User talk:Tvx1/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tvx1. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Please don't remove the "Infobox person" from the Tom Pryce article again whilst the discussions relevant to it are still ongoing. It has been there for more than 11 months, and it is very much part of the discussions about nationality on the talk pages. Without it, I fear some points made so far in the discussions we are both involved in regarding it could possibly be misunderstood by newcomers to those discussions. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It’s ommission does not affect the discussion in any way. The readers don’t even see it. And it certainly is no the general convention to use that coding. It’s clear that you are clutching at straws here since it appears that it is the sole argument that you have in favor of your stance.Tvx1 21:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

You disappoint me, I thought you understood WP:EQ. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Tom Pryce shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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

You have broken the rule you know so making sure the warning is in place. I'm not getting involved but if the edit war starts up again I'll file a report -----Snowded ^TALK 09:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, one of the other editors in the spat, has had an SPI report on them. Looks likely to be meat-puppetry. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your copyedit on 2019 Formula One World Championship. During the process, images of new driers for 2019 were removed. I was not sure whether this is intentional - for example, whether they should go under 'driver changes' rather than 'entries', so I have reinstated these images. If there was a good reason for removal, please do not hesitate to reverse my edit. Bamkin (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Great Britain Olympic football team shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I take no position on which image is correct. I have also warned VEO15. DannyS712 (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. DannyS712 (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Edit warring complaint
• Hello Tvx1. Is it your position that File:Team-gb-logo.svg can be used at Team GB and but NOT at Great Britain Olympic football team? Has this been decided somewhere? The edit warring complaint will need to be closed one way or the other. If you know of any agreement about this please point to it. You may consider opening a discussion at some copyright board (or other suitable place) and agree to make no more reverts until a consensus is found. Otherwise the admin who closes the report might decide that both parties should be blocked, since neither side will make any concessions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• It's not my position. It's wikipedia's position. Per the Non-Free content policy. Particularly WP:NFC#UUI#17. The other user has made no attempt to establishes it meets that condition. I made my revert in the spirit of exemption #5 of WP:3RR.Tvx1 12:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Please see the result of the edit warring report. Your judgment about the fair use matter is possibly correct, but it would be better to find people to agree with you. If reverts continue, admins will probably want to do something. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2018–19 UEFA Europa League#Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. Hhkohh (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 UEFA Europa League first qualifying round. This discussion is focused on whether we should merge content or not. Hhkohh (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you know why Prisonermonkeys has stopped using his account on article talk pages if that IP user is in fact him? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Because they forgot their password and can’t login anymore. And for some reason they refuse to register a new account and declare that is their active one.Tvx1 22:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Please provide at least one source, that says something specific about 2020. 'Multi-year contract' is quite uncertain definition. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It's enough though. Multiple year literally means more than one year. The bear minimum of that is 2. In this case that is thus 2019&2020. That's not crystall-ball when the people involved have announced that. That it might mean one+an option is just your personal opinion. You have no source backing that stance.Tvx1 17:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, The article School strike for climate has a ton of sources in European languages. Any help you can offer to comply with WP:NONENG would be appreciated! If you look at the various sources and happen to know which ones offer English alternatives, please make a note of that at the article talk page. This will help us down the road when someone again adds that source to the article. Thanks for the help! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

A lot of users on the Formula One side of Wikipedia seem really aggressive especially against me for some reason, when I ask to discuss things about a certain article they seem to just bite my head off. I'm just asking why is that? I've come to you asking this because you're one of the more friendlier editors. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know who's really biting you at the moment. In all honesty, I think you're editing the articles to quickly at the moment. We should flesh out the discussion first BEFORE adding the flag of one or other nation. I know Prisonermonkeys in particular has been aggressive to you in the past, but that's nothing to take serious. They have done that with almost anyone they have dealt with at some point, including myself. That's certainly nothing personal against you.Tvx1 17:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

See, Speedy Question Mark, Prisonermonkeys, now known as Mclarenfan17, has found their next victim.Tvx1 14:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a friendly note about the words "licence"/"license" and "license" in English (I hope you don't mind!). In "International English" (including "British English" and "Australian English") the noun (as in a "driving licence") is spelt with two "c"s and the verb (as in you are "licensed to drive") is spelt differently, with a "c" and an "s". In "US English" both words are spelt identically: as "license". I'm only sharing this because most of our WP:F1 articles are written in British or Australian English and I've noticed that you tend to use the US spelling for the noun on the talkpages and I wasn't sure if you'd realised the subtle difference. Cheers. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't be much of a problem on talk pages, should it? As long as we understand each other. My computer actually aut-corrects it when it write it with two c's and it is not set to US English.Tvx1 18:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not a problem at all - far from it. But UK and US English do have some weird differences, and I thought I'd share this one with you in case you hadn't come across it before. Both spellings are correct in UK English, in the different contexts I mentioned, so perhaps the spell checker cannot tell context it is being used in. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that's the same thing I assume that happens. But in that case, it think it should give me a choice instead of guessing a context and automatically changing it.Tvx1 18:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's another one to test it with... In UK English "practice" is a noun as in "he put his driving skills into practice by becoming a taxi driver" whereas "practise" is a verb as in "before becoming a taxi driver he had to practise his driving skills". In US English both the noun and the verb are spelt "practice". -- DeFacto (talk). 21:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, rather than clutter the WT:F1 discussion with this query, I'll ask you this (possibly language/translation-related or a typo that I cannot resolve) question here. What do you mean by "wetting" in this post. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Yet another victim of unwanted auto-correcting.Tvx1 14:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, ok - "worrying" isn't too bad a word. But "wetting oneself" is a commonly used idiom in English, but with more than one meaning - and at least one of the meanings is quite derogatory. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I agree that this was discussed on the talk page and therefore Mclarenfan17 needs to take it to the talk page but I need to tag you as well in the interest of fairness. 2 people are required for an edit war and you are the other person. SSSB (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

About the recent revert you made to 2019 Formula One World Championship: Next time you might want to place a warning template. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. SSSB (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi TVx1. I participated in the WT:NFCC discussion that you cited; so, I'm aware what was discussed. It didn't establish a consensus in favor of this type of logo use; there was some movement in that direction, but nothing was estblished. Moreover, it wasn't a review of non-free use of this particular file; this was one of many examples which were mentioned. So, if you'd like to restart the NFCC discussion again and see if you are able to establish a consenus as to how UUI#17 should be applied in cases like this, then feel free to do so. On the other hand, if you want to just discuss the close of the NFCR discussion which led to the removal of this file from the Bhutan team article, then follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE] and see what the administrator who closed the discussion has to say. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Request translation: de:Henning von Thadden (Henning von Thadden), de:Else Gebel (Else Gebel). Thank you. --79.54.23.199 16:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you translate also this two? --95.232.38.195 15:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you please stop editing this comment every day or two? Wikipedians don't order each other to make translations. I have seen your message. I'll have a look at the articles if I find some time.Tvx1 09:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Tvx1, last year I created articles on two significant buildings in Europe: Wohnpark Alterlaa in Vienna, Australia (a residential complex), and the Tribunal de Paris, in Paris, France (among the world's tallest courthouses). Last month, these articles were moved to the draftspace by Boleyn because they did not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published in the English Wikipedia. I decided to go to the "Translators Available" page, and upon doing so, I saw your name under both the "French-to-English" and "German-to-English" sections. I put expansion-translation templates on both of those articles, hoping that somebody would expand them using text from the foreign-language versions of them. I was wondering if you, Tvx1, could be the person to handle a task like this. Thank you. Jim856796 (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Draft:Racing Point F1 Team requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Page already exists in main space as the reviewer pointed out

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. SSSB (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't send me a message threatening me with get a block. why don't you get a block ? who says you are right ?.31.200.143.195 (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The guidelines say that. See WP:DTT.Tvx1 11:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

what are the issues at hand what is the problem ?. there was no problem before so why is it an issue now ?. 31.200.143.195 (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

That is absolute nonsense what you sent to me no problems with that layout and I want it changed back ok. This format has been used in many events and no one started messing with formats bar you ! 31.200.143.195 (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Just because it wasn't noticed by anyone before doesn't mean it wasn't a problem. I have linked to relevant guideline many times now (WP:DTT)) so please at last make the effort to read them. Table-wide column headers are to be avoided with high priority. My edits do not make these table more difficult to read and helps a lot of other readers. What you personally want is of no matter here. As for the "many events" claim. I cannot find many other ournament articles on tournament which changed their surfaces at some point having tables with the surfaces as a table-wide column header, like it dealt with in the Stuttgart article, in them. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFF.Tvx1 11:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

told you 31.200.139.185 (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to help regarding Arsenal W.F.C.. Luckily the FFD discussion is going well so hopefully it's not long before we can finally fix the logo. Eightball (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tvx1. This is a gentle request to please refrain from wikilawyering/misrepresenting policy and harassing/threatening other editors, like you are doing here. This issue is now (and has been) moot since it is being discussed at FfD. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with WP:XFD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NFCC, and WP:CIVIL. Thanks, FASTILY 03:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have not been wikilaywering not misrepresenting any policy. I also don't know how I'm harassing, let alone threatening, anyone (please point out where I issued a direct threat over this to anyone). And where have I written anything uncivil?? We are just having a constructive discussion with explicit in order to explain our concerns. This aggressive warning is imho unnecessarily exacerbating the situation.Tvx1 10:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you know full well what you're doing, and this is unacceptable behavior. I gave you the option to back down and drop the stick, but you turned around and immediately continued haranguing other editors over the exact thing I told you not to do, not once, but twice. That said, you may be unblocked anytime you a) decide you are prepared to contribute in a constructive and collegial manner (without harassing others), and b) prove to us that you have read and understand WP:XFD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NFCC, and WP:CIVIL/WP:HARASS/WP:IDHT. Thank you, FASTILY 00:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This is another block brought about by a dispute with serial complainant MarchJuly. You will remember Tvx1 that during my own recent run-in with MarchJuly I predicted exactly this outcome if you continued your dispute with him! I should declare an interest here that MarchJuly recently made a specious ANI report against me, on grounds of WP:UNCIVIL. It grew out of the same disagreement (NFCC as it applies to football club crests). In the report Marchjuly himself made false allegations and retracted swathes of his own text which he must have felt crossed the line of acceptable conduct. As the report fizzled out, Marchjuly denied edit-warring and indignantly demanded diffs, then in the very next post admitted edit warring. Citing an exemption, he linked to a policy which explicitly cautions against relying on the 'exemption' if engaged in an edit war. I said at the time and I definitely haven't changed my mind after reading all this: Marchjuly is skilled at running to admins and misrepresenting the context of his almost constant disputes over this issue. I think - understandably - there's usually a sympathetic reading of his skewed evidence, because it is inordinately long-winded and rarely overtly uncivil. Usually it is superficially plausible, coming couched in the disingenuous language of the concern troll. Indeed, Tvx1's supposed infractions here did not take place in a vacuum but should be considered against the backdrop of some persistently intrusive, slightly sinister wikihounding and various other provocations. While technically correct; this block is one-sided: those of us who have been following the story know that Tvx1 is more sinned against than sinning in terms of the accusations levelled at them above. Ultimately Marchjuly's position as the common denominator in this perennial drama needs to be dealt with. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello User:Bring back Daz Sampson. Please supply diffs to back up your claims. For admins (like me) who work very little on images, it is hard to follow this kind of a dispute. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Now that Tvx1 is unblocked, I don't see any further reason to discuss User:Marchjuly's behavior here. EdJohnston (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'd like to request that the reviewing admin please not unblock this user yet, as I believe they intend to repeat the same WP:PLAYPOLICY/battleground behavior that led me to block them in the first place. Tvx1's unblock request demonstrates a poor understanding of the block rationale, and they are still blaming others as justification for their own misbehavior. I'll gladly advocate for an unblock provided that Tvx1 has demonstrated they fully understand the reasons for this block and agrees to the unblock conditions stated above: a) decide you are prepared to contribute in a constructive and collegial manner (without harassing others), and b) prove to us that you have read and understand WP:XFD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NFCC, and WP:CIVIL/WP:HARASS/WP:IDHT. -FASTILY 22:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Not seeing it. Not sure what you need from the editor.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Dlohcierekim. You'll find the relevant discussions here, here, and here. tl;dr Tvx1 harassed/threatened @Explicit and @Marchjuly over a past FfD closure (with WP:NFCC implications), wikilawyering/cherry-picking policy and deliberately misrepresenting the situation to justify ignoring the outcome of said FfD discussion. -FASTILY 11:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Can you please point to a diff of me actually issuing a threat to either of these persons? I really don't see where I did and I certainly did not intend to do so. The only reason why I discussed with them on their talk pages is because I genuinely believe that there are a number of ways, like I outlined below, with which these situations can be dealt with much more collaboratively and constructively and I had the ultimate goal of preventing situations like these of occurring in the future. I have no battleground intentions at all. The edit I made to the article in question was solely intended to create a neutral, conservative version (it's non-free content after all) pending outcome of the discussions. Note that another administrator agreed in the AN thread that the article should have been changed to have no logo at all. And it was solely to implement that that I made my edits to the article.Tvx1 11:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Dlohcierekim. I'm really struggling to see it as well. I really don't understand how or where I misbehaved so badly that it justifies blocking me indefinitely. I'm accused of pretty serious harrassment, but if you look at the things written in the policy and compare to that to my edits you'll see that I did not threat, intimidate or insult anyone. I don't think I have even been insult. I'm not treating this as a battleground at all. I never in any way intended to harass administrator Explicit in any way by having a discussion with them on their talk page. If they felt harassed I apologize since that was never my intention. As I explained above my sole intention was to seek clarification on the relevant policies, because I genuinely believe that there is a much more collaborative and constructive way to deal with the addition of team crests to football articles than the destructive way that was chosen in this case which lead to an AN report that really never should have been. Unfortunately, I feel that I have been completely misunderstood there.Tvx1 10:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Wonderful, I'm more confident you understand condition A. Now, have you familiarized yourself with WP:XFD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NFCC, and WP:CIVIL/WP:HARASS/WP:IDHT? Do you still believe that discussion is not required/optional if you disagree with the outcome of a previous FfD/XfD discussion? In the future, how will you conduct yourself in a situation like this? -FASTILY 10:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. I already explained that I understood these in my reply to your warning prior to the block. I have earlier initiated at FFD thread on a file that was removed from Brazilian national football team based on an older FFD discussion which a collegially, constructively and successfully led to the file being reinstated in said article. As for the question whether discussion is an absolute requirement to change a previous consensus achieved to discussion WP:CCC reads the following:

Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing. That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion. Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed).

That part of policy clear states clearly that it allowed to propose a change of consensus through editing and that there a cases where discussion isn't a necessity. Moreover it uses the suggestive should instead of the normative must with regards to starting a new discussion. Based on that I firmly believe that editors have a number of collaborative and constructive to deal with a situation like the one dealt with here.

1. Upon an editor readding a file to an article which was previously removed through FFD, another editor reviewing that edit could simply opt to agree that the evidence that the editor making the change presented is sufficient to make the old FFD no longer applicable to the present day real-life situation leave the edit be.
2. If seriously concerned about the right action being taken, the reviewing editor could start a new discussion themselves to gauge whether the evidence is really sufficient to support the change.
3. Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, either party could simply contact the editor who closed the discussion and ask them to review their close in light of the new evidence. At that point the closing editor genuinely can decide that the evidence is enough justification for the old discussion to no longer be applicable and support the file now being used in the article
4. If the reviewing editor does revert (not preferable), the reverted editor should simply start a discussion presenting their evidence that the file can now be used in the aritcle. The reverted should not re-revert. If they do re-revert (least desired), the reviewing editor should not revert yet again (per WP:BRD) and certainly now start a new discussion. A visit to WP:RPP is an option at this point as well (although it would be really preferred that doesn't get to that point at all)

So I genuinely believe that there are a genuine number of options available to deal with such a situation which could have avoided this entire mess we ended up in that in my opinion unnecessarily led to two users being indefinitely blocked. It should not have come to that point.Tvx1 11:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Dlohcierekim, is their any chance you'll review my block and unblock request?Tvx1 12:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Fastily: Thanks for your note. Have your concerns been adequately answered? Is there anything else to consider? Thanks,   Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• No, this user has literally just claimed (again!) that XfD/FfD discussions are not binding and may be unilaterally overturned whenever one feels like it, no new discussion/DRV required. That's 50% of the reason I blocked them, and I do not support an unblock until they correctly understand WP:CONSENSUS/WP:XFD. -FASTILY 21:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Fastily and Dlohcierekim, no I did not claim that at all. I claimed that one can propose a new consensus through editing supporting their edit with strong evidence that for instance the real life situation has changed importantly. That is not the same as "unilaterally overturning a XfD/FfD discussion whenever one feels like". An old discussion can still be referred to in support of a revert. Although I firmly believe that no user is strictly forced to revert such a proposed new consensus through editing and can collegially opt to discuss constructively with the other editor and with the closer of the old discussion. Per my point 4 above I also clearly stated that if the editor who proposed the new consensus through editing is reverted they should not in any case unilaterally re-revert and at that point leave the article alone and focus on discussing. Can you please explain to my how any of the above ways I proposed to deal with such situations are uncollegial, uncolleborative and disruptive to the point you have to keep me block indefinitely at all cost?Tvx1 21:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• "one can propose a new consensus through editing supporting their edit with strong evidence". This is flat out wrong. Discussion for overturning a previous XfD/Ffd is mandatory. If this is lost on you, then you're never going to be unblocked. -FASTILY 21:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Fastily, WP:CONSENSUS literally states the following in its CONSENUS CAN CHANGE section:

Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive.

Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing. That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion. Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed).

Can you please explain to me what I'm misunderstanding here? My comments with regards to my unblock request are based for an important part on that policy?Tvx1 21:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm tired of repeating myself. This has been explained to you, in-depth by @Explicit, here. But you probably don't care anyways, since you can only hear yourself. -FASTILY 22:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Fastily and Dlohcierekim can either of you link to content of the policy that I'm accused of not be willing to respect. The accusation that I don't care or only hear myself is just wrong. As I explained in my proposed suggestions above I do patently care that these situations are resolved as collegially and constructively as possible. Also note that in the last comment of the talk page section of administrator Explicit you linked to literally stated themselves that the initial edit adding the file was acceptable in the spirit of WP:BOLD, but that all efforts should have gone to discussing once one revert had happened. And that is exactly the same point I made here. I cannot stress enough that I do hear your concerns, that I do care and that I have no intentions whatsoever to deliberately disrupt Wikipedia. This appears to be nothing but a misunderstanding and I'm certain we can resolve this.Tvx1 22:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fastily: I'm not sure the full details of this discussion but saying "Discussion for overturning a previous XfD/Ffd is mandatory" is not true at all neither in policy nor in practice. It is often handled that way, and most likely usually handled that way, but not always and not mandatory. There have been many non-notable tennis articles created where an xfd deletion discussion is a snowball for deletion, and it gets deleted. A year later, with new data, the article gets recreated and sticks. Are you talking xfd's that are extremely recent (days, weeks, maybe months)? Then you are probably closer to being correct, though I would hate to use the term mandatory. But certainly a year later, if a truckload of convincing evidence is presented, you wouldn't need a discussion to re-create. But that editor who re-creates an xfd (especially one who was involved during the original xfd) had better darned well have overwhelming convincing new data, lest the sky fall down on them for disruption. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fyunck(click), thanks for your comment. The discussion in question is an FfD with WP:NFCC considerations. Given that NFCC is a policy with potential legal implications for the project, decisions should not be unilaterally overturned without a followup discussion, usually at either WP:DRV or a new WP:FFD. -FASTILY 22:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Legal implications are certainly part of exceptions (especially with files), but it should be pointed out by the closer of the Ffd that it is a legal issue at wikipedia and that special conditions will apply with regards to re-creation, lest any misunderstanding ensue. My comment was based on your blanket statement that also included xfd's (articles for deletion). Files are very different than articles. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Fastily, I fully understand that we need to be more conservative with non-free content. I will point out that neither me nor Eightball uploaded the relevant files to Wikipedia, but rather added an already present on Wikipedia file to an article. And I really believe that the options to deal with these situations I outlined above would not harm Wikipedia in any way as well as being as collegial as they can be. I do no see how I can prove my good-faith intentions for Wikipedia any more to you than by stressing to all of you that I fully intend to behave in this situations (which I will really want to avoid altogether in future) as Explicit requested in their last reply to me: It's acceptable to be bold, but if reverted the article should be left alone while a discussion is initiated dealing with the content in question.Tvx1 23:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Dlohcierekim, is there any chance you would be willing to review my block and unblock request irrespective of Fastily giving their personal approval. I really can't see how I can stress anymore that I have no intentions whatsoever to cause disruption, harm or legal troubles to Wikipedia in any way or form than with above. I also reached out to the administrator with whom I was having a discussion on their talk page to state I agree with their latest reply there to me. I really don't know what more I can do an why I continue to be dealt with so harshly.Tvx1 21:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• We need a wp:3o. I thought someone else would be along by now. Sorry. I blame the FramBan-Admin'sran causing a shortage. This problem is systemic. please opine on the issue of unblocking

@Oshwah, Drmies,  and NinjaRobotPilot: 21:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Dlohcierekim, your previous reply contains some sort of error message. I'm not really sure what the intent was, but if you tried to ping someone I'm not sure it worked.Tvx1 21:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Need to stop. now.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Ugh, it looks like it would take at least an hour just to read up on the background, and I'm not even especially familiar with NFCC or FFD. Tvx1, I guess I have two comments:

1. Consensus can change, but ignoring consensus can get you blocked (or desysoped).
2. If you can't find anyone who's willing to review your case, I suppose you could appeal to the community at WP:AN.

Other than that, I'm not sure what to say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Though I don't have the patience to read everything in this unblock discussion, I do see a problem with Tvx1's editing at User talk:Explicit#Arsenal W.F.C.. They are tenaciously defending their own view of WP:NOTBURO and claiming the right to do something with images which doesn't follow the requirements of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. I could imagine that Fastily might be persuaded to support an unblock if Tvx1 accepts a voluntary restriction that guarantees they won't try to circumvent the outcome of a WP:FFD discussion. Those more familiar with the dispute might be able to propose such a restriction. Having checked out Tvx1's proposal in points 1-4 of their comment of 11:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC), I don't see those concessions as being enough to justify unblock. It seems to me likely that the problems seen at User talk:Explicit#Arsenal W.F.C. would just go on forever. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, thanks for the comment! Yes, I would support an unblock with those terms. -FASTILY 01:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• NinjaRobotPirate, I don't know how I could possibly appeal to the community over at WP:AN given that I can only edit my own talk page at this time?Tvx1 10:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• EdJohnston, Fastily I have no intentions whatsoever to deliberately and disruptively ignore consensus or circumvent the outcome of a WP:FFD. That's what I have been trying to explain throughout the last few days. Thus I have no problems whatsoever to accept the proposed restriction. I also don't see why yet again why a claim is made that the problems at User talk:Explicit#Arsenal W.F.C. would go on for ever even though I stated here twice that I agree with Explicit's last reply to me there.Tvx1 10:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Tvx1. If the four points you list at this edit are intended to be a concession on your part, can you link to an example of a dispute you have been in recently in which you would behave differently in the future, under your proposal? What is an example of something you would *not* do, or an image you would not add? EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

EdJohnston, this is an example of an edit of mine I will not make in future. Instead I will first contact the person who closed the old discussion on the file first and if requested by them start a new FFD thread. Note that even in that case I did leave the article alone following my lone edit and actually did start a new discussion at WP:FFD which did then endorse the use of that file on that article. I can only reiterate that I have no intention to deliberately disrupt or harm Wikipedia.Tvx1 16:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

So you are agreeing to refrain from any future edits like the one you just mentioned from 18 June? Will you accept that as an unblock condition that will be logged at WP:ER/UC? EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

EdJohnston, Yes I agree not to delibertaly add a file to an article in violation of a previous FFD discussion regarding it, except after achieving consensus to do so through a new discussion.Tvx1 04:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Fastily and EdJohnston, is this acknowledgement sufficient to unblock? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Tvx1 is now unblocked with the agreement of the blocking admin, User:Fastily. Tvx1 has agreed to an unblock condition which is logged at WP:ER/UC. The condition says they will "not deliberately add a file to an article in violation of a previous FFD discussion regarding it, except after achieving consensus to do so through a new discussion." Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks,Tvx1 00:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited U.S. Pro Tennis Championships, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Mohit Rajani8 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Impelsys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Tvx1, Can you please tell me minimum how many reference links should be there for new article creation? Is there any terms or conditions for this? I have seen some other articles which have very few links but still it'll be there on space. for example: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingenta" So, can you please explain me this how and why? And also please guide me if someone like me want to create article which have very few sources or one could not find it but whatever information and knowledge individuals have they want to go with that then what are the suggestions from your end?

• 24.60.203.149 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:John Robinson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Just wondering what is wrong with sources like the Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, San Facisco Chronicle, Music Web International etc?

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See here. --Aquillion (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think your closure can be defended as accurately summarizes the consensuses on that page; while an WP:RFC is not a vote, a quick nose count comes up with roughly 17 people unequivocally supporting inclusion, 9 opposing, and about three uncertain. Furthermore, examining the arguments, there's nothing particularly strong about the arguments to exclude; several are clearly not policy-based (eg. 24.35.169.189, Barca), while others are contingent (eg. Rhododendrites.) On the other hand the vast majority of arguments for inclusion relied on the sources, which is a straightforward policy-based argument. In that context your closure looks like a WP:SUPERVOTE. Please self-revert and allow for an admin closure. --Aquillion (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Aquillion, above, I do not see how the close reflects the discussion. CIreland (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Having taken another look a the numbers I can find 15 people stating support/keep unequivocally. There are about one or two others who stated include but with reservations. Added to those that did not clearly supported the inclusion you get about 15 people clearly supporting versus 13 people not clearly supporting. That is already a first indication that their is no clear consensus in favor of inclusion of the label in Wikipedia's voice. But that is just a minor part of the assessment. Looking at the arguments, immediately a number of pure votes and a SPA or two are evident. These are simply not given as much weight. Taking the founded arguments into account then, there are reasonable arguments for either side. Moreover, the presented sources are not so strongly in favor of inclusion as you think them to be. Some of them are opion pieces or quote the opinion of another person, others do not use the label regarding the subject beyond their title. Another factor I had to take into account is that we're dealing with a biography of a living person here. Natural precaution is taken with adding such a significant label to such an article. I did not take that review lightheartedly. All in all no consensus to use this label there in Wikipedia's voice but rather in an indirect manner noting the subject's ties to neo-nazism is a reasonable reading of the discussion.Tvx1 18:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You didn't close it as "no consensus." Since, by my reading, you've accepted that your closure was incorrect (you admitted there was no consensus here, but in your closure you incorrectly expressed a consensus that, I can only conclude, represented nothing but your personal opinion or what you felt was a well-intentioned personal suggestion to resolve the situation), I have reverted it. Your arguments are not particularly compelling, and are largely not ones anyone brought up in discussion, but if you want to add them, I suggest making them a comment on the RFC and not another attempt to force through a disputed closure that was plainly a WP:SUPERVOTE. No matter how strongly you feel about the sources or about WP:BLP, a closer's job is to evaluate consensus, not to substitute their judgment for it in this fashion. Also, I'll note that the close request specifically requested an administrator due to the sensitivity of the topic; something that, in your eagerness to weigh in, you disregarded. Again, if you just want to express your opinion on how something should be closed rather than perform a proper evaluation of the consensus, you should just add a comment. As an aside, I note that you frequently try to close WP:RFCs; I would suggest you take a break from that for a while and look more closely at other closers, since this was a fairly shocking error that exacerbated an already heated discussion, despite a specific warning that it was a complex situation best resolved by an admin. --Aquillion (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can read my previous reply as me "accepting that my closure was incorrect". I also don't understand how you can read my closing statement of "I cannot find a clear consensus to describe the subject as a neo-nazi in Wikipedia's voice." as anything else then "no clear consensus to describe the subject as a neo-nazi in Wikipedia's voice." I agree that the page should be kept in the last stable voice for now. I stated in my closing rationale that a new discussion could be held to determine which exact sentence could be included in the lead. I acknowledge that the close request did only mention an administrator. I don't believe and administrator close is an absolute necessity here. The proposed change does not require admin action (e.g. deletion, move, merging) and while it is a complex situation (yet not heated as you claim, the RFC ran in good spirit and shows constructivity) but a neutral editor can perfectly weigh up the arguments, sources and BLP implications. That said I have prejudice against an administrator closure. But you should follow the correct procedure explained WP:CLOSECHALLENGE instead of taking it on to yourself to unilaterally revert a close you disagree with.Tvx1 17:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

RMaung (WMF) 16:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

RMaung (WMF) 15:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

RMaung (WMF) 20:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi! There is an ongoing discussion on the talkpage of Nadal. You are very welcome to participate! Please note that the general consensus is that no changes are necessary to the the phrase "Nadal has won 5 Davis Cup titles witht he Spain Davis Cup team" are necessary, so please do not edit the phrase unless you achieve consensus in the talkpage of Nadal. James343e (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@James343e: - For some reason I have this on my talk page, I hope Tvx1 doesn't mind but I simply had to correct you with the following quote before you go around posting it on other talk pages. Please note that the general consensus is that no changes are necessary to the the phrase "Nadal has won 5 Davis Cup titles witht he Spain Davis Cup team" are necessary, this is completely unture, as of this moment you are the only person to have contributed to that discussion which you started less than 9 hours. Therefore it is ludicrous to suggest there is any kind of WP:consensus for anything. Consensus is achieved through discussion and agreement of several editors, not the opinion of one editor.
SSSB (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

It is not only my opinion. The consensus is based on the several editions. Other Wikipedia editors like Hitius are also deleting those changes. James343e (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@James343e: but they haven't contributed to a discussion. Therefore there is no consensus.
SSSB (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Mclarenfan17. I am notifying you as another editor has made some serious allegations of wrong doing on your part, but has not notified you. Nil Einne (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gerwyn Price, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Can you translate Krankenhaus Waldfriede into English for me please. It has a German version and French version.[1][2].Catfurball (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Tvx1,

Would you be bale to translate the below article for the German wikipedia? I have been making requests to translators on the List of German translators. Have not yet had any replies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_graffiti_and_street_art_injuries_and_deaths — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyxyzyz (talk • contribs) 22:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Harrassment and wiki-hounding and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tvx1, would you be willing to join my talk page so we can side-step the whole arbitration process and see if we can find a way to resolve the disputes between you and Mclarenfan17? The discussion is here. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I apologise if I in any way appeared to be targeting you. That was absolutely not my intent, and if I gave you that impression then I very much regret it. I thought you were pretty reasonable throughout the motorsport discussion. I am absolutely opposed to you getting any sort of topic ban and have said so at ArbCom, if that is any help. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I never really felt you targeted me as such. It was just that the full picture of the discussion wasn’t taken into account (i.e multiple editors disagreeing with Mclarenfan17, not just me) and I really didn’t understand why.Tvx1 00:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It was complex and not obvious initially to me, which is why I was glad when you messaged as it helped she’d some light on the situation. I agree that it wasn’t just you and hav said so now that I have a bigger picture view of the situation. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

You reverted my edits despite there being reports on every major news outlet eg. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/51849163. I don't appreciate spending the time to update the page to have it reverted when the facts are not in dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ar558a (talk • contribs) 19:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher):@Ar558a: but these facts are in dispute. We saw similar articles after the 2018 Belgian Grand Prix reporting that Stroll would move to Racing Point mid season. But this didn't happen. We therefore wait for official confirmation of these facts. We don't report on speculation or leaks, no matter how relaible or accurate they appear to be. Local time in Sydney is now 6:26 am. We should have confirmation within a few hours.
SSSB (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Please actually read the article instead of just its title. The opening sentence literally states that there is no official confirmation of this.Tvx1 19:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

This edit of yours broke some footnotes. Please fix. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tvx1, in the open Motorsports arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding Motorsports has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Mclarenfan17 (talk · contribs) and Tvx1 (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Trival I know, but is John Rhodes the oldest living driver? I was prompted by Moss's recent death to wonder how many other living rivers there were who competed in the 1950s. No Swan So Fine (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@No Swan So Fine:, ((talk page watcher)) no, Kenneth McAlpine is the oldest living driver.^[1]
SSSB (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks. What a grid! No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Please, can you create this page. More information are here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Thank you very much. --80.116.56.68 07:01, 4 September 2019 (CEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.116.56.68 (talk)

Thanks for your edit to 2007 Formula One World Championship. I was so fixated on the at/after issue that I completely missed the fact that the words "of the" were missing! Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

No problem. By the way, DH85868993, I had a look at the contributions of this user and I noticed a number of edits to season articles containing poor language which clearly show they have a poor understanding of English language, in addition to some edits which were outright vandalism.Tvx1 13:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:GBOLYMPcrest.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted your removal of the table colouring on 2020 Formula One World Championship, as it was unconstructive and appears personal preference.

The table is a bit muddled, especially for those who are visually impaired. Colouring across Wikipedia helps in those cases, and is useful for many at-a-glance views.

-- AtomCrusher (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am approaching you for advice on discussion of an edit I have made to the Frankfurt School page. I added a subsection ‎"Criticism of the conspiracy-theory theory of cultural Marxism" to balance the views of the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" section. This is something I have seen done in other pages so I assumed it was reasonable. My addition is sourced to two opinion pieces by scholars (but technically not of the cultural studies field), which I find quite cogent, well sourced and of moderate tone. However, I was unaware at the time that a long discussion had already been had on the topic of renaming and/or splitting that section, which was relevant to my edit. After reading that discussion, I remain unconvinced by the argument that the referenced pieces should be dismissed on grounds that their authors are not from the right field. This sounds like an ad hominem or a reversed argument from authority and does not address substantially the authors' arguments. Consequently, I have opened a new discussion topic which I think is needed, especially if the whole section is neither renamed nor split away. My edit was reversed twice by user RGloucester, which seems to me to break protocol, which is why approach you as the author of the box about the No Split decision on the Talk page about the Frankfurt School. Sorry if I am breaking protocol myself by doing so. In spite of numerous edits, I have never found the time or interest to engage in this type of discussion until now so am unfamiliar with the protocols. Please let me know how I should proceed to have a fruitful discussion which hopefully leads to some version of a criticism subsection rather than its wholesale dismissal and a sterile edit war. sylv (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

This is fair and accurate and I support your stance. This article has been edited to be inherently biased if the only criticism leveled is deemed as a conspiracy theory from white supremacists. The fact that editing is now locked suggests that there has been a debate between rational objective edits and cultural marxists who are resorting to censorship to protect their ideas. This will need to be changed. However I can help you sylv. Katiedel0 (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1999 Canadian Grand Prix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arrows (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello. You recently declined two drafts on the 2020 Hungarian and British Grands Prix because it is "convention is to develop such a redirect into a full article in the days leading up to the race". Please direct to me where this convention was established. It has not been followed in a recent case (70th Anniversary GP) and is highly counterintuitive, since moving the draft would have the same effect and be much more efficient. Thanks.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I would reject the fact it's more efficient. It requires the deletion of the redirect before the page can moved to it's new location. Given most content is just copy and pasted from last year with minor tweaks. That convention isn't written down per se bit it exists because race reports are rarely satisfy notability criteria until the days before the race, this is no exception.
SSSB (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I just find it strange that this convention didn't apply to the 70th Anniversary Grand Prix, which you yourself approved. Regardless, moving the draft via cut and paste requires the merging of page history as well, so it's really dependent on whether or see deleting the redirect a bigger inconvenience than merging the page history.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) 70th Anniversary is in the unique position where it was notable several weeks before the event. Also, if you are the only contributor you can copy and paste without attributation.
SSSB (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:MERGE, when merging these a history merge isn't mandatory. You only need to follow the procedure outlined there.Tvx1 11:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

SSSB (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey do you know how to edit the table of drivers standings on 2020 f1 wiki page for future reference? thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farrisd (talk • contribs) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Farrisd: ((talk page watcher)) it's a template that can be found at Template:F1 Drivers Standings.
SSSB (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

And you can find the constructors' standings at Template:F1 Constructors Standings.Tvx1 09:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You forgot "in the United Kingdom" for attendance note here 70th Anniversary Grand Prix, as per 2020 British Grand Prix. :)--79.55.12.49 (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

. Corvus tristis (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tvx1, 5225C, SSSB, and Admanny: Just a heads up: the correct procedure for drafts where a redirect exists in mainspace, such as Draft:2020 Tuscan Grand Prix, is to tag the existing mainspace redirect with {{Db-move}}, not to reject the draft. The "mergeto" decline reason is only for cases where there is an actual article in mainspace, not a redirect. Doing a cut-and-paste move to merge the draft into the existing redirect is discouraged since it leaves all the attribution in the draft and means that the draft can never be deleted unless an administrator does a history merge. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The attribution issue can simply be resolved by providing it in the edit summary of the edit to the mainspace article.Tvx1 13:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

This is what we discussed previously, and I was told to merge articles which I did for the British and Hungarian GP. After that, Spain and Belgium were moved over redirects and Italy was moved in the manner you describe (by deleting the redirect). Thank you for the clarification.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 22:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Here there are the last chapters of special manga, but they're in French. Please, if you can, I want a detailed plot about these chapters for more information about this manga to edit. You can write it in my discussion user account. Thank you very much. --79.50.201.109 (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Tvx1. 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:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Anarchyte (talk • work) 17:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia and trying to have a Dutch Wikipedia article translated and added to the English Wikipedia. The article in question is https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Hendrik_Koning_(1860-1945). I read through the English wiki articles but they were rather confusing. One of the alternatives was to find a native speaker and ask them to translate and post to English wiki, and they listed you as a resource. Any assistance you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Charlie W. Charles Webb (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I was wondering if you could please remove the pp-template from User:Tvx1/common.js as it is currently contained in Category:Wikipedia_pages_with_incorrect_protection_templates. Thepenguin9 (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find where it was located in the code given that that page has never been protected to my memory. Thankfully a bot resolved it.Tvx1 13:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)