Stop deleting the edit as it is not unsourced, it is literally a statistic anyone can look up. You're not being reasonable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14ba:a301:296d::1 (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
It is likely to be challenged, (as it is a long time) and therefore it requires a source (see WP:V). You do not need to cite every sentence, but content should be easily verifiable (externally, as anyone can change Wikipedia). As an aside, if news sources aren't reporting on it, then that indicates it isn't noteworthy, another reason why stats need citations. Something being true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion on a general encyclopedia.
SSSB (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
And when I googled "last time Mercedes finished with no points F1", I could not find a reference to that GP, meaning it is not easily verifiable (a condition for something to be without a citation).
SSSB (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
News outlets finally reported on it, I'll add it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:A301:3614:0:0:0:1 (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Roundheads and cavaliers

Your latest edit summary is somewhat disingenuous. The points you made were rebutted in the edit of 11:01, 19 June 2021 and you have not issued a rejoinder. 31.124.153.250 (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Re your message on my talk page, numerous sources have been provided for the added content. Which part of the content do you claim is unsourced? 31.124.153.250 (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

That Welby stood down. No source.
There is no edit corrosponding to 11:09, 19 June 2021 at Talk:Oprah with Meghan and Harry.
SSSB (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

A link for you; Sealioning. It's up to you how you want to spend your own time, of course. But as long as you continue to entertain this editor, they will continue to engage you in endless discussion about Wikipedia policy that is not going to change just because they wish to redefine what Original Research means. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
SSSB (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The f**t of the sealion is the most powerful of all animals - guaranteed to clear the enclosure of all visitors to the zoo. Would you like to quote the section of policy which states that a sourced fact may not be included in Wikipedia because editors have to do research to uncover it? Welby announced that he was going to stand down. Having done some googling I have found a number of sources - you will no doubt claim that the effort I invested in this constitutes "original research":
[1]
[2]
[3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.124.153.250 (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The tweet fails WP:TWEET and WP:SPS. To say that he is going on sabatical is not WP:OR. Any claim that this is relevant to the Harry and Maghan situation is WP:OR.
SSSB (talk)13:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)How so? The article makes the point that Welby is unlikely to be commenting further. The fact that he has left his office is very relevant to that prognostication. 31.124.153.250 (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Which article? Because I see no relevance between his leaving office and his not commenting further (or anything else relating to Meghan and Harry).
SSSB (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) You mean, you would see no connection between, say, Theresa May leaving office and the fact that she has since made no prime ministerial statements? 89.240.112.154 (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Firstly your sources do not establish that his sabbatical is now, only that he plans on taking one at an undisclosed time. Secondly, him being on a sabbatical does not prevent him from making statements on this. This isn't an archbishop-Meghan-Harry issue, but a Welby-Harry-Meghan issue. He didn't make his original statement because he was archbishop, but because he is the one who lead both ceremonies. Being on sabbatical does not change this.
SSSB (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
According to this[4] Welby is selling the Big Issue in Cambridge. Agreed he's not prevented from commenting, but that doesn't seem to be the point. The argument appears to be that he wants to do something different while on holiday. 89.240.112.154 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
What Welby is doing, appears to be doing is irrelevant.
The point is that the sentence added to Oprah with Meghan and Harry (Welby has now stood himself down till at least September, after the Sun obtained a copy of Harry and Meghan's official marriage certificate, signed by him, which claims that they were married on May 19, with Harry's father and Meghan's mother as witnesses, so he is unlikely to be making any further comment) breaks several of Wikipedia's policies.
The first bit (upto the last comma) wrongy implies he stood down because the Sun obtained that copy. Whilst the content after that last comma is both speculative and WP:OR.
SSSB (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
It's a minor point. Apart from that, do you agree the proposed changes? 89.240.112.154 (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Which proposed changes?
SSSB (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
All of them. 89.240.112.154 (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
No, because they are still filled with WP:OR.
SSSB (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Then let us work through them. Here's the diff [1]. The first change (shown in red) is
Harry supported this by commenting "Yeah, just the three of us".<ref name="Camilla Parker Bowles">{{cite web |last1=Foussianes |first1=Chloe |title=Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Exchanged Vows Three Days Before Their Royal Nuptials |url=https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a35757534/meghan-markle-prince-harry-secret-married-before-wedding/ |website=Town & Country |access-date=17 May 2021 |date=March 8, 2021 |archive-date=March 8, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308054328/https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a35757534/meghan-markle-prince-harry-secret-married-before-wedding/ |url-status=live }}
Is this acceptable? 89.240.112.154 (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:SYNTH, make sure it complies with WP:SYNTH, then I will be happy to take a look. What I am not going to do is continue to argue with you about what the original research policy means, when WP:OR has already made it abundantly clear. I have also pointed out which parts are the issue before now.

SSSB (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

You keep saying that using a pre-existing law to verify the legality of a subsequent action is "original research". You claim that nobody can be convicted of any crime because the law does not mention the people who committed the crime after it was passed. In our article Race Relations Act 1965 the illegality of an act (necessarily committed after 8 December 1965 when the Act came into force) which resulted in a conviction in October 1967 is verified by a BBC news report dated 8 December 1965. You can keep reverting edits claiming they are "original research" or "synthesis" but unless you can provide a coherent argument setting out why you think that you are wasting your time.
Harry and Meghan have stated the following:
  • They "got married" on the Wednesday.
  • It was a "secret wedding".
  • The ceremony was a "private exchange of vows".
  • The Saturday ceremony was the "official" wedding.
  • Some people (not them) claim the Saturday ceremony was the "legal" wedding.
The other witness (the Archbishop) did not dispute these facts until a month later. The adviser to the previous Archbishop deduced from the silence that the Archbishop might have committed an ecclesiastical offence. The cited sources say that such actions are an ecclesiastical offence but they create a valid marriage. Your problem is proving that the law relating to royal marriages is irrelevant to royal marriages. You can try, but I don't think you will succeed. 89.240.112.154 (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
unless you can provide a coherent argument setting out why you think that you are wasting your time. - I have explained to you multiple times that your contributions make conclusions that your sources do not. Therefore, they are WP:SYNTHESIS of those sources.
As for your bullet points: their statement is interpreted, by sources, as meaning that they admit the Saturday wedding is their legal one. Therefore, Wikipedia reports that the Saturday wedding is the legal one. You cannot argue that their statement does not mean this unless a reliable source does so. If no reliable source is provided where the proposed text (that the Saturday wedding isn't the legal one) matces the sourced text, it is WP:OR. You cannot publish an analysis of a statement on Wikipedia unless another source makes an idenitial analysis.
Your arguement is basically "royals are legally married when they exchange vows per verba de praesenti in front of the Archbishop,{ref} Harry is a royal, Harry and Meghan exchanged vows per verba de praesenti in front of the Archbishop,{ref} therefore they are legally married.{no ref}
As no source makes this arguement (in other words, you are the only person making this argument), it is, by definition, synthesis, which falls under original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.
SSSB (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The solstitial version has a source for Camilla and Charles not being married, but no source (as you spotted) for Harry and Meghan getting married on the Wednesday. That's easily fixed.[5] Change Thus, under the law relating to royal marriages, this was the legal marriage. to read: As noted above, distinguished law professors say that the private marriage of a member of the royal family before an Anglican clergyman is valid and they are not required to repeat the ceremony in faciae ecclesiae (this is a Latin phrase which means "in church".)
Does that meet your objection? Your next point is
their statement is interpreted, by sources, as meaning that they admit the Saturday wedding is their legal one. Therefore, Wikipedia reports that the Saturday wedding is the legal one. You cannot argue that their statement does not mean this unless a reliable source does so. If no reliable source is provided where the proposed text (that the Saturday wedding isn't the legal one) matces the sourced text, it is WP:OR. You cannot publish an analysis of a statement on Wikipedia unless another source makes an idenitial analysis.
Actually, the sources go further than that. They allege Harry and Meghan were lying. So you can report that they allege the couple were lying but you cannot use the statement to claim as fact that they lied. Neither Harry nor Meghan has said they lied and you therefore require independent evidence before you can report the alleged lying as fact. There isn't any. The statement to Town and Country was that there was "a secret wedding" and "a private exchange of vows". Also, some sources allege that the friends also said that "they were married on the Saturday". That is not a statement that they did not get married on the Wednesday. You are on very dangerous ground here. Charles used similar tactics - his argument was put by anonymous lawyers, a named lawyer who worked for a firm which was linked to the lobbying scandal and named registration officials who had no legal training. The only named lawyers who "came with clean hands" were the law professors who unanimously rejected Charles' argument.
In the instant case, Harry knows a lot more about royal marriages than anonymous internet bloggers who cannot be bothered to state the friends' actual words. These bloggers display a lamentable ignorance of the meaning of English words. For example, the primary meaning of "the shops were closed on Saturday" (and nobody would think for a moment that it meant anything else) is "the shops did not open on Saturday". So if the shops closed on Wednesday and did not reopen till the following week the position on Saturday was unchanged from the position on Friday, Thursday and Wednesday. No reporting rule is broken by paraphrasing the friends' alleged words in these terms - paraphrase is a requirement on Wikipedia because people's actual words are copyright. Take very great care. 89.240.112.154 (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
you cannot use the statement to claim as fact that they lied. - we don't. Oprah with Meghan and Harry#Private exchange of vows doesn't call them liars. The section does not imply they lied. A lie is widely interpreted as being untruthful with the intent to decieve. Oprah with Meghan and Harry#Private exchange of vows does not state that they were tring to decieve anyone, so it does not imply they lied. As far as I am aware, non of the sources suggest they intended to decieve, so none of them imply they lied. So I'm not sure what the "very dangerous ground" is.
Also, some sources allege that the friends also said that "they were married on the Saturday". That is not a statement that they did not get married on the Wednesday. That kind of analysis is for secondary sources to make, not you.
Finally, I'll think you'll find that anonymous internet bloggers generally fall under WP:SPS, and are therefore not suitable to be sourced.
As for your propsed text, that doesn't mean anything in terms of when they were legally married. Just because private marriage of a member of the royal family before an Anglican clergyman is valid and they are not required to repeat the ceremony in faciae ecclesiae doesn't mean that their private marriage before an Anglican clergyman was their legal marriage. Their later statement (as interpreted by sources) means that thier legal wedding was Saturday.
SSSB (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
As I have said, it is perfectly acceptable (and sometimes necessary) to paraphrase direct quotes. An acceptable paraphrase of "they were married on the Saturday" is "they were already married on the Saturday". As I explained, it is the couple's statement that they were married on the Wednesday that means that their private marriage before an Anglican clergyman was their legal marriage. The analyses of the law professors are relevant background information. WP:NPOV requires that you do not feature the view of the internet bloggers without balancing it out with the view of Harry and Meghan. Your problem is that after the sources with titles "Harry and Meghan admit they lied" or variations thereof which featured in the numbered reference list were removed you added them back. 89.240.112.154 (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
An acceptable paraphrase of "they were married on the Saturday" is "they were already married on the Saturday". I could equally argue that "they were married on the Saturday" is a re-phrasing of "their legal marriage was on the Saturday". So that argument is meaningless.

The analyses of the law professors are relevant background information. - no, it is WP:OR because you are the only person connecting the analysis to this marriage.

it is the couple's statement that they were married on the Wednesday that means that their private marriage before an Anglican clergyman was their legal marriage. - as I explained:

  • you are the only person who has made this analysis so it is your WP:OR.
  • This statement was (almost) universially refuted, (including by the Anglican clergyman they allegedly married before) and it is universaly considered to have been nullified by the statement made through their spokesperson ("this private event did not constitute a “legal” or “official” service."[6]) As you are the only person who does not hold this view, this view is your WP:OR.
Your problem is that after the sources with titles "Harry and Meghan admit they lied" or variations thereof which featured in the numbered reference list were removed you added them back. If sources do call them liars (I am not saying they do or don't), not only is it within Wikipedia's right, but also (arguablly) part of Wikipedia's duty, to report that they have been accused of lying (and any responses). There have been no claims that they lied, or any responses to claims of lying that I am aware of.

WP:NPOV requires that you do not feature the view of the internet bloggers without balancing it out with the view of Harry and Meghan. - firstly we don't cite internet bloggers, we cite journalists. We do balance it out. You will note that we mention the interview statement, the refuting of the statement and then the spokesperson's statment. We have included (to the best of my knowledge) everything that Harry and Meghan have said on the subject. I am not aware of any reliable, secondry source (so not you) that argues they were legally married on the Wednesday. Therefore, Wikipedia has cited (to my knowledge) every defence of the Sussexes in reliable sources, including any defense they have made of themselves. Therefore, WP:NPOV is being followed. If we have missed a reliable source (so not your edits on Wikipedia) defending them, please point it out.
SSSB (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

So you finally admit that they were married on the Saturday cannot be used to support the claim that the legal wedding was on the Saturday. Then you claim that I am the only person connecting the analysis to this marriage. Where, pray, do I say that the analysis (which was prepared fourteen years before this marriage) is connected to it? The criterion is not "connection" but relevance". The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is obviously not "connected" to a murder in 2021 because it was passed 160 years before, but it is relevant because it may be mentioned in the indictment as authority for it. I did ask you how you concluded that the law on royal marriages is irrelevant to royal marriages - you never answered. In future, when you claim I said something please quote my exact words.
Using your reasoning, a doctor who booked a young person for the Oxford-Astra Zeneca jab would deliberately not tell her that it carries a risk of blood clots. This is why you are now in serious trouble. Harry is not thousands of miles away in another jurisdiction, he's right here in Windsor. Welcome. You're 21 years old and thus fully responsible for your actions. Your reason for suppressing the information that private royal weddings are legal can only be to make mischief. You may like to ponder the proverb "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging". If you look at the solstitial version and write in the proposed change it now reads:

The day after the interview aired a spokeswoman emphasised to Town and Country magazine that the "secret marriage" was a "private exchange of vows".[ref][5] As noted above, distinguished law professors say that the private marriage of a member of the royal family before an Anglican clergyman is valid and they are not required to repeat the ceremony in facie ecclesiae (this is a Latin phrase which means "in church").

Note that nobody is analysing Harry and Meghan's words - they are simply being reported. This is not "original research" or "synthesis", it's reporting as it should be - presenting the readers with all relevant facts to keep them informed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.112.154 (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC) .
This necessitates a concomitant change in the introductory passage which now reads:

One recent effect of this is that law professors argue that Camilla Parker Bowles and the Prince of Wales are not married (see argument in the cited article, Marriage Act 1949 cited above and Clandestine Marriages Act 1753). Harry and Meghan exchanged vows per verba de praesenti in front of the Archbishop on Wednesday (Camilla and Charles did not do this).[ref]

Then you say
This statement was (almost) universally refuted.
Since the statement was not universally refuted WP:NPOV requires you to give proportionate coverage to the views of those who accepted its truth. You continue:
it is universaly [sic] considered to have been nullified by the statement made through their spokesman ("this private event did not constitute a "legal" or "official" service.")[ref]
That's your analysis, and it displays more dissembling on your part. Having made the point that the statement was made by the spokeswoman you then put quotation marks around what follows, implying that those are the spokeswoman's actual words - but the actual words are quoted by the Daily Beast, to whom the statement was made:
The couple exchanged vows a few days before their official/legal wedding on May 19.
If you're prepared to falsify a statement made on behalf of a Prince Royal for your own ends what else are you capable of? You say "If we have missed a reliable source..." Are you speaking on behalf of someone else, perhaps as an undisclosed paid editor?
/continues— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.112.154 (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
you finally admit that "they were married on the Saturday" cannot be used to support the claim that the legal wedding was on the Saturday. - irrelevant as Oprah with Meghan and Harry doesn't use that sentence to support anything.

Then you claim that I am the only person connecting the analysis to this marriage. Where, pray, do I say that the analysis (which was prepared fourteen years before this marriage) is connected to it? The criterion is not "connection" but relevance" - connected/relevant, potayto/potahto. You want to quit the WP:wikilawyering?

Your reason for suppressing the information that private royal weddings are legal can only be to make mischief. - no, it is because it is your WP:OR, as you are the only person making the argument.

This is why you are now in serious trouble. Harry is not thousands of miles away in another jurisdiction, he's right here in Windsor. Welcome. You're 21 years old and thus fully responsible for your actions. - this is a threat. You can't bully me into accepting your edits. Take a look at Wikipedia:No legal threats.

The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is obviously not "connected" to a murder in 2021 because it was passed 160 years before, but it is relevant because it may be mentioned in the indictment as authority for it. - the key word here is "may". It "may" be relevant. As Harry and Meghan have clarified that they actually got married on Saturday, the fact that they could have gotten married on Wednesday means the marriage law is not relevant by default. If and when reliable sources mention it, feel free to add it.

You may like to ponder the proverb "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging" - I'm not in a hole, or digging.

Note that nobody is analysing Harry and Meghan's words - they are simply being reported. This is not "original research" or "synthesis", it's reporting as it should be - presenting the readers with all relevant facts to keep them informed. - it's how journalists report, Wikipedia does not report in the same way. We report only what other sources explicitly say about the subject. No source has explicitly said Wednesday's exchange of vows could have been a legal wedding, so nor can we.

Since the statement was not universally refuted WP:NPOV requires you to give proportionate coverage to the views of those who accepted its truth. - I only included the "not" because you refute. That's not good enough.

That's your analysis, - it is. But as no source has been presented that defends it, or refutes the grounds for refution, Wikipedia cannot claim either of things occured.

you then put quotation marks around what follows, implying that those are the spokeswoman's actual words - no, it implies that I quoted the cited source, which you admit I did.

You say "If we have missed a reliable source..." Are you speaking on behalf of someone else, perhaps as an undisclosed paid editor? - I speak on behalf Wikipedia.

My patience with you has run out. I am fed up of repeating myself. Unless you present a new argument, you will be ignored.
SSSB (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

/continued from Saturday
Why did you include the word "merely" and claim the Wednesday ceremony was neither "legal" nor "official" if not to insinuate that Harry and Meghan are liars? The first time you did it you were not on notice that the spokeswoman had been misquoted, but the second time you were. It's not a question of "interpretation" of the statement by the sources but deliberate falsification of it. You say There have been no claims that they lied, or any responses to claims of lying that I am aware of. The Mercury News report is crammed with comment saying that the Sussexes lied. Again, the headline "Meghan and Harry finally admit there was no secret backyard wedding", apart from being untrue, contains the implication that they are liars.
Even when reported speech is inside quotation marks there is no guarantee that the speaker has been accurately reported. Thus Thursday's London Metro states:

The fall guy that night was Southgate (pictured) who missed his attempt, causing his mother Barbara to ask: 'Why didn't you just belt the ball?'

Jonathan Prynn in the London Evening Standard the same day has:

In the traumatic aftermath of the defeat Southgate's mother Barbara famously revealed that she said to her son "Why didn't you just belt it?"

Quotation marks employed by internet bloggers reporting what other people said prove nothing. The headline to Jonathan Prynn's report on page 6 of the paper reads 'If Priti Patel eats out she'll have to serve herself'
The relevant section of the report (which appears on page 7) directly quoting Kensington restaurateur Claude Bosi reads:

...the next time Priti Patel goes to a restaurant she is going to have to get the food herself because there won't be anyone to serve her.

The original statement on behalf of the Sussexes did not quell the controversy. The final statement, therefore, was prepared by a lawyer. The words
The couple exchanged personal vows a few days before the official/legal wedding on May 19
have the ring of authenticity about them. The bowlesderised version put out by the internet bloggers
this private event did not constitute a "legal" or "official" service
and variations thereof do not.
Surrebutter:
So the secondary sources' allegation that "they were married on the Saturday" means "they got married on the Saturday" is not used by the article to allege they got married on the Saturday (admission, your rebutter, §1). Thus the words that I see in the article
Later in March, a spokesman for the couple confirmed that they merely exchanged "personal vows", and the private event was neither a "legal" nor "official" service
must be a mirage. You go on to claim that I am the only person who stated "that private royal weddings are legal". Please post a copy of the deed poll which changed my name to Rebecca Probert or, possibly, Stephen Cretney.
You say:
As Harry and Meghan have clarified that they actually got married on Saturday, the fact that they could have gotten married on Wednesday means the marriage law is not relevant by default.
Point me to where they did that, then run it past me again, explaining what you mean by "relevant by default". The opening word "As" demonstrates this is analysis, and not particularly good analysis at that. I don't get the impression that you're a trained journalist. You say "No source has explicitly said Wednesday's exchange of vows could have been a legal wedding". Harry and Meghan didn't say it "could have been" - they said it was. The solstitial version doesn't say "Wednesday's exchange of vows could have been a legal wedding" either. Can you not distinguish between the actual words of the Sussex's spokeswoman and the words which the internet bloggers put into her mouth? From your conjugation you appear to be American. Is that why you don't consider the words of our royal family to be "sources"? Is this "George III syndrome"?
I asked you why, since not everyone refutes the statement that the Wednesday marriage was the legal one, you didn't mention the viewpoint that it was the legal marriage per WP:NPOV. You didn't answer, instead going off at a tangent about adding the word "not" because I "refute". You then claim "no source has been presented that defends it, or refutes the ground for refution". I see nothing in the solstitial version that "defends it, or refutes the ground for refution". What does "refutes the ground for refution" mean anyway? "Refution" isn't in the dictionary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.112.154 (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I am only going to cover what I haven't covered already, I am not going to repeat myself.

Why did you include the word "merely" and claim the Wednesday ceremony was neither "legal" nor "official" if not to insinuate that Harry and Meghan are liars? - that's not what "merely" insinuates. It only insinuates that a ceremony that is not legal or official is less significant that one that is official or legal or both. Here is a defintion of "merely" for you.[7]

deliberate falsification of it. - so you are just going to state that without proof?

Again, the headline "Meghan and Harry finally admit there was no secret backyard wedding", apart from being untrue, contains the implication that they are liars. - true - missed that. But what I am supposed to do about it. The Mercury News are perfectly entitled to believe that they lied, and there is no evidence to say they didn't.

Even when reported speech is inside quotation marks there is no guarantee that the speaker has been accurately reported. - true. But what I am supposed to about it. Unless you've got proof that it isn't what was said, we have no alternative but to assume that it is.

"The couple exchanged personal vows a few days before the official/legal wedding on May 19"

have the ring of authenticity about them. The bowlesderised version put out by the internet bloggers

"this private event did not constitute a "legal" or "official" service"

and variations thereof do not. - firstly, this is nothing more than your opinion, secondly, you keep refering to internet bloggers when there are none.

So the secondary sources' allegation that "they were married on the Saturday" means "they got married on the Saturday" is not used by the article to allege they got married on the Saturday (admission, your rebutter, §1). Thus the words that I see in the article

"Later in March, a spokesman for the couple confirmed that they merely exchanged "personal vows", and the private event was neither a "legal" nor "official" service"

must be a mirage. - that sentence you quoted does not say "they were married on the Saturday", it says they were not (legally or officially) married on the Wednesday (the private event) because it was neither official nor legal.

You go on to claim that I am the only person who stated "that private royal weddings are legal". - let me clarify. You are the only person who claims that this private royal marriage is legal, or that the fact that private royal marriages are legal is relevant.

Point me to where they [clarified that they actually got married on Saturday], - [6]

explaining what you mean by "relevant by default". - bad word choice by me. What I mean is: "the fact that they could have gotten married on Wednesday does not mean the marriage law is relevant by default." i.e. the marriage law is relevant just because two people get married. For example, Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton doesn't mention any laws on marriage. The opening word "As" demonstrates this is analysis... - no it doesn't. It's not.

I don't get the impression that you're a trained journalist. - that's not relevant. I don't get the impression you are a trained journalist either.

You say "No source has explicitly said Wednesday's exchange of vows could have been a legal wedding". Harry and Meghan didn't say it "could have been" - they said it was - no they didn't. They said they got married on Wednesday (without specifing if this was a legal marriage, a official marriage, both or neither), they later said (through a spokesperson) that they Wednesday ceremony was neither official nor legal. What you fail to understand is that those two sentences do not contradict. As is argued in the Mercury article,[6] it is likely that Harry and Meghan meant that they considered the Wednesday ceremony to their marriage, but they acknowledge, through thier spokesperson that this was not the official or legal wedding, just a personal ceremony.

The solstitial version doesn't say "Wednesday's exchange of vows could have been a legal wedding" either. - no it doesn't. That's my point, only you say that.

From your conjugation you appear to be American. - how is this relevant?

Is that why you don't consider the words of our royal family to be "sources"? - they are. But no royal has (explitly) said that the Wednesday ceremony was legal. And a spokespersons speaking on behalf of a royal has said the Wednesday ceremony wasn't a legal one.

asked you why, since not everyone refutes the statement that the Wednesday marriage was the legal one, you didn't mention the viewpoint that it was the legal marriage per WP:NPOV. You didn't answer... - I did. I explained that I can't mention the viewpoint that it was the legal marriage because it is your WP:OR. I cannot justify the inclusion of an argument if some random person is the only one making it.

You then claim "no source has been presented that defends it, or refutes the ground for refution". I see nothing in the solstitial version that "defends it, or refutes the ground for refution". What does "refutes the ground for refution" mean anyway? "Refution" isn't in the dictionary. - let me clarify. There is not a single source that argues in support of the claim that the Sussexs were married (legally) on Wednesday, or that argues against sources that argue against the claim that they couldn't be married (legally) on Wednesday (this second point is what I mean by "refutes the ground for refution"
SSSB (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) One ceremony is less significant than another. Agreed - two City of London livery companies are at "sixes and sevens" because they cannot agree who is entitled to walk sixth in the procession arranged according to precedence and who must walk seventh. A wedding ceremony which does not create a marriage is not just less significant, it's devastating.
  • The Mercury News are not "perfectly entitled to believe that they lied". By that argument, anyone can walk into the street and shoot people because they believe that their action is not murder.
  • You use your judgment. If one report of what was said has quotation marks around it and another doesn't the first is likely to be a verbatim report, especially if the source reporting is the one to which the words were actually spoken.
  • So you think that a carefully worded legal statement is less reliable than something thrown together at second or third hand by an internet hack unconnected to the parties.
  • Or, in other words, all of the hundreds of thousands of the daily Wikipedia edits signed off by nobody other than the author, who alone is responsible for assessing whether they are relevant to the article, must be reverted. And you're still denying that Harry and Meghan are "people".
  • The quote in the Mercury News is different from the one in the Daily Beast. Heaven forbid that Wikipedia should report views different to your own.
  • You don't think the marriage law is relevant to marriage. Then you don't think the law against murder is relevant to murder. Let's all go on a killing spree.
  • You say the words "get married" don't convey that the couple become man and wife. Maybe they became Mickey and Minnie Mouse then. Then you allege that the spokeswoman said the wedding ceremony wasn't legal (she didn't). Is it likely that the couple would drag the Archbishop to their garden for a bit of storytelling? The couple said the encounter was "a wedding ceremony". The Archbishop said it was "a conversation about a wedding". Why would the Archbishop make that journey for this one "conversation" but not all the others?
  • How many times does a person, when describing the moment when they became man and wife, say they "got married"? Have you ever heard them say "we got legally married"? Show me where the spokeswoman said "the Wednesday ceremony wasn't a legal one".
  • Your assertion that the words "We got married" mean something different from "We got legally married" is entirely unsourced because it's entirely wrong. It's entirely speculation on your part, and Wikipedia reports fact, not the musings of its editors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.112.154 (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
All of that is either already covered in my previous replies, does not accuratly reflect what I said, is comparing apples and oranges or some combination of those three. So I am going to ignore it.
SSSB (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ackerman, David (16 May 2021). "Resign, Archbishop Welby! You should be ashamed". Conservative Woman. Retrieved 21 June 2021.
  2. ^ The Very Rev. Dr Houston McKelvey (24 November 2020). "Press review: the dying Church of England cannot afford a sabbatical". Retrieved 21 June 2021.
  3. ^ John Ian Carter (28 May 2021). "Tweet". Retrieved 21 June 2021.
  4. ^ McCrum, Kirstie (21 June 2021). "The Archbishop of Canterbury becomes a Big Issue vendor in Cambridge for the day". Cambridge News. Cambridge. Retrieved 21 June 2021.
  5. ^ a b Meghan told Oprah during the 7 March interview that she got married in front of the Archbishop and Harry confirmed "Just the three of us."
  6. ^ a b c https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/03/22/meghan-and-harry-finally-admit-there-was-no-secret-backyard-wedding/
  7. ^ https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/merely

Styrian Grand Prix

The only reason why I put down the Styrian flag down because it’s also the same as on the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_MotoGP_World_Championship# on there Calendar ConnorAmy (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@ConnorAmy: yes, but WikiProject Formula One convention is different to the MotoGP convention. Formula One artices use the flag of the host country, not the namesake. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Conventions#Season summary articles
SSSB (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Carambolage at Belgian Grand Prix article

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This isn't you, of course; I thought MCRainbowSupernova8196's attitude at the Belgian Grand Prix article was unreasonable, and had clearly exceeded a sensible number of reversions, and didn't look like stopping. I'm sorry, I couldn't work out how to use the 3RR template at the 3RR page, so I just put it in the incidents page as I felt MCRainbowSupernova8196 probably needs some warning that unilaterally ignoring everyone and writing French isn't a good behaviour. I hope I haven't put my foot in it too badly. Since you're mentioned, I'm letting you know. Elemimele (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elemimele: I was about to file a report at WP:ANI myself, so thanks.
SSSB (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
  • An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

  • IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Your recants edits to Ezhava

I record my opinion. In fact, in most books, Thiyya and Ezhava are recorded.[2] So why aren't historians writing about Ezhavas in an article like the one mentioned here? While celebrities, including Edgar (Caste and Tribes Of South India), have included the category of thiyyas in the "T" category, the Ezhavas appear to have been included in the "I" category. Famous historians have all included the two in the same way but recorded differently. There is a Wikipedia called Nair, but there is also a Wikipedia, Nambiar, a subcaste of Nair. So it seems necessary to have a Wikipedia to document the thiyya category, or try to include thiyya in the Ezhava page itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.208.73.12 (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

All I can say is that Wikipedia considers Ezhava and Thiyya to be the same, Thiyya is not considered to be a sub-caste, but a different name for the same caste. To reverse this decision, we need a wider discussion. If you think that there are good grounds to have seperate articles, you're best bet is to start a discussion at WT:INDIA. Thank you,
SSSB (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Ezhava

Dear ssb,

Regarding your recent edits on Ezhava , why did you changed the original caption of the image ?

Also as far as I understood the user was talking in talk page to add more ezhava photos instead of thiyya photos, but you renamed all thiyya photos and made it as ezhava. Now another user added a good ezhava family photo. You can now keep the original caption of the image of thiyyas in the page you renamed.

Also in dispute between ezhava and thiyya, you should mention it as thiyya only and not ezhava. This issue hasbeen discussed in the page and added that section , when some objects for a new page for thiyya.

Also

File:Malayala Manorama news report on Kerala state government's order to record 'Thiyya community' as such and not a subcaste of Ezhava.jpg
Malayala Manorama news report on Kerala state government's order to record 'Thiyya community' as such and not a subcaste of Ezhava
File:Kerala state government's order to record thiyya community as such and not as a sub caste of Ezhava.jpg
Kerala state government's order to record thiyya community as such and not as a sub caste of Ezhava


In 2020 July, Kerala state government has issued an order to record Thiyya as Thiyya and not as a part of Ezhava nor its subcaste. In India, converting or writing one caste as another is a criminal offense.

Link to order kerala government's order from their official site :

https://education.kerala.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/govt.order_3072020.pdf

See the Kerala state government order and the followed news report given on right.

I hope Wikipedia also abides by the Indian Kerala government's official government order on the Thiyya caste.

You should keep thiyya photo as it is with original caption and not change it to ezhava, the user was asking to add more ezhava photos , which a good photos are added after wards.

Please keep the original caption of the photos you changed.

Thank yoou.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.197.167 (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I changed the captions because Wikipedia considers Ezhava and Thiyyar to be regional names for the same group (inline with most major sources). I therefore changed the article to consistently use one term throughout the article. There were also concerns that captioning the images differently was comparing those who identify as Ezhava and those who idntify as Thiyyar. This has not changed with the addition of that image.

As for the claim that Kerala now reconises the two as seperate castes, I can not read the language of those docuements. Nor was I able to find abything to that effect in English. However, if this is true, you are welcome to start a wider dicussion. However, because of the reasons I outlined above, I will not comply with your request to change the captions back.

With regards to your concerns with the dispute section of the article, I am not sure what you would like me to do, please construct an WP:edit request in the form of "change 'x' to 'y'".
SSSB (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


Yes agree dear,
You can try translating the government orfer and news report from malayalam to english , et me provide you some news reports : https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2020/jul/28/tamil-nadu-government-gives-backward-class-status-to-thiyya-and-ezhava-communities-2175925.html
https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2018/apr/12/resentment-brews-as-thiyya-community-of-kerala-demand-distinct-identity-1800262.html
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/kozhikode/Musical-protest-to-regain-%E2%80%98Thiyya%E2%80%99-status/article16776516.ece
These are some old news reports where people from thiyya community demanded for seperate identity and now in 2020 as i have provided the govt order , government issue order to record thiyya as thiyya and not ezhava .
Wikipedia says people from Malabar are called as Thiyya and is having different caste organizations for them.So there is no point in changing the caption of images from thiyya to ezhava ,as page discuss both these castes.
Also the source from these photos took mention caption as thiyya.
The other user was saying that the page has only thiyya photos and having only a ezhava toddy taper photo to defame ezhava community.
But the solution to that is not changing the caption of original image from thiyya to ezhava the other guy could upload ezhava photoas and make a request to add in the page , as he was requesting to add so and so photos.
Thiyyar_Regiment - you see this , this is thiyya regiment formed by british in 18th century , and would you change the name it as ezhava regiment when someone tell to do so?
See ssb , those images are well known photos, which are culturally and historically important old images , published in well known historical books and colonial records. you cannot simple change the name from 'thiyya' to 'ezhava' just for the sake that someone claims that the page has only thiyya photsos.If he need photos , let him add ezhava photos.
Tommorw these well known historical paintings and photos will get published in news paper or any academic journel with the caption you changed from 'thiyya' to 'ezhava' , it will be a great damage to the photo and the historical background of the photo itself, lots of academic problems is going to happen.
So requesting you to keep the original captions intact.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.197.167 (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
The fact that Tamil Nadu considers them different does not automatically mean that Wikipedia does.

This natrually raises the question about whether Thiyya and Ezhava should be considered differently by Wikipedia as well. But:

0a) Wikipedia follows what sources say, if most sources still consider them the same, then so will we.

0b) If Tamil Nadu is the only one that considers them seperate, then this is not sufficent grounds for Wikipedia to do so. If Kerala, the national international government and/or other authoritive bodies consider them seperate, then the fact that Tamil Nadu considers them seperate is of no consequence.

Wikipedia says people from Malabar are called as Thiyya and is having different caste organizations for them.So there is no point in changing the caption of images from thiyya to ezhava ,as page discuss both these castes. - the page discusses what is considered to be one caste, with several different names. The only positive thing that having different captions achieves is to distinguish where these images were taken (Malabar, or not), the negative was raised on the talk page: that this unjustifable compares different parts of the community. To adress the different organistation arguement. Catholics and Church of England are different organistations, but they are all Christians. So I am not sure what that arguement argues.

Also the source from these photos took mention caption as thiyya. - Again, this is simply because different people use different names for this caste, Thiyya and Ezhava are considered to be synonomous.

Tommorw these well known historical paintings and photos will get published in news paper or any academic journel with the caption you changed from 'thiyya' to 'ezhava' , it will be a great damage to the photo and the historical background of the photo itself, lots of academic problems is going to happen. - are you saying that newspapers use Wikipedia images and captions, or am I going to be in the paper. In either case, it doesn't change anything. Wikipedia considers Thiyya and Ezhava as synonmous, the fact that the images captions now reflect this doesn't damage anything as they are considered to be the same group. In any case, the image names are still the same.

I therefore still see the justifcation of using a consistent term for the caste in the article, and don't see the justification in changing it back.
SSSB (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

As the matter is under par consideration with the ad hoc person, i may be delighted to aknowledge mine denoting note into your's kind attention..The aforesaid Caste/Community prevalent among the People of Kerala who may be known as 'thiyyas' are of distinctive caste identities which may explicitly distinct them from the 'Izhava' community, and theirs customs and tradition. Ninetyeightpointone (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia currently echoes the widely held view prevalent amoung sources, that Ezhava and Thiyya are different names for the same caste. A discussion on a user talk page (this page) will not change this (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). Feel free to start a wider discussion at WT:INDIA.
SSSB (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Your recants edits to Ezhava

Thiyya caste has been created in Malayalam Wikipedia for a long time.[3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.208.73.12 (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

irrelevant. Each language has its own standards, practices and consensus. What they decide to do has no impact on what we decide to do.
SSSB (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
See SSB what i'm saying is :
1. I'm NOT saying thiyya and ezhava are different.
2. You said ' wikipedia considered thiyya and ezhava as synonymous, yes TRUE , People from Malabar region are called in the name as 'Thiyya'. This Thiyya is a subset inside the parent set Ezhava.
So why should you need to change the name? I dont understand. If synonimous , keep the original sub set name intact, what is the point of changing ?
2. Ezhava people from Malabar region are called as Thiyya and southern kerala people are called as ezhava itself.That is what source is mentioning and wikipedia says the same.
3. So if you are using the image of thiyya (ezhava subset or ezhava people from malabar) , you should use as thiyya.
4. If you use ezhava , world will think these people are from south kerala ezhzvas and not from british malabar thiyyas.
5. Source says , thiyya people from malabar claimed higher position than rest, this had been argumented for a long and added that, why did you chaged that to ezhava of malabar? Why did you chaged the original source term ?
6. You are changing the 'thiyya' from 'ezhava' , which is a violation of the sources provided also of these are long disputed talk consensus product , you cannot replace thiyya with ezhava [4]
At least mention in the caption of photos you altered as 'Thiyya(Ezhava)' , which solves both side problems.
59.97.173.249 (talk)— Preceding undated comment added 12:37, 7 July 2021‎
If synonimous , keep the original sub set name intact, what is the point of changing ? - to remain consistent within the article. By constantly switching between the names we imply that they are not synomous, we imply they are different, which contradicts consensus, reliable sources and the article lead.

Ezhava people from Malabar region are called as Thiyya and southern kerala people are called as ezhava itself.That is what source is mentioning and wikipedia says the same. - yes. But that doesn't mean we need to keep swithing between the terms.

So if you are using the image of thiyya (ezhava subset or ezhava people from malabar) , you should use as thiyya. - That argument doesn't follow. If Thiyya and Ezhava are synomous (which you acklowedge they are) then what is the point of switching between the names? To identify where the photo was taken? Why is that relevant to the article?

If you use ezhava , world will think these people are from south kerala ezhzvas and not from british malabar thiyyas. - says who? I don't. As I said above, the geographical location of these images is of little to no relevance.

Source says , thiyya people from malabar claimed higher position than rest, this had been argumented for a long and added that, why did you chaged that to ezhava of malabar? Why did you chaged the original source term ? - I only wrote that in one instance, I wrote that because it was the first time that the article acknowleges that Thiyya and Ezhava are not universally considered as synomous.

ou are changing the 'thiyya' from 'ezhava' , which is a violation of the sources provided - no its not. As the sources provided, and the article, establish that Thiyya and Ezhava are considered identical.

also of these are long disputed talk consensus product , you cannot replace thiyya with ezhava - I saw no such consensus.

At least mention in the caption of photos you altered as 'Thiyya(Ezhava)' , which solves both side problems. - no it doesn't.
SSSB (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

If you use ezhava , world will think these people are from south kerala ezhzvas and not from british malabar thiyyas. - says who? I don't. As I said above, the geographical location of these images is of little to no relevance.


Geographical location is of importance as malabar was ruled by brish and prior to that it was the part of chera empire.
As you see culturally and socially these areas are much much distant , for example Theyyam .Thiyyar Regiment even the photo you used of Thiyya mariage which they hold swords have not been followed by Ezhava of south. So keep the captions intact of the images.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.97.173.249 (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
The Chera empire ceased to exist centuries before any of these images were taken, and the British Empire controlled the entire region which the Ezhava occupy (i.e.the British empire had an equal impact on all the relevant regions). Therefore, those facts do not support your asseretion that the location of these images is relevant.
SSSB (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
As for this one image, the simple thing to do would be to expand the caption to say: "This attire is unique to the Ezhavas of Malabar."
SSSB (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
1. Chera empire colapsed long back ago , but the culture persists
2. British rule was direct in Malabar District but in south kerala it was subordinate to british where Travancore kings ruled directly
3. In british malabar thiyyar progressed though the british rule. They were civil servants ,Amsham Adhikari, in army and even formed Thiyyar Regiment etc.
Even the photo of Amsham Adhikari [5], which is added in ezhava page , this Amsham Adhikari post is even only confined to Malabar.
Yes add 'This attire is unique to the Ezhavas of Malabar.' for that wedding photo .
Also add 'Ezhavas of Malabar' for that british officer photo [6] and moopan photo down, if you cant add the word thiyya there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.97.173.249 (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I will not make those changes as I see no evidence supporting your claim that specifing the locations is of relevance. Please start a discussion at Talk:Ezhava and seek a WP:consensus. You also need to cite sources for your claims that Thiyya and Ezhava have significantly different cultures to justify these changes.
SSSB (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


Ok, i will discuss in broader sense .
Now you can add 'This attire is unique to the Ezhavas of Malabar' in wedding photo.
Source is [7] Thurson volume 7 or Malabar manual , where he clealry mentioned thiyya marriage , where this raised sword ceremony is held and also he mentioned ezhava at no circumsances hold a sword — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.97.173.249 (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
It can't open it. There are several options.
  1. Make an edit request at Talk:Ezhava
  2. Try to find another source to the same effect.
    SSSB (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, SSSB. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for 2021 French Grand Prix

On 16 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2021 French Grand Prix, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the size of Le Castellet allowed the 2021 French Grand Prix to host more spectators than other events during the COVID-19 pandemic in France? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2021 French Grand Prix. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2021 French 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, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Sprint qualifying

Hi SSSB. The official standings published at the end of the British Grand Prix does not include position achieved during the sprint qualifying. Why are we doing that here? Island92 (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Island92: to justify to readers why Verstappen has 185 points, rather than 182.
SSSB (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
The P for Verstappen is missing. Island92 (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@Island92: deliberatly so. The argument is that (because winning sprint quali puts you on pole) putting RetP1 has identical meaning as Ret1, so putting the former is redundent.
SSSB (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Understood.--Island92 (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@SSSB: What if driver wins sprint qualifying but has a grid penalty for the GP? Win the SQ ≠ pole position in all instances. Admanny (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
@SSSB: retagging as I failed the first time Admanny (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
@Admanny: the only instance where that would be the case (that I can think of) is if a driver got won spint quali, and then broke parc ferme conditions (all other penalties would be applied to either the grid for sprint quali, or the sprint quali results). I think that this is such a rare occurance that we can indicate that if and when such a situation arises.
SSSB (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
@SSSB: That does not sound logical at all - Say if Verstappen needed to exceed quota for PU components and incurs a P20 start - applying it to the SQ would literally allow him to make up places before the actual GP where the actual points count. I’m inclined to believe all grid penalties will be for the GP regardless of there being a SQ or not, and thus why the “P” superscript may be necessary. Admanny (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
@Admanny: your inclination is incorrect. According to article 35.3 c, penalties are applied to the sprint quali grid [1]
SSSB (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/2021_formula_1_sporting_regulations_-_iss_11-_2021-07-12.pdf

Leicester?

Just seen that you're an alumnus of the University of Leicester on your user page. I went there for a Medical Mooting competition back in 2019, in what I believe would've been the law school library. My co-counsel and I didn't get far, though. Ended up leaving early, and getting a Nando's.

Anyway, I just wanted to apologise if I came across as impolite to you the other day. I've been away from WP for a while, and in hindsight, I should've thought to discuss the issue at the talk page; I wrongly thought my edit summary alone explained the situation well enough. From what I can see, the material hasn't been reinstated, so until there's official confirmation it can stay that way, for sure. My main areas of focus have always been anti-vandalism and CSD, in all fairness, so substantially improving articles isn't really up my alley. I'll be taking a step back from the article in question, and the F1 WikiProject as a whole, and instead will be focusing on what I know I'm good at. Patient Zerotalk 00:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Patient Zero: no worries. We all get a little hot under the collar every now and again. Been there myself.
SSSB (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Appreciate the understanding. :-) Looking forward to the Hungarian GP next week? Patient Zerotalk 15:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@Patient Zero: it's not the best race, but I look forward to all of them.
SSSB (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Likewise, to be fair! Silverstone this year was rather eventful, and I quite liked the sight of the show at the Red Bull Ring this year. I’m a McLaren fan, though :-) Patient Zerotalk 15:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SSSB/Archive_5&oldid=1143280924"