User talk:Pyrope/Archive 2018

January 2018

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

'larious. Reply left at the ANI board. Pyrope 16:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Well that was a sadly predictable episode that I invite any interested talk page stalkers to go take a look at. You might also like to look at the response that the OP left here following the close of the ANI, and then swiftly deleted. I will reinstate that in the continuity when I archive this, but for now best left alone I think. Bullies do not like it when their bullying is confronted, and they tend to turn nasty, but that does not mean they should not be. Ah well, life. Pyrope 13:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sic

Sic is used for unintended errors, not obviously intentional misspellings. See Krispy Kreme. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That's just not true Clarityfiend. As the documentation for {{sic}} states, it "is used where a textual error, or unexpected but intended text that may appear to be an error, has been faithfully reproduced from the original source." (My bolding.) In the case of Krispy Kreme the brand is known sufficiently widely, and the page includes graphical logos showing the spelling, such that a reader is not going to be in the position of confusing intentional 'erroneous' spelling for a mistake. In the case of a little-known aerobatic display team from the late 1960s, however, there may well be some confusion, especially where the name is used in prose on another page. Pyrope 02:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

How could a user possibly be confused by Simon's Sircus when it's a link? They're going to realize immediately it's a cutesy alliteration, just like Krispy Kreme. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Are they? You seem to think that every visitor here is au fait with Wikipedia convention, but we are building a general interest encyclopedia for everyone to use. The tag does not detract in any way from the readability and helps to clarify, for those not familiar, that the cutesy tautogram (Simon's Circus is already alliterative as the term refers to the consonant sound, not the actual letter) is intentional. Pyrope 02:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It just dawned on me that you applied it to things that aren't quotes. That alone undermines your position fatally. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You are quoting a title. I feel that it is a shame you look on this as some sort of competition, rather than an opportunity to learn. Do you want to try explaining exactly what it is that you have against this fairly common text tool? Pyrope 00:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This from the OED: "Used in brackets after a copied or quoted word that appears odd or erroneous to show that the word is quoted exactly as it stands in the original". Note that turn of phrase. Pyrope 00:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I am requesting a third opinion initiating an RfC at Talk:Simon's Sircus since you won't listen to me. Your snarkiness here also doesn't help. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not a case of not listening to you. I have heard what you are saying perfectly clearly, I just disagree with you. In addition, I have provided evidence for my stance, and asked you to clarify yours. This you have not done. There is no snark above, just a rebuttal to your points coupled to an observation about your tone. That you take it as such tells me a lot about you. Pyrope 11:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

A conversation you might be interested in

Hi Pyrope,

I was recently look at Buddh International Circuit and I noticed that your name was on the image of the circuit map as the person who uploaded it. Did you create this image, or just upload it?

The reason I ask is because I really like the image. I've noticed a lot of inconsistencies in the circuit maps, but the Buddh image (and the Silverstone image) are the best examples of what I think the maps should be.

Normally, I would create the images myself, but I lack the skills required to do so. To be honest, I have no idea how big (or small) a job it might be; I can barely draw a convincing stick figure. As an alternative, I'm trying to get support for some changes at WT:F1. If you're interested, or if you know of other editors who might be, we may be able to improve the quality of the images used. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi PM. I know this is something that you have been thinking about for a while (I remember you starting a discussion back in 2012 or something like this?) and it has also come up with others at various points in the last decade+. The idea is broadly a good one, but there have been two major stumbling blocks:

Firstly, it does take quite a lot of time and effort to get these things put together. As AlexJ pointed out to you at an earlier time, in addition to actually drawing the diagram there is quite a bit of historical research required to work out what the configurations were at any point in time, together with changes in the names of features, and make sure that a good version exists for any individual event. I have put together some for circuits that were severely lacking, such as Buddh, as you have found, and my recent time sequence for Brands Hatch and the earlier set for Snetterton, together with the improved Birmingham SuperPrix maps (see here for a full list of the limited number I've done). In each case, doing the research, assembling the maps and aerial photos, and getting the story straight took 5-7 days-worth of the time I have available for Wikipedia, then actually drawing the maps took 1-2.

Secondly, preferences will always differ from person to person. I'm with you in preferring a more stripped back, clean, diagrammatic style, but others aren't so minimalist. I had a discussion with Will Pittenger over at Commons when they were putting together their very prolific series of circuit maps during which we discussed issues such as his use of serif fonts and large quantities of visual clutter (not to mention odd page orientations and barking mad 'scale' bars) but he simply disagreed with my view. I have no problem with that, and considering that his diagrams were miles better than the others we had at the time (at least they did contain north arrows and scale bars), I wasn't going to argue to hard. But I think we can certainly do better.

Neither Will nor Alex have been regular contributors for a while now, so that doesn't leave many people with these interests or vector graphics knowledge. McKayF1 added set of really rather good Silverstone maps back in 2016, but they seem to be a one-off thing for now, and they haven't got any other obvious contribution history. Most odd. Demanding adherence to a strict set of 'standard look and feel' guidelines is tough when only a handful of people would be involved in setting those guidelines, and risks alienating someone that might make good diagrams but with their own flavour. For now I'd be happy to embrace the variation and let people go their own way. Pyrope 22:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pyrope,

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you on this. I guess I have underestimated the demands placed on editors making the images. I have asked around in the recent past and was led to believe that it was as simple as using some kind of overlay and Google Maps. While there seems to be a broad desire at WP:F1 for uniform maps, the appetite for change does not seem to be substantial.

What I had envisioned in all of this was editors such as myself who have little flair for imaging to do the research while the WP:F1 community decide the parameters for the images. That way we could put together a portfolio of the circuits and forward them to the people making the images. In the interests of time management, I thought we might prioritise current circuits and perhaps even ignore circuits—such as Ain Diab and Phoenix—that are unlikely to host a race again.

I can live with the differing styles for now. I actually quite like maps such as Albert Park since they give context to the surrounding area. But there are some, such as Yeongam and Long Beach, that have quite an errant style to them (ironically, they're unlikely to host future races). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

The Silverstone maps I put together will be a one off. I have resources and knowledge about Silverstone that I don't have for any other circuit (except perhaps Brands Hatch). It was a project I wanted to complete personally as I have always been fascinated by the numerous changes to Silverstone year on year since the late 1980s. The multi-coloured overlay of each configuration was the realisation of the project. I can't think of any other circuit in the world that has the history to produce a diagram of that interest.

Uniformity in track maps would be desirable but the style of that uniformity would be difficult to agree on. Some of the maps are shocking in their aesthetics (such as those maps I replaced, part motivation for my project). Even if a style could be agreed, to actually achieve a full catalogue of maps with uniformity, would I believe be impossible unless they were all produced by one artist. I do not have the time to be that artist however.

As a suggestion, I would base the style on that employed by FOM in the F1 broadcasts, but reduced to 2 dimensions. These show the track as well surrounding context. This could allow uniformity in displaying the actual track configuration and essential information, whilst giving character to each map: the parkland around Melbourne, the harbour around Monaco, the forests around Spa, etc etc. McKayF1 (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

McLaren Group

Hi Pyrope. I wasn't aware of the subtleties regarding McLaren Technology Group and McLaren Group - I thought it was a simple rename based on the recent update to the lead and infobox. I have no objection if you want to revert my page move and/or undertake other restructuring as appropriate. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi DH. No, I have no objection to the move. I've done more digging and it looks as though, so far as their public face is concerned, they intend the situation to be pretty much as presented on our page. Until a month or so ago the new company was actually called 'NMG Holdco Ltd.' (i.e. New McLaren Group) but was renamed from that to 'McLaren Group', and acts as a holding company for MTG and Automotive. However, Automotive still have a distinct public presence while MTG does not, and although MTG still exists as a legal (and no doubt fiscal) entity, its activities are being presented as those of the new company except for a couple of their own subsidiaries. I gave a fairly lengthy edit summary to make sure that the situation was captured somewhere and to assist other editors. All the best. Pyrope 13:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there!

Is your reading comprehension at a level to understand the difference between:

It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit... (Source: H:FIES)

and

You must provide a summary for every edit...

In any case, regardless of your ability to understand the difference between something that is suggested and something that is mandatory, I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks, and have a nice day. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, dear me no, Beyond My Ken, certainly not. As you have demonstrated a clear lack of concern for good practice and Wikiquette I feel under no obligation to extend these courtesies in your direction. I suppose that it must be more comfortable to waft through life on your own cloud of arrogant ignorance, but I see no reason why I need aid and abet you in this delusion. I notice you cut off your H:FIES quote just before it continued ...especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors..., didn't like that line? It may not be compulsory, and I never suggested it was (time to check your own reading comprehension?), but it is certainly the mark of a collegial and respectful editor. You are almost the polar opposite of that. Please expect no respect from me in return. Pyrope 21:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that was all sorted out. A salutary lesson on the value of actually contemplating edits before reverting, and the power of providing edit summaries to explain why you have done so if you do. We live and learn. Pyrope 21:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Grammar, and misguided revert

"Whereas" implies a contrast. It would be correct if his mother was not involved in motorsport. She was, and that is the point of the sentence, so "while" is the correct word. I am reporting the original reverter for edit warring. I trust that you do not wish to endorse their actions. Pe19 (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

And "cheap 'Discovery Channel' journalistic slang"? What a bizarre way to describe a fundamental English word. Are you a native English speaker? Pe19 (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I am indeed a native speaker, and frankly I do not like the implied threat in your message above. Whether or not you are involved in an edit war, 'whereas' is the grammatically appropriate word here. Yes, it implies contrast, I am fully aware of that, and if you read the sentence you will see that it fine in this context. The description given states that Max's dad did one thing and his mother did another. Sure, they were both types of motorsport, but not the same type. A contrast. The word 'while' in this context more properly means 'occurring at the same time', which may or may not be true. I recognize that it has also come to be used to mean 'whereas', but when that word exists why use an ambiguous one? And yes, this usage has grown out of cheap documentary making; the sort of work that also merrily uses the word 'would' in the past tense. Widespread? Yes. Elegant and grammatically appropriate. No. Pyrope 17:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Implied threat? There was nothing of the sort. The point of the sentence is that they were both involved in motorsport, and using "whereas" to join two clauses agreeing with each other is wrong. Your objection to "while" appears to have no basis in grammar but is merely a personal peeve. Pe19 (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

"His father was involved in motorsport, whereas his mother was also involved in motorsport" - you find that idiomatic? Pe19 (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

No, the sentence states that his father was involved in F1, whereas his mother was involved in karting. That is definitely not idiomatic (meaning a word or phrase that may not be grammatically correct but is commonly used and understood by native speakers, look it up); it is grammatically correct and precise. My objection is based on good English usage, and definitions provided by both Merriam Webster and the OED. If you want to go and complain about other editors' behaviour, make sure your own is unimpeachable. For starters, go and look up WP:BRD. This should have been the course you followed, not just a string of retaliatory knee-jerk reversions. You are just as to blame for your 'edit war' as the other editor. Pyrope 17:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You have not understood the point of the sentence. You do not understand the meaning of the word "idiomatic" in the context I used it. You are forcing a grammatical error into the article. Well done you. Pe19 (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

As you've split this discussion I have continued my comments at the appropriate talk page. However, your attitude toward other editors is very poor. It is a good idea to make sure that you are absolutely in the right before you bust out sarcasm. Unfortunately for you, this advice comes too late. Pyrope 14:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah... that makes sense. I knew I'd smelled that fragrance before. Chalk up one more to experience. Pyrope 17:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate nonfree images

Do not restore inappropriate nonfree images as you did at Rommel myth. An image of a book cover is only appropriate in the case of an article on the book itself, or of sourced commentary on the cover. (Not the book, the cover). Please ensure never to restore copyright violations in the future. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Please provide documentary evidence for your claims. Pyrope 06:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

As your edits have been undone by yet another editor, and you have pointedly decided not to keep pressing your ill-informed diktats, I shall regard this matter as closed. Next time it would be polite to answer questions when you choose to admonish an editor on their own talk page, whether or not you end up being in the right. Pyrope 18:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Past edits

Hello Pyrope, I've been correcting my past edits that I made on the HRT Formula 1 Team talk page these edits being something I originally made years ago when I wasn't taking editing Wikipedia seriously and I thought it would make sense to correct them with my current signature, You replied to one of my questions those years ago with a rather unnecessary statement about my past user history and I came here to ask nicely if you could remove or alter that edit because I worry that if somebody else see's it with my current signature on it that they could think that I'm currently in the wrong even though I take editing Wikipedia seriously now. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've been having a good, long think about this. Ultimately, I'll admit that I am a bit confused about what you are trying to do, your actions doing whatever it is, and the form of language that you have used in making this request. On the face of it I always assumed that your Speedy Question Mark account was an honest attempt at a WP:CLEANSTART following your earlier poor behaviour. On that basis I was happy to live and let live and give you the space to try again. However, one of the fundamental tenets of WP:CLEANSTART is that the new account should have nothing to do with the old account (or accounts, in your case) even down to not editing within the same topic space. In contrast, you are not only editing in exactly the same articles as your old accounts, you are also now explicitly wanting to take credit for their actions, but only their good actions... That doesn't wash. If you want people to know that those old accounts were you, they should also know what you were up to at the time. I do not for one second buy your horseshit about your past user account being a "joke" (as you have said elsewhere), the multiple accounts you created were just too long-lived and made too many productive and semi-productive edits for that to be true. However, some were also serially disruptive and a couple were sockpuppets created to evade blocks. Just so that we know what we are talking about I'll list them here:

• Me12356 - Original (so far as I can tell) account, blocked a couple of times, the last time for 1 week on August 14, 2012. After this you stopped using it.
• Epic Question Mark - First sockpuppet account, created to evade a block to the Me12356 account. Indef blocked as a result, an SPI that you may recall I started.
• HRT F1 Team - Another sockpuppet, created to evade the second block to your Me12356 account. Indef blocked due to inappropriate username, but you can be sure that I was in the process of creating another SPI when that happened.
• Daniels Renault Sport - Created, I assume, as your first attempt at WP:CLEANSTART and eventually evolved into a mostly productive account.
• 62.31.8.119 - An IP that not only edits in exactly your subject areas, but has also been used for anonymous cleanup after both the Daniels Renault Sport and Me12356 accounts.

So, where does that leave me? Within the message above you have managed to lie both about the number of your old accounts (did you forget I knew about Me12356?) and their purpose. Having checked what is happening at the other page, I am also keenly aware that you didn't come here to make this request because you thought it the best thing to do, but rather because other editors, including both Bretonbanquet and Britmax, have called you out for altering and deleting other people's comments on talk pages, a behaviour that has always been far beyond the pale on Wikipedia. Bearing all that in mind, and after the lengthy digression, my answer to your request is a resounding "no". I do not see great evidence that your fundamental attitude is sound enough for your past behaviour not to be relevant to your future treatment within this community. Pyrope 13:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

When I first joined Wikipedia with that "Me12356" account I was a young teenager who wasn't aware of the strict editing rules at the time and I had certain difficulties with learning (which I still have today) so when I was blocked the first time I didn't really understand why, so after that I then created another account (that being "Epic Question Mark") as I honestly didn't know creating another account when blocked was against the rules (that account was also blocked I think), Again I was a young teenager at the time and so for some reason afterwards I thought it would be funny to create a joke account under the name of "HRT F1 Team" which was eventually blocked, after a few weeks of being blocked and learning what I did wrong in the past I wanted to start editing Wikipedia seriously and eventually created "Daniels Renault Sport" for a fresh start as I loved editing Formula One articles. That name eventually changed to what I have today. I honestly didn't come here to have a argument and I apologise for things that I did wrong, I should of come to you first thing instead of editing other users edits which I admit was wrong of me to do so. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

SPI

Hi Pyrope. I was wondering wether there is any provision at WP:SPI to request a second opinion on an investigation. I'm quite surprised that no blocks were issued especially considering that the administrator isn't generally very tolerant and that the user simply admitted to using multiple accounts in that discussion. I'm just curious what another administrator my think of the case.Tvx1 22:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tvx1, I've already set some wheels in motion. I'll keep you up to date should anything transpire. Pyrope 01:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Great, but don't forget that SPI can be archived any moment now.Tvx1 19:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

That's okay, they aren't deleted. Evidence presented and comments made will live on for future reference. Pyrope 19:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Pyrope. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.DH85868993 (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Pyrope. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)