User talk:Twirlypen

Japanese GP
That may be so, and I also heard the rumour about the lack of a helipad. I have also read that the altitude required for the helicopter to clear the weather may have increased the pressure on Bianchi's brain injury, making it too risky to fly him. In any case, the first FIA statement that said it couldn't fly due to the weather was not strictly true, or at least very vague. No doubt it'll be cleared up later, but for now it's a little odd. The mainstream media have widely repeated the FIA claim that it couldn't fly, with only a couple of sources actually questioning that, since it did fly after all. Hopefully we can simplify the prose when we have more facts, and also let's hope, better news. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The truth is ...
Hi Twirlypen,

I'm not sure how long you've been an editor, but I think you need to acquaint yourself with one of the more illogical unwritten rules of Wikipedia&mdash;and that is the idea that on Wikipedia, what is true is what we can prove. And when we're talking about something as fluid as the driver market, then it's unusually serendipitous when the truth and common sense line up.

I understand your logic in removing the line about JEV in the 2015 article. The problem is that we have a source that clearly says he won't drive. Just because Kvyat has since moved on, that doesn't automatically mean that JEV is back in contention to keep his seat. Conservatism should be your watchword here; any change to the article should be supported by evidence, even if the change is removing content. Unfortunately, the source you originally supplied, the NBC motorsportstalk feed, is not particularly reliable; they post a lot like Autosport's Grapevine column for soft news and rumours. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I appriciate you being patient with me. I think I am being misunderstood on the JEV point though... the second source I provided though, the FoxSports one, comes from the boss's mouth himself that JEV is being reconsidered now that Kvyat will move on to RBR. Doesn't this nullify that JEV is 100% ruled out for a STR 2015 seat? Twirlypen (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd probably prefer something with a little bit more coverage. It's odd that those are the only two sources running the story, since it's the kind of thing dedicated news outlets like Autosport would run a story on. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, and while my non-English skills are non-existant, there appears to be plenty of foriegn coverage recently according to a google search: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=vergne+2015+STR&tbm=nws ... I don't know if these are credible in the F1 community or even apply to English Wiki.
 * There are also a couple more English stories here https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#tbm=nws&q=vergne+2015+toro+rosso but my work computer blocks most sporting websites, so I can't check them out


 * This whole "What's true is what we can prove" code is looking more like "we have seniority." I gave a source, PROVED that Vergne isn't 100% eliminated from the seat. Yet it honestly feels like significant edits cannot be made unless it's by a select group of F1 editors.

Edit warring
If you continue to revert the edits to 2015 Formula One season, you may be blocked under the WP:3RR policy. Edit warring is a blockable offense, and your continued shouting or demands do not negate this policy. Having a source also does not negate this policy.

Further, per editing policy, should edits be questioned, they must be discussed. Discussions require a WP:CONSENSUS. No consensus exists for the subject matter you are editing, so you should not be editing the article at this time.

Further, accusing editors of owning articles for correcting your errors, or accusing editors of deliberately attempting to fight the edits for their own personal gain, is frowned upon. Assume good faith. The359 ( Talk ) 08:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at 2015 Formula One season. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Tvx1 (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Tvx1 (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Tvx1 (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Tvx1 (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Abu Double
Hi Twirlypen. What are you using as a source that the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix has been renamed to "Abu Double" Grand Prix? DH85868993 (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * DH85868993, I totally swore that I saw it in the reference used in the 2014 ADGP article calling the Abi Double GP. I left you a message. I am sure you are going through my contributions and reverting everything, rightfully so. I was pretty thorough for consistancy. My apologies. Twirlypen (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No problems. I think I know what happened. Earlier today, someone edited 2014 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix and changed every instance of "Abu Dhabi" to "Abu Double", including the title of that reference. Incidentally, if the title of the race had changed, the correct way to handle it would be to move the existing article (thereby preserving the edit history), rather that copying the contents to a new title and then redirecting the existing article to the new one (this is called a "cut-and-paste move"). Feel free to ask if you have any questions. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 04:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Keeping text on a single line
Hi Twirlypen. To keep some text on a single line, you can use the nowrap template, like this: text you want to keep on a single line. See my edit to 2004 Formula One season as an example. DH85868993 (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Much obliged! Thanks so much! Twirlypen (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Collapsing discussions
You can close & collapse discussion yourself if you want to. You can find the explanation here. Just make sure that the the result of the discussion you want to close is clear and undisputed. Regards, Tvx1 (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It was only for the protected edit requests regarding the WMSC meeting that took place. Twirlypen (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Grand Prix of America
Please allow me to use this space to vent my displeasure and frustration over the Grand Prix of America. Aside that I live an hour from the location, the proposed track is incredible with a majestic backdrop of NYC throughout the entire area, and would be a great street course to compliment Monaco, Singapore, and Australia. Austin is a great track, no doubt, but this place would truly sell Formula One to America. The powers that be, please make it happen in 2016!!!! Twirlypen (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Alignment
This is getting ridiculous and embarrassing. Tvx1 (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It is. It's such a minor issue. But at the risk of being accused of colluding, let's just leave it at that. Twirlypen (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm really getting at the end of my energy levels here. Which does realigning some text have to be such a drama? Tvx1 (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm about to say go ahead and put it back left just so it can be over it. But of course when the edits resume, then they will definitely have nothing to do with the alignment, I'm sure. Twirlypen (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about asking a third opinion on this. But it's rules are that there have to be exactly two user debating to ask for that. Our situation is really two sides though. Any thoughts? Tvx1 (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think any harm would come of asking. It's silly that we would bring a third opinion on such a trivial issue. I don't know if you've been following the talk page - it might be down to two users. Twirlypen (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Assuming good faith
The accusation that someone has violated OWN is taken pretty seriously. It's a large failure of AGF. Don't make the mistake that Tvx1 has and start throwing accusations of OWN around if someone doesn't immediately accept your position, which I think you have done at McLaren MP4-30. Accusing somebody of OWN should be a last resort, not a first option&mdash;and if you're going to do it, back it up with something the person you are accusing has said. It's very difficult to make a convincing case for OWN based on behaviour alone, especially if you are engaged with that user in a content debate. Without direct evidence, it looks like you are accusing someone of OWN to try and shut them up and get your way.

Now, I know you currently share the same opinion as Tvx1 on the 2015 talk page, but please do not look to him as an example of how to conduct a debate. Accusations of OWN are, unfortunately, one of his favourite tactics. If you look at some of the debates he has been involved in&mdash;particularly the number order issue and the local language race title argument (you might need to dig around a bit)&mdash;you will see that he frequently falls back on OWN when he is not getting his way. This is not the proper way to conduct a debate, especially when you wheel it out on your second edit, as you did on the MP4-30 article. Making an accusation about OWN so soon, based on behaviour alone and without any evidence in support of it means you presume to know a lot about the other editor and does not show good faith.

So please be very, very careful. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "(Just need to double check that, but I can't when note is hidden - if it's right, I'll hide the note again)" - Your exact summary of the revert.
 * "I haven't had time to confirm what you wrote. I have other obligations besides Wikipedia, you know." - An exact example statement from the Examples of Ownership Behavior section.


 * You're the last person to lecture me or anyone on AGF and OWN. Also, you're announcing that you're the only one that speaks up because we "assume what everyone is thinking" and that they don't post because "everyone is tired of Tvx1 & Twirlypen" (which, I'd like to see these if YOU'RE not assuming what everyone is thinking) when actually everyone who has spoken up have said they really don't care because it's a TBA and it's not permanent. The only one that caused a huge fuss over it was you - demanding unobtainable proof to justify moving 3 letters over a little bit. Again, this is a clear action in the Examples Of Ownership Behavior section. So please don't accuse me of throwing around OWN when you're very clearly showing multiple traits of ownership behavior. Twirlypen (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's well documented that I edit from a mobile phone. I can't follow links in text windows. I had to unhide the text to bring the reference up so that I could follow the link. Most people accept that it takes me three or four edits to achieve what they can do in one.


 * Nor is proof of what I ask unobtainable. You have made the assertion, in its simplest form, that formatting changes can bring about an end to disruptive editing. Do you mean to tell me that in the millions of pages on Wikipedia, the only time this has ever happened is on the 2015 season page? And how, exactly, can you make the claim that said format changes will stop disruptive editing before you have even applied them to the article? Finally, how do you address the arguments that were made when articles had mark-up introduced to make them mobile-friendly that complex mark-up would be a barrier to disruptive editing? A year later, that clearly hasn't happened; editors have learned the mark-up.


 * All of these are issues that you refuse to address. You present the new format as a viable long-term solution, but then you just expect everyone to take your word for it when you say it will work. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I must not have been around for that because I don't remember any argument over table mark-ups. I'm not expecting everyone to "take my word for it," however, everyone except you seems to be on board with giving it a try to see if it works. It's not long term - TBAs are typically either announced or canceled in the future. Twirlypen (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In all honesty, Twirlypen, I think that claim regarding the MP4-30 article edit was a bit quick. On the other hand, Prisonermonkeys, as a point of advice, you can't assume that everyone is aware of you being limited through editing from a mobile device, so it might help yourself if you add to the edit summary that you're making it to allow you to work your mobile device. Having said that, you, Prisonermonkeys, are not the person that should be lecturing about conducting disputes. I have no problem to admit that I haven't always been showing perfect behavior, but you on your side have pushed many users to desperation with your conduct during some disputes. Your behavior in some discussions isn't the prime example of how users should behave themselves. And neither is some of your editorial behavior. Hence why you have been blocked three times recently and currently are on a last warning before an indefblock from the administrators. Oh and really would like to see link to that "numbering dispute" you keep bringing up on me. This must now be the third consecutive discussion where you did. I really don't remember me being a sole bad guy in such a dispute.


 * And Twirlypen, this might actually be a practice to implement long-term, i.e. whenever, in the future, we have a race announced to be contracted without the exact venue being announced. Tvx1 (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe it was a quick reaction, but reverting my edit on the basis that he "has to check first" before it's removed/hidden kind of literally violates OWN and AGF at the same time. Maybe it was just a poor choice of words and bad timing. I just don't like being accused of being a disruptive editor, unable to work with anyone when I have worked quite well with nearly everyone in the project. Twirlypen (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

My wanting to check the regulations for myself was me wanting to make sure that I had the proper understanding of those regulations before I did anything further with them. That was the quickest and easiest way to check. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Twitter
Generally speaking, we follow the conventions of WP:TWITTER. However, the project does sometimes allow for Twitter as a source, usually if it's for secondary information and comes from an official team account. So for instance, the McLaren chassis name or a driber number is okay for a Twitter source, but McLaren announcing Honda or a team announcing a driver is not. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I found the W06 name on AMG Merc's official twitter account. Would that be appropriate to use? Twirlypen (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It should be. I based the MP4-30 on McLaren's account. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes that's okay. Per WP:Twitter, the requirement to use twitter as a source is that the tweet most from the person from the person or entity and must claim something about themselves. For instance, a driver tweeting on his/her official account that (s)he has signed a contract to drive or a team tweeting on their official account what their new chassis will be. Tvx1 (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Instructions for footnotes
Hi, I'd like to give you some instructions on how we generally implement footnotes in our project. This is how we would do it for Manor:

Notes:
 * — Subject to confirmation

So basically you add to entry for which you're adding a footnote, and you enter a new subsection underneath the table in which you put a bullet point ( * — ) for each note you require. In race reports we generally use numbers to distinguish direct notes, and in season articles we generally use symbols. The order for these symbols is: *, †, ‡, §, ‖, ¶, **, ††, ‡‡, §§, ‖‖, ¶¶. Hope this has been helpful for you. Tvx1 (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course, Prisonermonkeys format is an alternate way we have commonly used. Tvx1 (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your edits on 2015 Formula One season. I had removed the Hockenheimring from the article after it had been added without a source. Then I was searching for the best way to represent the current situation within the article, because the only sources I could find stated that no contract was signed yet, with negotiations going on. Obviously, you beat me to it, but I have to say you got it spot on. You've presented a clear view of the situation. Thanks for that. Tvx1 (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. While it wasn't sourced in the article, it did come out the day before that Ecclestone affirmed that Hockenheimring was going to host. Had that been it, I feel that in itself would have been enough to put in it the table. However, today track officials pretty much said they aren't as eager to jump on board with certainty just yet; thus, neither should we. Twirlypen (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 28 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Williams Grand Prix Engineering page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=644601923 your edit] caused a URL error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F644601923%7CWilliams Grand Prix Engineering%5D%5D Ask for help])


 * Thank,, but beat me to it! Rats!!! This will occasionally happen when I copy/paste  URLs from my mobile browser, as it omits the http:// by default and I'll forget to put it back in. Twirlypen (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Formula One order of teams
Just so you know, previous Formula One season articles have had the teams sorted by number order, not constructors order. Why? because constructors order is a characteristic of the previous season, not the current one. In 2014 another editor edit-warred constructors order in and following that, alphabetical was selected as a compromise. --Falcadore (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's basically the short version of the reply I made to your question on my talk page. As I said I wouldn't be opposed to rearranging to the current season's constructor order once it's finished like you actually did to the 2014 article. Tvx1 03:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Before realizing the order was in fact based off the previous season's standings, I had thought that was standard for the tables to be rearranged based on final standings for the season in question. Twirlypen (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Once the season was completed, of course. Twirlypen (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * We could actually incorporate the season's constructors' standings into the table in two ways: Either by putting that as the default layout of the table, like you did, or by leaving the default order as alphabetical as current and adding the option to sort by constructors' standings (using the team column). Tvx1 04:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are missing something. The order is sorted by race number, NOT constructors standings. The two are not the same. Sometimes they have seemed the same, but not always. The fact that the edit-warring editor could not or would not understand the difference led to the edit war. --Falcadore (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that was the case pre 2014. I have admitted that using previous season WCC order for a current season is not a good thing. Yet that doesn't mean we can't consider rearranging a season's table to that same season's WCC order at the end of the season (e.g. using 2014 WCC order for the 2014 season's table) using alphabetical order up to that point, an option that wasn't even mentioned last year. Tvx1 04:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, Twirlypen, a sandbox that details how different the number order has been to WCC order, which was made during last year's discussion still exists Tvx1 04:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That this option (same year's final standing for the final table arrangement) wasn't brought up is a little mind-boggling. It seems like a logical solution. But again, like I said, I don't want to open a can of worms that seems to have been opened, flung around, and allowed to make a mess of things. If I got the final order of standings wrong, I got it wrong. Twirlypen (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't really be a can of worms since it technically would be proposing something new. I really can't see the problem with trying. You've got nothing to lose. The reason why we didn't think of it last year was because we were confronted with a new system in the sport and we were looking for a short-term solution to deal with it. In the mean time we have been able to accustom to the new system to give drivers their numbers and take a step back and think more long-term. Nothing is set in stone and consensus can change over time. Tvx1 04:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Changing the order used all season to a different order after the season is complete is mind-boggling to me.
 * Tvx1: the above reply was not intended for you, but for Twirlypen. --Falcadore (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As the point Tvx1 brought up on his talk page, 10 years from now, we'll go back to the 2014 page and see a table headlined by Caterham in a season dominated by Mercedes. Personally, I think it makes sense, but that's why we have opinions. Twirlypen (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Falcadore, in that case you shouldn't have indented it. By indenting it, it looked like a reply to my comment. Twirlypen, good point! Tvx1 04:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct. My bad. --Falcadore (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Falcadore, why is it so "mind-boggling to you" to change to a permanent layout after using a temporary layout for quite some time. Might I point out to you that pre 2014 we would ALWAYS work like this. We would use a default layout (alphabetical) to start with and then we would change it to our preferred number-order style once that information became available (i.e. the entry list was published). So basically with this new way we would simply shift the point were we change to final order further down the season than we used to pre 2014. What's so mind-boggling about that? Talk about overreacting. Tvx1 13:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to re-read what I've written as you've misinterpreted me. --Falcadore (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So what did I misunderstand about your: "Changing the order used all season to a different order after the season is complete is mind-boggling to me." comment?
 * "After the season is complete". We've used the layout for the entire season. Calling it temporary under those circumstances? Really? The entire F1 season having happenned between the two cases (pre-season and post-season) makes no difference to you? --Falcadore (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No not to me. Because I acknowledge that those articles exist for more than just the period of one season. So this eight-month shift between changing points for the layout won't make that much difference for an article that's going to exist for decades. Eight months is nothing in a lifetime. Besides, pre 2014 we used to have the table in (temporary) alphabetical order for up to two years until the entry list would be published at the start of the season and we could change the table to numerical order. That's quite some time as well, yet it was still temporary (or preliminary if you prefer that wording). The only reason why I call this temporary because it's subject to a change at a preset time, just like the alphabetical order in the pre 2014 situation. It has nothing to do with the period of time we use it. Tvx1 16:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I've raised the issue at WT:F1 Tvx1 23:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

...
JFC, it was good to get productive stuff done without every little thing being challenged. I guess I shouldn't have gotten used to it. Twirlypen (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just give other people the time to weigh in their opinion. Don't make the mistake of wanting to settle an issue within the time space of a few hours. Don't forget that half the world is asleep (and I myself should have been) at almost any point of the day. Tvx1 04:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the matter at which these issues are settled. I, of course, wasn't expecting a swift resolution, but I also wasn't expecting Lord Judgement to try and push his version and force the onus on the rest of us to prove everything. I probably should have expected this though. Twirlypen (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Number of turn at the Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez
I can't really agree, it's not very obviously an error. It's more a kind of definition, and the definition will be made by the FIA, so we've to accept these numbering. When we've new information from the FIA or Tilke, I'll change, and I haven't seen the change, please give me a small hint, I'll change the map too, kindest regards --Pitlane02 🏁talk 14:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * , the original source I used [here] states 17 turns. I don't know anything about the reliability of infopits, and the website is in Spanish, but it contains photos of a seemingly very official layout reveal. Twirlypen (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, your reference is very good, and I think you are right. The presentation was hold by Tilke himself, and he should know what he had planned. ;-) I will change it later. Thanks alot for this information, regards --Pitlane02 🏁talk 08:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've changed the map, thx for the hint. regards --Pitlane02 🏁talk 13:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * , your map looks good. I did notice though that when you added turn 17 to it, there was no corresponding bullet point on the map. Just a heads-up. Cheers. Twirlypen (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Once again, thx for the hint. regards --Pitlane02 🏁talk 07:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 19 March
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On the 2015 Australian Grand Prix page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=652041422 your edit] caused a URL error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F652041422%7C2015 Australian Grand Prix%5D%5D Ask for help])

Reference Errors on 21 March
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On the 2015 Formula One season page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=652940996 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F652940996%7C2015 Formula One season%5D%5D Ask for help])

List of fatal Formula One accidents
I've virtually given up on making sense of this article - the contents are inconsistent and the definition conflicts with the title. I'm not arguing with your edit as such, but the logic isn't that self-evident. While the WDC began in 1950, Formula One was defined in 1946, and Formula One races were held between then and 1950. While a Maserati 6CM clearly could not have been built for Formula One, as a 1500cc supercharged Voiturette it would have qualfied for Formula One - as would the ERA which is now the first entry in the table. Ian Dalziel (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

2014 F1
After first removal, I reverted once with a altered justification, started the talk page debate and stood back. Not even remotely grounds for a warning. --Falcadore (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Numbers
Just to let you know, during the ongoing Barcelona tests, Pierre Gasly used #31 for Red Bull, Olivier Turvey used #33 for McLaren, Nick Yelloly used #34 for Force India, Pierre Gasly used #38 for Toro Rosso and Alex Lynn used #40 for Williams. Oh, and Jolyon Palmer has used #30 for Lotus and Susie Wolff #41 for Williams for Free Practice this season. So, it seems your list of numbers needs some updating. Tvx1 12:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I backtracked and guessed on the practice and testing numbers. I haven't been as active lately in the past month or so and have let it go by the wayside. But again, thanks for the updated info. Twirlypen (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. This new events raise a lot of question on how these test/free practice numbers are being assigned. I was exceptionally surprised to see Oilver Turvey using 33, which is actually Max Verstappen's career number. Tvx1 23:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That is peculiar, indeed. As we figured out for the 2014 season, McLaren's practice/test numbers were 32 and 33. Perhaps these do NOT get reassigned each season as we had assumed given that Verstappen selected 33, yet McLaren obviously still used it. On the other hand, if THAT is the case, then it completely contradicts Gasly using 31 for Red Bull, as that was a Lotus test number that has obviously been reassigned. Twirlypen (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Absolutely astonishing that nothing about that is in the regulations... Usually it seems F1 is completely over-regulated by its rule books... Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to think that they don't have a fixed free practice/test number for the entire reason, but that they are rather assigned one for the day every time such a session takes place. For instance, during the recent Barcelona tests Verstappen wasn't even present, so his number 33 was available for that day and hence it was assigned to Turvey. Tvx1 14:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

More numbers's are appearing during the Austria test. Stoffel Vandoorne used #47 for McLaren and Antonio Fuoco used #29 for Ferrari


 * If I even continue with this project, I'm just going to remove all team's supposed "assigned practice numbers" as there is no method or madness to it anymore. Twirlypen (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Did Olivier Turvey use #33 before Max ever got into a car? I mean, yes, Max selected it before preseason testing ever began, but who actually drove with it first? This is something that just came to me out of the blue and probably answers at least that part of how he was able to use it. Twirlypen (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't find Turvey participating in any test prior to that Barcelona one. The first usage of 33 in 2015 seems to be Max Verstappen at the first pre-season test. The only test number I have found McLaren to have used during 2014, is Stoffel Vandoorne with 32. I have found Lotus' Alex Lynn to have used 33 during last year's post-season Abu Dhabi test, though. Tvx1 13:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, then the madness continues! Twirlypen (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Another twist to the numbers, they've retired Bianchi's number as a mark of respect. Tvx1 14:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I just heard. I'm updating my table now. Twirlypen (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There's yet another twist in the tale. A driver drafted in mid-season has now seemingly chosen his own number instead of being assigned one. Tvx1 14:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

2015 Monaco Grand Prix and future of F1
I'm afraid by the time we reach the 2018 season article, everyone will have forgotten the discussions held at the moment. But well... Maybe I'll add just a small paragraph about the press conference on Wednesday to the article when I update it to GA status after the Grand Prix. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I moved the Hamilton info to his article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your efforts are not unappreciated, I promise. But the majority of the Lewis Hamilton contract information should go into his own article, if it belongs anywhere. Keep in mind that by 2018, or even much less by August 2015, that it will be WP:NOTNEWS. The Strategy Group meetings are nothing official beyond proposals. All of what they have agreed to has not been passed by the WMSC. Furthermore, the event article should pertain solely to the event. When the discussion regarding 2015 Australia and van der Garde's legal challenge was going on, it was agreed that it had a place in the event article because the court's ruling directly impacted a team's line-up (despite later being settled). These strategy meetings do not impact 2015 Monaco in the slightest. Twirlypen (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It was my feeling that if there are major talking points kind of surrounding the Grand Prix, like being discussed during the press conferences, it could be included to give a framework about what was happening in F1 at the time of the race. But if that is not consensus, I'll leave it out. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to ask around. Minds change all the time, my friend. Twirlypen (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Monaco Grand Prix
Hi, you removed my edit with the comment "obvious biased content, also misplaced in race report. Place UNBIASED post-race content in its appropriate section". Please explain how my factual and fully referenced edit was biased and also please show which is the appropriate section for post race content given that there is no other prose section, merely tables. da nn o _ u k 19:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * See the talk page. Even if a team boss says that pitting Hamilton cost him the win, it is still speculative. We can reliably say that it cost him the lead at that point in the race, but not the win. Twirlypen (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My edit did not state that it cost him the win, it stated that he stopped on the cool down lap and hit the third placed board. I made no comment about any pit stops or strategy. Everything that I submitted was factual and supported by the provided reference. Please explain your removal of this factual content and your accusation of bias, which I find extremely offensive. da nn o _ u k 01:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Nowhere in your reference did it say he "deliberately shunted the third place marker" nor do podium cars even park in Parc Fermé in Monaco. They were on the start/finish line. As for stopping midway during the cool-down lap, the reference even says "seemingly to collect his thoughts." That is speculation. The bias claim may have gotten mixed up in the other revisions, but regardless unless Hamilton himself says why he stopped or that he intentionally drove into his marker, we can't assume anything. Twirlypen (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And again, I made no comment about "collecting his thoughts". Factually, he stopped. Factually he hit the marker board. Wikipedia is not about re-interpreting third party reports to our own devices, it's about collating the best of those reports. Which is what people like me try to do. You still haven't recanted your accusation of "bias", a besmirchment on my editing on this site, nor have have you provided any kind of explanation of where the "appropriate section" for "post-race content" is. da nn o _ u k  02:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If you read my response, I stated that the article said the reason he stopped in a speculative manner (seemingly to collect his thoughts [pure speculation]). Your edit said that he stopped in a display of frustration. Nowhere did it definitively say why he stopped. If that's not a re-interpretation by your own words, I don't know what is. Yes, factually he hit the marker board. Again though your edit reflected/re-interpreted that this was intentional when the source made no such mention. Post-race content goes in the post-race section if it needs to be created. This is pretty standard among the race articles in the F1 WikiProject. And if you need to hear it then I hearby recant my original claim of biased editing. But the fact remains the content as presented is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Twirlypen (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Other editors have worked on it and it is now presented in a manner becoming of an encyclopedia, with no presumptions or misinterpretations. Twirlypen (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you please show a bit more respect to another editor? There's no need to see removal of your content as a personal attack. I agree with my colleague that your content was inappropriate. It contained some unsourced claims that Hamilton deliberately excessively showed his frustration during the cool-down lap. Furthermore the information has little encyclopedic value. Those events have no bearing on the outcome of the race. Tvx1 08:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, I did remove it as biased when I should have just said it was a good faith edit that wasn't reflective of the source used. Hopefully this is settled as it has been thoroughly discussed. Twirlypen (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * My first barnstar! Thank you! Twirlypen (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Reviving old talk page discussions
Hi Twirlypen. If I might offer some friendly advice, my experience has been that reviving talk page discussions which are over a year old as you did here and here is not always a great idea, as it sometimes leads to old debates being rekindled. Most of the time I find it's better to "let sleeping dogs lie". Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Not a bad idea at all if it's done in good faith to close an issue which was forgotten for some reason and/or to correct obvious mistakes. Tvx1 22:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Tooltips
Tooltips are not visible on mobile devices. Why do you think we stopped using them? And given that the established consensus is to work to suit all readers equally and there are viable alternatives to Tooltips, I really don't see what the problem is.

And leave the personal comments out of the edit summaries. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not solely for mobile users. And I apologize, but after 3 months off I figured your first step wouldn't be to immediately rattle cages and stir pots. Twirlypen (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The solution that accommodates mobile users does not adversely affect non-mobile users. If anything, it benefits them because it makes the situation&mdash;which is very unusual&mdash;quite clear, resolves the contradiction between the driver table and results matrices and more accurately represents the situation. I cannot see the downside to any of this. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Request
My I kindly request you to remove that last comment from the Manor discussion. It's better to discuss those things on yout talk pages. Discussing the contributor does not help the discussion on the project's page forward. Tvx1 10:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Never seen a more obvious case in my life, and I spent five years working directly at a facility. Twirlypen (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Force India VJM08 / Marussia MR03
I hope the changes I've made are to your liking :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I also made some changes to Force India VJM07. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks good! Again your contributions have been invaluable since you've been on board! Twirlypen (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

2017 season
Hi Twirlypen. I have noticed that you have submitted your draft for the 2017 season article. May I kindly request you to retract that submission. The reason why I ask this is because it's way to soon to have this around. We don't need an article for season that's going to happen in two years time. The problem with articles on future seasons is that they tend to be a magnet for unsourced speculation and vandalism. We created the 2016 season article around this time last year after a considerable discussion. The rationale for creating it at that time was that during the summer period information for the 2016 season would start to appear during the summer. Needless to say that didn't happen at all and we spent the first five months the article was live reverting unsourced additions and vandalism. Only towards the end of november did 2016 information start to appear in the sources and the summer only yielded information for the 2015 season. Therefore just like with the 2016 article, the 2017 article (and any further future article in the following years) shouldn't be created until at least november or december. It is worth noting that the 2017 article is creation protected for just this reason. There is no rush at all to create it. Tvx1 16:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I may just do so after some reconsideration. Once any major potential rule changes get announced/confirmed though, it should be made. Also, for what it's worth, when I went to the redlink a few days ago, I was allowed to attempt to create the article, although it's very possible that I just had a typo or missed a capitalization. Twirlypen (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hispania/HRT
The FIA always recognised Hispania as "HRT" because they didn't consider "Hispania" to be a word (weird, I know). We just had a lengthy discussion on the way we have to go by what the entry lists say, and while I still disagree with that, we should at least be aiming for consistency. At the very least, COMMONNAME indirectly applies (I know it applies to article titles more than content) because the team was always referred to as "HRT" rather than "Hispania". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * HRT was anything but consistent, except when it came to results! Anyway, thanks for the heads-up. That logic of theirs is very strange. Hispania is not a word, but Marussia is... Twirlypen (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It's the FIA. Logic rarely comes into. I believe that, technically, Marussia was allowed because it was the name of a car constructor. It actually is a word&mdash;it's Russian for the personification of Mother Russia. Ironically, "Hispania" is an English word; "Hispanic" is derived from it, and it refers to the Iberian Peninsula. But I think the FIA were worried about the long-term prospects of the team, given the disaster that was Campos Meta. By calling it "Hispania", it would have been turned into an asset of the owners, who might have tried to on-sell it, damaging the sport. It's political, a lot like the decision to leave Manor on the Melbourne entry list despite their inability to compete and failure to meet the actual conditions of entry. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Driver numbers
Two things:
 * I think this article should be created.
 * Do you have a source stating that the numbers 0 and 00 could be used? I would think, if anything, only one will be available, most likely #0 (too bad Damon Hill's son quit motor racing...).

Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That is what's really holding it up - I need it to be sourced properly, also there needs to be support from the community. I don't want to submit it just to have it nominated for deletion. Twirlypen (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't think the rules had any prohibitions regarding 0 (or, even though I don't ever recall its use, 00). But I'll do some digging to see if anything is explicitly stated. Twirlypen (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * According to this, drivers are limited to pick a number between 2 and 99. However the official rules don't mention any such limit. So I'm not sure what that claim is based on. Tvx1


 * I think 0/00 would best be one of those things where we cross that bridge if we get to it. As in, leave it out of the table until someone is successful in choosing it - then we can just add it in. By that notion, if 0/00 isn't strictly prohibited, then what would stop a driver from hypothetically choosing a 3 or 4 digit number? Twirlypen (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * , I made an alternate version of the table beneath the original. I, for one, think it would be more useful, at least perhaps even worthy of nomination, once the 2016 drivers are all known. No sense in having a giant list of nothing except 6 drivers between 30 and 99, right? Twirlypen (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nominate for what? This is not a thing that merits its own article? Does, say ..., the MotoGP project have an article on riders' numbers? At best we could include this on the Project's page for reference. Tvx1 13:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * In any case, which do you prefer? Twirlypen (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the MotoGP project is an inferior piece of work. The portal hasn't even been updated in two years. Don't compare this project to others. Twirlypen (talk) 06:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I like that you say this has no merit for its own article, but somehow List of Formula One broadcasters and Formula One video games does. I'm beginning to see why the seasoned editors in the project think this is a joke nowadays. I think once all of the 2016 drivers are announced and the table has a little more meat to it, I shall do what I did for the 2017 Formula One season article and nominate/create it anyway and successfully argue against the deletion of the list article there too once it will inevitably be nominated by an editor with a grudge. Twirlypen (talk) 06:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Or you could simply nominate those articles for AFD. I never said their existance is ok. Do you really think I have to be aware of every single article that's somehow related to F1 before being allowed to nominate one for deletion? FYI, I hold not grudges at all. Tvx1 07:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2017 Formula One season has been accepted
 2017 Formula One season, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=2017_Formula_One_season help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.
 * Just great. It is way to soon to have this article. Now we can look forward to a lot of reverting to do. Tvx1 12:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, pish-posh. It's part of the job. No need to bellyache about it. If it get's out of hand, we get it protected. Twirlypen (talk)
 * It should be nominated for speedy deletion under criterium G7. Tvx1 13:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Then nominate it. Twirlypen (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't. You have to do that. You're the author. Tvx1 13:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Pish-posh, you can nominate any article for deletion. Twirlypen (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about a normal AfD nomination. I'm talking about a G7 speedy deletion. And that requires a request from the author. Read the link to G7 I provided. Tvx1 15:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 2017 Formula One season


A tag has been placed on 2017 Formula One season requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator.

I opted for this criterion instead of the G7 criterion I suggested earlier, because I can't nominate under the G7 criterion. Tvx1 20:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of 2017 Formula One season for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2017 Formula One season is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/2017 Formula One season & until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tvx1 15:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is getting quite sad. Twirlypen (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Recentism
Please do not asign importance levels for F1 circuits based on whether they are currently in use or not. That is not how wikipedia works. A current circuit with only one or two years history is not more important than a circuit with over 50 years of history and some of F1s most famous moments. Senna is not low importance is he? Nor is the French Grand Prix you may notice. --Falcadore (talk) 06:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , hey, I didn't create the importance scale. It's a community-wide agreement. If you disagree with the criteria, you're free to raise the issue there. So yes, that actually IS how Wikipedia works. Also, Senna has been and is rated Top, so I don't know why you're accusing me of changing that. The French GP, thanks for pointing that out. The event hasn't been held since 2008, which hardly falls under recentism at all, and since it's been nearly a decade, it's hardly ever-present. The only case could probably be for the German GP, since it's only been out for one year. I'll concede that. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 06:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think I suggested you alterred Senna's article importance (it did not even happen!) then you are suffering from your own sense of entitlement. That you think I could even suggest such an accusation suggests you have a distorted view of my intention.
 * Regardless of an established criteria of any kind, it is simply common sense that the Nurburgring is not of low importance. That you susequently upgrade to top suggests you agree with me, even though you deny it with a convulted invented scenario.
 * Senna was merely a comparison in that relegating a subject of low importance simply because it is not current, which is why I bring up WP:RECENTISM, the act in which current events are given undue priority over the overall history. Senna, like the Nurburgring is not currently part of Formula One. It's just that simple. There is no reason to create accusations of accusations.
 * There are times where "criteria" is simply wrong. This is just that sort of instance.
 * So next time, don't be so self-involved by turning a common sense decision into a direct slight at you which invites a response like sense of hierarchy by some members.
 * As for criticism of the French Grand Prix? The Grand Prix de l'ACF was the original Grand Prix. An enormously important part of the origin and early history of Grand Prix racing and Formula One. It is top importance. Suggesting otherwise is a nonsense, regardless of whether a criteria written somewhere says otherwise.
 * regards. --Falcadore (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * With all due respect in regards to the French GP, this is WP F1, not WP Motorsports. 1906 to 1949 have no bearing on WP F1. And as far as criteria interpretation, nowhere does it say personal opinion or discretion should play a factor. Maybe the issue should be raised, since there appears to be confusion. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 22:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1946 rather than 1949, but that's neither here nor there. A subjects ancestry is still relevant to the topic. The Grand Prix de l'ACF (and its organiser Automobile Club de France) still has a unique place in the history of F1, for its influence, its political power and its nomadic nature, utterly unlike any other Grand Prix, except possibly Australia if you include its pre-F1 life. Even without the Club ACF and the French Grand Prix, F1 is still based in France after all. Even though they've moved some functions to Geneva and Vernier, the powerbase is still centred on Paris. --Falcadore (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I am just going by what the criteria says. It seems like I've gotten it right for 99% of the changes I've made (I went back to 2008). It said this was agreed by the community. To me, that says there is a concensus and that I don't need to form one to see that articles are graded that way. I'm open to discuss new criteria if the ones there are outdated, just not here on my talk page and not while being accused of being a rogue editor, changing grades based off of nothing but a whim. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 04:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , that's why article can be within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. The importance of the French Grand Prix you mention relates more to WP:MOTOR as whole and to WP:France than to just WP:F1 (Twirlypen, note that it's WP:F1, not WP:F1 World Championship. F1 started before 1950. The World Championship started in 1950). Therefore I have added the WP:Motor tag on the French Grand Prix talk page. Tvx1 13:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

MP4-30
Hey, you've been an objective outsider on this&mdash;do you mind taking a look over the MP4-30 article? I'm worried that it's getting too technical, losing focus and over-emphasising items of relative under-importance. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything overly, or rather, unecessarily technical. The article's subject is about a very highly-technical piece of automotive machinery, so there's bound to be some sections that could be a little much to some people, much like an article covering a medical topic or the history of some kind of math formula. In reading the article top to bottom, I did think that in the section regarding Alonso's testing accident, perhaps it should be noted that while McLaren did not find telemetry data substantiating Alonso's claims of a steering failure, the car was outfitted to prevent a locking steering column anyway.


 * Also, I'm a little on the fence having the article state that the Mercedes power unit as being the benchmark for the 2015 season, despite it being said so in the source. Finally, the sentence with the drivers effectively being moved to the back of the grid in Belgium, I don't believe effectively is necessary in this case. In fact, while I know that each driver is getting something of a 25-30 spot grid penalty, would potential other infractions cause them to start behind McLaren, or would the remaining spots supercede later infractions? Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 07:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think that article should over-emphasise Alonso's accident, since nothing came of it. Any more detail will make it read like an open-ended, unsolved mystery and take focus away from the car. So unless a more definitive cause comes forward, I think it's fine as is.


 * As for the engine penalties at Spa, others could in theory move behind them, but the system of prioritising penalties informally changed last year. They used to be awarded in the order they were issued, but the stewards now wait until after qualifying to issue them to stop teams taking a new component early and banking on others to do it later and minimise the impact for themselves. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I see it as more of a development to the car, the scope of the article, rather than the crash itself. There are numerous sources stating that McLaren added "an extra sensor", rather than specific hardware to prevent a lock, so perhaps it's fine as-is. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 08:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , do you think the cartoonishly facetious 105-place grid penalty is worth noting? Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 23:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, because it has no effect&mdash;Button and Alonso go to the back of the grid with no further consequence. And it was 105 in total; 50 for Button and 55 for Alonso. Plus, the article already covers it; it mentions the decision to take the penalties now to free up engines for Monza and Singapore. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 Italian Grand Prix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercedes. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Impostor account
You have an impostor account&mdash:"Twirlypæn". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Didn't this happen to a bunch of others? The user page was created on 27 March. I recall it to be around the same time prisonernonkeys and tvx11 came around. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 08:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it did, but it clearly wasn't active until now. It's obviously a troll who likes to cause trouble when there's a disagreement on the WikiProject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It's been hard blocked this time, so hopefully that's done with. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 10:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"Is set to"
You do know that grammatically, there is no difference between "is set to" and "will", right?

Also, you're placing too much emphasis on the extremely minor statistic of Rossi having the seat, then losing it; it's a logical fallacy, and using it establishes a precedent for using the argument in future, which has all sorts of dire implications. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "Is set to" says he is expected to. "Will" says it's 100% going to happen. Your stance on it being grammatically identical is simply incorrect. Given the two instances of precendence, both involving Rossi and both involving a version of the Manor Marussia team, how can you reasonably argue it will 100% happen? If it's going to tear you up that much inside over the next four days to have it say "set to" instead of "will", then put it back. I'm not feeling like doing this dance today. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 09:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You're talking about two incidents of precedence amid thousands of driver changes, and yet you're presenting them as representative of the entire process. It's the Gambler's fallacy&mdash;because of a correlation between events with a similar variable, you assume that any future events with that same variable will result in the same or similar outcome. But although Rossi has been dropped by the team twice in the past, consider the circumstances: at Spa, it was because Chilton paid up, whereas in Sochi, it was because the team elected not to run a second car out of respect for Bianchi. So where is your evidence that he will be dropped this time around? WP:F1 policy has always held the position that teams will follow through on their stated intentions, and that we cannot we cannot reasonably predict force majeure. Your argument reinvisions that, expecting that we not only acknowledge the potential for force majeure, but factor it in as a reasonable likelihood in any decision. Using your argument, we should cut all of the remaining rounds from the calendar because they might not happen. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and put it back then. He's already got the 13 next to his name in the table anyway. He's going to race 13-14, and 16-18, while Merhi will race Russia and Abu Dhabi. So since that's already set in stone, we can add those too. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 09:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Even though that is specifically why we don't fill in all the rounds in the table, because we don't know that all of the events will happen or that the drivers will race in each one. But you're right. This time is different. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 09:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Why must the two of you always be so emotional in discussing with each other. And that over just one word. For the record, I agree that "will" was no the best choice of the words. Maybe "is expected to" would have been the most neutral choice. And following up on discussions a while ago, I think we should avoid the word debut as it is to vague. Now, Prisonermonkeys, I think you are being overconcerned again. Your just overdramatizing the pootential implications of this change of words. We don't to have a well-founded philosophy for every change of words. Anyway the issue is moot now that Rossi has been entered for the race. Tvx1 14:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

2017 season
No, that's ridiculous. If something is not happening, regardless of whether it is sourced or not, it can be simply removed from the article. Including wrong or potentially unreliable information just because it is reliable sourced is contrary to Wikipedia policies. Furthermore, if you can point out where exactly refuelling is mentioned in the source provided I would be grateful, as I cannot see it even by doing a word search. QueenCake (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No, Twirlypen one does not need a source to remove incorrect, unsourced information. Nowhere in your source is refuelling mentioned. It only mentions aerodynamics. Tvx1 17:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The website must have then altered their content between when it was posted and now. Even the 2009 detail was grabbed from information obtained through that article. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 03:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Refute the argument, or leave it alone
Please stop assuming that I have some ulterior motive. You can either refute the argument, or you can leave it alone. Reading your edit summaries, it's pretty clear that you are making decisions based on what other editors are doing, and not based on what is in the interests of the article.

Now, if you had watched the qualifying session, you would have seen that the teams are recognised as "Red Bull Racing-Renault" and "STR-Renault". Either refute this, or leave it alone. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, "I saw it on TV" isn't a reliable source. You of all people should know this. Cite the actual FIA entry list at least in your summaries, otherwise add the ridiculous reference citation . Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 07:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I would invite you to read COMMONNAME, which only applies to article titles. For example, we refer to the Sao Paulo circuit as "Autodromo Jose Carlos Pace", NOT "Interlagos", even though Interlagos is the common name. So why should we refer to Suzuka by uts common name, and not the name actual name? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Seeing as the STR/RBR issue had nothing to do with AGF, as it even said so in the edit summary, I really don't know what you expect to accomplish with this, or why you even brought it up. I fixed my error once I did your homework, so it appears your issue is the Suzuka edit. But whatever, do what you feel you must to feel superior as usual. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 08:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Look at the time difference between the two edits. What do you think I was doing in the time between them? My "homework". You just assumed that I hadn't looked it up&mdash;and had any other editor made those edits, you would have accepted them on face value. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If it had the edit summary "I saw it on TV", then no, I really wouldn't have just left it. But if you choose to believe otherwise, I won't lose much sleep over it. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 08:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Singapore circuit map
Hi! I see your revert in 2015 Singapore Grand Prix. I use this image to create th current circuit map. We can improve it, the problem in my opinion is that, at the moment, I found only that circuit map form a reliable source (it's from the official F1 website). If you found athor images from other reliable sources, I will improve my image. Best regards, Restu 20 19:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've upload a new version of the file using this source. Regards, Restu 20 11:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That one is much more accurate. Unfortunately, there are some aspects of formula1.com that are unreliable, including circuit maps. They use an old map layout, but inexplicably (though we know why) give Ricciardo the lap record time with a slower time than 2013. Thanks for your efforts! Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 03:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

See talk page
If you see the words "see talk page" it usually means that you need to visit the talk page. If you do and you don't see anything there, it's because something is in the process of being added. Maybe you should stop being so trigger-happy in reverting things on sight. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Consensus_flowchart.svg, etc, etc... just another case of you putting things your way and then demanding justification from everyone else that agreed it was fine the way it was. Rationally, people discuss significant changes, such as removal of entire sections, before implementing their edits of choice. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 22:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * A long-standing consensus&mdash;it's been around longer than me&mdash;says that changes are notable and continuity between seasons does not need to be addressed. Right now, that section amounts to "there was a tender process, but they decided to keep doing what they have been doing for six years", and implies that some kind of change has happened when none has.


 * According to your logic, we should list everything that is happening&mdash;drivers that are staying with their teams, teams that are staying with their engine suppliers, races that are staying at their circuits and so on&mdash;because Pirelli are keeping their contract. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * All or nothing applied to the use of Red Bull/Toro Rosso vs RBR/STR, and it applies here too. Noting one tender doesn't mean we have to note all tenders. Seeing as wider tyres are still a very real possibility (which is noted in the article), some background information on the tyre tender is hardly detrimental to the article. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 23:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

2018 Formula One season listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2018 Formula One season. Since you had some involvement with the 2018 Formula One season redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 333-blue 08:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Lotus source
Please read your sources a little more carefully. The comments from Lopez amount to "if the Renault deal falls through, then we can use Mercedes engines". It is completely conditional, rather than certain; Lotus (or whoever they will be in 2016) will use Mercedes or Renault power, which is the very definition of "TBA". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Palmer's number
I'm really curious how much confirmation you are really looking for. It has been mentioned in reliable sources and the man himself has tweeted about it. Tvx1 15:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Seeing as it's my sandbox you're referring to and not the articles, I don't see why this even needs to be addressed. But, seeing as Palmer himself has confirmed it, I'll put it back. Somewhere along the lines, the sort arrow got next to every driver number and I'm trying to figure out why/how that happened. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 19:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't addressed it out of sheer curiosity because you denied it being confirmed both in your sandbox and on the 2016 Formula One season talk page. Those unwanted arrows seem to be a site-wide problem and there is already some discussion here. Tvx1 19:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for 2015 Singapore Grand Prix
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Talk:List of Formula One driver numbers for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Talk:List of Formula One driver numbers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:List of Formula One driver numbers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tvx1 16:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Your signature and linter errors
Just a reminder that your signature contains obsolete font tags. They create Linter errors, and it is advised that you change your signature to  ASAP.

The purpose of this message is because Linter errors affect the way the page looks, and with a lot of errors, the page may render badly. To reduce Linter errors, please change your signature. See WP:SIGFONT for more info.

If the software doesn't accept my replacement signature, let me know, and if that's the case, unfortunately you may have to change it to something else. Sheep (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Your signature and linter errors
Just a reminder that your signature contains obsolete font tags. They create Linter errors, and it is advised that you change your signature to  ASAP.

The purpose of this message is because Linter errors affect the way the page looks, and with a lot of errors, the page may render badly. To reduce Linter errors, please change your signature. See WP:SIGFONT for more info.

If the software doesn't accept my replacement signature, let me know, and I may give you another replacement signature to use. Otherwise, you may have to change it to something else. Sheep (talk • he/him) 18:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton Win List AFD
Hi Just wanted to notify you of this, seems you were active on similar discussions and AfDs but the Lewis Hamilton win list and other such lists are proposed for deletion. Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton 159.242.125.170 (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)